where "better" in this case means famine, the privilege of enduring the Cultural Revolution, resettlement, suppression of their religion, suppression of basic information about what's going on in the country...sounds awesome. All better now!
I guess that's why there are such tight restrictions on foreign travelers in Tibet. The Chinese government wouldn't want foreigners to feel jealous of all the "better." Quite considerate of them, really.
It's interesting that you choose to word it this way:
the Chinese pale next to what the monks did to the people.
So apparently the Chinese government is doing bad stuff, but whoa! You should see how it USED to be! These days we execute ten innocent people a day, but back then they'd execute 20! That's a 50% improvement! Look how much better things are!
First of all, converting the Dalai Lama to Linux is about the coolest IT project I've ever heard of, so congratulations
That aside, there are practical considerations and there are philosophical ones you'll want to consider. Practically speaking, no platform is 100% secure. Linux has historically been more secure than Windows. MS has made a lot of progress in the last decade or so.
The question is, do you prefer the closed-source approach or the open-source one? Would you rather the problems be hidden away, or laid out for all to find? In the closed-source scenario, knowledge of exploits may be less common, but that cuts two ways. Less attackers will be aware of an exploit, but less defenders will be aware of it as well. That may well result in the exploits that do occur being much more severe.
Beyond those practical considerations, which approach fits better with the values of the Tibetan community and the Dalai Lama in particular? In my mind, open source is the embodiment of non-attachment.
"Interoperability of devices and jukebox software is one of the biggest challenges for today's music consumer," said Thomas Hesse, Chief Strategic Officer and Head of Global Digital Business, BMG. "RealNetworks' Harmony Technology is the first to address this issue by giving the consumer flexibility and choice."
"EMI's goal is to allow consumers to access our music on as many legitimate platforms as possible, and seamlessly, across a range of devices. RealNetworks' Harmony Technology will make it easier for consumers to enjoy their digital music in a truly flexible way," said Ted Cohen, SVP Digital Development and Distribution, EMI Music.
"I'm excited about anything that means more flexibility and availability in terms of how people enjoy music. It's great to see RealNetworks make this step so that people can stop worrying about whether the music they buy will work on their favorite device," commented Stone Gossard of Pearl Jam.
"Artists are better served when the customer can focus on the music not technology. You should not need an engineering degree to enjoy music, and RealNetworks' Harmony Technology offers the simplicity that music fans demand." Fred Davis, the founding partner of Davis, Shapiro, Lewit, Montone and Hayes. Davis Shapiro represents many of today's most successful artists.
Rhapsody's primarily a music service, but they have a lot of spoken word and comedy. There's everything from David Cross to Noam Chomsky to Gil Scott-Heron.
Of course, it does carry a monthly fee, so I don't know if that's quite what you're looking for, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless.
Your responses were fine. I have to admit that I probably had some of the same stereotypes and misconceptions that some of the question-writers did, but I don't find it offensive that you poked holes in them. The sand thing is pretty funny; I honestly don't know whether I would have made that mistake myself.
Unfortunately most Americans, when trying to develop a mental image of an Egyptian Linux user, probably imagine something like this:
A guy wearing a white robe, sitting on a camel next to the Great Pyramid. He has a computer hooked up to a portable generator and he's balancing it on the camel's front hump. With his left hand, he's pumping oil out of a well to fire the generator, while with his right hand, he's recompiling the kernel.
Obviously that's a bit exaggerated, but you see my point. When you haven't been someplace, it's easy to develop all kinds of ridiculous ideas about what the people there are like. I'm not saying I'm any better, it's just what people's brains do when they don't know anything about something: they fill in the gaps with stuff that is mostly crap. Or they extrapolate based on one or two things they know, pieces of data that may be outdated or nonrepresentative.
It makes me wonder how Americans are misperceived in the world at large, also. Probably many Americans think that Arabs are all suicide bombers; maybe most Arabs think that Americans like nothing better than to hang out in prisons and pile up the prisoners into naked pyramids, followed by a dinner of Big Macs and Bud Light.
Thanks much for a great interview--the only way that we're all going to find a way out of our mutually destructive ignorance is through this kind of dialogue and education.
When I read Cryptonomicon, my experience went roughly like this:
First 500 pages: loved it. 500-800: grew increasingly annoyed as it became clear he had no idea where he was going with his story. 800-900: gradually started enjoying the book again 925: the book just sort of ended, sending me into an apopleptic fit.
I'm reading Quicksilver now, and I'm having a largely similar experience, although I got annoyed earlier this time.
I loved Snow Crash, and it ranks among my favorite books of all time, but it too is a deeply flawed book in some ways. Stephenson can be a brilliant writer at times, and he has tons of great ideas and an incredible eye for detail, but he just seems to lose control of his books. It seems like he sets out to write them with a few cool images or scenes or characters in his head, and he never bothers figuring out how to tie them together into a plot that makes sense. Then, round about page 900, it's as if his publisher's gotten tired of waiting for a completed manuscript and forces him to finish, so the story just sputters out.
Consequently, you get these sprawling, wandering epics that eventually collapse under their own weight. Every once in a while you get a glimpse of the brilliant novel that might have been, but it's drowning under hundreds of pages of excess verbiage and gratuitous plot digressions.
It's frustrating, because the man is clearly a incredible writer. If he could just find the discipline to prune away some of the excess stuff that doesn't serve the story, he'd be one of the best novelists of our time. Given that Quicksilver is the the first 900-page installment in a three-part cycle, however, I don't think we can count on that happening anytime soon.
that in the source of the page, they have the following comment:
Hi there,
Nice to see you are interested in how we built Good Old Adventures.
Feel free to discover that we didn't make it too easy for you, but why
hack our code if a free singleplayer/standalone version will
probably be released someday?
when their whole project is basically a copy of other people's work? and they're posting this on an open source advocacy site?
Not true. It'll run West Seattle to downtown and all the way north to Ballard. If you live in Queen Anne, the ID, Belltown, Ballard, West Seattle or Greenwood you will get use out of this.
No, *you* obviously know nothing about the monorail that was approved. It goes from West Seattle to SoDo to the stadiums to downtown to Belltown to Seattle Center to Queen Anne to Ballard. With numerous stations along the way. Anybody who's along that route can get use out of it.
This is an in-city transportation solution. Paid for and approved by the citizens of Seattle. There's no question that we need regional transit too, but that doesn't invalidate this plan.
I guess a monorail probably looks less cluttered than 2 steel rails, but I can't think how it can be safer, faster, more reliable, or cheaper than steel rail.
Safer: doesn't run at grade, thus no chance of collision with cars/pedestrians. Also has rubber tires, so stops more quickly. Also does not derail.
Faster: doesn't run at grade, so nothing gets in the way. Monorail has the capability to be on time, every time, without delaying anything else. It can also presumably accelerate to speed faster, given the rubber tires.
Reliability: in the forty years that the existing short-line Seattle Monorail has been operating, there have been something like four train-stopping failures. Two were in the last six months. That's a great record. Additionally, since the monorail doesn't interact with cars or pedestrians, it can be automated.
Cheaper: the beams can largely be fabricated offsite and then simply stuck on posts, which is cheaper and less disruptive to businesses along the path than laying rail. Automation will also reduce labor costs.
you can buy somewhat standard diesel multiple units from Siemens or Bombardier who have been making them for decades; and start making revenue. OTOH, who makes monorail cars for off the shelf purchase?
Well, Bombardier makes them, for one. Bombardier has been consulting with Seattle on this very initiative. Hitachi and Alweg are a couple others I could name. There are more, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Well, let's be clear about a few things. First, "the two areas serviced" are West Seattle, SoDo, the stadiums, Pioneer Square, downtown, Belltown, Seattle Center, Queen Anne, and Ballard. It's not like there's going to be one stop in West Seattle and one stop in Ballard, which is what monorail opponents continualy imply. It would not be possible to hit a bigger chunk of the Seattle population with a single line. Furthermore, if the ETC had proposed an entire citywide system right off the bat, the same people who are currently complaining about coverage would be complaining about the expense and asking why we weren't building a proof-of-concept line first.
Second, this is, as has been stated, only the first of a series of monorail lines. Assuming all goes well, the voters will get the chance to approve a Capitol Hill line, a Ballard-to-U-District line, and others.
Third, light rail is already set to run through the Rainier Valley. Rainier Valley will be served, just not by monorail. The monorail is legally not allowed to compete with Sound Transit in that manner.
Fourth, people buying second-hand cars, whether they live in Rainier Valley or wherever, won't be paying all that much, since it's a 1.4% tax based on value. The bulk of revenue will come from new expensive cars that were bought the previous year.
Fifth, taking the bus from West Seattle or Ballard to downtown takes on the order of 40 minutes. To ride the full length from West Seattle to Ballard would take about an hour and ten minutes. This is assuming that there's no Mariners traffic, in which case the time is more like two hours.
Sixth, using light rail instead of monorail over the same route would solve nothing. It would make congestion worse if built at grade, cost more to build, be substantially louder during operation, and have a much more significant impact on the businesses it passed during construction. Sure, you could put it in a tunnel. Tunnels are about the most expensive public-works project money can buy. I'm sure we'd pay something like four or five times what we're going to pay for monorail if we did it that way, with no value added. Plus it would be much less accessible to downtown, given that it would have to follow the viaduct and would just run along the western edge of the city. Once completed, it'd be substantially more difficult to link to other lines in the city.
The monorail does nothing to aleve congestion problems.
There may well still be plenty of people stuck in traffic. The advantage of this system is that city dwellers will have a completely congestion-free channel that runs north-south through the city. Neither buses nor light rail will provide that.
Sure there will still be congestion. I'll look down on it with pity as I go sailing by overhead during a Sonics game.
On a different note, I don't know that there is a solution that will reduce congestion. Buses and light rail won't get people out of cars necessarily either, and they have the added disadvantage of being at grade and thus contributing to MORE congestion. The only thing you can do to clear up the roads is to build wider roads, and that just reduces it for a while, until we fill up the new capacity. Eventually you've paved over everything, and then where do you go?
Look at NYC. Plenty of congestion. Nobody cares, because anybody with half a brain is riding the subway.
What minute proportion of the population will be served by a project that only serves to break the back of more viable, better long-term solutions?
First, it's not a minute proportion. The initial monorail line is where it is because the City of Seattle considers that the most congested corridor in town.
Second, I'd love to hear those more viable, better long-term solutions. I haven't seen any to date. More buses? They'll be stuck in traffic, same as they are now. Light rail? How are we going to run it through downtown?
Now if you're talking about solar-powered personal teleporters, I'm all for it.
Yeah, I totally agree, although I think there is a fair amount of overlooked beauty in the technology/humanity sequences of Koyaanisqatsi. But he certainly does show a lot of ugliness/nastiness.
Even some of that nastiness is strangely beautiful, though, in my opinion. The one shot of the dump truck that disappears into a cloud of black smoke is the one that really sticks with me. It's ugly, but sort of poetically ugly, if that makes any sense.
So which is it? It uses powerful visuals to convey a message, or it doesn't have a clear message?
That's what my point has been all along, that there is no one distinct message in the film. It shows you the world from an interesting perspective, but a perspective is different from a message. Whatever meaning you get from the movie comes from your interpretation of the images.
The original poster was apparently quite annoyed by the "patronizing message" of the film. I don't agree that the message is patronizing, because I don't think there's one particular message that the film expresses. Hey, if anyone doesn't agree, all they have to do is tell me what that message is. If they're right, I won't be able to disagree with them.
Being incoherent doesn't make something deep.
No, but I don't think Koyaanisqatsi is incoherent. But for the sake of argument, if Koyaanisqatsi is incoherent...how could it be patronizingly incoherent?
Certainly not so visually. But in 1982, you could hear part of that perspective in Subdivisions, by the band Rush.
Again, my point is that this was a new perspective from which to look at the world. Imagery is by its very nature more open to interpretation than verbal or written language, thus a film with no words carries more potential meanings than a book, or a lyrical pop song.
I'm not saying film is a "deeper" or "better" medium than pop music. I'm just saying this particular kind of film is more open to interpretation, and I think that makes it extremely interesting. Comparing film to pop music is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Not better, just different.
It's not like this sort of thing is unique to Koyaanisqatsi, either. The message of any number of works of art is debatable. Hamlet, for example--the message is what, that if your dad gets killed, it'll make you sad? What's the message of the Mona Lisa? Beethoven's Ninth? All these things require interpretation to derive meaning from them, and no two people are going to interpret a work of art the same way.
You could even make the argument that there's a loose correlation between simplicity of message and crappy art. I'd like to cite "Ice Ice Baby," by the renowned composer Vanilla Ice, in which the message seems to be basically that he's rollin, in his 5.0, with the ragtop down so his hair can blow.
Actually, I've heard the things it is preaching many times. You may have heard or read the things that you perceive it to be preaching many times. That's not what I'm talking about. Prior to 1983, I don't think anyone had seen the world from quite that perspective. It may not seem like an important distinction, but it is. When a concept is conveyed via written language or speech, it is not nearly as open to interpretation as when it is conveyed using purely visual means. Moreover, if I sit down to write an essay, but I have no message, it won't make any sense. If I take a photograph of something without intending the picture to convey meaning, it still will convey meaning. Alternately, if I take a photograph of something, with the intention of conveying a particular message, my audience may end up getting a completely different message.
And that "tells you more about yourself" stuff is pretty meaningless. It's a cherry-picked sequence of images, and I'm smart enough to tell what the message is.
I think that comment is very interesting. Apparently you're way smarter than I am. Please tell me what the universally-understood message of Koyaanisqatsi is, in 250,000 words or less. Make sure not to leave anything out. Then you can post it on Slashdot and I'm sure everyone will agree that you got it exactly right.
Oh really? About what, precisely?
Well, that's sort of my point, that it doesn't make you think about "precisely" anything. Those images comprise a visual language that is so information-dense that you can't sum it up effectively in words. Moreover, different people will see those images and come away with completely different takes on them. I'm not just saying that hypothetically or to be artsy-fartsy--my take on the movie is obviously substantially different from yours.
And I absolutely don't agree that the only message in the film is "humanity is a dirty infestation on the face of a lovely planet". There are layers upon layers of meaning there. Sure, those human activities speeded up may seem meaningless to you. To me they look like natural processes--like blood in the circulatory system, or like water droplets in a river. Some of them certainly are ugly, and it's hard to see them any other way...the shot of the huge dump truck, or whatever that thing is, that is enveloped in its own black smoke, comes to mind. But many of the images are not as one-sided as that.
The interesting thing about Koyaanisqatsi, though, is that it doesn't really preach anything, as it doesn't have any words. Well, there's a little bit at the end, I suppose, but the point is that you're shown a bunch of images from which you can draw your own conclusions.
Certainly those images that are chosen are there to make you think about particular things, but it's not like Reggio's got Tom Cruise up on the screen yelling "won't someone please, please think about the environment!?!"
Also, while it may be propaganda, I would argue that no one had really showed things from that perspective before Koyaanisqatsi, or at least, they hadn't done so nearly as effectively. And while it may be one-sided against consumerism and technology (which is a debatable point), it's only an 87 minute movie. I'm sure I probably see 87 minutes of Dell commercials in any given month. I don't see them giving equal time to folks like Reggio.
Personally, I think Koyaanisqatsi is more than just propaganda on one side of some issue, for the simple reason that if you asked a dozen people what Koyaanisqatsi is about, they'd all give you different answers. When I watch it, there are certain technological aspects that I find quite beautiful and natural (the shots of clouds reflecting off glass-and-steel buildings, the speeded-up shots of city traffic at night that look a lot like a circulatory system).
It makes you think, is all, and shows you the world in a way you probably haven't seen it before. The reaction you have to those images probably tells you more about yourself than it does about the movie.
Could one of the editors please change the headline to something else that's not completely inaccurate?
I'm noticing a disturbing trend of headlines on Slashdot that completely contradict the article they reference. In this instance, a study has shown that thermal energy from the atmosphere penetrates surface rock layers, which then store that heat as a record of historical climate, much the same as rings on a tree indicate its age. If this study is to be believed, it is strong evidence that the earth's atmosphere has warmed dramatically in the last hundred years.
The headline implies precisely the opposite; that the earth's crust is being warmed by its molten core. This is misinformation.
I'd appreciate seeing a little more careful work on the part of the editors. Lots of people are going to see that headline, not bother reading the article to find out the details, and then wander off assuming that global warming has been resolved and that it doesn't matter if they buy that Ford Explorer they've been thinking about.
I know I'm going to be flamed by people who don't buy the concept of global warming, or think that the study is flawed. That's not the issue. The issue is that this study is being represented as evidence for one side of the debate, when in fact it is evidence for the other.
Slashdot is a clearinghouse for information that influences a lot of people. That's only a positive thing if great care is taken to not spread misinformation. Inaccurate or misleading information is worse than no information at all, and just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
Let's think about this hypothetically. You're a security guard. Your job is to ensure that planes don't blow up. Six months ago thousands of people died because security failed, so there's pressure on you to be extremely careful.
So this guy shows up at your post and the metal detector goes off. The guy says he can explain, and pulls up his shirt to reveal wires all over his undershirt leading into a couple of boxes, also concealed underneath his clothing. He then helpfully informs you that he's a cyborg, and that he has a letter from his doctor.
Personally, if I was in this situation, I'd have two concerns. First, this guy's telling me he's a cyborg, which frankly gives me doubts about his mental stability. Second, he's got wires and batteries and all kinds of crap concealed under his clothing. Sure, he's telling me that it's a computer, but it looks like a bomb to me. The boxes are screwed shut, so I can't see what's inside them, and he won't let me run it through the X-ray. These are also custom boxes that look like no computer I've ever seen.
Now, how're you going to determine the truth of the matter? I seriously doubt a security guard is keeping up on the state of wearable computing, so you're not going to recognize Steve Mann. Mann's got a note from his doctor and other documentation about this equipment, but you have no reason to think that these documents are credible. Maybe you call your boss to see if he knows anything about this, and more likely than not your boss hasn't been informed, because the message has been lost in the corporate fog. Or maybe he has been informed, but he's in the bathroom and you can't get him on the phone.
So you're standing there at the checkpoint, with a man in front of you whom you have many reasons to believe might be wearing a bomb, and you have only his word that it's a computer.
I don't think anyone in this situation would just let him hop on the plane. Maybe you disagree, and that's fine. But in that case I sure hope you aren't working in airport security.
I think the breathless police-state tone of this story is going a wee bit overboard.
From reading the New York Times article, it doesn't sound like Mann had any "implants" "forcibly removed". It sounds like they tore electrodes off his body. In other words, they pulled tape off his skin, and it caused bleeding. Unpleasant, sure, but it's not like they strapped him down and used a drill to extract chips from his brain. More like they pulled off a Band-Aid too fast.
The reason that he ended up in a wheelchair was that since he no longer had his cyborg navigation gear, he supposedly got confused while walking around the airport and hit his head on a pile of fire extinguishers. I don't even know where to start with that one.
Now, clearly what happened sucks, because $56,000 of gear was lost or damaged. Clearly he should be repaid, and probably security was rude to him. But I don't think it's all that shocking, given that here's a guy, covered in wires and batteries, getting on a plane post 9/11.
In my opinion, the truly interesting part of this article is that once his technological aids were removed, this guy ceased to be able to complete basic tasks like walking. This has significant ramifications for wearable computing. Is it augmented reality? Or is it a crutch without which he can't function?
Typically, the user interface to software is supposed to look good. This corresponds to the visible stuff in a house: the walls, floor, fixtures, etc.
But does the wiring look pretty? Or the plumbing? Or the unfinished basement/garage? Or any of the stuff that actually makes the house work?
Hell no.
Does the engine of a car look pretty? It's covered in grease and all kinds of crap is sticking every which way, and it doesn't make sense to the non-initiated. Function is more important than form when it comes to making the car go.
I'm getting tired of these calls for purty code. I like an elegant piece of software as much as the next guy, but my manager could give a crap as long as it works, and in fact won't be willing to give me extra weeks to make it look nice on the inside. Particularly when you consider that I'm probably the only person who's really ever going to look at my code.
If this was an academic paper, his professor would be laughing hysterically as threw it in the garbage.
Quotes:
"Sorry, we accidentally lost the references."
"Although no references will be given here, this figure is fairly widely accepted in the industry."
I mean, come on here. Those two sentences ruin the credibility of the entire article. An assertion that is backed up by nothing is worse than useless.
The whole article suffers from a preaching-to-the-choir attitude and the only folks likely to agree with it are those that agree already. So what was the point of writing it then?
I see your point, but I think your analogy is flawed.
While pedestrians can't put on a "Generic Pedestrian Mask," neither are all of their actions logged. Some of your actions are logged--video cameras will log that you walked into a store, credit card purchases create a paper trail as well--but you can avoid most of them (pay cash) and the ones that you can't avoid (security cameras) don't tie your action explicitly to your identity. They may have an image on tape of you walking into 7-11 to buy your copy of Juggs Magazine, but they don't know who that image represents without extensive research.
Furthermore, people don't just go for anonymity because they're doing something they shouldn't be doing. If you think you might have HIV, and you're looking at HIV information sites in a panic trying to figure out what to do and whether you're going to die, you have every moral AND LEGAL right to anonymity.
Also, it's not just concern about governmental monitoring that motivates people to go anonymous. I would argue that some cracker who wants to extort money from you is just as big a concern, as is the private investigator hired by your ex-spouse to dig up dirt on you.
And I don't buy the statement that "government organizations have better things to do than worry about what some joe schmoe is reading about." Plenty of non-paranoid types will agree that the government does a hell of a lot of grab-bag signal interception and analysis, i.e. Echelon.
Slashdot Mirror
Here we go down the troll hole. Sure, I'll bite.
the Chinese came in and made it better.
where "better" in this case means famine, the privilege of enduring the Cultural Revolution, resettlement, suppression of their religion, suppression of basic information about what's going on in the country...sounds awesome. All better now!
I guess that's why there are such tight restrictions on foreign travelers in Tibet. The Chinese government wouldn't want foreigners to feel jealous of all the "better." Quite considerate of them, really.
It's interesting that you choose to word it this way:
the Chinese pale next to what the monks did to the people.
So apparently the Chinese government is doing bad stuff, but whoa! You should see how it USED to be! These days we execute ten innocent people a day, but back then they'd execute 20! That's a 50% improvement! Look how much better things are!
First of all, converting the Dalai Lama to Linux is about the coolest IT project I've ever heard of, so congratulations
That aside, there are practical considerations and there are philosophical ones you'll want to consider. Practically speaking, no platform is 100% secure. Linux has historically been more secure than Windows. MS has made a lot of progress in the last decade or so.
The question is, do you prefer the closed-source approach or the open-source one? Would you rather the problems be hidden away, or laid out for all to find? In the closed-source scenario, knowledge of exploits may be less common, but that cuts two ways. Less attackers will be aware of an exploit, but less defenders will be aware of it as well. That may well result in the exploits that do occur being much more severe.
Beyond those practical considerations, which approach fits better with the values of the Tibetan community and the Dalai Lama in particular? In my mind, open source is the embodiment of non-attachment.
Rhapsody's primarily a music service, but they have a lot of spoken word and comedy. There's everything from David Cross to Noam Chomsky to Gil Scott-Heron.
Of course, it does carry a monthly fee, so I don't know if that's quite what you're looking for, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless.
Your responses were fine. I have to admit that I probably had some of the same stereotypes and misconceptions that some of the question-writers did, but I don't find it offensive that you poked holes in them. The sand thing is pretty funny; I honestly don't know whether I would have made that mistake myself.
Unfortunately most Americans, when trying to develop a mental image of an Egyptian Linux user, probably imagine something like this:
A guy wearing a white robe, sitting on a camel next to the Great Pyramid. He has a computer hooked up to a portable generator and he's balancing it on the camel's front hump. With his left hand, he's pumping oil out of a well to fire the generator, while with his right hand, he's recompiling the kernel.
Obviously that's a bit exaggerated, but you see my point. When you haven't been someplace, it's easy to develop all kinds of ridiculous ideas about what the people there are like. I'm not saying I'm any better, it's just what people's brains do when they don't know anything about something: they fill in the gaps with stuff that is mostly crap. Or they extrapolate based on one or two things they know, pieces of data that may be outdated or nonrepresentative.
It makes me wonder how Americans are misperceived in the world at large, also. Probably many Americans think that Arabs are all suicide bombers; maybe most Arabs think that Americans like nothing better than to hang out in prisons and pile up the prisoners into naked pyramids, followed by a dinner of Big Macs and Bud Light.
Thanks much for a great interview--the only way that we're all going to find a way out of our mutually destructive ignorance is through this kind of dialogue and education.
When I read Cryptonomicon, my experience went roughly like this:
First 500 pages: loved it.
500-800: grew increasingly annoyed as it became clear he had no idea where he was going with his story.
800-900: gradually started enjoying the book again
925: the book just sort of ended, sending me into an apopleptic fit.
I'm reading Quicksilver now, and I'm having a largely similar experience, although I got annoyed earlier this time.
I loved Snow Crash, and it ranks among my favorite books of all time, but it too is a deeply flawed book in some ways. Stephenson can be a brilliant writer at times, and he has tons of great ideas and an incredible eye for detail, but he just seems to lose control of his books. It seems like he sets out to write them with a few cool images or scenes or characters in his head, and he never bothers figuring out how to tie them together into a plot that makes sense. Then, round about page 900, it's as if his publisher's gotten tired of waiting for a completed manuscript and forces him to finish, so the story just sputters out.
Consequently, you get these sprawling, wandering epics that eventually collapse under their own weight. Every once in a while you get a glimpse of the brilliant novel that might have been, but it's drowning under hundreds of pages of excess verbiage and gratuitous plot digressions.
It's frustrating, because the man is clearly a incredible writer. If he could just find the discipline to prune away some of the excess stuff that doesn't serve the story, he'd be one of the best novelists of our time. Given that Quicksilver is the the first 900-page installment in a three-part cycle, however, I don't think we can count on that happening anytime soon.
Not true. It'll run West Seattle to downtown and all the way north to Ballard. If you live in Queen Anne, the ID, Belltown, Ballard, West Seattle or Greenwood you will get use out of this.
No, *you* obviously know nothing about the monorail that was approved. It goes from West Seattle to SoDo to the stadiums to downtown to Belltown to Seattle Center to Queen Anne to Ballard. With numerous stations along the way. Anybody who's along that route can get use out of it.
This is an in-city transportation solution. Paid for and approved by the citizens of Seattle. There's no question that we need regional transit too, but that doesn't invalidate this plan.
I guess a monorail probably looks less cluttered than 2 steel rails, but I can't think how it can be safer, faster, more reliable, or cheaper than steel rail.
Safer: doesn't run at grade, thus no chance of collision with cars/pedestrians. Also has rubber tires, so stops more quickly. Also does not derail.
Faster: doesn't run at grade, so nothing gets in the way. Monorail has the capability to be on time, every time, without delaying anything else. It can also presumably accelerate to speed faster, given the rubber tires.
Reliability: in the forty years that the existing short-line Seattle Monorail has been operating, there have been something like four train-stopping failures. Two were in the last six months. That's a great record. Additionally, since the monorail doesn't interact with cars or pedestrians, it can be automated.
Cheaper: the beams can largely be fabricated offsite and then simply stuck on posts, which is cheaper and less disruptive to businesses along the path than laying rail. Automation will also reduce labor costs.
you can buy somewhat standard diesel multiple units from Siemens or Bombardier who have been making them for decades; and start making revenue. OTOH, who makes monorail cars for off the shelf purchase?
Well, Bombardier makes them, for one. Bombardier has been consulting with Seattle on this very initiative. Hitachi and Alweg are a couple others I could name. There are more, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Well, let's be clear about a few things. First, "the two areas serviced" are West Seattle, SoDo, the stadiums, Pioneer Square, downtown, Belltown, Seattle Center, Queen Anne, and Ballard. It's not like there's going to be one stop in West Seattle and one stop in Ballard, which is what monorail opponents continualy imply. It would not be possible to hit a bigger chunk of the Seattle population with a single line. Furthermore, if the ETC had proposed an entire citywide system right off the bat, the same people who are currently complaining about coverage would be complaining about the expense and asking why we weren't building a proof-of-concept line first.
Second, this is, as has been stated, only the first of a series of monorail lines. Assuming all goes well, the voters will get the chance to approve a Capitol Hill line, a Ballard-to-U-District line, and others.
Third, light rail is already set to run through the Rainier Valley. Rainier Valley will be served, just not by monorail. The monorail is legally not allowed to compete with Sound Transit in that manner.
Fourth, people buying second-hand cars, whether they live in Rainier Valley or wherever, won't be paying all that much, since it's a 1.4% tax based on value. The bulk of revenue will come from new expensive cars that were bought the previous year.
Fifth, taking the bus from West Seattle or Ballard to downtown takes on the order of 40 minutes. To ride the full length from West Seattle to Ballard would take about an hour and ten minutes. This is assuming that there's no Mariners traffic, in which case the time is more like two hours.
Sixth, using light rail instead of monorail over the same route would solve nothing. It would make congestion worse if built at grade, cost more to build, be substantially louder during operation, and have a much more significant impact on the businesses it passed during construction. Sure, you could put it in a tunnel. Tunnels are about the most expensive public-works project money can buy. I'm sure we'd pay something like four or five times what we're going to pay for monorail if we did it that way, with no value added. Plus it would be much less accessible to downtown, given that it would have to follow the viaduct and would just run along the western edge of the city. Once completed, it'd be substantially more difficult to link to other lines in the city.
The monorail does nothing to aleve congestion problems.
There may well still be plenty of people stuck in traffic. The advantage of this system is that city dwellers will have a completely congestion-free channel that runs north-south through the city. Neither buses nor light rail will provide that.
Sure there will still be congestion. I'll look down on it with pity as I go sailing by overhead during a Sonics game.
On a different note, I don't know that there is a solution that will reduce congestion. Buses and light rail won't get people out of cars necessarily either, and they have the added disadvantage of being at grade and thus contributing to MORE congestion. The only thing you can do to clear up the roads is to build wider roads, and that just reduces it for a while, until we fill up the new capacity. Eventually you've paved over everything, and then where do you go?
Look at NYC. Plenty of congestion. Nobody cares, because anybody with half a brain is riding the subway.
What minute proportion of the population will be served by a project that only serves to break the back of more viable, better long-term solutions?
First, it's not a minute proportion. The initial monorail line is where it is because the City of Seattle considers that the most congested corridor in town.
Second, I'd love to hear those more viable, better long-term solutions. I haven't seen any to date. More buses? They'll be stuck in traffic, same as they are now. Light rail? How are we going to run it through downtown?
Now if you're talking about solar-powered personal teleporters, I'm all for it.
That's not true, at least in this particular case. Since this is Seattle we're talking about, the power is primarily hydroelectric.
That's not to say that dams don't have an environmental impact, but they don't "pollute" as such.
Even some of that nastiness is strangely beautiful, though, in my opinion. The one shot of the dump truck that disappears into a cloud of black smoke is the one that really sticks with me. It's ugly, but sort of poetically ugly, if that makes any sense.
That's what my point has been all along, that there is no one distinct message in the film. It shows you the world from an interesting perspective, but a perspective is different from a message. Whatever meaning you get from the movie comes from your interpretation of the images.
The original poster was apparently quite annoyed by the "patronizing message" of the film. I don't agree that the message is patronizing, because I don't think there's one particular message that the film expresses. Hey, if anyone doesn't agree, all they have to do is tell me what that message is. If they're right, I won't be able to disagree with them.
Being incoherent doesn't make something deep.
No, but I don't think Koyaanisqatsi is incoherent. But for the sake of argument, if Koyaanisqatsi is incoherent...how could it be patronizingly incoherent?
Certainly not so visually. But in 1982, you could hear part of that perspective in Subdivisions, by the band Rush.
Again, my point is that this was a new perspective from which to look at the world. Imagery is by its very nature more open to interpretation than verbal or written language, thus a film with no words carries more potential meanings than a book, or a lyrical pop song.
I'm not saying film is a "deeper" or "better" medium than pop music. I'm just saying this particular kind of film is more open to interpretation, and I think that makes it extremely interesting. Comparing film to pop music is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Not better, just different.
It's not like this sort of thing is unique to Koyaanisqatsi, either. The message of any number of works of art is debatable. Hamlet, for example--the message is what, that if your dad gets killed, it'll make you sad? What's the message of the Mona Lisa? Beethoven's Ninth? All these things require interpretation to derive meaning from them, and no two people are going to interpret a work of art the same way.
You could even make the argument that there's a loose correlation between simplicity of message and crappy art. I'd like to cite "Ice Ice Baby," by the renowned composer Vanilla Ice, in which the message seems to be basically that he's rollin, in his 5.0, with the ragtop down so his hair can blow.
You may have heard or read the things that you perceive it to be preaching many times. That's not what I'm talking about. Prior to 1983, I don't think anyone had seen the world from quite that perspective. It may not seem like an important distinction, but it is. When a concept is conveyed via written language or speech, it is not nearly as open to interpretation as when it is conveyed using purely visual means. Moreover, if I sit down to write an essay, but I have no message, it won't make any sense. If I take a photograph of something without intending the picture to convey meaning, it still will convey meaning. Alternately, if I take a photograph of something, with the intention of conveying a particular message, my audience may end up getting a completely different message.
And that "tells you more about yourself" stuff is pretty meaningless. It's a cherry-picked sequence of images, and I'm smart enough to tell what the message is.
I think that comment is very interesting. Apparently you're way smarter than I am. Please tell me what the universally-understood message of Koyaanisqatsi is, in 250,000 words or less. Make sure not to leave anything out. Then you can post it on Slashdot and I'm sure everyone will agree that you got it exactly right.
Well, that's sort of my point, that it doesn't make you think about "precisely" anything. Those images comprise a visual language that is so information-dense that you can't sum it up effectively in words. Moreover, different people will see those images and come away with completely different takes on them. I'm not just saying that hypothetically or to be artsy-fartsy--my take on the movie is obviously substantially different from yours.
And I absolutely don't agree that the only message in the film is "humanity is a dirty infestation on the face of a lovely planet". There are layers upon layers of meaning there. Sure, those human activities speeded up may seem meaningless to you. To me they look like natural processes--like blood in the circulatory system, or like water droplets in a river. Some of them certainly are ugly, and it's hard to see them any other way...the shot of the huge dump truck, or whatever that thing is, that is enveloped in its own black smoke, comes to mind. But many of the images are not as one-sided as that.
The interesting thing about Koyaanisqatsi, though, is that it doesn't really preach anything, as it doesn't have any words. Well, there's a little bit at the end, I suppose, but the point is that you're shown a bunch of images from which you can draw your own conclusions.
Certainly those images that are chosen are there to make you think about particular things, but it's not like Reggio's got Tom Cruise up on the screen yelling "won't someone please, please think about the environment!?!"
Also, while it may be propaganda, I would argue that no one had really showed things from that perspective before Koyaanisqatsi, or at least, they hadn't done so nearly as effectively. And while it may be one-sided against consumerism and technology (which is a debatable point), it's only an 87 minute movie. I'm sure I probably see 87 minutes of Dell commercials in any given month. I don't see them giving equal time to folks like Reggio.
Personally, I think Koyaanisqatsi is more than just propaganda on one side of some issue, for the simple reason that if you asked a dozen people what Koyaanisqatsi is about, they'd all give you different answers. When I watch it, there are certain technological aspects that I find quite beautiful and natural (the shots of clouds reflecting off glass-and-steel buildings, the speeded-up shots of city traffic at night that look a lot like a circulatory system).
It makes you think, is all, and shows you the world in a way you probably haven't seen it before. The reaction you have to those images probably tells you more about yourself than it does about the movie.
The similarity comes from the fact that Ron Fricke directed Baraka after working as the cinematographer on Koyaanisqatsi in 1983.
Could one of the editors please change the headline to something else that's not completely inaccurate?
I'm noticing a disturbing trend of headlines on Slashdot that completely contradict the article they reference. In this instance, a study has shown that thermal energy from the atmosphere penetrates surface rock layers, which then store that heat as a record of historical climate, much the same as rings on a tree indicate its age. If this study is to be believed, it is strong evidence that the earth's atmosphere has warmed dramatically in the last hundred years.
The headline implies precisely the opposite; that the earth's crust is being warmed by its molten core. This is misinformation.
I'd appreciate seeing a little more careful work on the part of the editors. Lots of people are going to see that headline, not bother reading the article to find out the details, and then wander off assuming that global warming has been resolved and that it doesn't matter if they buy that Ford Explorer they've been thinking about.
I know I'm going to be flamed by people who don't buy the concept of global warming, or think that the study is flawed. That's not the issue. The issue is that this study is being represented as evidence for one side of the debate, when in fact it is evidence for the other.
Slashdot is a clearinghouse for information that influences a lot of people. That's only a positive thing if great care is taken to not spread misinformation. Inaccurate or misleading information is worse than no information at all, and just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio.
"Any old damn thing in the name of security"?
Let's think about this hypothetically. You're a security guard. Your job is to ensure that planes don't blow up. Six months ago thousands of people died because security failed, so there's pressure on you to be extremely careful.
So this guy shows up at your post and the metal detector goes off. The guy says he can explain, and pulls up his shirt to reveal wires all over his undershirt leading into a couple of boxes, also concealed underneath his clothing. He then helpfully informs you that he's a cyborg, and that he has a letter from his doctor.
Personally, if I was in this situation, I'd have two concerns. First, this guy's telling me he's a cyborg, which frankly gives me doubts about his mental stability. Second, he's got wires and batteries and all kinds of crap concealed under his clothing. Sure, he's telling me that it's a computer, but it looks like a bomb to me. The boxes are screwed shut, so I can't see what's inside them, and he won't let me run it through the X-ray. These are also custom boxes that look like no computer I've ever seen.
Now, how're you going to determine the truth of the matter? I seriously doubt a security guard is keeping up on the state of wearable computing, so you're not going to recognize Steve Mann. Mann's got a note from his doctor and other documentation about this equipment, but you have no reason to think that these documents are credible. Maybe you call your boss to see if he knows anything about this, and more likely than not your boss hasn't been informed, because the message has been lost in the corporate fog. Or maybe he has been informed, but he's in the bathroom and you can't get him on the phone.
So you're standing there at the checkpoint, with a man in front of you whom you have many reasons to believe might be wearing a bomb, and you have only his word that it's a computer.
I don't think anyone in this situation would just let him hop on the plane. Maybe you disagree, and that's fine. But in that case I sure hope you aren't working in airport security.
I think the breathless police-state tone of this story is going a wee bit overboard.
From reading the New York Times article, it doesn't sound like Mann had any "implants" "forcibly removed". It sounds like they tore electrodes off his body. In other words, they pulled tape off his skin, and it caused bleeding. Unpleasant, sure, but it's not like they strapped him down and used a drill to extract chips from his brain. More like they pulled off a Band-Aid too fast.
The reason that he ended up in a wheelchair was that since he no longer had his cyborg navigation gear, he supposedly got confused while walking around the airport and hit his head on a pile of fire extinguishers. I don't even know where to start with that one.
Now, clearly what happened sucks, because $56,000 of gear was lost or damaged. Clearly he should be repaid, and probably security was rude to him. But I don't think it's all that shocking, given that here's a guy, covered in wires and batteries, getting on a plane post 9/11.
In my opinion, the truly interesting part of this article is that once his technological aids were removed, this guy ceased to be able to complete basic tasks like walking. This has significant ramifications for wearable computing. Is it augmented reality? Or is it a crutch without which he can't function?
Typically, the user interface to software is supposed to look good. This corresponds to the visible stuff in a house: the walls, floor, fixtures, etc.
But does the wiring look pretty? Or the plumbing? Or the unfinished basement/garage? Or any of the stuff that actually makes the house work?
Hell no.
Does the engine of a car look pretty? It's covered in grease and all kinds of crap is sticking every which way, and it doesn't make sense to the non-initiated. Function is more important than form when it comes to making the car go.
I'm getting tired of these calls for purty code. I like an elegant piece of software as much as the next guy, but my manager could give a crap as long as it works, and in fact won't be willing to give me extra weeks to make it look nice on the inside. Particularly when you consider that I'm probably the only person who's really ever going to look at my code.
Quotes:
"Sorry, we accidentally lost the references."
"Although no references will be given here, this figure is fairly widely accepted in the industry."
I mean, come on here. Those two sentences ruin the credibility of the entire article. An assertion that is backed up by nothing is worse than useless.
The whole article suffers from a preaching-to-the-choir attitude and the only folks likely to agree with it are those that agree already. So what was the point of writing it then?
I see your point, but I think your analogy is flawed.
While pedestrians can't put on a "Generic Pedestrian Mask," neither are all of their actions logged. Some of your actions are logged--video cameras will log that you walked into a store, credit card purchases create a paper trail as well--but you can avoid most of them (pay cash) and the ones that you can't avoid (security cameras) don't tie your action explicitly to your identity. They may have an image on tape of you walking into 7-11 to buy your copy of Juggs Magazine, but they don't know who that image represents without extensive research.
Furthermore, people don't just go for anonymity because they're doing something they shouldn't be doing. If you think you might have HIV, and you're looking at HIV information sites in a panic trying to figure out what to do and whether you're going to die, you have every moral AND LEGAL right to anonymity.
Also, it's not just concern about governmental monitoring that motivates people to go anonymous. I would argue that some cracker who wants to extort money from you is just as big a concern, as is the private investigator hired by your ex-spouse to dig up dirt on you.
And I don't buy the statement that "government organizations have better things to do than worry about what some joe schmoe is reading about." Plenty of non-paranoid types will agree that the government does a hell of a lot of grab-bag signal interception and analysis, i.e. Echelon.