When I was in 2nd grade and moving up north, a teacher gave me a Bearenstein Bears book on moving. They weren't trying to push anything on me. They were trying to help me understand the world around me and my situation, which kids need.
Would you object to a book about divorce? That's considered immoral in some religions too. Maybe we shouldn't tell kids about it, or it will seem like an activist campaign to legitimize divorce? Maybe if we don't talk about divorce to kids, noone will ever grow up and have them. Maybe we shouldn't let kids read anything about divorce, or it'll seem like we're advocating it.
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
Your depiction of some books as being done by activist groups while others are just 'normal' is kindof odd. If someone was trying to get any mention of heterosexual couples banned from libraries, that would be an example of an extremist activist group trying to make other people's decisions. And it would be pretty similar to your stance on the matter as well.
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
It doesn't make sense for Bush to personally take on Farenheight 9/11. That would lend it credibility by creating a debate between him and Michael Moore, and give it publicity.
Of course, Michael Moore is just as much a fabricator as the "Swift Boat Veterans" thing and Kerry, if he was responsible, might have pointed out the discrepancies.
It's a better tactic for Bush to have someone else do the job, and it's clear that those people doing the job are closely affiliated with his campaign.
I'm not sure where you get the 60x number you cite. Care to elaborate?
Also, the banning of such publications actually adds fuel to the anti-semetic fire in that they are actively suppressed. It makes the kooks feel more important because their efforts actually required intervention.
True, and I agree with you, however all magazines have an editorial process. They can't publish everything.
Publishing a critical review is one thing. Simply publishing the article in a major paper implies that it passed an editorial review process, lending it implied credulity.
How about those Navy ships with windows installed... and one of them froze up and was stuck at sea helpless a while back. Fortunatly not in any danger at the time.
The time is now. It's just that your killer robots won't be bipedal. We've already got folks who can do that trick.
Why would an artificial labor shortage be a good thing? It allows for a price increase and increases bargaining power. Think about strikes, etc. If you have a monopoly, you can limit the supply and reduce competition. Companies use the same principle with products, the paper companies which my dad used to work for, for example.
Excess capacity costs lots of money. Wasting money is not a good thing for a company, and I really don't believe there's a big smoking man conspiracy here.
A lot of multi-national industries do have excess capacity. The auto industry is one. http://www.pwc.com/extweb/indissue.nsf/docid /5078D C917A63E30F85256EA80052F383
The paper industry, where my dad used to work, is another.
In the paper industry, the various companies will frequently cut back production in times of economic downturns, but retain their capacity for production. The result of this excess capacity in many parts of the world is sever pressure to reduce wages, often one of the biggest expenses in a company. If a company already has facilities worldwide, and some of them are mothballed, moving to a different location is not particularly difficult. Jefferson Smurfit, for instance, has plants in S. America, China, Europe and the US.
Funny that - the U.S. has far less employee protection than most European countries already, and I don't see the standards changing.
Compare it to a place like China, where I just got back from teaching for a semester. I don't know what they use on the apples there, but I know that you have to physically remove the skin from the apple or you'll get sick. Their saftey standards are equally lax.
I have a BS in computer science, but I also have a diagnosed disability that makes it much harder for me to recognize that I am being impolite in front of strangers. What should I do?
You have a disability that makes you impolite but you're good with technology?
Work at Best Buy.
Seriously, that's a pretty big disability.
The best I can think of offhand is finding a company or service which requires the protection of trade secrets or national security clearance. Maybe some kind of DBA working with a sensitive database, or a company too small and specialized to effectivly outsource all its tasks overseas. Relationships can be worth more than money.
There are some jobs in the education sector, also. Network related, perhaps?
The purpose of a world economy is to play one labor market against another, so that unions can't create artificial shortages of labor and government can't write laws that industry doesn't like. If governments try this, many manufacturers have production centers in several countries and excess capacity. They'll be able to switch countries quickly to react to increases in the price of labor, laws they don't like, etc.
The employee protections and environmental standards we enjoy in the US will quickly be eroded. Have you ever tasted the air in places like Beijing?
Bear in mind, foreign countries, particularly China, tend to do economic espionage. I wouldn't reccomend moving your R&D lab there.
Also, I knew a lot of Chinese folks who wanted to get their educations overseas.
For the moment, at least, the west has a good lead in terms of R&D and education.
Of course, we'd be more competitive if we copied China's lead and forced some farmers to produce food for our country for near-slave wages.... I suppose we could just our crops from south of the border, though. Right?
The 3rd world countries are using their cash to buy machines for producing goods before the goods themselves. Who's going to have the best access to their markets?
Well, for the moment there are some others; medicine, physical therapy, and law/policework, fishing, farming and things that require an intimate knowledge of American culture or a physical presence (like some sales).
And there are a lot of folks who moved call centers to India who are moving them back now.
For the moment, outsourcing stuff to a foreign country means moving to a place which is generally more corrupt, might steal your tech secrets, and is harder to physically access if you need to.
It works well for some things, but not for others... yet.
But the contrast between technology and life, between modernism and romanticism, are crucial to the plot, just in a metaphoric sense. Lucas himself said so. I don't think that would translate to a purely magical realm. i.e. the symbolism of Luke's mechanical hand, of wookies on Endor vs. guys on mechanical hoverbikes, etc.
I'll admit that the Jedi are a romantic notion, rather than a 'sci-fi' notion. They make their light sabers rather than having them mass produced etc.
But Star Wars does try to anticipate the political structures associated with advanced technology.
Partly, I'm tired of humans always winning. Gah. Hollywood and all its damn happy endings. Ruins the suspense. They spent a good part of the movie building up how incredible these things were and building them up... and then they weren't. It was cheap on the author's part that a difficult situation was escaped from too easily.
Predator, at least, fought like a marine against superior numbers, and when he was defeated, he was defeated by tactics worthy of his abilities. Spacefaring aliens should be either friendly or formidable.
As far as why aliens would want people... I could make up reasons for that. Perhaps DNA is valuable for some purpose and easier to harvest than to develop. Maybe it's for normal research or historical or taxonomical purposes and they need a sampling of memories. Maybe it's for the development of some kind of bio-weapon, a defense against some incredible offense that civilizations eventually develop and they didn't want to render a perfectly good planet uninhabitable by killing off the dumber wildlife and foliage.
But the aliens knew they were dealing with intelligent life. They had the forsight to knock out Earth's communications but not bring a weapon? Even NASA, with its puny earthling technology, could do better if it thought it had to. If you care enough to send a 200 lb creature several light years, you can send a 5 pound weapon to go with him.
It's like in Independance Day, Alien technology is so weak it can be destroyed by a simple computer virus.
Create an advanced civilization opponent and then have them be defeated totally by technology which shouldn't be worth anything more than a possible sucker punch.
Aliens who are invading should not have trouble knocking down doors.
I think everyone who loved the movie has, without exception, also read the book.
Everyone I know who read the book loved it.
Most people who just saw the movie didn't care for it.
I think this says somthing about the relative quality of the two, though I realize that the moviegoing audience probably wouldn't have accepted Sagan's version as he wrote it.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in 2nd grade and moving up north, a teacher gave me a Bearenstein Bears book on moving. They weren't trying to push anything on me. They were trying to help me understand the world around me and my situation, which kids need.
Would you object to a book about divorce? That's considered immoral in some religions too. Maybe we shouldn't tell kids about it, or it will seem like an activist campaign to legitimize divorce? Maybe if we don't talk about divorce to kids, noone will ever grow up and have them. Maybe we shouldn't let kids read anything about divorce, or it'll seem like we're advocating it.
I guess you're a bigot if you want to make your own decisions rather than have them made by the government or some activist group.
Your depiction of some books as being done by activist groups while others are just 'normal' is kindof odd. If someone was trying to get any mention of heterosexual couples banned from libraries, that would be an example of an extremist activist group trying to make other people's decisions. And it would be pretty similar to your stance on the matter as well.
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
Huckleberry Finn has been challenged over and over for decades.
As opposed to cheery Shaksperian tales like MacBeth and Hamlet that we had to read for school.
What is it that's so darn offensive about Huck Finn, anyways?
It's a matter of semantics.
It doesn't make sense for Bush to personally take on Farenheight 9/11. That would lend it credibility by creating a debate between him and Michael Moore, and give it publicity.
Of course, Michael Moore is just as much a fabricator as the "Swift Boat Veterans" thing and Kerry, if he was responsible, might have pointed out the discrepancies.
It's a better tactic for Bush to have someone else do the job, and it's clear that those people doing the job are closely affiliated with his campaign.
I'm not sure where you get the 60x number you cite. Care to elaborate?
Also, the banning of such publications actually adds fuel to the anti-semetic fire in that they are actively suppressed. It makes the kooks feel more important because their efforts actually required intervention.
True, and I agree with you, however all magazines have an editorial process. They can't publish everything.
Publishing a critical review is one thing. Simply publishing the article in a major paper implies that it passed an editorial review process, lending it implied credulity.
How about those Navy ships with windows installed... and one of them froze up and was stuck at sea helpless a while back. Fortunatly not in any danger at the time.
The time is now. It's just that your killer robots won't be bipedal. We've already got folks who can do that trick.
Knew who you were quoting before you clicked the link. ;)
Another Asimov fan here. I can't remember if I read that in "Counting the Eons" or "The Sun Shines Bright."
Of course, he unfortunatly failed in his quest.
Why would an artificial labor shortage be a good thing?
d /5078D C917A63E30F85256EA80052F383
It allows for a price increase and increases bargaining power. Think about strikes, etc. If you have a monopoly, you can limit the supply and reduce competition. Companies use the same principle with products, the paper companies which my dad used to work for, for example.
Excess capacity costs lots of money. Wasting money is not a good thing for a company, and I really don't believe there's a big smoking man conspiracy here.
A lot of multi-national industries do have excess capacity. The auto industry is one.
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/indissue.nsf/doci
The paper industry, where my dad used to work, is another.
In the paper industry, the various companies will frequently cut back production in times of economic downturns, but retain their capacity for production. The result of this excess capacity in many parts of the world is sever pressure to reduce wages, often one of the biggest expenses in a company. If a company already has facilities worldwide, and some of them are mothballed, moving to a different location is not particularly difficult. Jefferson Smurfit, for instance, has plants in S. America, China, Europe and the US.
Funny that - the U.S. has far less employee protection than most European countries already, and I don't see the standards changing.
Compare it to a place like China, where I just got back from teaching for a semester. I don't know what they use on the apples there, but I know that you have to physically remove the skin from the apple or you'll get sick. Their saftey standards are equally lax.
Yeah, but would you fly to India to do have the operation done, is the question.
I have a BS in computer science, but I also have a diagnosed disability that makes it much harder for me to recognize that I am being impolite in front of strangers. What should I do?
You have a disability that makes you impolite but you're good with technology?
Work at Best Buy.
Seriously, that's a pretty big disability.
The best I can think of offhand is finding a company or service which requires the protection of trade secrets or national security clearance. Maybe some kind of DBA working with a sensitive database, or a company too small and specialized to effectivly outsource all its tasks overseas. Relationships can be worth more than money.
There are some jobs in the education sector, also. Network related, perhaps?
... but MY clone would love me and want to make me happy.
The purpose of a world economy is to play one labor market against another, so that unions can't create artificial shortages of labor and government can't write laws that industry doesn't like. If governments try this, many manufacturers have production centers in several countries and excess capacity. They'll be able to switch countries quickly to react to increases in the price of labor, laws they don't like, etc.
The employee protections and environmental standards we enjoy in the US will quickly be eroded. Have you ever tasted the air in places like Beijing?
Bear in mind, foreign countries, particularly China, tend to do economic espionage. I wouldn't reccomend moving your R&D lab there.
... I suppose we could just our crops from south of the border, though. Right?
Also, I knew a lot of Chinese folks who wanted to get their educations overseas.
For the moment, at least, the west has a good lead in terms of R&D and education.
Of course, we'd be more competitive if we copied China's lead and forced some farmers to produce food for our country for near-slave wages.
The 3rd world countries are using their cash to buy machines for producing goods before the goods themselves. Who's going to have the best access to their markets?
Well, for the moment there are some others; medicine, physical therapy, and law/policework, fishing, farming and things that require an intimate knowledge of American culture or a physical presence (like some sales).
And there are a lot of folks who moved call centers to India who are moving them back now.
For the moment, outsourcing stuff to a foreign country means moving to a place which is generally more corrupt, might steal your tech secrets, and is harder to physically access if you need to.
It works well for some things, but not for others... yet.
Interesting. You'd probably hate the book.
But the contrast between technology and life, between modernism and romanticism, are crucial to the plot, just in a metaphoric sense. Lucas himself said so. I don't think that would translate to a purely magical realm. i.e. the symbolism of Luke's mechanical hand, of wookies on Endor vs. guys on mechanical hoverbikes, etc.
I'll admit that the Jedi are a romantic notion, rather than a 'sci-fi' notion. They make their light sabers rather than having them mass produced etc.
But Star Wars does try to anticipate the political structures associated with advanced technology.
I wonder if they'll do another writeup when they fix the next bug.
Partly, I'm tired of humans always winning. Gah. Hollywood and all its damn happy endings. Ruins the suspense. They spent a good part of the movie building up how incredible these things were and building them up... and then they weren't. It was cheap on the author's part that a difficult situation was escaped from too easily.
Predator, at least, fought like a marine against superior numbers, and when he was defeated, he was defeated by tactics worthy of his abilities. Spacefaring aliens should be either friendly or formidable.
As far as why aliens would want people...
I could make up reasons for that. Perhaps DNA is valuable for some purpose and easier to harvest than to develop. Maybe it's for normal research or historical or taxonomical purposes and they need a sampling of memories. Maybe it's for the development of some kind of bio-weapon, a defense against some incredible offense that civilizations eventually develop and they didn't want to render a perfectly good planet uninhabitable by killing off the dumber wildlife and foliage.
Maybe they were looking for Elvis...
But the aliens knew they were dealing with intelligent life. They had the forsight to knock out Earth's communications but not bring a weapon? Even NASA, with its puny earthling technology, could do better if it thought it had to. If you care enough to send a 200 lb creature several light years, you can send a 5 pound weapon to go with him.
It's like in Independance Day, Alien technology is so weak it can be destroyed by a simple computer virus.
Create an advanced civilization opponent and then have them be defeated totally by technology which shouldn't be worth anything more than a possible sucker punch.
Aliens who are invading should not have trouble knocking down doors.
I just can't buy it.
Very good! .. next we'll try multiplication.
What if I had a light saber and Jedi powers? ...and made out with my sister
I hated 'Signs.'
I detest the notion that evil aliens with superior technology are going to run around without so much as a shotgun to defend themselves.
I think everyone who loved the movie has, without exception, also read the book.
Everyone I know who read the book loved it.
Most people who just saw the movie didn't care for it.
I think this says somthing about the relative quality of the two, though I realize that the moviegoing audience probably wouldn't have accepted Sagan's version as he wrote it.
Every time I look at a circle I wonder if there's a hidden message in the simple beauty of the shape...
You're just asking for a link to Goatse