Re:Excession and Look to Windward?
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
My favourite Culture novel has always been Use of Weapons. Consider Phlebas was excellent as well, but Use of Weapons was moving, complicated, and continually surprising. I also think it captures the tragic element of the Culture better than Consider phlebas did, whatever that means.
His non-culture novel, "The Algebraist" was also quite good.
s there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?'"
Um, yes. We were 'worshipping' our leaders long before we were worshipping a god. How else can animals like us, who have evolved to work in groups, function? We've been following the strongest, or smartest, or toughest, or most virile of our own species for a long time. It's not really surprising that someone would someday suppose that perhaps out there somewhere there is an "ultimate" leader who should all obey.
I think the problem runs much deeper than simply the nature of private corporations. Mob mentality (which is essentially what you see in meetings - people forced to make a decision as a whole rather than as individuals) is known to be 'stupider' than a single person acting rationally as a general rule. Neurons within a brain communicate better with each other than people do within a group.
And besides, each of the things you just mentioned (being called 'not a team player') has less to do with the stupidity of groups/mobs than it does with the ability of people in power to force their point of view on others through intimidation. "Not a team player, get out" sounds an awful lot to me like "you're either with us or against us". Yes these statements need to be adressing a group of people in order for them to work, but its more a trait of bad leadership than it is collaboration.
Because for the first time in human history we have the ability to make ourselves extinct, through nuclear war or otherwise.
Because for the first time in human history the entire world is starting to be linked into one global economy.
Remember the crash/depression of the thirties? Remember the south asian financial crisis of 98? For the first time in human history there is the possibility that we could all go down together.
Because having all your eggs in one big volatile basket is just not a good idea.
I recall seeing this exact situation played out in some flash video that was trying to predict the future of the internet, google in particular. Anyone else see it? The only difference was that in the video it was the NY times that was suing google.
Guess what - China has a billion more people than the US does. It is roughly 4.5 times the size in population of the US. Does that help put things into perspective for you?
I would suggest that you are, perhaps unfortunately, not representative of the majority of consumers. People like having a physical object to hold, to use, to show off in display cases - whatever. Note the (relatively) lackluster success of ebooks, or even the fact that most games are still bought in stores (despite services such as steam which sell them cheaper online).
The public at large still views 'online' distribution as something intangible, and for the foreseeable future, people will continue to prefer to purchase things which have some physical component, rather than one that is entirely computer based.
In advertising, any press is good press. It's about name recognition -- at least that's what friends in the business have told me.
Sony already has name recognition. Name recognition is not what they're trying to get here, what they're trying to get is positive association - and they've gotten the exact opposite.
but this is pretty much the way Apple's products are being marketed. The items are made "trendy", they are sold via the way of being "hip" and "cool", and that everyone wants one because they're hip and cool. How many ads do you know that talk about the features and unique things the iPod can do? How many of the accessoires that you can buy for it do really have additional value to it?
Ugh. Talk about missing the point. The issue with this advertising method is not that it appeals to peoples sense of 'cool' or 'trendiness'. Every company on the planet tries to appeal to the cool factor in every advertisement! Have you seen a coke commercial lately? A car commercial? A cell phone commercial? Appealing to hipness is not the relevant issue here, since sony and every other company under the sun already does this.
The issue here is that Sony is straight up lying in order to create this hype. They've created a website through a third party that is almost certainly meant to deceive parts of their target audience into thinking it is real and NOT an advertisement. The difference is analogous to buying an ad on the side of a bus (something that makes itself obvious as an advertisement) and paying some kids to talk loudly about the next great product from company X while sitting on the bus. One is clearly marked, the other is not.
Think about it this way. If this was really a 'viral marketing' scheme aimed at us savvy gamers who are tasked with 'figuring it out' then they failed miserably, since it takes us about.085 seconds to realize this is all BS, and its also just pissing most of us off. There's nothing to figure out - its clearly a lie. But for those webusers who aren't as able to differentiate between fact and fiction (some of us might know them as the majority), this would be a useful and deceptive hype building tool. And that is what is wrong with this. It isnt about what they're trying to accomplish, its about how they're doing it.
Yes, God forbid an international agency change its mind about something when new information sheds light on the problem!
There is nothing admirable about stubbornness in face of facts. I, for one, am glad that the UN isn't dragging it's feet on this issue. If only others were so prescient.
I guarantee you that all the ex-KGB would have heard about Litivinenko's murder whether it was sensational or not. They are ex-spies, after all, and they probably worry about this stuff often enough to keep it on their radar. Why would this hypothetical assassin need to involve the international media in a spectacular murder and give Russia a black eye in the process?
Before people start saying this is obvious proof of Putin's guilt, stop and think about it. Why would anyone EVER use polonium to kill someone? Radioactive substances are probably the one of the most controlled substances in the world, with only a relatively small number of places they can even be produced. I can think of fewer weapons that would leave such an obvious trail.
If someone wanted only to kill this Litivinenko to silence him, or for revenge, or whatever, there are a million easier and more convert ways to do it. Poisons that are just as effective and less traceable, bullets, hell even a car bomb would have been better. The fact that someone went to all the trouble of using polonium to do the deed makes this either a well funded and stupid assassin, or a well funded assassin whose true ends are much more complicated than simply killing a retired KGB man.
Some "natural acts" belong in a private setting, including tonsil hockey (be it between Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve).
....Which isn't really what we're talking about. If that were the case, then this would really be a non issue, since the game also includes 'tonsil hockey' between girls and boys - the double standard is the problem. Also, my post contained the term "natural qualities" not "natural acts" - nice switch job there. What I'm talking about are natural conditions. To use your analogy, the viewpoint I'm talking about would be the one that says it is wrong for people to take a shit, whether in public or not, because it is morally wrong. Talk about asinine, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
My favourite Culture novel has always been Use of Weapons. Consider Phlebas was excellent as well, but Use of Weapons was moving, complicated, and continually surprising. I also think it captures the tragic element of the Culture better than Consider phlebas did, whatever that means.
His non-culture novel, "The Algebraist" was also quite good.
Who the hell modded this as flamebait? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable question. Moderation these days...
I think the problem runs much deeper than simply the nature of private corporations. Mob mentality (which is essentially what you see in meetings - people forced to make a decision as a whole rather than as individuals) is known to be 'stupider' than a single person acting rationally as a general rule. Neurons within a brain communicate better with each other than people do within a group.
And besides, each of the things you just mentioned (being called 'not a team player') has less to do with the stupidity of groups/mobs than it does with the ability of people in power to force their point of view on others through intimidation. "Not a team player, get out" sounds an awful lot to me like "you're either with us or against us". Yes these statements need to be adressing a group of people in order for them to work, but its more a trait of bad leadership than it is collaboration.
Because for the first time in human history we have the ability to make ourselves extinct, through nuclear war or otherwise.
Because for the first time in human history the entire world is starting to be linked into one global economy.
Remember the crash/depression of the thirties? Remember the south asian financial crisis of 98? For the first time in human history there is the possibility that we could all go down together.
Because having all your eggs in one big volatile basket is just not a good idea.
I recall seeing this exact situation played out in some flash video that was trying to predict the future of the internet, google in particular. Anyone else see it? The only difference was that in the video it was the NY times that was suing google.
Guess what - China has a billion more people than the US does. It is roughly 4.5 times the size in population of the US. Does that help put things into perspective for you?
I wonder if any of us (that is, humans) will be around to see the destruction, or if anyone alive then will ever know what they looked like today?
I would suggest that you are, perhaps unfortunately, not representative of the majority of consumers. People like having a physical object to hold, to use, to show off in display cases - whatever. Note the (relatively) lackluster success of ebooks, or even the fact that most games are still bought in stores (despite services such as steam which sell them cheaper online).
The public at large still views 'online' distribution as something intangible, and for the foreseeable future, people will continue to prefer to purchase things which have some physical component, rather than one that is entirely computer based.
They were going to title this project "The Number of the Beast", but it didn't do so well in the focus groups.
Sony already has name recognition. Name recognition is not what they're trying to get here, what they're trying to get is positive association - and they've gotten the exact opposite.
but this is pretty much the way Apple's products are being marketed. The items are made "trendy", they are sold via the way of being "hip" and "cool", and that everyone wants one because they're hip and cool. How many ads do you know that talk about the features and unique things the iPod can do? How many of the accessoires that you can buy for it do really have additional value to it?
.085 seconds to realize this is all BS, and its also just pissing most of us off. There's nothing to figure out - its clearly a lie. But for those webusers who aren't as able to differentiate between fact and fiction (some of us might know them as the majority), this would be a useful and deceptive hype building tool. And that is what is wrong with this. It isnt about what they're trying to accomplish, its about how they're doing it.
Ugh. Talk about missing the point. The issue with this advertising method is not that it appeals to peoples sense of 'cool' or 'trendiness'. Every company on the planet tries to appeal to the cool factor in every advertisement! Have you seen a coke commercial lately? A car commercial? A cell phone commercial? Appealing to hipness is not the relevant issue here, since sony and every other company under the sun already does this.
The issue here is that Sony is straight up lying in order to create this hype. They've created a website through a third party that is almost certainly meant to deceive parts of their target audience into thinking it is real and NOT an advertisement. The difference is analogous to buying an ad on the side of a bus (something that makes itself obvious as an advertisement) and paying some kids to talk loudly about the next great product from company X while sitting on the bus. One is clearly marked, the other is not.
Think about it this way. If this was really a 'viral marketing' scheme aimed at us savvy gamers who are tasked with 'figuring it out' then they failed miserably, since it takes us about
You really think that the people who deal with climate change are the same ones who ordered the withdrawl from Rwanda?
Me saying that the UN is doing something responsible here is NOT analogous to saying it has never made a mistake.
Yes, God forbid an international agency change its mind about something when new information sheds light on the problem!
There is nothing admirable about stubbornness in face of facts. I, for one, am glad that the UN isn't dragging it's feet on this issue. If only others were so prescient.
Gee, I wonder if this will make mainstream news? Maybe it will be noted right beside that new study that says we're all murderous bastards.
I guarantee you that all the ex-KGB would have heard about Litivinenko's murder whether it was sensational or not. They are ex-spies, after all, and they probably worry about this stuff often enough to keep it on their radar. Why would this hypothetical assassin need to involve the international media in a spectacular murder and give Russia a black eye in the process?
Before people start saying this is obvious proof of Putin's guilt, stop and think about it. Why would anyone EVER use polonium to kill someone? Radioactive substances are probably the one of the most controlled substances in the world, with only a relatively small number of places they can even be produced. I can think of fewer weapons that would leave such an obvious trail.
If someone wanted only to kill this Litivinenko to silence him, or for revenge, or whatever, there are a million easier and more convert ways to do it. Poisons that are just as effective and less traceable, bullets, hell even a car bomb would have been better. The fact that someone went to all the trouble of using polonium to do the deed makes this either a well funded and stupid assassin, or a well funded assassin whose true ends are much more complicated than simply killing a retired KGB man.
His last name didn't happen to be Wiggin, did it?
This is clear discrimination against Ninjas, who obviously don't make a sound even when playing a round of quake.
You don't need to be a scientist to present the conclusions of the scientific community at large to the public.
To quote the wise Iain M. Banks, "The minds (AI) give humans the means, and humans give the minds an end".
That was his novel excession, which is set in the same universe as Consider Phlebas.
You seem to be forgetting that most of our ancestors lived, and slept, in trees - far away from most potential predators.
A remote section of space? Like, say, anywhere?