|
|
wow, that's some really interesting stuff guys! OLEDs sound amazing, and I will be waiting for when they make their first public appearance. And projecting 3D holographic images is very cool. When I was a kid watching Star Wars and other futuristic space movies I never imagined living in a world like that for real...but now with all of the new technology and advances on the space frontier it seems that it could happen (to some extent). I'm not sure what to think about the possibility of China building a permanent moon base. I mean, I think they definitely have the capability to do so, but how will that effect us? I'm not sure. I do know that I would not agree with the US government if they gave a whole butt-load of money to NASA to try and build a base before China, etc. I agree with you on that George. Right now Americans are living on earth and we have a whole lot of things that the money needs to go towards.
James, about the matrix comment you made.... Neo can fly but he can't fly all the time or whenver he wants to. I mean, I don't know how to explain it, but it's like he needs a certain amount of space around him to manipulate the matrix and gain power to do so. Plus, I think he really wanted to fight 100 agent Smiths all at once to prove a point and see his own limitations! If I could fight like Neo I think it would be fun to see how far I could go with my power and strength...but I can't, so let's just enjoy watching Neo at work.
And yes, I think the Rave scene was ridiculous as well. They should have used those 10 minutes for another fight scene or something. And let's not forget Trinity in all of this talk about Matrix...that girl can fight! Seh inspires me in my pursuit of the Martial Arts.
thus ranteth Elizabeth at 5:51 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Steven Den Beste has written an excellent article on the uselessness of the linear left-right political axis, and has some very interesting observations on what might usefully replace it.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:07 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Robert Walker, the former chairman of the House Science committee, has become convinced that the Chinese not only have the vague intent to do a Moon mission that everyone's been claiming they have, but rather, have the firm intent to build a permanent Moon base within the next 10 years; some well-informed observers in Japan say the lucky number is actually closer to 4-5 years. (Hat tip: Slashdot.) Given that most of the necessary technology (and training) is available at market rates from the Russians, and that China is ruled by an autocratic regime that can spend massive amounts of money without being accountable to its populace, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was the case.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I'm thrilled that someone's actually about to get off their asses and do this; for pity's sake, this is something that should have been done 30 years ago. Could have been done 30 years ago. Without great difficulty. By us. And, of course, that's the other hand: if China sets up the world's first Moon base, they'll paint the Moon red. Oh I know, I know - China's not really Communist any more, and hasn't even really tried to be since Deng Xiaopeng. But it's still brutal and autocratic, and it pains me to see that such a regime is capable of such a noble achievement, in the face of the world's free democracies. It will flaunt it, of course: that's the point. National prestige. A permanent base has other strategic uses, extolled at some length by enthusiastic sci-fi authors and space policy buffs, but the big one is national prestige. Sure, you may have landed the first man on the Moon, but then you went home and abandoned the effort. We have a permanent presence. (So suck it.) Expect to hear this, ad nauseam, from the Chinese government, post-settlement. Or maybe they won't. Maybe they won't need to; maybe the sheer force of their achievement will resound loud enough all on its own to make such boasting unnecessary.
But I think ultimately, if they do this, it will be a profoundly good thing. The real sticking point, for me at least, is that I'd really like to see humans living off-world, permanently. And once the capability is there, other countries will start doing it, too: notably India and possibly Japan, given their strategic relationship with China. (India has, in fact, already announced its plans for a manned Moon mission by 2015.) This doesn't alarm me in the same way that the USSR doing these same things might have; China is certainly not our enemy, in the same way the USSR was. More like a rival, if that. I also think that, even though our public space program has abandoned its Moon efforts, the current slate of commercial Moon missions bode very well for us: if Transorbital and LunaCorp's initial missions are money-makers, TO at least has the stated intention of ramping their missions up and up until they're essentially doing ASI's reference mission, which would be the real beginning of a commercial Moonbase.
In a way, what I'm more worried about than anything else is that the U.S. government will react to this in a highly destructive way: for example, by giving NASA massive funding to do another Moon mission by itself, thereby strangling all the commercial efforts in the cradle. Yes, it's possible that NASA could be a constructive force in this (by focusing on technology, particularly propulsion, development, making it easier for commercial efforts to go the distance), but their history suggests that they won't be. And I think it's ultimately commercial efforts that will make any American presence in space permanent, because the nature of our government is that is lacks the staying power necessary to sustain a real settlement effort. If it is profitable, that is all the incentive people will need, and each step into the frontier, even if slower and more hesitant, will at least be permanent.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 12:04 PM | Permalink |
|
|
I think The Matrix Reloaded was a good movie, but it lacked something the first one had. The talk scenes dragged on and weren't very interesting, unlike the first movies', which were very entertaining. The rave / make out scene was rediculous, too - the hint was taken in the first two minutes, and I know it was atmospherical and stuff, but that was about ten minutes too much. Yes, the fight scenes were really fricken cool (although, if Neo could fly, why did he stick around to fight Agent Smith so long?) and there is something taken out of it when you know Neo will win. Yes, yes...I need to wait until Revolutions to make my conclusion.
With that said...
Found an interesting bit on new technology a few days back. OLEDs (Organic Light Emitting Diode) sounds like the next miracle technology. It'll mainly be used instead of LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) panels in digital cameras, cell phones, PDAs, PCs, and the like, but will become much more than that.
As a display screen, OLEDs are superior to LCD in about every way possible (no compromises for a change, wow!) - much better contrast, no color distortion from angled viewing, wider viewing angle, lower power usage, no maintenance at all, lighter in weight, thinner, and no backlight. Wow, that's pretty nice. Oh yeah, since its simpler to manufacture, it's also cheaper. OLEDs can also simply be used for a light source, and also possibly be used to capture light energy into electricity (basically a solar cell).
One huge plus of OLED is their ability to be used on flexible screens. Yeah, you could unroll a 100" screen from the top of your wall, or have a roll-out electronic newspaper that updates every day. I don't know about you, but that sounds a lot cooler than this 19" CRT I'm using right now.
There are some mobile devices that should be using OLED displays next year, but that's a technology forecast, which are about as reliable as the weatherman.
And lastly, as found in Popular Mechanics, a way to project 3D holographic images into an empty space was found. Holodecks, anyone? How about that nifty display thing R2D2 has in Starwars? This is still in it's infant stages, but that's really friggin cool.
If you look in Minority Report, most of the stuff in there seems way beyond our current technology, but OLED and this 3D display thingy bridge the gap on some of this stuff. OLEDs could create those transparent touch screens they used or that 3D video projector he had. Cool stuff.
thus ranteth Gheed at 11:22 PM | Permalink |
|
|
OK, before you criticize The Matrix Reloaded, keep something in mind: it's not over yet. According to the filmmakers, the second and third movies are meant to be one, so you are in effect, criticizing a movie after only having watched half of it. Yeah, yeah, I realize what a cop-out concept that is, but it's true. They couldn't very well make the movie five hours long, but to try to squeeze it into a more acceptable time frame would have sacrificed the directors' vision. There was no real climax or resolution in the first half, so of course a lot of the philosophical ramblings seem trite and uncalled for. They were foreshadowing and setting up events that haven't happened yet. In my opinion, the movie shouldn't even be reviewed until Revolutions comes out; you can't give a proper review having seen only half of a movie. Of course, I still liked it. I have faith that the seemingly purposeless philosophy - my only real gripe about the movie - will be resolved in the next installation.
Oh yeah, and James Lileks can kiss my "Trixie" ass.
thus ranteth "Stainless" Steele McKaye at 6:31 PM | Permalink |
|
|
masoligitessss.....i'm here finally...took a whiles to actually make the effort to do it, but i remembered what they said..."try and try, until you succeed. unless it's skydiving"
thus ranteth Gautham at 4:41 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Just about every review of Matrix Reloaded that I've read says that there were too many fight scenes, or that the fight scenes were too long. To this, I would just like to say: fuck you, the fight scenes fucking ruled. If anyone has done a fight scene recently cooler than the Neo vs. Agent Smith x 100 fight scene, I haven't seen it. There's something just soul-satisfying about watching Hugo Weaving get his ass kicked 50 different ways with a steel pole. And tell me Morpheus didn't absolutely rock with the samurai sword. And tell me there's ever been a crazier car-chase scene. I mean, the cameras went underneath the speeding mack trucks! Absolutely unsurpassed.
The fighting ruled, but my real beef with Matrix Reloaded was that it was chock-full of what James Lileks called "dormroom reefer-party philosophy." I don't mind philosophy in movies at all, but the sheer pretension of this movie's dialogue really annoyed me. The movie couldn't go five minutes without some character or another opining about free will, choice, or fate, and this opining was done exceptionally poorly. Lileks got it right - it really was like listening to a dorm room full of sub-intelligent stoners babble on and on and on and on and... The characters are appallingly wordy but don't ever really say much. By the end of the first half-hour, I'm thinking, Go ahead, make another cryptic statement! Yeah, go ahead and do it, see what happens, you little ****!
(Screenwriters and pretentious directors take note: Brevity is the soul of wit! The bard don't lie, folks. Carve this phrase into your right arm. You'll make your audiences happy, I promise.)
The Merovingian shared the other characters' penchant for empty semi-philosophical rambles, but his line about French cursing has to be the best in the movie. He was actually meant to be pretentious, however, and naturally, this is something that the Wachowski brothers excel at. And the cake scene was...interesting.
Finally, I have to say, the scene at the Source was pretty well done. Interesting plot twist, and wouldn't you know it, even semi-interesting dialogue. Lileks, again, sums it up best:This would have yanked the carpet out from beneath the entire premise, but by the time we got to him he was just another character with a sackful of cynical bromides. At least you�re glad it�s not Donald Sutherland, because when we first see him you think: hey, it�s Donald Sutherland. Any movie that gives you Anthony Zerbe is warning you that
At one point the Architect notes that he had to add the blacker, badder human elements to the Matrix to make the simulation work. The video screens show Hitler. And for a second they show George Bush Sr. Boy, that�s the sort of insightful commentary I thought you had to read Boondocks to find. I have to say, in spite of the my incessant whining, I'll probably end up seeing this movie again. It might not be too damn smart (especially in comparison to the first Matrix), but the movie is still a fun ride. I mean, after all, what other movies feature Carrie-Anne Moss on a motorcycle going 100 miles per hour against traffic in tight black leather?
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 4:08 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Seeing that television's received a solid beating at Colin's hands, I feel obliged to stick up for it a bit, and point out that tv is primarily entertainment; most people don't watch Friends or American Idol with the intention of educating themselves. Well, maybe that in itself is a problem, you say...but if it is, you still have to keep in mind that that means that tv is not the root of the problem. Tv scratches an itch; that doesn't (necessarily) mean that tv also caused the itch.
Now that I've given my pro forma defense of television, I'm going to throw in the towel and say I think you've got the right of this one. While the tv that is entertainment does not usually try to present itself as anything else, it's certainly a valid point that there are other, much less worthless ways that people can entertain themselves. The real sticking point, to me, is that tv is completely one-way; there's no interaction at all between presenter and viewer. This has always been one of the major reasons that tv news irritates me: if the talking head is talking crap and has no idea what he's talking about, I've got no way to respond to him. But I think maybe if tv was the only way I ever got the news, this wouldn't rankle me, because it would never occur to me that it could be done differently. I'm certainly argumentative, but a lot of that comes from my experiences in the peculiarly bellicose world of the Usenet newsgroups.
I'll say that, in tv's defense, this one-sidedness is not much worse than newspapers, and, prior to the invention of the internet, it was probably a necessary evil. But now that the internet's here, I think tv's reasons for existing are quickly evaporating. The internet also has the highly redeeming feature of being interactive. There are, of course, the major news outlets' internet presences, which are one-sided in roughly the same way as print and tv media are, but the booming world of weblogs, free-for-all discussion forums, newsgroups, and independent news/pundit sites allow for an enormous amount of interaction between the presenter and the viewer that just was not possible with broadcast or print. Lo and behold! - a medium where people are almost forced to think about the material presented to them, to piece together at least a mental rebuttal, simply because they know the option is there. Even the sort of entertainment you get from playing online games, which is more analogous to the entertainment provided by your daily dose of Simpsons, is interactive in a way that broadcast television simply could not be.
I have to add, though, that I shudder to think what would happen if we should even mention the idea of banning television. And for good reason, I think (although I know Colin was probably joking...): the freedom of the press we have enshrined in this country would be destroyed if tv were to be forbidden. If you are instead suggesting getting rid of it some other, non-coercive way, consider that the fact, maybe a sad fact, is that many people do not like to think, to be forced to think, as they are entertained or as they soak up the day's news. There is a certain sluggish appeal in just letting the talking heads on the screen dictate your reality to you, in vicariously living the shallow lives of the attractive yuppies on Friends. Like it or not, one-way communication has always been with us and probably always will be; if the tv ever goes the way of the dodo, it will be because one-way communication on the internet has replaced it.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:48 PM | Permalink |
|
|
The other day, while I was sitting around thinking how much I hate our society, I thought of a few things I feel have negatively influenced it (in my mind, anyways) a little more than others. Now I'm not saying that we should completely do away with these things, because I think that would cause a bit of an unhealthy shock, but it's interesting to think about what it might be like without them.
-
First of all is television. What positive comes from television that can't be easily replaced? The only thing that comes to my mind is news, but we can get that from radio, newspaper, and internet. You'd be hard pressed to argue for television as any kind of an art form; it's pretty common knowledge that it is solely a money making enterprise. On the other hand, what negative vibes do we get from television?
Well, it certainly influences people's opinions about themselves. Those who watch television are incessantly presented with unrealistically beautiful people living unrealistic yet appealing lives. Sure, it's all make believe, but when kids today grow up being constantly bombarded by it, the line blurs. Those who don't live up to the media's standards can end up feeling insignificant and unsure of themselves, while the ones attractive and rich enough to live TV lives get superiority complexes. What about the value system conveyed by TV? Sex is prioritized above all else, people who are different are mocked and made fun of (even if it is supposedly good naturedly or all in fun), and things like manners, morals, and concern for other people are either ignored or negated. The thing that is so disturbing about these messages is not the fact that they are being presented, but that they are uniform across television programming. And these ideas are all being cemented by the time kids are in high school.
Also, look at what a huge portion of our time is spent in front of the TV that could be used for better things (I realize that you could say this about pretty much anything, and it's all a matter of personal priorities, but bear with me). If you watch back to back episodes of the Simpsons every weeknight, that's five hours a week, right there. And who stops there? Plenty of people watch several hours a day. That's time that could be spent reading a book, spending time with family and friends, or exercising. Which brings me to my next point. It's no wonder that there's such a high obesity rate in America when so many people spend so much time on the sofa, half-comatose, watching television. This is people's idea of spare time nowadays. Their idea of relaxing. Whatever happened to reading books? Is it too much work for our borderline mentally retarded, fat-ass citizens? And books are only one alternative. Where are people's imaginations, their desire to live their lives themselves instead of vicariously through some disgusting effagy of a person depicted on the screen?
You know, on second thought, I take back my earlier statement. I do think that we should completely do away with television, and I think that the world would be a perceptably better place very shortly afterwards. I was going to spend a paragraph or two going into another one or two of my pet peeves, but I got carried away here; I can save them for another time. Does anyone think I'm totally off-base here? Or do you have anything that you particularly hate about the world? Let me know.
thus ranteth "Stainless" Steele McKaye at 4:37 PM | Permalink |
|
|
I think one point frequently missed in the Israel/Palestine debate is one you raise, Amelie: if the land can be said to be anyone's, who has a better claim to it?
The most common view is the one I believe you've articulated: in the post-WWII/Holocaust years, the victorious powers felt so bad for the Jews that they sectioned off a piece of land that the Jews wanted, kicked off its Arab inhabitants, rechristened the land Israel, and that was all there was to it, fuck the Palestinians. This was my conception of the story for a long time, and I'd always wondered: why there? If you're going to give the Jews a homeland, which is an excellent idea, why not put it somewhere relatively uninhabited, or at least, not inhabited by people who have historically despised the Jews? Surely the Canadians could have cut off a tiny piece of Canada the size of modern-day Israel for a Jewish homeland, or maybe they could have been granted Madagascar or several of the small Pacific islands.
But I looked a little further into it, and that doesn't seem to be how it really happened. The real sticking point is that there was already very large numbers of Jews living in the area of modern-day Israel, and, perhaps more significantly, there was never an independent state of Palestine. That area was controlled first by the Ottoman Empire, then by the British Empire after WWI. The British put forth the 'Balfour declaration,' which stated that they supported the creation of a Jewish homeland, but it became apparent that their only real interest was clinging to control of the Suez Canal, so Jewish insurgents drove the British out. After WWII, the UN attempted to partition the land between the Jews and Arabs and create a (really very tiny) Jewish state in small enclaves within a larger state of Palestine, which were, I believe, determined simply by the areas in which the Jews were most concentrated. (This seemed to make sense because Jews from all over Europe and Russia had been streaming to the areas for many years anyway.) This basically satisfied the Jews but royally pissed off the Arabs, and Syria, Jordan, and Egypt amassed huge (but ineptly led) armies surrounding Israel/Palestine, all of which were soundly (and, I might add, quite embarassingly) defeated by the Israelis. The land occupied during this Six Days War - the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank - has been the fuel for conflict ever since. It's important to remember that the Six Days War was a defensive war - that is, Israel was about to be invaded and eliminated by the Arabs. The war was not a 'land grab' by expansionist Israelis, as it is often purported to be.
So anyway, my point is that the Jews were not foreigners forcibly inserted into an independent state of Palestine by imperialist powers. They were living there already, and there was never an independent Palestinian state. There would have been one, but the Palestinians shot themselves in the foot in their attempt to destroy the Jewish enclaves set aside by the UN.
Also, I feel obliged to point out that your statement about 'the place of Jews in your society' is not entirely fair. There is this odd conception that America is controlled by Jews: how is this possible? Look at the current administration for example: who is Jewish? I think the only semi-prominent Jew in the Bush Administration is Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. As far as I know, he's not responsible for any major decisions. If the claim is instead that Jews are controlling everything 'behind the scenes' (i.e., international Jewish conspiracy), then my only response is that, to put it lightly, that claim lacks evidence. There is certainly a pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. with considerable clout, but I would not claim they have more power than other special interest groups, e.g., the NRA, HCI, NOW, AARP, NAACP, and I never hear claims that the AARP is secretly ruling America. This odd, unproven fear of an international cabal of Jews ruling the world is, I believe, a form of lingering anti-Semitism, and it is no surprise that it is a belief more prevalent in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East than in the U.S.
Next post: Matrix Reloaded!
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 1:11 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Mwahahaha...two more people have been conned into joining the blog seen the light and decided to join our wonderful little blog! Today, the blogosphere...
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 12:27 PM | Permalink |
|
|
oh by the way..ask the iraqi christians if an islamic republic would be better than hussein.
and think about your american ass too :) if i was american..i would not be happy (i don't mean it's worse than hussein but 50-50 is not bad)
big difference : islamists are crazy...hussein, is a psycho but is not crazy,
thus ranteth amelie at 3:35 AM | Permalink |
|
|
george........i agree with the fact that even if the terrorists are a majority we have to fight them.......i just wanted to say that we have to stop accusing all the palestinians or all the muslims for sthg that they are not ALL responsible. netherless when you say that israelis only attacked military points or targets....it scares me but once again..try to read other news paper than the american ones. (considering the place of jews in your society, it can't be objective...but thank god , not all the jews are against the palestinians) and considering the settlements in west bank...fuck the religious right of the holy land, it's the arabs territory for years and the jews don't have the right to claim that land because of fuckin moses or anyone else...
important point : i'm not an antisemite....i still admire the people of isreal for being able to live in a country with a constant threat...and i still would like to blow the face of this fuckin hamas or other groups who put bombs in school buses. the fact is.....there's a problem on both sides and both of them have to make concessions.
considering the war... : let's notice a couple of things : there're still talibans in afghanistan; iraq is far from becoming a democracy..(i'm sorry but the "freedom of living in chaos and being poor" is not freedom, and even as a minority, the shii who want the islamic republic will still be numerous enough to create a mess....and it will be hard to contain them) and finally terrorists attacks continue....even in muslim lands...look at marocco. terrorism is actually growing....a lot of muslims even non radical (i'm sorry to say that but it's true) see all this shit as a war against their culture and their religion and start to admire bin laden..even if they listen to Jay Z or Ja rule :) i say that cause i hear terrible things even in france.
conclusion : progress 0. one day.....americans will have to realize that Mr Bush IS NOT makin things better...but once again......it's criticizing americans cause they're americans but they have to understand once again that not everybody work, think and live like them.
muslim countries (except a couple like turkey) are archaic and traditional societies. they'll change only if they do the change themselves. (i'm sure my dear capitalist appleby agree with me, please give your opinon about that :)
anyway let's talk about sthg cooler : matrix reloaded
i saw it and..........it's better than I expected but i still think it's not as good as the other one : first there's too much action....too many fight scenes, too long
second......all the religious bullshit about neo sucks, now he's like jesus (he was like that a little bit in the 1st one but now it's worse)..people bring him gifts and stuff....sometimes it's like they tell you the story of the fuckin bible !!
good points : the final scene in the source of the matrix is awesome (partly cause they keep on talkin about the philosophy of the movie and they don't fight)
the french actor is hilarious.
keanu reeves is hot.
that's it..i hope you guys saw the movie, tell me about it !
i miss youuuuuuuuuuu
cheese eater
thus ranteth amelie at 3:31 AM | Permalink |
|
|
The Discovery Channel reports on a recent study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, where scientists compared functional DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimpanzees, and came up with a surprisingly small 4 to 7 million year evolutionary distance. There is a tentative proposal to move chimpanzees and bonobo chimpanzees into the genus Homo.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 2:38 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Okay, really late response here...
First of all, keep in mind that majorities in this sort of discussion really don't mean much. It may well be true that there are more Muslim French immigrants that have been successfully assimilated into French society than those that have not, but what does this mean? Even if it's a very large majority, say, nine-to-one, having 10% of the population as unassimilated, dirt-poor, militant, potentially violent, and apparently very well-armed is still a very serious problem. The same goes for the Palestinians: I would assume that terrorists and the assorted nutjobs in their population who want to become suicide bombers are in the minority, but how much does that mean? The sticking point is that the rest of the population is willing to turn a blind eye to this madness, even if they are not personally participating in it. I don't have any statistics on hand with regard to numbers of Palestinians killed per day versus Israelis, but consider that the Palestinian attacks are always targetted at civilians (I can't recall ever having read about Palestinians attacking an Israeli military target; it's always "Palestinian bomber blows himself up in a city bus / crowded restaurant / shopping mall / internet cafe / etc."), whereas Israel's military always seems to be attacking targets with military value. Have you ever read about the Israeli army purposely attacking a shopping mall or a restaurant? I haven't.
I think the bottom line is that the conflict will not end until the Palestinians collectively give up their ambition to push Israel into the sea and their "right of return." Israel is willing to compromise a lot to end the fighting, including cessation of a considerable amount of land and the dismantling of many Jewish settlements in the disputed territories, but they cannot grant concessions that would end the existence of the Israeli state.
I agree with you about the barbarity of the death penalty, but keep in mind that countries may have differing definitions of human rights. The Europeans may see the death penalty as an inexcusable human rights violation, but Americans might see European erosions of freedom of speech or economic freedom as equally serious violations. With regard to this, then, a more meaningful criterion to apply might be to simply exclude countries with a record of frequent and egregious violations of what everyone basically agrees are human rights. For example, North Korea, China, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and so on.
Pinochet was in power for 17 years, if memory serves, and my understanding is that he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, mostly political opponents. Four or five years ago, he was actually stripped of his immunity and tried (in a Spanish court, which seems odd to me) for some of the murders alleged immediately following his military coup. He was acquitted, although that might not mean anything; I understand it was on a technicality. When I say he was no Stalin or Mao, I mean only that he was a garden-variety dictator: he killed people that threatened his rule, and took all necessary steps to ensure that he remained in power. He was not a totalitarian; he did not attempt to control every second of the lives of all the people of Chile. He was not expansionist. He did not attempt to rip apart the fabric of society and put it back together under a delusional 'scientific' form. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands; horrible, but in no way equal to Stalin or Mao, who were responsible for the deaths of something like 80 million people between them.
Didn't know about the temporary workers. How does that change the statistics, if you include that?
My understanding is that the majority of people in Iraq, although Shiite, do not desire to see an Islamic state implemented. They've seen the hell that can cause from Iran's experience with Islamism, and they want no part of it. There is a very vocal minority in Iraq that wants to construct an Islamic republic, but I'm pretty sure they are a small minority. (Even if an Islamic state was implemented, I contend that would still be better than Hussein's state. Just about anything would be preferable to life under Hussein's government.)
As for revolution, recall that Iraq did have a revolution, right after the first Gulf War. It failed, because the revolutionaries were expecting our support and Bush 41 stabbed them in the back, but it happened nonetheless.
Finally, regarding war in Europe. Maybe you're right; pacifism does seem to be in vogue on the Continent. Certainly militarism seems to have died in the old European powers, for which the rest of the world is duly grateful. But it seems to me that many of the old evils are still there, of which anti-Semitism is only the most flagrant example. I don't think another war in the vein of WWII is likely; conditions in the inter-war period were far different from modern-day Europe. The countries of Eastern Europe, while more militarily inclined than their western neighbors, haven't shown any inclination towards conquest. Russia, however, still maintains a (comparably) fearsome military, and judging from their experiences in Chechnya, have no qualms about using it. If the U.S. withdrew its forces from Europe and made it clear that it wasn't going to intervene on the Continent, do you think Russia would invade?
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:44 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Sorry for the lack of posting lately! Finals week was last week, and this week is shell-shocked-from-finals week... =)
Posting should resume normally in the next couple days or so.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 12:21 AM | Permalink |
|
|
"European Big Brother
Six lads, six lasses, the Med
If you're already fed up with the home-grown version of Big Brother (originally Dutch as it happens), why not turn your attention to the new all-European edition: six lads and six lasses between 20 and 30, from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the UK, taking part in the TF1 (Tele France 1) reality TV show "Nice People".
The snappy title comes to us courtesy of the Riviera city of Nice, location of the luxury 450m2 villa (resplendent with gardens, swimming pool, tanning saloon and barbecue) in which our euro-heroes and heroines are 'sweating it' out.
The 'contestants' are certainly a varied lot; There's a glamorous Russian TV star, a Swedish tennis player, a 24-year-old Polish girl, a Belgian student, a 'mysterious' Englishwoman, and a macho Portuguese type for starters.
Go directly to see the contestants gallery
In sum something to cater for every taste, however, if you are expecting a 'hardcore' Big Brother you may be disappointed. At least that's the way the programmers see things. They have spent the last few months scouring Europe's capitals looking for "rare pearls", young and intelligent, sophisticated, spiritually clean and even sexy (well, why not?) without being vulgar of course.
The rules of the game are the same as for the regular national editions though in order to communicate amongst themselves, they have to speak French. Candidates are eliminated by the public acting upon the results of weekly tests carried out with the help of various famous personalities who turn up at the villa. The participants' talents and knowledge are tested through quizzes and artistic or sporting events (traditional dances, cooking, local sport).
The last man or woman standing wins the prize of �300,000, to use as they chose. Not bad for a few weeks on the Med. In order to watch this spectacle you will need to have access to the French TV channel, TF1, which is filming the whole thing 22 hours a day, seven days a week.
How long will we have to wait for the first French kiss�?"
I love this end......it means.........when are they gonna fuck???
considering that the show only attracts 22% of the audience , behind the public channels in prime time, they definitely need their candidated to fuck now!!
i went to the channel's web page : the concept of the show is supposed to erase stereotypes in people's minds....
that's why they chose a hot russian girl with big boobs, a hairy portuguese, a blond tall swedish tennis player, a stupid ans proud french, a weird polish who likes techno and who probably consumes extasy, 2 hot italians to make sure they'll fuck, one ugly red skinned finnish who looks like an alcoholic, etc..etc...
conclusion of this : Is TV a major actor in stereotyping people???? definitely YES
if you want to see their faces :
http://europe.tiscali.se/lifestyle/report/200304/big_brother/lasses.html
thus ranteth amelie at 6:03 PM | Permalink |
|
|
i'm sure that when appleby reads that kind of stuffs to himself, he has an orgasm ....:)
his ultimate fantasy : adam smith :)
thus ranteth amelie at 10:02 PM | Permalink |
|
|
The primary purpose of government is to protect private property, including but not excluded to the civil rights, body and mind, and legal possessions of an individual, and this said property of an individual should never be placed before the property of another. Property of an individual should never be forcefully taken or devalued on behalf of others unless aquired by an unlawful infringement upon another individual's private property.
-The Articles of Capitalism
thus ranteth Scott Phauks at 1:55 PM | Permalink |
|
|
concerning the economy...it's true that it's very bad, though...it's does not correspond to the title which is something like "france is over" or farewell france"
second, you should try to find your sources outside of the US media : the majority of immigrants in france are assimilated....pbls are always caused by minorities
as for the palestians.....the terrorists are less numerous than the ones who want a peaceful resolution
and they don't commit more atrocities than israelis..in reality..there'rre much more palestinians killed everyday than israelis, due to their now popular "preemptive" responses......
not to mention that israelis are occupying palestinians territories in west bank, so don't put the blame only on the palestininas cause in that case it's 50-50...both side have never been able to respect each other's integrity. A big part of the israelis, mostly jewish liberals...have the same opinion and consider sharon as an asshole at the same level than Arafat.
the US is only supported isreal cause of the powerful jewish lobbyists that have power in the gov.
Israel, with the help of the US, has NEVER been punished although they never complied to any UN resolution.
i do agree than the UN sucks........they're not severe enough with the human rights.criteria....too many countries are in it and they're ruled by dictators. but if they had serious criteria, like the ones the EU uses for the human right respect, i think even the US could not be into!! considering for ex that they're the only country with saudi arabia or quatar...that execute children (teenagers) under the dealth penalty.
i think that as long each country will continue to protect it's own interests, the UN will never be respected..cause that's what it's supposed to be : acting for the common interest of the nations.
third, Pinochet is stalin or mao.......i think he did not stay so many years in power so he did not have time to kill so many people maybe :) . if you consider a dictator with the numbers of people he killed..in that case, hitler he not as bad as staline!!!! pinochet was placed by the US gov. although a democratically elected gov. was elected, same thing in Iran, after the elected pdt was kicked out cause he wanted to nationalized the petrol ind. so that the people could have benefits and So that the US companies did not take advantage of it.
for the employement, in france..temporary workers are counted in the unemployed......not in the US
(that's why the rate is low in the US, cause a lot of workers are temporary workers)
finally......there won't be any war in europe.....
first.......our culture rejects war, our generation has been fed up by all the wars our gds parents experienced....the US have never been invaded by someone else....protected by these two oceans, they'll never know what it is to see, or to be told'( for our generation) that you're country was in ruin..soldiers are not seen as heroes,nobody wants to go to the army :) and our army sucks
second..what you see on american TV is that europeans are divided....our gvt are definitely divided....not the people...We share a common culture and common ideas and the majority of europeans follow the same idea about the war on Iraq. especially now when we see the result of afghanistan, where the majority is still under the control of the talibans and in Iraq......we're glad to see hussein gone but now we just see chaos and the shii becoming more violent. they're the majority and they will fight to implement an islamic republic..(.which IS NOT a democracy and not better than hussein.....) and I do'nt know how the US are gonna deal with that unless choosing the future gov.. which would probably be kicked out by a shii revolution until an islamic rep. will be built.
I believe that maybe countries should throw away their own shit...isn't that what every democracy did?? revolution is the only way to kick out a dictator and put a democracy according to OUR culture and beliefs.
i still think that industralized countries don't respect these cultural differences. not everybody is made for capitalism or western way of life.. that's the pbl and iraq : as long as people will be too close to ISLAM they'll be no democracy cause a religious state is not democratic. that's they're culture..nothing will be done as long as people won't become secular.
to finish with "war in europe", our institutions, soon our constitution, make war impossible. We're protected by our common goal. do you think a war could start between calif and New Jersey??
i believe in the EU, it's a wonderful cooperation....we have a lot of things to do still and many pbls but our dark past is over.
I do believe in the European identity, although we're still different, but since i'm in the US, i do see more difference between us and you .
thus ranteth amelie at 9:49 PM | Permalink |
|
|
First off, before you bash American intellectuals, remember that a number of those articles were written by either Brits or Frenchmen...
I'm not sure what to make of the statistical disparity between your comment (and I assume you would know) and the author's comment on literacy; is it possible that the 99% statistic is not entirely inclusive? Even granting that you are correct about this, this does not address the other (in my opinion, more serious) issues raised in the original article: extremely high unemployment, minimal growth rate, the aging of the population, high rates of unassimilated immigrants. The U.S. economy is in a slump (as is the rest of the world), of course, but my understanding is that it is doing considerably better than those of France and Germany, where restrictive regulations and labor laws weigh heavily.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that France and Germany belong on the rhetorical 'Axis of Evil.' Keep in mind that Europe has been equally intransigent about cracking down on the Palestinians, who are surely responsible for more atrocities than the Israelis, as America has been about defending Israel, and that while the U.S. certainly has lent its support to an appalling array of murderous dictators, this was done in the name of fighting Communist expansionism. Whatever you may think of Pinochet, he was no Stalin or Mao.
The trouble is not simply that France, Germany, and Russia sold weapons to Saddam's regime, of which, as you correctly point out, the U.S. is equally guilty, but rather that they sold them weapons in violation of UN resolutions while simultaneously clamoring for the 'peaceful disarmament' of the regime. Nor is it simply a matter of weapons sales: it has come out that Russia placed its intelligence services at Iraq's disposal and offered them use of Russia's assassins available for work in the West. The duplicity goes deeper than I would have liked to believe.
As for the double-standard you mention...yes, it exists. It's monstrously unfair. But at the same time, it is a sad fact that dictators and evil regimes control much of the world. What can be done about this? The UN is corrupt and impotent and impossibly divided, indecisive. It represents dictatorships and repressive regimes with as much force as the free democracies of the world. Libya is the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. The UN stood aside and watched at Srebrenica and Rwanda. Its members scream and condemn in the strongest terms at the U.S. invasion - and let us be frank, liberation; the people of Iraq danced in the streets when the U.S. soldiers arrived - of Iraq but stay silent at the Chinese government's occupation of Tibet, of Sudanese slavery, of French colonialism in the Ivory Coast, of the Castro regime's execution and imprisonment of political dissidents, of Palestinian atrocities against Israeli civilians, of Mugabe's brutal repression of the Zimbabweans, and on and on and on. The UN clearly cannot be trusted with the task of bringing some measure of justice to the oppressed people of the world, so the task falls to the U.S. The double-standard has to exist, because the alternative is to allow these thugocracies around the world to continue to oppress their own people and threaten their neighbors.
U.S. hegemony might suck, but it seems to me to be the best of a range of pretty awful choices. And I wonder, if the U.S. was to relinquish this role, how long would it be before Europe once more exploded into war? Without U.S. power to constrain them, how long would the mighty armies of China and Russia be held at bay?
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 11:33 PM | Permalink |
|
|
The wonderful State of Georgia:A year after holding their first integrated prom, some students at Taylor County High School have decided to again hold a separate, private party for whites only.
While many whites say they still plan to attend next week's integrated prom, the decision to hold the whites-only prom this Friday saddened senior Gerica McCrary, who helped organize last year's dance. Appalling. Absolutely appalling. (Hat tip: Amaravati.)
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 10:00 PM | Permalink |
|
|
your eggs story is scary...... would it be the end of the woman kind?? :)
thus ranteth amelie at 9:17 PM | Permalink |
|
|
thanx for your articles dude but a lot of them suck !! :)
before you read this remember it's not directed to you :) because i'll be very direct
only 2 articles are good...the others are full of crap......non argumented, hypocrites and very scary
most of them illustrate perfectly the fact that americans "intellectual" don't know what's goin on in France, they think their ideal of Democracy is the only one valuable for the humanity,
ex : "Economically speaking, France is decaying, full speed. Unemployment is�officially around ten per cent. If you add the people who have never worked�and so are not counted for the statistics, and also add the students who study nothing� useful, the right number would be way above fifteen per cent. Growth rate is now officially around one per cent, and it includes government activities: if the government component was not included, it would be easy to see that France is in depression.� Her population is growing old, and no money is available to take care of the large number of senior citizens in the years to come. The greater part of� young people are Muslim, not integrated with French society, and almost illiterate."
where did they find that crap??, it's just stupid...france is not afghanistan, thank you and I think in terms of economy, the US has more risks than we have. Algerians illiterate???? France has a literacy rate of 99%, our schools are free which makes it easier for everybody to be educated......and most of our immigrants have high schools degree...(which equal probably a 2 year college student in the US, considering that our educational system is more complicated)
another hypocrisy (referring to the fact that france and Germany sold weapon to iraq)
"The degree of fury this would cause in the American people should not be underestimated, and it would become politically impossible for the US government to continue to treat either nation in a friendly manner. Our relations with them would come to resemble those we have with China if not being worse."
what the fuck is that?? treachery?? daddy's punishing the bad kids?? just imagine that we had stop relationships with the US everytime they had done sthg like that : for ex :
for the numbers of veto the US put in the security council to protect israel from the Un sanctions because of its atrocities on the palestinians
for all the assholes they supported : Pinochet, hussein, bin laden, shah of Iran, sharon, etc.........
i do agree that F and G have sold weapons in iraq, not to mention all the fuckin dictators we support in africa
I just think it's the biggest hypocrisy to put these 2 countries in the US's fuckin axis of evil cause they did what every industrialized country with int'l power do!!! not to mention that the US has also SOLD weapons to iraq...just retrace the past of the butcher Rumsfeld
now these idiot journalists should imagine the reaction of an average european to that kind of comment : it will be stupidly argument but legitimate, even if it's easier said than done :" why the laws in this world always apply to everybody except the US? why when an another country protecting its interests is evil (which is true though) but when the US do it, it's" protecting" the world and legitimate?? I'm sorry but we don't give a shit about the Us interests....of course the US are pissed off when we disagree with them..but they'll have to understand that it's a reciprocity system.
I hate sayin this but this is the kind of mentality I hate in this country.......and whatever americans think, we'll never treat them like that.
I do recognize that the US has often protected us and i'm thankful for it but it was never free and i hate this emotional shit such as "we're bringin good all around the world"
they also have to understand that as the first power in this world they have a duty , not rights. the world is a jungle and i do understand that the americans do what they think it's the best for us..they just have to understand that the ones who are not americans don't give a shit. :)
so m
thus ranteth amelie at 6:15 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Can men produce eggs?The work undermines the standard model of parenthood because the scientists made egg cells not only from female cells, but also from male cells, indicating that even males have the biological capacity to make eggs.
If the science holds true in humans as in mice -- and several scientists said they suspect it will -- then a gay male couple might, before long, be able to produce children through sexual reproduction, with one man contributing sperm and the other fresh eggs bearing his own genes. Very interesting. (Hat tip: Cold Fury.)
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:59 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Michael Mealling over at RocketForge (who, like me, is regretting not having attended Space Access '03 but is eagerly gobbling up information about it) takes the words right out of my mouth:I've been going to the IETF since '92 which means I've seen the Internet change a hell of a lot over the past 12 years. The one thing that sticks in my mind is the Houston meeting (November '93). I was in the terminal room when the guys from UIUC came in and started to demo their new web browser (at the time this wasn't a big deal because gopher had a much higher adoption rate). The one thing that caught my eye was the fact that it had pictures. And then Tim Berners-Lee came into the room and proceeded to watch the demo (he didn't like the IMG tag very much). It was at that moment that I felt something. It wasn't buzz or hype or anything like that. It was just a quiet, but very rapid build up of human potential energy. I told myself to remember that feeling.
I got that same feeling hearing about the things that happened this past weekend. And I don't intend on missing out on it again. Well said.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:10 PM | Permalink |
|
|
Scientists have sequenced the genome of the SARS virus, which they now say is a coronavirus with a genetic structure sufficiently unusual that exploitation of previously existing coronavirus vaccines probably will not result in a vaccine for SARS.
thus ranteth Pericles v. 2.0 at 3:57 PM | Permalink |
|
|
|
