tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post3906277926755040209..comments2024-03-18T21:52:45.757-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: A Tsunami of Science Fiction ShowsDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13963215763657592012016-01-21T07:53:21.061-08:002016-01-21T07:53:21.061-08:00Yes, we've moved onward. Still, that Jedi stuf...Yes, we've moved onward. Still, that Jedi stuff...<br /><br />Assuming that the top Jedi know that two sensitives procreating creates very powerful sensitives, and assuming that's why they do not allow Jedi to have children, makes them even more righteous pricks than before.<br /><br />Because the next generation would take over relatively quickly. And the top guys never want to give up power.<br /><br />But it's still flawed. At some point, and untrained sensitive will figure stuff out, and apply it. At which point the monopoly falls apart.raitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34585104079709502772016-01-20T17:09:33.429-08:002016-01-20T17:09:33.429-08:00Daniel the problem with Three Body is that he coul...Daniel the problem with Three Body is that he could not maintain the western-dynamism after book II. (Which is even better!)<br /><br />Book II returns a bit to Asiatic grouchiness. But still terrific stuff.<br /><br /><br />And now onward!<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwadDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76352801302386498092016-01-20T16:58:22.571-08:002016-01-20T16:58:22.571-08:00Late to the party.
Just finished "The Three ...Late to the party.<br /><br />Just finished "The Three Body Problem" by Cixin Liu.<br /><br />Freaking brilliant!<br /><br />This and the rest of the trilogy must be made into a mini series.<br /><br />But can a Chinese-centric story find a Western audience?DPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07087941506162882852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72942319108402746212016-01-20T16:48:35.102-08:002016-01-20T16:48:35.102-08:00Talking about "The Frontier"
It is not j...Talking about "The Frontier"<br />It is not just the North American continent - there is something about that time in history as well<br /><br />The USA still has vast stretches that could be "homesteaded" - there are some minor bureaucratic issues but you could buy a piece of land and go to it<br /><br />As does NZ - but I didn't and only a tiny tiny number of people will go down that route<br /><br />Effectively there is still a "Frontier" - but nobody takes advantage of itduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32071244925699900092016-01-20T16:15:31.779-08:002016-01-20T16:15:31.779-08:00Great Britain isn't far enough away. This is e...Great Britain isn't far enough away. This is easily seen by asking is the US more like England, Scotland, Wales, or Ireland. We'd look a little confused and answer "Yes".<br /><br />Others have floated a concept called 'The Anglosphere' to help distinguish one particular part of The West. The point David is making applies across most of the anglosphere.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29067498776177009952016-01-20T15:56:07.835-08:002016-01-20T15:56:07.835-08:00Catfish N Cod:
Larry: It's a retcon Lucas cho...Catfish N Cod:<br /><i><br />Larry: It's a retcon Lucas chose to make. <br /></i><br /><br />Sure. I was simply explaining that one can enjoy the original Star Wars without having to turn off the part of the brain that worships feudalism. One simply has to turn off the part of the brain that thinks about the sequels. Of (if one is of a certain age) remember what it was like before the sequels.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24970918507089804812016-01-20T15:36:33.100-08:002016-01-20T15:36:33.100-08:00Paul 451: Eh, that always seemed clear to me despi...Paul 451: Eh, that always seemed clear to me despite Palpy's whispers. What would be the equivalent... hmm...<br /><br /><i>A multinational corporation hires a private navy to blockade a small, prosperous, peaceful community -- Nantucket, MA, or Santa Catalina Island, CA -- and tries to extort favorable tax and regulatory policy by force. The President is too beholden to special interests to intervene and Congress prefers to debate technical points of law. A Supreme Court challenge will take too long. The mercenaries begin rounding up citizens from their homes as further pressure...</i><br /><br />Hell yes the Republic is weak and corrupt. <br /><br />Larry: It's a retcon Lucas chose to make. <br /><br />Robert: <i> The thing to recall about Star Wars (the first) is that when Ben Kenobi was offering to teach Han the ways of the Force... he could very well have been saying "you are a Force-Sensitive, and I can bring that potential out if you let me."</i><br /><br />It is very, very easy to imagine that the Jedi and Sith had strict entrance criteria, and that a significant chunk of the galaxy could be using hedge-witch level Force tricks if knowledge of the Force hadn't been locked up by elitist organizations. One character in the new movie hints at this being the case.<br /><br />David: Oh, Card <i>wants</i> Ender to be an ubermensch. It's just that I think in this case he fails. He could have been one but he's too broken to have even my respect, much less my loyalty. I read it for the worldbuilding, and to me the main character of the series is Jane the AI.<br /><br />On whom else did the "white privilege" argument work? Great Britain. But that may not be far enough away in social space for you.Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-731593829634670982016-01-20T13:59:02.983-08:002016-01-20T13:59:02.983-08:00@LarryHart: It’s worth listening to a podcast at E...@LarryHart: It’s worth listening to a podcast at EconTalk.org to hear Munger describe the term he is trying to coin. He points out that some kinds of trade are formally forbidden by a super-majority of us even when everyone involved seems willing. He goes on to ponder why and to explore the boundary between what is forbidden and what is tolerated. He also went another step and asked what the traders could do IN ADVANCE that would convince everyone else to tolerate their desires.<br /><br />Consider the market for human kidneys. The vast majority of us don’t tolerate kidney sales, but we will look the other way for kidney donations. Why? It can’t be just that a rich buyer and a poor seller are imbalanced when they face each other to establish a price because we won’t accept brokered deals either. A broker who earns a percentage of the sale price CAN walk away from a trade with a rich buyer, but few of us will consider this to be good enough. Why? What virtue applies here to overrule Prudence? Obviously economics isn’t complete if the only virtue considered is prudence.<br /><br />Munger’s example study involved a ship’s captain selling an extra anchor to a ship at sea that had lost theirs. Obviously the seller can exploit the buyer, but is there any arrangement the two could strike where we would not be tempted to regulate their trade to prevent price gouging? Munger things there is.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72368259378913613832016-01-20T13:40:28.447-08:002016-01-20T13:40:28.447-08:00@Paul451: The libertarian within me wonders if I h...@Paul451: The libertarian within me wonders if I have to pay for the session on your couch. 8) Your analysis is fairly close, so let me offer some information to help refine it.<br /><br />My stint as a ‘conventional’ employee was brief. I felt that the employer wanted to abuse me. They wanted me to surrender my intelligence and believe that their view was the correct one. I already had my PhD at that point and was just trying to put together a temporary income while I looked for academic work. I say this to point out that I had a fully developed ego by then, so I didn’t put up with the fool I had as a boss. I was on to a better arrangement within a week of my realization. I HAVE worked for other bosses who see things in a ‘conventional’ way, but I can tolerate them if they don’t ask for my surrender. My current employer gets that, so there is no issue. I can believe what I want about being a specialist (I do try to be) and they get value from me in exchange for my time.<br /><br />I have three siblings. One tends to strive to be a specialist and most of their income would be considered as self-employment or a partner’s share. Another straddles the fence while the third lives in your conventional world. I CAN conceive of problems associated with conventional employment (wage slavery) because I see them through my sibling’s eyes. I also see how to avoid some of them through my sibling’s eyes. It takes courage to walk away from those who would enslave us because we lose the security that comes with being owned and told what to do. I wish more people understood, though, that the risk is worth the reward.<br /><br />I can see how there is value in the commons, but I can also see value in dividing it up as private property sometimes. People do the strangest thing when they think they own something. They use it as best they can to benefit their offspring. In a free market, though, that effort can wind up benefiting everyone’s offspring even when the owner did not intend it. The Market itself is a commons of a sort, so my objection to people regulating it is similar to my object to them taking private ownership of it. I want both concepts to thrive where they make sense and don’t trust ANYONE who thinks they are the best judge of what makes sense. Show me social consensus and I’ll budge, however, because I DO believe in the wisdom of crowds.<br /><br />I have no doubt you are on the mark when you wonder about my experience base and wonder if much of the US is like that. I believe that to be correct, but it isn’t really blindness on my part. I’m a firm believer in the Enlightenment principles you’ll find in the written works of men like Adam Smith, David Hume, and F.A. Hayek. (There are many others, but be careful about adding French and German authors.) I’ve seen with my own eyes the value of protecting someone else’s liberty even when they don’t agree. I know many people (even Americans) don’t see things as I do, but that’s the beauty of living here. I don’t get squashed for my minority opinion. The philosophy you are describing, though, is Liberalism in its early form. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19673192566246070422016-01-20T12:59:44.269-08:002016-01-20T12:59:44.269-08:00The thing to recall about Star Wars (the first) is...The thing to recall about Star Wars (the first) is that when Ben Kenobi was offering to teach Han the ways of the Force... he could very well have been saying "you are a Force-Sensitive, and I can bring that potential out if you let me." It may even have been that Han wasn't THAT much of a Force-Sensitive... but just enough that he was "lucky" far too often.<br /><br />This would help explain why Ben Solo was in fact so powerful. He was the child of two Force-Sensitives, one of whom was the Skywalker bloodline. <br /><br />That said, the thought that anyone could be taught the ways of the Force is heartening somehow. It says "we all are special and any of us can be taught how to become a Jedi." <br /><br />Screw the prequel trilogy and the mitochondria-wannabe organisms. We choose how to interpret the stories we read and view. We can thus choose that anyone can be Jedi... which is something young children playing with padded sticks and glowing plastic tubes already know when they pretend to be Jedi.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17199778348783504472016-01-20T12:50:07.963-08:002016-01-20T12:50:07.963-08:00Dr Brin:
in the 1977 SW flick Kenobi offer to tea...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />in the 1977 SW flick Kenobi offer to teach it to Han! None of this ubermensch demigod crap/. Yet. <br /></i><br /><br />Exactly.<br /><i><br />Only note that Palpatine comes from the same ruling caste and same planet as Amadala and Anekin’s mom was on the refueling stop from Naboo to Coruscant and was presumably abandoned there by another Nabooan. Face it. The Galaxy is nearly destroyed by members of the same mutant human family.<br /></i><br /><br />But again, none of that was even hinted at in the first movie.<br /><br />When "Star Wars" was made into "The Star Wars Saga", it became something other than what it had been. And to quote Dave Sim, this represented a kind of reverse alchemy, turning gold into lead.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21223566722856316922016-01-20T12:42:15.008-08:002016-01-20T12:42:15.008-08:00Catfish, sorry, OS Card does not know how to have ...Catfish, sorry, OS Card does not know how to have a major series protagonist who is NOT a chosen one demigod. Ender is indeed a classic exemplar, Nietzchean in all ways… except so theatrical in his morally superior soulfulness and extravagantly expressed empathy that readers so WANT him to just take over and be in charge.<br /><br />Paul, looking across history, name for me another time when a core of privileged elites so willingly allowed themselves to be guilt-tripped by terms like “white privilege.” Sure, the past is not our only moral litmus. There’s also the future, and we can envision one where there is not such thing, anymore. And compared to that future, yes, today’s white males – even liberals – might be judged insufficiently vigorous in reform. We need BOTH directionalities for moral comparison. Why do you think I am in science fiction?<br /><br />“Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.” -Frederick Douglass<br /><br />Still, watch FRONTIER HOUSE to see that homesteading was not as easy as perhaps you imply.<br /><br />Jim Baca I have SO much better uses of lifespan than watching that super-fun-violent adolescent wet dream again, lacking even a single calorie for anything adult within me, nr a single lesson worth learning. But go wallow, if you like. Enjoy!<br /><br />LarryHart… in the 1977 SW flick Kenobi offer to teach it to Han! None of this ubermensch demigod crap/. Yet. Only note that Palpatine comes from the same ruling caste and same planet as Amadala and Anekin’s mom was on the refueling stop from Naboo to Coruscant and was presumably abandoned there by another Nabooan. Face it. The Galaxy is nearly destroyed by members of the same mutant human family.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49974595291737811372016-01-20T12:24:58.350-08:002016-01-20T12:24:58.350-08:00Paul451:
Looking at the familiar argument between...Paul451:<br /><i><br />Looking at the familiar argument between LarryHart and Alfred Differ, it seems that their experiences have so strongly dictate their philosophies that they cannot even agree on the meaning of the words they use. <br /></i><br /><br />Funny, I don't see Alfred and myself as all that far apart. When he clarifies his position, I usually find myself nodding in agreement, going something like "Ok, as long as you're saying <b>that</b> and not <b>THAT</b>."<br /><br />I like the fact that he recognizes there are some "trades" one side really can't walk away from, and therefore, are not fair trades. I don't mind carving out separate rules for that kind of trade and leaving the other kind alone. I also think health care falls under that kind of trade, same as the police and fire department when you really need them.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12673104447372180722016-01-20T12:18:07.452-08:002016-01-20T12:18:07.452-08:00Catfish N Cod:
I accept the criticism and rephras...Catfish N Cod:<br /><i><br />I accept the criticism and rephrase. The Republic does nothing to defend itself that is not initiated and led by Force sensitives.<br /><br />...this is a common historical trope. Oh! And the Emperor is also Force-sensitive!<br /></i><br /><br />Just pointing out that all of that is basically a retcon. The original 1977 movie had no sense at all that the Emperor was supernatural. Darth Vader was the only character on the Death Star to show any signs of Force powers, and none of the others took his supernatural powers seriously. General Tarkin, who was not supernatural at all, ordered Vader around like a lackey (and Vader obeyed him like one as well).<br /><br />Vader and Ben Kenobi were both treated by their respective sides as tolerated but outdated relics of a bygone age that perhaps never really was.<br /><br />And except for the nascent power Ben taught Luke to apply, <b>no</b> one else in the movie used the Force, or even tried to.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75039742221416674092016-01-20T12:11:54.484-08:002016-01-20T12:11:54.484-08:00Catfish N Cod:
Larry: I think there's more th...Catfish N Cod:<br /><i><br />Larry: I think there's more than one Law of Corpratics, but that's definitely the First Law according to the present pernicious paradigm. May I use that? It's perfect.<br /></i><br /><br />Feel free.<br /><br />There are several past discussions on this site concerning an attempt at casting Three Laws of Corporatics after Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (and for similar reasons as Asimov's). I believe one of those discussions was the very first post of 2015. An earlier one is in Dr Brin's Ayn Rand post of...I want to say late 2011.<br /><br />Without rehashing too much (and very much a work in progress):<br /><br />First Law: A corporation may not impose externalities upon its community without fair compensation<br /><br />Second Law: A corporation must act to fulfill its mission statement to the extent that doing so does not violate the First Law.<br /><br />Third Law: A corporation must maintain its own viability to the extent that doing so does not violate the First and Second Laws.<br /><br />Obviously, this is wishful thinking on my part, not claiming that such laws do govern corporations, but that they should. In the world where I am king, the Three Laws would be legally <b>presumed</b> to be part of any corporate charter.<br /><br />To put them even more simply:<br /><br />First Law: Don't make us sorry we chartered you.<br />Second Law: Do what we chartered you for.<br />Third Law: Respect the constraints of reality<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52374606070893055432016-01-20T09:42:08.384-08:002016-01-20T09:42:08.384-08:00Paul451,
With regard to NA expansion, there's...Paul451,<br /><br />With regard to NA expansion, there's always the Laura Ingalls stuff to be read. In particular, her accounts of how Pa Ingalls carved out that homestead you speak of. How many people in NA today could do the same? And why or why not?<br /><br />I'll agree that the whole 'pioneer' thing is pretty unique to NA.<br /><br />But it also presupposes a frontier. And these days, there isn't, to my knowledge, that sort of frontier available to the average person.<br /><br />Yes, even on the frontier it's very difficult to be completely self-sufficient. But it is possible to minimize contact with civilization. Which I think is part of the point.<br /><br />And actually and amusingly, the 'pioneer' thing also happened in Japan, but on a much smaller scale, and a long time ago.raitonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81968122923652670612016-01-20T08:35:16.505-08:002016-01-20T08:35:16.505-08:00And that mission is saying that the New Mad Max mo...<i> And that mission is saying that the New Mad Max movie was really good.</i><br /><br />...and that's why HAL went crazy. :)A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54493166116804029742016-01-20T08:20:20.492-08:002016-01-20T08:20:20.492-08:00I haven't watched (or read) TWD, so maybe ther...<i>I haven't watched (or read) TWD, so maybe there's an in-universe justification, but that explanation never made sense. If everyone is already infected by the zombie-pathogen, why are mere zombie bites still dangerous? (And why does amputation of a bitten limb prevent zombification.) Is there a second pathogen that prematurely activates the first? Or are zombie bites independently toxic, causing death and hence reanimation?</i><br /><br />I haven't read the comics, but as far as I know, there is no explanation given, much less one that makes sense. But then there is no plausible explanation for zombies anyway. When you consider humans as a group of cells with an elaborate system for feeding those cells, zombies simply wouldn't work. You need a constant stream of materials to supply energy to the cells. Dead people don't have those systems--and any disruption of the system, like by shooting or beheading the zombie, would destroy any remanent of those system--and so their cells would quickly stop functioning. The only way a zombie could keep going as depicted is if they have a huge store of materials and/or energy in practically every cells. They would be biological perpetual motion machines! :)<br /><br />So, like dragons or magic or FTL, they are simply a given in a story. And so is the rule of being bitten kills you. I'm sure there are some hand-waving explanations out there, but like zombies, nothing that will survive close scrutiny.A.F. Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47098200502691885342016-01-20T07:39:31.833-08:002016-01-20T07:39:31.833-08:00Sorry Dave, but I can't let you endanger this ...Sorry Dave, but I can't let you endanger this mission. And that mission is saying that the New Mad Max movie was really good. Go watch it again.<br />Jim Bacahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14019944863771287149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76370091109738382702016-01-20T06:47:57.776-08:002016-01-20T06:47:57.776-08:00cont.
And I wonder if the entire US is a bit like...cont.<br /><br />And I wonder if the entire US is a bit like that. Has the utterly unique experience (and mythology) of US settlement created an ideal of society that is fundamentally unsuited to anywhere else in the world (and an ideal of settlement that is utterly unsuited to anywhere else in the solar system, see below)?<br /><br />Outside of a few deserts and below the Arctic circle, North America may be one of the easiest and softest continents in the world. Fertile, resource rich, benign. Emptied of most rival humans by disease. (But left partially cultivated by of those prior humans, essentially an abandoned farm rather than a wilderness. Post-post-apocalypse.) Vast grasslands with <i>feet-thick</i> fertile soil.(**) Broad open forests filled with abundant game. Continuous running streams freakin' <i>everywhere</i>.<br /><br />(** I live on a continent where, on most farmland, you can brush away the top two <i>inches</i> of soil and see a colour change as you reach bare regolith.)<br /><br />In the Midwest, particularly, a small urban-raised 18th and early 19th century family group with just the supplies in a single wagon could go well beyond the current edge of settlement and carve out a homestead. A more experienced individual could take a few iron tools and go beyond the current edge of settlement and survive indefinitely off the land.<br /><br />Nowhere else in the world is like that. Not even Africa, the land in which our species actually <i>evolved</i>.<br /><br />Hence this idea of "not suffering" an obligation to society can only exist, can only arise, in America. And the creation of a whole philosophy around the idea that society is optional (a series of voluntary trades) can only exist, can only arise, in America.<br /><br />Recently I saw a discussion on the idea of colonising Venus (buoyant cloud cities) and when discussing motivations for colonising Venus, one of the commenters made the oft-used and very American argument that people will want to go to "get away from the bureaucrats". And reading it, I nearly choked on my cereal. There's no place on a floating freakin' city for "rugged individualists". If you... to use Alfred's terms... "will not suffer" others imposing familial-like obligations upon you to those around you, then you will quickly be invited to step-through-that-hatch.<br /><br />As much as I loved Heinlein as a kid, it's hard to imagine any space settlement resembling the European expansion across Nth America. No self-reliant rockhounds, armed only with a one-man torch-ship and a slide-rule, making their fortunes amongst the asteroids. No Tom Sawyer-like juvenile adventures across Mars or Venus. No salvaged spaceship crammed with a dozen inexperienced settlers and minimal supplies escaping from Earth and landing on a bare patch of the moon and creating a town from nothing but spit and moxie.<br /><br />The irony is that this uniquely American myth is the reason so many of us support the idea of settling space, while being completely incompatible with the actuality of settling space.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62155820595801874932016-01-20T06:47:12.673-08:002016-01-20T06:47:12.673-08:00This... wanders a bit...
Looking at the familiar ...This... wanders a bit...<br /><br />Looking at the familiar argument between LarryHart and Alfred Differ, it seems that their experiences have so strongly dictate their philosophies that they cannot even agree on the meaning of the words they use. Larry has occasionally stated that, due to health issues, he has long been dependent on the society around him. From Alfred's previous comments, it's clear that he never has. He apparently has never been a conventional employee, he's always been a specialist in a field where he really is "trading" his skill with employers. For him, work is no different than myself and the plumber I hire, entering a clear trade. <br /><br />Unusually for a libertarian, Alfred can conceive of someone being so excluded by the owners of resources that it becomes morally just (and just plain inevitable) that this person would steal the resources he needs and/or harm the resource-owners. What he can't conceive of, it seems, is that the vast majority of people live in a slower, less extreme version of that trap.<br /><br />Similarly, he can't really see a value in the commons, only that it <i>has been valued</i> for so long. So he accept the idea, but isn't comfortably with it. He can blithely talk of employment being "trade" because he's never experienced a life where employment was closer to feudal dependency. He can conceive of such a dependency only as an abstract intellectual exercise, it isn't real, it doesn't have consequences. Hence he is actually offended by the idea that he should have (should "suffer") obligations beyond family (and, grudgingly, the barest minimum conformity to the law, but only if agreed by 90% of people.) Because for his life, there really is nothing in between those three: Family, genuinely voluntary trade, and the grudgingly accepted law.<br /><br />It's not elitism or arrogance. I don't see Alfred in any way as a bad person. Nothing like Locumranch, for example. It's like the difference between "white privilege" and racism, or "male privilege" and sexism. It's not vindictive, it's not a hatred of The Other, it's a simple blindness to their own privilege, that the world just doesn't work for other people the way it does for them. I'm struck by this whenever I talk to libertarians, the sense that they really do live in an alternative reality, one that is not only not shared by anyone else, but where they can't understand that it isn't shared by everyone else.<br />Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-36507232209768987912016-01-20T06:23:01.032-08:002016-01-20T06:23:01.032-08:00"Why why why why WHY can't you show the R...<i>"Why why why why WHY can't you show the Republic doing something defense-related of its own accord? Even if it's wimpy and insufficient??"</i><br /><br />Or at least show a realistic corruption and weakness of the system. Particularly, corruption and weakness being manipulated by Palpatine (and his Ep7 replacements).<br /><br />We are <i>told</i> by Palpatine that the Republic is corrupt and weak, but what we see is... nothing. The entire galaxy consists of 8-10 people and a few trillion zombies in their dormant phase.<br /><br />In even the lamest filmic depiction of the corruption of turn-of-the-millennium Rome, we are <i>shown</i> the decadence of the elite; even if it's in the most stereotyped ways.<br /><br />Only in the original Star Wars (aka ep4) was there even a hint of larger matters in the galaxy. Leia's "the Senate will not tolerate such...", and Vader's mocking response; the pre-existence of a rebellion that Luke/Han join. The prequels have nothing.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76454617710041693232016-01-20T06:10:41.437-08:002016-01-20T06:10:41.437-08:00David Jordan,
"In the case of The Walking Dea...David Jordan,<br /><i>"In the case of The Walking Dead, there's a reveal that makes it pretty much ensures the dead will keep rising (though in smaller numbers)."</i><br /><br />I haven't watched (or read) TWD, so maybe there's an in-universe justification, but that explanation never made sense. If everyone is already infected by the zombie-pathogen, why are mere zombie bites still dangerous? (And why does amputation of a bitten limb prevent zombification.) Is there a second pathogen that prematurely activates the first? Or are zombie bites independently toxic, causing death and hence reanimation?Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59447174255083782382016-01-20T05:57:51.595-08:002016-01-20T05:57:51.595-08:00Larry: I think there's more than one Law of Co...Larry: I think there's more than one Law of Corpratics, but that's definitely the First Law according to the present pernicious paradigm. May I use that? It's perfect.<br /><br />Laurent:<br /><i>The Galactic Republic allowed trillions of sentient beings from multiple different species to prosper in peace for a millennia. You call that Nothing?</i><br /><br />I accept the criticism and rephrase. The Republic does nothing <b>to defend itself</b> that is not initiated and led <b>by Force sensitives</b>. <br /><br />* The so-called "Grand Army of the Republic" consists of the Jedi Order as senior officers/commandos and the clones as grunts. Only a few local volunteers (Hi Chewie!) break up the image of a Republic that is letting mercenaries do the dirty work while the galactic population lazes. And they pay the price: the clones are loyal to Palpatine, not the Jedi or the Republic, and cheerfully <i>coup d'etat</i>. Rome, the Mamelukes, the Mandarins, this is a common historical trope. Oh! And the Emperor is <i>also</i> Force-sensitive!<br /><br />* The Rebellion, in turn, has a few other political leaders, but the driving force portrayed in the classic films is Princess Leia. <i>Another Force sensitive</i>, even if she wanders around for two movies unaware of it. And here she is in the new film, <b>---CENSORED---</b> still, while the Republic is only good for <b>---CENSORED---</b>.<br /><br />Why why why why WHY can't you show the Republic doing something defense-related of its own accord? Even if it's wimpy and insufficient??<br /><br />=========<br /><br />I never thought Ender was an ubermensch in any sense of the word. He was a man with "certain talents" (a: intuitive comprehension of alternative, even non-human, viewpoints and b: explosive, tactically brilliant violence) who was manipulated into the most extreme use of those talents, and then regretted the "decision" <i>that had been made for him</i> so much that it twisted his whole life. The character spends the entire remainder of the story trying to overcome massive child abuse, creating some bits of beauty in the process. <i>Other characters</i> think he's an ubermensch, but it's an illusion and always was. Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42214032751711739732016-01-20T04:14:45.325-08:002016-01-20T04:14:45.325-08:00Jumper:
LarryHart, my "day trader" was ...Jumper:<br /><i><br />LarryHart, my "day trader" was a reductio ad absurdum...<br /></i><br /><br />Well, my point is that the commonly-accepted "Only Law Of Corporatics", that a company strive to maximize shareholder value, is incorrectly applied when it is taken to mean maximizing the profitability of flipping the stock. To me, that's maximizing <b>ex</b>-shareholder value. The two are not necessarily incompatible, any more than the short term and long term interest rates can't trend in the same direction. But when the two diverge, by their own rules the corporation should put the interests of share<b>holders</b> above those of share<b>sellers</b>. Instead, they hardly (if at all) recognize a difference between the two.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.com