Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Starship Troopers was an American ideal of Israel.
Holocaust (Shoah)/Argentina=Auschwitz
Constant attack/outnumbered
Dehumanised enermy
Own Superiority (Doogy Howser)
Mil. Structure - Army meritocracy (Israel you only become an officer after the rank of Sgt).
Shower scene = gender equalityI was more thinking of the book, which goes into a lot more detail about the structure of the post-breakdown society. Society collapses, anarchy results, from the ashes arises a new and improved society. Effectively the new society is a post-scarcity society, and all the citizens can, if they want, live a life at at least a comfort level. The snag? In order to have (just) voting rights, you need to have 'served' in some capacity. Although alternatives are mentioned, this effectively means serving in the military. To actually hold office (e.g. MP, president, etc), you need to have joined the army, gained the rank of General in the 'land' military, then resigned, entered the 'navy' on the lowest rung and worked your way up to the rank of Admiral. Then you can run for office.
The book was and is quite heavily critisised for many of the same reason as Craig mentions (you get the distinct impression the author regards Ayn Rand as a little wimpy...). However, for me (and the point I was trying to make), the two standout 'acts ofgod' which the author uses to 'create' this perfect society are:
1) the old society doesn't exist any more. As it has collapsed, we don't have to worry about the exisitng legislature, due process, or any of that fuddy-duddy quaint old stuff.
2) the author explicity states that there is and always will be an external threat to human society - the threat will always be there in one form or another - hence the on-going need for a standing military (in the book it happens to be alien races - if the humans aren't fighting one of them, they'll be fighting another).
At the risk of sailing close to godwin, external (or internal) threats have been used repeatedly to bring together disparate elements in a fractured society to weld it into a single whole that sings with one voice, and which sings the song the leaders want it to sing. It is extremely convenient for the sake of the authors philosophy in 'starship troopers' that he doesn't actually have to make this external threat human.
We put it forward as a leadership video in the Army (they didn't take it up).
'Glory' is the offical Leadership video.(Refusal to take higher pay than his men & getting his men shoes)
'Saving Pte. Ryan' is the movie for rules of engagement (don't shoot the guy burning to death = euthenasia - fog of war = trench shooting & the 1st two surrender but are shot - Murder observed but not addressed immediately.)I've heard the Lt. in 'Platoon' is also used in the army as an example of 'how not to do it'. Final act, big VC/NVA attack, he effectively abdicates responsibility and tells his men to sort it out themselves.
-
military science fiction -- a genre which is, to put it mildly, rather estrogen light and heavily populated by populist right-wingers who regard Ayn Rand as a wimp
s'funny how there always has to be a natural disaster/complete societal breakdown, coupled with an ongoing and near-permanent external threat in order for the 'perfect society' to arise.
Starship Troopers, I'm looking at you......
-
If it were possible for me to despise and loathe paul holmes any more than I already do, that interview certainly provided the justification.
I find it beyond belief that there is anyone who can bring themselves to support veitch, even in the abstract, 'fair trial, justice is blind' sense, without recourse to rubber gloves and a clothes peg.
But there appear to be significant numbers of people willing to swallow this mea culpa shit barrel, hawser and bent steel shaft.
With a bit of luck, holmes will offer veitch a joyride in his plane
to take his mind off his problems. -
So what should I do now? Consign my $450 helmet to the Attic of Poor Decisions?
Yep. And go out and spend all that cash you're saving on petrol on a pair of armoured kevlar jeans, a pair of shoes/boots with ankle support, a cordura or leather jacket with shoulder and elbow armour, and a pair of proper bike gloves (but it's ok, you can probably get away with a lightweight pair...). You probably won't need a back protector, either. But hey, it's your spine.
Nana out.
-
people who are reluctant to wear gloves et al should be encouraged to walk down the footpath dragging their knuckles on the concrete, the try the same thing running, and then asked if they still think they don't need gear at 50 km/h
Quite. How about this: I'll tow you behind my car, with you wearing normal clothes. We'll start off at 25kmh, around half the speed you'll crash at. Not attractive? How about 15 kmh? Still not keen? 10? 5?
the motorbike license test is a piece of cake. They just follow you round on another motorbike. I have no idea how they can see what you're doing
There are three stages to getting a full motorbike licence. The first is a two-parter: firstly, pass the scratch test, with the 10 extra questions (25 for a car, 35 for a bike). Don't make the mistake of actually thinking that the info in the road code is correct, but memorise it for long enough to pass the test. Secondly, show that ride a bike around some cones in a carpark and use the brake. Passing this gives you a basic learner licence - you're limited to 70kmh on the open road, you can't ride after 10pm and before 7am (or is it 5am?), you can't ride anything bigger than 250cc, and you can't carry a pillion.
The second stage is to pass the restricted test after either 6 months or 12 months have passed (as a minimum, depending on your age). You'll be followed in either a car or on a bike, depending on the testing station. It'll probably be roads around town, so no highways. Restrictions more or less as above but with an open road limit of 100kmh. Unless you hammer off away from the tester, they can see you. You're supposed to keep an eye on them in your mirrors so they can show you when they want you to do something, like turn left or right.
The third stage is to pass your full: you'll be followed around on the open road and city streets, have to show that you can u-turn, brake, and identify hazards.
None of the test is particularly hard. They certainly don't require you to demonstrate what I would consider to be an acceptably high level of skill - i.e. enough to get you out the other side of an 'oh shi...." type of situation.
-
You can't take a scooter over the Auckland harbour bridge
Actually, to clarify this a little, you can. As long as it can keep up with the flow of traffic. Which de facto rules out 50cc scoots - the largest engine size available without a motorcycle licence of some sort.
As Damiens scoot is 200cc, it's probably capable of 70-80km/h without too much bother, so he should be fine.
However, as you've pointed out:
You need something that requires a motorcycle licence
You can ride a scoot with an engine size of up to 50cc with a basic car licence (pass the scratch and sniff test at the AA), or a restricted or full car licence.
You can ride a bigger-engined scoot (up to 250cc) once you have your motorcycle learner licence.
-
Rich - I followed the statement with the one fact we can all agree on. We don't know it all - the only absolute fact we really know.
I don't dispute scientific rigour, but would like it to share the space a bit with other ways of knowing
Agreed. The more we learn, the more the Universe seems to be a pretty freaky place, especially down at the molecular level (quantum physics twists my melon).
I don't see why religious concepts and scientific ones can't at least exist in parallel. There is no 'absolute' or 'right' way.
However, scientific methodology is still the best we've got in terms of finding answers in 'the real world' (a poor choice of phrase in this context, but I can't think of a better one at the moment). Spirituality is a slightly different kettle of fish.
And seeing as how we appear to have drifted quite a bit off topic, I'll make this my last post.
-
Science is a belief structure.
This is an 'absolute' statement. You have provided no argument or debating points.
So I respond as I did before: "science is not a belief structure". And we are back where we started, neither of us shifting from our trenches.
Rich you've assumed science can measure all things, which it can't & so is not absolute - that be vodka.
This isn't a particularly helpful statement, as clearly we can't measure everything. Your statement is so self-obviously 'true' that it gives us nothing to engage with.
But within our own relative frame of reference, we measure stuff, relative to other stuff.
The cop sitting 'stationary' in his car with a radar gun measures the speed of a 'moving' vehicle out on the road, and based on whether the radar indicates an excessive speed, issues a ticket.
Clearly this is all 'relative': we've assumed the cop is stationary, and the speed measurement is 'relative' to his/her stationary point. But we're not stationary, because we're all sitting on a rock speeding through space at many hundreds of thousands of km/h, 'relative' to the 'fixed' point of our sun. Which is itself not 'fixed' or 'absolute' as our solar system and thousands of others form part of a spiral arm of a galaxy which is rotating around a 'fixed' centre. The galaxy itself being one of many hundreds of galaxies in our universe, all of which are moving relative to one another.
None of which changes the fact that we can measure a lot of stuff relative to a lot of other stuff.
To expand on Peters mountain example: we can measure the height of the mountain (relative to an arbitrarily chosen base). We can measure the speed of the wind flowing over the sides of the mountain (relative to the mountain itself, which we have assumed is stationary). We can measure the amount of rain that falls on the mountain and say whether it is a 'dry' year or a 'wet' year (both relative terms).
Scientists tend to get more than a little twitchy about statements like: "Science is a belief structure" because this is the sort of statement that plays into the hands of, for example, creationist idiots who can then turn around and argue that because biology is part of a 'belief structure', equal weight should be given to teaching intelligent design in the classroom.
As Peter has pointed out, evolution can be measured, 'relative' to a 'fixed' starting point. Intelligent design can't.
And if you're buying, I'll have a double, too.
-
things that have been through the science process are surely things that we 'believe' to be true, based on scientific testing, observation, review etc. Scientists often seem to use the phrase 'as far as we know'.
Some will be proven to be false, either through bad science, lack of understanding, misleading data etc.
I would have thought that if something that was thought to be correct, can later be proven to be false, then surely we 'believed' it to be correct, and we were wrong.
Science must therefore have an element of belief in it, just belief based on scientific principles rather than religious ones.
Ye-e-e-ss, to a point.
But bear in mind that scientists by the very nature of the profession tend to be working right out on the cutting edge - that edge accounting for a tiny fraction of the mass of what we already 'know'.
So, scientists hypothesise that the graviton exists and that it mediates the force of gravity, 'as far as they know'.
Whether it exists (or not) doesn't alter the repeatably observable fact that unsupported objects will fall towards the centre of the earth accelerating at 9.81 metres per second per second.
Jumping from the roof of a tall building is going to make rather a large mess whether a person 'believes' in the gravitational constant or not.
-
science is a belief structure
No. It. Isn't.
You don't 'believe' something you can measure and observe repeatedly. It either 'is' or it 'isn't'.
Advance hypothesis, test validity of hypothesis using gathered measurable data, add to sum of human knowledge.
How is that a belief system?