Posts by rodgerd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Militiamen in BMWs rode around the neighborhood with megaphones, demanding that residents evacuate.
Never again, huh?
-
Er, this is the same Trevor Mallard who baited Don Brash in the House ad nauseum about Don's marital woes???
After National MPs had implied David Benson-Pope was a kiddie-fiddler?
That's the problem with starting down the path of dragging out this kind of stuff. Once you start, it's very hard to stop.
-
I suspect Clark's first class degree in physics and mathematics played slightly more of a role in his work on satellites than his intuitions as an artist.
He chose to introduce the idea through his art as a writer. Nice dodge on Asmiov, but then, really...
What were they writing their code on? Commodore 64's?
...since you're only really interested in being snide and willfully obtuse, there's not really much point in attempting to continue a conversation.
-
I'd argue that Tim Berners-Lee would still have invented the web if Neuromancer was never written, but Gibson could not have written his book if networked computers didn't exist.
If you're going to set the bar at the height that artists must invent new technologies before they can be considered to influence science, I recommend you look into Arthur C Clarke's role in satellite technology.
I like William Gibson, but I think his influence on people who write software is mostly talked about by people who don't write software.
I write software, and it's pretty clear any time one looks at people working in VR that many of them are working from Gibson as a holy grail, last I checked.
Nor did it take more than a few minutes with Google to find Asimov influencing technology via policy.
-
(And, to follow up on myself, Wagner's art had a pretty significant effect on the 20th century, although whether he'd be delighted by that is another question entirely.)
-
People who write software now have far more impact than people who write poetry.
You might want to think about the effect William Gibson had on people who write software. You're looking at the wrong art.
-
All we are saying is that there is a viable alternative to authoritarianism. You don't need priests, kings, nations, governments, laws, police, prisons, or soldiers. It can be and has been done.
Since the examples so far were born of two of the more notably appalling civil wars of Europe, rich in mass murder, and collapsed in short order through being unable to offer their citizens any meaningful protection against aggression, "has been done" is something of an overstatement.
Yet if I was to say that capitalism didn't work on the basis that there's no pure capitalist countries I'd probably be laughed at.
Only by people who aren't very thoughtful. Especially considering Adam Smith himself devoted not inconsiderable thought to discussing the likely flaws of unbridled capitalism.
Anyone who truly loves lawless society doesn't have to go very far at all to find one.
Is that a little like the offer I used to make to Libertarians to buy them a one-way ticket to Somalia so they could enjoy a life unbridled by the fetters of government?
-
David, establishing a society for a few months or years hardly moves beyond "interesting social experiment." For one thing, if your model society collapses under the weight of external pressure, I have to wonder how model it really is.
-
The whole point of the digital review was to ensure that the centuries-old 'Copyright' based legislation could apply equally to digital technologies (ie, the words/ideas were technologically neutral). But the very concept of protecting and stimulating the creative process is unlikely to be protected by legislating against 'copying' in the digital age [its so damn easy everyones going to do it anyway, right?].
Centuries old copyright was developed in part precisely because of the development of easy copying in the form of readily available cheap printing, and writers being ripped off by publishers who would print stuff up with no recompense.
Perhaps it is commercial distribution without consent that should be prohibited?
I can think of plenty of reasons to object to non-commercial distribution without consent that I might reasonably object to, not least of which is that it can destroy the very possibility of commercial distribution.
-
Oy... back in the real world, grown-ups with grown up jobs are expected to deal with their personal shit on their own time, and keep their hands to themselves.
Well, sure. In most jobs, you'd get sacked for belting a workmate. On the other hand, you'd also be on the path to dismissal if you kept giving people shit about their marriage in the workplace, too.
Which is why the TSA amendment bill passed yesterday, 108 for 12 against. Russ had the numbers about right. I, for one, was not happy about this and for once agreed totally with Rodney hide. This IS the "thin end of the wedge" we already have laws that covered all this, if someone is suspected of belonging to a "terrorist organisation" just issue a risk certificate.
I/S had it right: is this a law you'd want Muldoon having? (If you're more right leaning, pick some random left-wing bogeyman figure.) The idea that the PM can now simply declare anyone a terrorist with no judicial review is more at home in Zimbabwe or East Germany than anything resembling a functioning democracy.
When ACT and the Greens agree that something is a terrible inrfingement of civil liberties, they're almost always right.