Luddite Cyberpunks? [was Re: Nowhere Generation]
Lupo the Butcher
>What you have missed is that "science" just like religion, exists in
>a social setting where meaning is ascribed, not given. Sure, I grant
>you that science has high success rate in the area of predictability.
>But, obviously other "webs of meaning," to use a phrase from Geertz,
>are successful enough in this area since the vast majority of humanity
>have lived with these other webs -- still do.
These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>Perhaps, as this suggests
>the values which science promotes (efficiency, objectivity, etc.) are
>not the most important values in the life of a society. Indeed, living
>with this knowledge, that we are dominated by science, but that science
>is somehow suspect seems to me to be the essence of cyberpunk. What do
>you think?
I think you are sorely mistaken; the literature generally seems to revolve
around the ways people come to terms with new technologies, (the results
of scientific endeavor), and how the protagonists make use of or take
advantage of the technology in their various exploits.
As for "real" cyberpunks, the Hackers and Phreakers; they are fascinated by
science and technology, and use the scientific method (and the occasional
"occult" insight, I admit) to take advantage of various faults in large
complex technological systems.
Cyberpunk (to me) is about the interface of people and technology; of flesh
and electrode, brain and microchip. It is the humanizing of dehumanizing
technologies through the blend of man & machine.
What you describe (calling science into suspect) is an old path; Ludditism-
the folks who brought us the word "Sabotage" (from the wooden sabot shoes
the luddites threw into machinery to prevent the supplanting of human
workers).
Cyberpunk is the opposite of Ludditism; it is the humanizing of the products
of science rather than the disposal of science as a dehumanizer.
just my $2x10^-2
-Lupo the Butcher
Avrom Faderman
>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
"And if you _do_ understand and control a technology, it will _still_
control you and your life." ;-)
But at least you'll have more fun being controlled.
--
Avrom I. Faderman | "...a sufferer is not one who hands
av...@csli.stanford.edu | you his suffering, that you may
Stanford University | touch it, weigh it, bite it like a
CSLI and Dept. of Philosophy | coin..." -Stanislaw Lem
Robert Mah
: "And if you _do_ understand and control a technology, it will _still_
: control you and your life." ;-)
Such a defeatist attitude! With beleifs like that one can never surmount
the obstacles and challenges of life.
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
Parker Whittle
: Avrom Faderman (av...@Csli.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: : "And if you _do_ understand and control a technology, it will _still_
: : control you and your life." ;-)
: Such a defeatist attitude! With beleifs like that one can never surmount
: the obstacles and challenges of life.
Control is a fantasy. Technology has its own agenda and the best you can
do is work toward an uneasy alliance. In the future, we will be to tech
what intestinal bacteria are to us today.
This is not a defeatist attitude, rather a liberating one. We are all
automatons -- and realization of that fact is the first step to freedom.
--Doktor Meltdown
Robert Mah
Baahh, don't eat the drivel the mass media feeds you about how people
can't comprehend the fast paced dynamic world of today. How individuals
are incapable of comprehending the changes. How we are at the mercy of of
big government and big business. How social dynamics carry everyone along
with the wave.
If you sit and stew about how quickly things change, you _know_ you're
behind the loop. If you wonder why things aren't changing fast enough, if
you're the one doing the changing, you're odds of winning the game are
higher than most. You have a better chance of controling your own life.
Power (i.e. who's in control) has always been the name of the game. In
the past people used tools such as religion, farmland, industry, even war
to maintain power. These are still used today, but the more dangerous and
subtle tools are those that shape the mind and conciousness. We used to
call it propaganda. Problem is, there's no central source of it anymore,
it's distributed and ethereal. Just part of the background noise. The
mind shifting is hard to see, but it's there.
"Free to be an automaton!" No thanks.
David A. Smith
loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>In article <1993081912...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu>,
>
>>What you have missed is that "science" just like religion, exists in
>>a social setting where meaning is ascribed, not given. Sure, I grant
>>you that science has high success rate in the area of predictability.
>>But, obviously other "webs of meaning," to use a phrase from Geertz,
>>are successful enough in this area since the vast majority of humanity
>>have lived with these other webs -- still do.
>
>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>
Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures. Modernity has not even
been successful in completely assimilating the cultures of the lands
where it is home - witness the large and successful nativist movements
all over Europe and North America.
>> Indeed, living
>>with this knowledge, that we are dominated by science, but that science
>>is somehow suspect seems to me to be the essence of cyberpunk. What do
>>you think?
>
>I think you are sorely mistaken; the literature generally seems to revolve
>around the ways people come to terms with new technologies, (the results
>of scientific endeavor), and how the protagonists make use of or take
>advantage of the technology in their various exploits.
>As for "real" cyberpunks, the Hackers and Phreakers; they are fascinated by
>science and technology, and use the scientific method (and the occasional
>"occult" insight, I admit) to take advantage of various faults in large
>complex technological systems.
>
>Cyberpunk (to me) is about the interface of people and technology; of flesh
>and electrode, brain and microchip. It is the humanizing of dehumanizing
>technologies through the blend of man & machine.
We have obviously read utterly different works. I do not see any of your
"coming to terms with technology" in any cyberpunk literature. In fact I
find an awfully heavy critique of technology, especially in Gibson
(isn't that another thread on this group?) And as for "real cyberpunks"
equating to hackers and the like, I believe your just plain barking up
the wrong tree.
>
>What you describe (calling science into suspect) is an old path; Ludditism-
>the folks who brought us the word "Sabotage" (from the wooden sabot shoes
>the luddites threw into machinery to prevent the supplanting of human
>workers).
>Cyberpunk is the opposite of Ludditism; it is the humanizing of the products
>of science rather than the disposal of science as a dehumanizer.
>
I see no humanizing of the machine - only dehumanizing of the human.
And I see now simple ludditism in my argument. I only suggested that
cyberpunk is the acceptance of technology with an underlying skepticism.
I think it best not to confuse the entire genre of literature, or the
concept itself with only the values of some cyberspace cowboys who are
characters in some of the novels. It is better, I think, to take the
works as a whole.
See ya - David
Brian Prescott
an organization called ORIGIN (Technology in Business) that advertised
in your July/August issue, within the front cover. Mainly I am
interested in obtaining an address which I could write to for more
information... Why am I asking you for this? Well, I have wired's
address, and you, being the advertising department, and me not being
willing to shell out the cash to call the Netherlands for an address or
information, I thought you would be most likely to have info.
Any information would be _greatly_ appreciated..
Cheers.
-dave
Lupo the Butcher
David A. Smith <DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>>
>Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
>only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
>arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
>nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
>that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
>ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
>to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
>ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the chinese.
To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
on in these cultures today.
Any cultural independance they have is due to the sheer numbers of people
(the weight of the size of their civilizations as you would put it).
Most anti-western backlash is due to this certain cultural assimilation.
Modernity has not even
>been successful in completely assimilating the cultures of the lands
>where it is home - witness the large and successful nativist movements
>all over Europe and North America.
Large and successful? SUrely you jest. Any cultural independance displayed
is minor in the extreme compared to the vast similarities in culture
throughout the western world.
>>> Indeed, living
>>>with this knowledge, that we are dominated by science, but that science
>>>is somehow suspect seems to me to be the essence of cyberpunk. What do
>>>you think?
>>
>>I think you are sorely mistaken; the literature generally seems to revolve
>>around the ways people come to terms with new technologies, (the results
>>of scientific endeavor), and how the protagonists make use of or take
>>advantage of the technology in their various exploits.
>>As for "real" cyberpunks, the Hackers and Phreakers; they are fascinated by
>>science and technology, and use the scientific method (and the occasional
>>"occult" insight, I admit) to take advantage of various faults in large
>>complex technological systems.
>>
>>Cyberpunk (to me) is about the interface of people and technology; of flesh
>>and electrode, brain and microchip. It is the humanizing of dehumanizing
>>technologies through the blend of man & machine.
>
>We have obviously read utterly different works. I do not see any of your
>"coming to terms with technology" in any cyberpunk literature. In fact I
>find an awfully heavy critique of technology, especially in Gibson
I daresay we have read the same works; our brains filter them in different
ways. Since you are a luiddite, you read luddite messages into Gibson
& the like.
>(isn't that another thread on this group?) And as for "real cyberpunks"
>equating to hackers and the like, I believe your just plain barking up
>the wrong tree.
So, hackers and phreakers are not "cyberpunk"?!
I don't recall reading any "cyberpunk" novels or short-stories describing
the exploits of literary critics!
Please, get a clue.
>>What you describe (calling science into suspect) is an old path; Ludditism-
>>the folks who brought us the word "Sabotage" (from the wooden sabot shoes
>>the luddites threw into machinery to prevent the supplanting of human
>>workers).
>>Cyberpunk is the opposite of Ludditism; it is the humanizing of the products
>>of science rather than the disposal of science as a dehumanizer.
>>
>
>I see no humanizing of the machine - only dehumanizing of the human.
>And I see now simple ludditism in my argument.
What? Please consult a grammar manual if you are unable to communicate
properly.
>I only suggested that
>cyberpunk is the acceptance of technology with an underlying skepticism.
Actually, your entire thesis thus far would seem to deny this last statement.
>I think it best not to confuse the entire genre of literature, or the
>concept itself with only the values of some cyberspace cowboys who are
>characters in some of the novels. It is better, I think, to take the
>works as a whole.
I take the values because they are my own. "Taking the works as a whole"
means drawing your own metamoral message from the plot; drawing such
conclusions from literature that does not seem to be exclusively
designed to convey a message of this sort seems a useless exercise as one
could draw any number of contradictory metamoral messages.
>See ya - David
No, actually this seems quite unlikely.
-L the B
Scott Gregory
[wa.. by Lupo the Butcher@twain.u
> >only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
> >arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
> >nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
> >that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
> >ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
> >to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
> >ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
>
> They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the
chinese.
>
> To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
> on in these cultures today.
> Any cultural independance they have is due to the sheer numbers of people
> (the weight of the size of their civilizations as you would put it).
> Most anti-western backlash is due to this certain cultural assimilation.
Excuse me??? I believe the "profound ignorance" is yours. While your
argument may have some pseudo-validity in terms of American pop culture
and baseball, to suggest that the Chinese have been assimilated is at
best stupid. I used to live in Taiwan, which is arguably more
"Westernized" than mainland China, and in addition does not have the
"sheer numbers of people" of whom you speak (about 8% of the U.S.
population). While there, I encountered many Western culture
superiorists like yourself who made the assumption that they could
operate in a Western way because everybody wears business suits and eats
at McDonalds. They all left with nothing but lint in their pockets to
show for their efforts, because they were unable or unwilling to examine
the profound cultural differences that make surviving in China a much
different experience than surviving in the West. Shallow thinking such
as yours is a good example of why we have routinely been unable to
penetrate markets in places like Japan, for example. The East is a hell
of a lot deeper culturally than you admit, and people in China and other
Eastern cultures are quite skilled at adopting certain Western METHODS
to achieve their ends while remaining completely Eastern in their
cultural outlook.
-S
David A. Smith
loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>>>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>>>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>>>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>>>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>>>
>>Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
>>only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
>>arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
>>nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
>>that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
>>ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
>>to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
>>ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
>
>They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the chinese.
>To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
>on in these cultures today.
Your response to me only suggests that you either 1)live on a different
planet than I do, or 2)get all of your information from western news
media. If you ever travelled any or talked to someone from these other
cultures who wasn't already westernized, then you'd no better than to
say such inane things.
>
>Modernity has not even
>>been successful in completely assimilating the cultures of the lands
>>where it is home - witness the large and successful nativist movements
>>all over Europe and North America.
>
>Large and successful? SUrely you jest. Any cultural independance displayed
>is minor in the extreme compared to the vast similarities in culture
>throughout the western world.
>
>>We have obviously read utterly different works. I do not see any of your
>>"coming to terms with technology" in any cyberpunk literature. In fact I
>>find an awfully heavy critique of technology, especially in Gibson
>
>I daresay we have read the same works; our brains filter them in different
>ways. Since you are a luiddite, you read luddite messages into Gibson
>& the like.
>
>>(isn't that another thread on this group?) And as for "real cyberpunks"
>>equating to hackers and the like, I believe your just plain barking up
>>the wrong tree.
>
>So, hackers and phreakers are not "cyberpunk"?!
>I don't recall reading any "cyberpunk" novels or short-stories describing
>the exploits of literary critics!
>Please, get a clue.
>
Here's a clue for you - cyberpunk is fiction - what makes it cyberpunk
is not that there are hackers in them nor that there are computers. To
read such things within a novel and to not include the context does not
show much sophistication in reading at all. Is molly cyberpunk? is she
a hacker? Need I spell it out any further?
David A. Smith
fingers are doing:> - to continue
>>
>>I see no humanizing of the machine - only dehumanizing of the human.
>>And I see now simple ludditism in my argument.
>
>What? Please consult a grammar manual if you are unable to communicate
>properly.
>
(what was it I was saying about reading?)
>
>>I think it best not to confuse the entire genre of literature, or the
>>concept itself with only the values of some cyberspace cowboys who are
>>characters in some of the novels. It is better, I think, to take the
>>works as a whole.
>
>I take the values because they are my own. "Taking the works as a whole"
>means drawing your own metamoral message from the plot; drawing such
>conclusions from literature that does not seem to be exclusively
>designed to convey a message of this sort seems a useless exercise as one
>could draw any number of contradictory metamoral messages.
>
you want to carry on reasonable discussion with other people, is to make
certain that your interpretation is feasably drawn from the story, is
defensible, and communicable to others. And that it bears some relation
to the way the community of readers might understand the book.
David
>
Lupo the Butcher
>loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>
>>>>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>>>>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>>>>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>>>>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>>>>
>>>Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
>>>only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
>>>arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
>>>nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
>>>that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
>>>ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
>>>to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
>>>ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
>>
>>They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the chinese.
>>To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
>>on in these cultures today.
>
>Your response to me only suggests that you either 1)live on a different
>planet than I do, or 2)get all of your information from western news
>media. If you ever travelled any or talked to someone from these other
>cultures who wasn't already westernized, then you'd no better than to
>say such inane things.
My interaction with "non-western" cultures is moot (though extensive),
observation is all that is neccessary for this statement.
It is certainly true that local custom, language, eating habits,
tribalisms & whatnot remain in place; this is obvious.
Cultural _paradigms_ are western, business practices are western,
economic, and govornmental infrastructures are western in design,
mass media entertainment is largely western, technology is western,
modern architecture is largely western and so on...
Looking at overall tendancies, there is a general trend toward more
homogenization, more westernization. Occasionally, some group will
assert their so-called "cultural independance" by wearing traditional
garb or some such triviality, by by & large, the tendancy (more pronounced
among the young) is toward more westernization.
You will also note that the "better educated" among the chinese
and indian people have a more western outlook.
People are so immersed in "western" (which, of course, is a term of
convenience, having no geographical significance) culture, they simply
forget what a non-western culture is. The Aztecs, the Maya, the North
Amerinds, the Japanese of 200 years ago, the QuaZulu, the aussie
"Blackfellows," the polynesians of 150 years ago etc.- these are
non-western cultures. Their social structures, technologies,
infrastructures, and most important of all their _cultural paradigms_
were so different from ours, we feel compelled to label them
"primitive" "feudal" or "savage"
Compare, if you will, the english-educated hindu who watches dynasty
on the television at the local community center to the maya preistess
running a thorn-covered stingray spine through her tongue in ceremonial
ecstacy to the god Hutzapoatl.
The former holds a world-view which is certainly different from that
of "joe six-pac" but the modern Hindu holds much more in common
with him (joe 6p) than the Maya preistess.
The overall point is that Western Culture (tm) is so pervasive that
it is often invisible; one cannot see the forest for the trees so
to speak. Surely someone who was arguing for the subjectiveness of
physical reality can appreciate the subjectiveness of social reality
in assessing "other" cultures!
>>Modernity has not even
>>>been successful in completely assimilating the cultures of the lands
>>>where it is home - witness the large and successful nativist movements
>>>all over Europe and North America.
>>
>>Large and successful? SUrely you jest. Any cultural independance displayed
>>is minor in the extreme compared to the vast similarities in culture
>>throughout the western world.
I note that no shining examples of "nativist" movements are included.
I (for one) would like an example or two of cultures that have resisted
assimalation (perhaps SUdan or Iran? look closer...)
>>>We have obviously read utterly different works. I do not see any of your
>>>"coming to terms with technology" in any cyberpunk literature. In fact I
>>>find an awfully heavy critique of technology, especially in Gibson
>>
>>I daresay we have read the same works; our brains filter them in different
>>ways. Since you are a luiddite, you read luddite messages into Gibson
>>& the like.
>>
>>>(isn't that another thread on this group?) And as for "real cyberpunks"
>>>equating to hackers and the like, I believe your just plain barking up
>>>the wrong tree.
>>
>>So, hackers and phreakers are not "cyberpunk"?!
>>I don't recall reading any "cyberpunk" novels or short-stories describing
>>the exploits of literary critics!
>>Please, get a clue.
>>
>Here's a clue for you - cyberpunk is fiction - what makes it cyberpunk
>is not that there are hackers in them nor that there are computers. To
This is an incorrect statement; Cyberpunk is most certainly NOT fiction,
no more than "Beatnic" was fiction. Cyberpunk (and Beatnic for that matter)
is a social movement; a group of people with common interests and
philosophy; to be even more specific- cyberpunk is a techno-anarchist
social movement. Like the beats, CPs have groups of authors that seem
to express certain parts of the culture; beats had William S Burroughs
(and JG Ballard I think)- Cyberpunks have John Shirley and Bruce Sterling (and
Kibo, for which there is no beatnic paralell).
One thing pointed out in a recent copy of _Wired_ is the fact that the
Beatnics were a small group, assimilated and mutated into something totally
different and much broader; the "hippy" movement. The _WIred_ article
pointed out the possibility that Cyberpunk is also a demographically
small movement, which is likely to be assimilated into something
utterly different in the next few years. Reading the gorp I have seen
posted by Dave lately (and others), I see that it is in the process of
being assimilated now; the magazine I read this theory in is a symptom of
this assimalation.
>read such things within a novel and to not include the context does not
>show much sophistication in reading at all. Is molly cyberpunk? is she
>a hacker? Need I spell it out any further?
No, you have displyed enough misunderstanding. Molly is presumably a
charachter in a work of fiction that has been labeled Cyberpunk.
She is not a cyberpunk, but a fictional device.
DrWho is a cyberpunk. Steppin Razor is a cyberpunk. Redline is a
cyberpunk. Captain Crunch is a cyberpunk.
These are REAL people; technoanarchists- folks who share a common world-view
and taste for technological wizardry. Are they all hackers? Nope, but
they share the gestalt of the Hacker/phreaker, and the culture.
Babble all you like about the various charachters and veiled meanings
in works of cyberpunk fiction; the fiction is but an indirect reflection
of the actual subculture.
and, in response to someone who opted to waste more of my time;
(from) Organization: Masters student, Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
>Just had to forward Mr. Lupo's stunning and witty response to my last
>post to the board. Lupo, if you can't beat this you aren't going to
>last too long on a board that enjoys flaming people as much as this one
>does...
Honestly, I don't see why I should dignify your inane post with an
answer; you wasted my time on another newsgroup last year- why should
I even bother?
As far as "lasting" -it is quite true that you may get the last word in;
if all techies spent their time blathering about inanities on usenet
you would be quite out of a job as a giver of moral guidance to engineers
and scientists.
In light of all this, I believe my response to your post (which was
mailed to me) was quite appropriate (I will repeat it for ya);
L: Whatever you say pal. You are either refusing to undestand, or plain dumb;
L: I don't give a damn either way.
-Lupo the Butcher (that's MR. Lupo the Butcher to you)
Scott Gregory
lupo,
1) I've no recollection of ever seeing or hearing of you ever before, so
please keep your paranoid ramblings about some event I theoretically did
a year ago to yourself.
2) Each and every example you gave of westernization is merely shallow.
Because somebody watches Dynasty or wears a business suit or even has
built Western style buildings does not make them "westernized".
Certainly, in all these aspects there has been Western influence, and as
far as I know nobody in this thread said otherwise. But to claim
somebody has been "assimilated" into Western culture because they watch
Western TV is shallow. Yes, there is a trend toward greater influence
of all cultures upon one another (I don't think it is "homogenation" as
you claim) as a result of numerous factors. But this very frequently
and increasingly more so is just as much the influence of the East on
the West as vice versa. I could cite the numerous examples from
business classes I've had in the last year detailing the numerous ways
American businesses study Japanese business practices, but since you
decided I was an "engineer" or "scientist" because of my University
affiliation when you fingered my account, forget it. There's plenty of
other examples around as well.
Technology is Western? Then why have Japanese patents of new
technological innovations surpassed those of Americans? Or maybe you
think technology is entirely English because they made the first steam
engine. Technology is the present and future; you concern yourself only
with the past.
As far as your equating architectural styles with _cultural paradigms_,
maybe you should look at what goes on inside the buildings rather than
concern yourself with the most purile portions of a culture.
I doubt that your experience with non-Western cultures is as deep as you
claim, regardless of whatever places you may have lived. You obviously
were unable to step outside of your own assimilated Western views and
understand what goes on on a _cultural paradigm_ level.
Lupo the Butcher
Scott Gregory <wg...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>lupo,
>
>1) I've no recollection of ever seeing or hearing of you ever before, so
>please keep your paranoid ramblings about some event I theoretically did
>a year ago to yourself.
Since you find it neccessary to followup via usenet (wasting bandwidth
with what seems to be a personal message), I will oblige.
Your name rang a bell; I checked an old killfile; Early August of
last year.
>2) Each and every example you gave of westernization is merely shallow.
>Because somebody watches Dynasty or wears a business suit or even has
>built Western style buildings does not make them "westernized".
Perhaps by your defenition; not by mine. These are symptoms of the disease
of westernization; and fairly accurate ones.
These cultures have been assimalated in a manner analagous to the
way that Greek culture assimalated Roman society, and (through the Romans)
assimalated much of the ancient West.
Europe gave the other western countries its culture (much like
Greece gave the "uncultured" Romans their culture), and other Western
countries, as well as Europe spread this culture to the non-western
cultures (much like Greece and Rome spread their culture to their
colonies).
>Certainly, in all these aspects there has been Western influence, and as
>far as I know nobody in this thread said otherwise. But to claim
>somebody has been "assimilated" into Western culture because they watch
>Western TV is shallow. Yes, there is a trend toward greater influence
Indeed; I never made this assertion. Please include threads so people are
able to check the accuracy of your assertions of what I did or did not
say.
Assimalation can have many shades of meaning; I see it as an ongoing process.
As I said in my thread, It is obvious that local custom & etc wil
stay similar (this is true everywherre), but the cultural paradigms
are changing.
>of all cultures upon one another (I don't think it is "homogenation" as
>you claim) as a result of numerous factors. But this very frequently
>and increasingly more so is just as much the influence of the East on
>the West as vice versa. I could cite the numerous examples from
>business classes I've had in the last year detailing the numerous ways
>American businesses study Japanese business practices, but since you
>decided I was an "engineer" or "scientist" because of my University
>affiliation when you fingered my account, forget it. There's plenty of
>other examples around as well.
Um, excuse me; I am quite aware of what it is your group does, I am
about 30 yards away frlom it. I never asserted that you were an
engineer or a scientist; I asserted that you give moral guidance
to engineers and scientists (if you don't, the group you are associated
with surely does).
Please, read before you flame; your lack of reading comprehension is
why we are having problems in the first place. Flaming someone is
easy when you pay no attention to what was said (which is why I quote)
>Technology is Western? Then why have Japanese patents of new
>technological innovations surpassed those of Americans?
The science that made these hypothetical patents possible is Western,
the businesses are organized under western managerial practices,
and the patents themselves (and scientific papers that spawned them) are
written in english.
The Japanese are a perfect example of Western assimalation; they certainly
retain many of their traditional cultural heritage, but by & large
their lives are organized around western models, western ideals, and
western ways of doing things.
>Or maybe you
>think technology is entirely English because they made the first steam
>engine.
Actually, Hero of Alexandria is generally credited with the first
steam engine. It was used to drive various automatons in the local
temple. So much for your history.
>As far as your equating architectural styles with _cultural paradigms_,
>maybe you should look at what goes on inside the buildings rather than
>concern yourself with the most purile portions of a culture.
Architchture? Purile?
When was this equality made?
You seem to be very confused indeed as to what was actually said.
Please,
get a clue
-Lupo the Butcher
Robert Mah
>2) Each and every example you gave of westernization is merely shallow.
>Because somebody watches Dynasty or wears a business suit or even has
>built Western style buildings does not make them "westernized".
> [ and later ]
>As far as your equating architectural styles with _cultural paradigms_,
>maybe you should look at what goes on inside the buildings rather than
>concern yourself with the most purile portions of a culture.
This is very true, even in America. For example, in last week's Sunday
Time's the Real Estate section described a new building in Brooklyn's
Chinatown. While to the casual observer it looks like any other office
building there are some interesting cultural artifacts.
The building is on a corner, considered bad luck in traditional Chinese
culture (or maybe it's something to do with entering on a corner or not
doing so?). Anyway, to counter this they put a fountain inside the
entrance which provides running water (nature symbolism).
Another interesting note is that because the Chinese still enjoy doing
business in the open, the space is set up to minimize privacy during
banking transactions. Or that's what the article said anyway.
> Or maybe you think technology is entirely English because they made
> toy first steam engine.
Wasn't the first steam engine invented by some ancient greek guy as a
toy for some king?
Robert Mah
loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>the businesses [of Japan] are organized under western managerial practices,
>and the patents themselves (and scientific papers that spawned them) are
>written in english.
>The Japanese are a perfect example of Western assimalation; they certainly
>retain many of their traditional cultural heritage, but by & large
>their lives are organized around western models, western ideals, and
>western ways of doing things.
I was going to say that this person has obviously never lived in Japan or
worked for a Japanese firm, but I won't because he may have. However, if
he did, he certainly did not look around very closely.
Anyone who has worked in a Japanese company under home office rules would
attest to the fact that managerial styles are, in general, _very_ different
from those practiced in the U.S. I don't include Europe because I simply
don't know if their management practices are similar to those of the U.S.
or not.
And the statement that Japanese people's "lives are organized around western
models, western ideals, and western ways of doing things" is ludecrous at
best, dangerous at worst. Many American's used to (and may still) equate
"culture" with the physical trappings of life. I.e. they wear western
cloths, live in a western style home, watch TV and eat at McDonalds,
therefore they _must_ think the same way we do. Simple conversation
disproves this flawed idea.
You seem to equate outward appearences with assimilation. If that's your
definition of the word then so be it. However, many people that culture
and values are more important when speaking of "assimilation" of one
culture by another.
All this is not to refute the idea that various cultures have influenced
one another. That is obvious. It is also obvious that western culture
has a greater influence upon more cultures on Earth than any other at this
point in time. However, to say that, for instance, Japan (the most
"westernized" of the East Asian nations) lives by "western ideals, and
western ways" is ludicrous.
Terry Palfrey
I think that maybe using a shotgun here isn't
what is called for - western culture is self
renewing and revolutionary - sure the west has
learned something about quality control and
maufacturing process and perhaps new patents
is a valid benchmark perhaps you should look
more towards dynamics of the respective
societies and who is actually on the move.
Just a thought - mostly from old books.
Terry Palfrey
At least in your struggle to be brief you
didn't end up being obscure - well said.
Scott Gregory
[wa.. by Terry Palfrey@mindlink.b
Terry,
I'm not sure a shotgun isn't necessary in this case. I realize I took a
pretty extreme line because the argument this guy was making was
absolutely beyond all reason. I didn't intend to suggest that Western
culture is not a potent force in modern life, nor that we aren't "on the
move" as it were. I agree that Western culture is a particularly potent
thing -- just not the only one. A case in point is that we are going
way beyond quality control and patents (which you mention) in terms of
what we are learning from the Japanese. Are our corporations becoming
japanese then? Of course not, no more than theirs are becoming
American. The corporate cultures in the two countries are fundamentally
different and always will be. My point was just that to equate the
trappings with the fundament is a dangerous thing to do.
Cheers.
-S
Robert Mah
MSGID: 1:105/7@fidonet f09e8aec
REPLY: 1:105/7@fidonet 49d61f9a
From: rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Message-ID: <2554nl$r...@panix.com>
Date: 21 Aug 93 12:33:57 GMT
Avrom Faderman (av...@Csli.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: "And if you _do_ understand and control a technology, it will _still_
: control you and your life." ;-)
Such a defeatist attitude! With beleifs like that one can never surmount
the obstacles and challenges of life.
Cheers,
Rob
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Mah | Voice: (212) 947-6507 | "Every day an adventure,
One Step Beyond | EMail: rm...@panix.com | every moment a challenge."
---
* Origin: TheRose BBS +1(503)286-3855 - UseNet <=> FidoNet Gate (1:105/7)
PATH: 30707/99 105/8 290 40
Scott Gregory
MSGID: 1:105/7@fidonet 2e6bb1da
From: Scott Gregory <wg...@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Organization: Masters student, Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon,
Pittsburgh, PA
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 10:56:03 -0400
Excerpts from netnews.alt.cyberpunk: 26-Aug-93 Re: Luddite Cyberpunks?
[wa.. by Lupo the Butcher@twain.u
> >Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
> >only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
> >arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
> >nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
> >that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
> >ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
> >to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
> >ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
>
> They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the
chinese.
>
> To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
> on in these cultures today.
> Any cultural independance they have is due to the sheer numbers of people
> (the weight of the size of their civilizations as you would put it).
> Most anti-western backlash is due to this certain cultural assimilation.
Excuse me??? I believe the "profound ignorance" is yours. While your
argument may have some pseudo-validity in terms of American pop culture
and baseball, to suggest that the Chinese have been assimilated is at
best stupid. I used to live in Taiwan, which is arguably more
"Westernized" than mainland China, and in addition does not have the
"sheer numbers of people" of whom you speak (about 8% of the U.S.
population). While there, I encountered many Western culture
superiorists like yourself who made the assumption that they could
operate in a Western way because everybody wears business suits and eats
at McDonalds. They all left with nothing but lint in their pockets to
show for their efforts, because they were unable or unwilling to examine
the profound cultural differences that make surviving in China a much
different experience than surviving in the West. Shallow thinking such
as yours is a good example of why we have routinely been unable to
penetrate markets in places like Japan, for example. The East is a hell
of a lot deeper culturally than you admit, and people in China and other
Eastern cultures are quite skilled at adopting certain Western METHODS
to achieve their ends while remaining completely Eastern in their
cultural outlook.
-S
David A. Smith
MSGID: 1:105/7@fidonet fca960c0
REPLY: 1:105/7@fidonet 1298d312
From: DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <1993082711...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1993 21:31:00 GMT
In article <25jpeq...@twain.ucs.umass.edu>,
loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>>>These cultures are being assimalated due to their innefficient belief
>>>systems. The old hacker maxim applys here; "If you do not understand
>>>and controll a technology, it will controll you and your life."
>>>This, to me, is the essence of cyberpunk.
>>>
>>Your belief in the assimilation of other cultures by western modernity
>>only demonstrates how little weight you give to culture, politics, the
>>arts, economics, etc., and how much weight you give to science and tech-
>>nology. Oh, granted their are dozens, perhaps hundreds of small cultures
>>that have or are about to dissappear, but most of these are dissappear-
>>ing under the weight of the size of our civilization (or another), but
>>to suggest that the cultures of, say, China or India will be assimila-
>>ted is to betray ignorance of those cultures.
>
>They have been assimilated by western culture already; especially the chinese.
>To assert otherwise is to display profound ignorance of what is going
>on in these cultures today.
Your response to me only suggests that you either 1)live on a different
planet than I do, or 2)get all of your information from western news
media. If you ever travelled any or talked to someone from these other
cultures who wasn't already westernized, then you'd no better than to
say such inane things.
>
>Modernity has not even
>>been successful in completely assimilating the cultures of the lands
>>where it is home - witness the large and successful nativist movements
>>all over Europe and North America.
>
>Large and successful? SUrely you jest. Any cultural independance displayed
>is minor in the extreme compared to the vast similarities in culture
>throughout the western world.
>
>>We have obviously read utterly different works. I do not see any of your
>>"coming to terms with technology" in any cyberpunk literature. In fact I
>>find an awfully heavy critique of technology, especially in Gibson
>
>I daresay we have read the same works; our brains filter them in different
>ways. Since you are a luiddite, you read luddite messages into Gibson
>& the like.
>
>>(isn't that another thread on this group?) And as for "real cyberpunks"
>>equating to hackers and the like, I believe your just plain barking up
>>the wrong tree.
>
>So, hackers and phreakers are not "cyberpunk"?!
>I don't recall reading any "cyberpunk" novels or short-stories describing
>the exploits of literary critics!
>Please, get a clue.
>
Here's a clue for you - cyberpunk is fiction - what makes it cyberpunk
is not that there are hackers in them nor that there are computers. To
read such things within a novel and to not include the context does not
show much sophistication in reading at all. Is molly cyberpunk? is she
a hacker? Need I spell it out any further?
>>>
>>
>>I see no humanizing of the machine - only dehumanizing of the human.
>>And I see now simple ludditism in my argument.
>
>What? Please consult a grammar manual if you are unable to communicate
>properly.
>
>>I only suggested that
>>cyberpunk is the acceptance of technology with an underlying skepticism.
>
>Actually, your entire thesis thus far would seem to deny this last statement.
>
>>I think it best not to confuse the entire genre of literature, or the
>>concept itself with only the values of some cyberspace cowboys who are
>>characters in some of the novels. It is better, I think, to take the
>>works as a whole.
>
>I take the values because they are my own. "Taking the works as a whole"
>means drawing your own metamoral message from the plot; drawing such
>conclusions from literature that does not seem to be exclusively
>designed to convey a message of this sort seems a useless exercise as one
>could draw any number of contradictory metamoral messages.
>
>>See ya - David
>
>No, actually this seems quite unlikely.
>
>-L the B
>
---
David A. Smith
MSGID: 1:105/7@fidonet 35e75ad3
REPLY: 1:105/7@fidonet 1298d312
From: DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <1993082711...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu>
Sorry about the last post - sometimes ny brain doesn't know what my
fingers are doing:> - to continue
>>
>>I see no humanizing of the machine - only dehumanizing of the human.
>>And I see now simple ludditism in my argument.
>
>What? Please consult a grammar manual if you are unable to communicate
>properly.
>
Can't see that there's a simple typo? drop the w in now and try again.
(what was it I was saying about reading?)
>
>>I think it best not to confuse the entire genre of literature, or the
>>concept itself with only the values of some cyberspace cowboys who are
>>characters in some of the novels. It is better, I think, to take the
>>works as a whole.
>
>I take the values because they are my own. "Taking the works as a whole"
>means drawing your own metamoral message from the plot; drawing such
>conclusions from literature that does not seem to be exclusively
>designed to convey a message of this sort seems a useless exercise as one
>could draw any number of contradictory metamoral messages.
>
That is the point isn't it? And your responsibility as a reader and, if
you want to carry on reasonable discussion with other people, is to make
certain that your interpretation is feasably drawn from the story, is
defensible, and communicable to others. And that it bears some relation
to the way the community of readers might understand the book.
David
>
---
Arthur Smyles
>business classes I've had in the last year detailing the numerous ways
If your talking about Japanese manufactures and how American business
is coping it then you are not aware of the fact that originally the
Japanese copied an American manager who invented the methods that
American managers are now relearning.
>Technology is Western? Then why have Japanese patents of new
>technological innovations surpassed those of Americans? Or maybe you
>think technology is entirely English because they made the first steam
>engine. Technology is the present and future; you concern yourself only
>with the past.
>
Assuming that your fact is true, it disregards the fact that
America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
innovations"
>.
>.
Robert Mah
> If your talking about Japanese manufactures and how American business
>is coping it then you are not aware of the fact that originally the
>Japanese copied an American manager who invented the methods that
>American managers are now relearning.
Not exactly. After WW II, two American management gurus Juran and Deming
went to Japan to give lectures on things like quailty control, process
management, etc. What they found was that the top management of large
Japanese corporations were willing to listen. At the time, American
firms, because they were already the world leaders, using the techniques
based on Taylor's "scientific management" and modeled after GM's
heirarchial structure, did not.
To illustrate, here are a few quotes from a recent article in HBR by Juran:
"No one was more suprised than I when the people who attended my first
two-day lectures in Japan truned out to be CEO's - 70 at each session, 140
in all - from the largest manufacturing companies in that country. After
those sessions, two additional groups, each consisting of 150 senior
Japanese managers, spent two weeks with me. When I gave such lectures in
the United States, the audiences consisted of engineers and quality
control managers." [i.e. people without the power to change the
management structure and philosophy within their companies.]
" In the minds of some journaliss and industrialists, Japan's world
leadership in product quality is the result of the lectures given four
decades ago by two Americans - W. Edwards Deming and Josepth M. Juran.
Had Deming and I [Juran] not given those lectures, these people insist,
Japanese goods would still be of stone-age quality.
In my view, there is not a shred of truth in such assertions. Had
Deming and I stayed home, the Japanese would have achieved world quality
leadership all the same."
Bascially, the Japanese, at the time, cared about quality and were hungry,
both literally and figuratively. They were willing to rethink the old
notions of how production should be managed and the importance of quality
in the coming climax of the industrial age. The article is actually about
a simliar change in attitudes that is finally taking place in America. We
may have a prayer after all.
Robert Mah
> ... the real reason for Japan's success is their dumping of their products
> in violation of international law and our refusal to stop it, their
> industry links to financial organizations that are illegal under US
> anti-trust legislation, their closing of their markets to competitors
> goods, and their concerted attacks on well-targeted industries. All the
> other stuff, like management skills and quality control are secondary
> factors in their success.
I'll leave the silliness of dumping as the "real reason" go untouched.
However, leaving aside the equally silly legal definition of dumping, I've
always wondered why it was illegal at all here in the U.S. What's so wrong
with this? And why does it seem to be illegal only if so-called foriegn
firms do it?
I think that dumping is a legitimate business tactic to increase market
share by using one's own financial strength to outlast your opponents in a
price war. As Sun Tzu said, "attack where the enemy is weak and you are
strong". If you're opponent is heavily debt laden and you are healthy
financially and the market is price sensitive and you want greater market
share, then drastic price reductions to drive the other guy under seems
like the logical thing to do.
Steven M Demko
>> I could cite the numerous examples from
>>business classes I've had in the last year detailing the numerous ways
>>American businesses study Japanese business practices ...
>
> If your talking about Japanese manufactures and how American business
>is coping it then you are not aware of the fact that originally the
>Japanese copied an American manager who invented the methods that
>American managers are now relearning.
>
>>Technology is Western? Then why have Japanese patents of new
>>technological innovations surpassed those of Americans? Or maybe you
>>think technology is entirely English because they made the first steam
>>engine. Technology is the present and future; you concern yourself only
>>with the past.
>>
Japanese technological patents have surpassed those of Americans because
of a practice called "blanket patenting." The basic premise is to patent
not only your product or technology, but all possible uses of it, including
future uses. As for Americans studying Japanese business practices, indeed,
quite a few of them were home grown in the US, but the real reason for Japan's
success is their dumping of their products in violation of international law
and our refusal to stop it, their industry links to financial organizations
that are illegal under US anti-trust legislation, their closing of their
markets to competitors goods, and their concerted attacks on well-targeted
industries. All the other stuff, like management skills and quality
control are secondary factors in their success.
> Assuming that your fact is true, it disregards the fact that
>America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
>rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
>are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
>innovations"
>>.
>>.
The problem is that America is not leading in the fields that the Japanese
have decided to take over, and is not catching up. Look at consumer
electronics. Sharp has had it's version of a PDA out for over a year,
while we're still waiting for the Newton from Apple. Who makes your
walkman? Who makes your color TV? Granted, it looks like the US industry
will control the HDTV standard by virtue of an advanced technology, but
--
Steven M. Demko
sm...@phantom.cislabs.pitt.edu
Steven M Demko
>sm...@cislabs.pitt.edu (Steven M Demko) writes:
>
>> ... the real reason for Japan's success is their dumping of their products
>> in violation of international law and our refusal to stop it, their
>> industry links to financial organizations that are illegal under US
>> anti-trust legislation, their closing of their markets to competitors
>> goods, and their concerted attacks on well-targeted industries. All the
>> other stuff, like management skills and quality control are secondary
>> factors in their success.
>
>I'll leave the silliness of dumping as the "real reason" go untouched.
>
Hmm...curious. Why silliness?
>However, leaving aside the equally silly legal definition of dumping, I've
>always wondered why it was illegal at all here in the U.S. What's so wrong
>with this? And why does it seem to be illegal only if so-called foriegn
>firms do it?
>
>I think that dumping is a legitimate business tactic to increase market
>share by using one's own financial strength to outlast your opponents in a
>price war. As Sun Tzu said, "attack where the enemy is weak and you are
>strong". If you're opponent is heavily debt laden and you are healthy
>financially and the market is price sensitive and you want greater market
>share, then drastic price reductions to drive the other guy under seems
>like the logical thing to do.
>
I did not attempt to define dumping. I did give the four major reasons that
Japanese companies have taken over whole industries. The singular "reason"
in the above quote of me is merely a typo on my part. And I stand by my
assertions.
As to the question of dumping, and why it is illegal, we have to set the way
back machine to the turn of the century when organized labor had it's start.
Now dumping does make a great deal of sense if you're the dumper. You sustain
a loss for a time in order to drive the competition out of business. But what
happens when you win? You have what we call a monopoly. It's great. Take
a little turn of the century mill town, for example. The people there are
mostly immigrants, without skills necessary to find anything better than mill
work. Nor do they have much money, so they can't move all around trying to
find better jobs. So you pay them shit, and they can't do anything about it,
since not only are you the only game in town, you are the only game in the
region. Nor do you have to worry about worker safety, trouble-makers (simply
black list them,) improving your product, or cheating your clients (since
there is no longer anyplace for them to take their business to other than
you.) In other words, you piss everyone off. Now people start to organize
to stop you. They form unions, and strike, and riot. They government sees
this, and for a while, their on your side, but then even they start to get
a little leary of the power you hold. Meanwhile, other people from other
industries in the same boat as you add their power to yours. There is even
a movement, let's call it the socialist movement, which seems to be gaining
a lot of popularity, that threatens the whole system of government. Well,
the government finally decides that maybe you have a little too much power
for your own good, and develops anti-trust legislation. This, in a radically
~~~~~~~~~
simplified version, is the story of organized labor. I would suggest reading
about Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and the Steel Industry, or the Rockefellers
and Standard Oil. It is also why dumping is illegal.
David A. Smith
SA5...@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Arthur Smyles) writes:
>America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
>rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
>are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
>innovations"
>>.
>>.
???????Hello????Hello???? in what fields is america ahead (other than
the waste of time HDTV)?
David A. Smith
rm...@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes:
Good Stuff deleted
>
>Bascially, the Japanese, at the time, cared about quality and were hungry,
>both literally and figuratively. They were willing to rethink the old
>notions of how production should be managed and the importance of quality
>in the coming climax of the industrial age. The article is actually about
>a simliar change in attitudes that is finally taking place in America. We
>may have a prayer after all.
>
But then again....nah.
David
David A. Smith
sm...@cislabs.pitt.edu (Steven M Demko) writes:
>ut the real reason for Japan's
>success is their dumping of their products in violation of international law
>and our refusal to stop it, their industry links to financial organizations
>that are illegal under US anti-trust legislation, their closing of their
>markets to competitors goods, and their concerted attacks on well-targeted
>industries. All the other stuff, like management skills and quality
>control are secondary factors in their success.
>
Only one problem here. What you call dumping the japanese think of as
sound business practice. While american corporations are busy placing
profit at the top of their wish list the japanese look for market share.
The difference becomes manifest in all sorts of ways. Just one is in
the music industry - American firms are decrying the "illegal" copying
of cd's rented from rental shops, its there music they claim and there-
fore have the right to reap the profits. Sony and other japanese cor-
porations say, rent away my friends, just be sure to tape it on our
tape in our machine. We know whos winning.
Mark Hills
In a previous article, DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith) says:
>>America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
>>rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
>>are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
>>innovations"
>>>.
>>>.
>???????Hello????Hello???? in what fields is america ahead (other than
>the waste of time HDTV)?
Tis true! Actually, HDTV was developed by the Americans in 1978
or there abouts and didn't think it would fly. The Japanese bought it and
ran with it, thus it's current popularity. Fuzzy Logic was also developed
in the US and the Japanese ran with it again, Sanyo uses it in camcorders
and Sony uses it in their XBR seires of TVs. Also, anti-lock brakes have
been available in Germany on Mercedes Benz and BMWs for 15 years and only
took off in the US 5 years ago. So...what was that guy saying about America's
leadership in industry? Hell, even Canada has the world with it's telecommun-
ications technology and the Candu reactors.
--
The Kid Tokyo : 1:163/445 - 143:613/0 - 100:649/106 - 89:482/107-------------|
Let's go commandos, it's howling time. --------------------------------------|
Night City On-Line: Where it all happens: 1-613-247-0257 [DOWN for a bit.]---|
Lupo the Butcher
(I suppose regular TV technology is also a "waste of time")
BTW, whoever said that the US is ahead in HDTV technology is a liar;
the Japanese already have a HDTV standard in operation that is superior
to anything in the works for .us televisions.
Some representative fields that the US is "ahead in" are (for example)
Supercomputing
Minicomputers
Personal Computers
Biotech
Pharmaceuticals
Biomed Engineering
Software engineering
Aerospace
Mass Storage Technology
Microprocessor/CPU design
etc...
Some things the US is behind in;
Certain types of Chip Manufacture
HDTV
TV
Consumer Electronics in General
etc...
I find it rather amusing that net--people (presumably "cyberpunk"
net-people) find it alarming that a certain geographical area
has certain technological and manufacturing advantages; its all so dang
decentralised & global these days that the difference between sony
and Hewlett Packard just don't seem like all that big a deal (they are
both .com addresses from my keyboard)
just my $0.02
-Lupo the Butcher
Wayne A. Lee
DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith) writes:
> In article <06SEP93.00...@lafibm.lafayette.edu>,
> SA5...@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Arthur Smyles) writes:
>
> >America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
> >rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
> >are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
> >innovations"
> >>.
> >>.
> ???????Hello????Hello???? in what fields is america ahead (other than
> the waste of time HDTV)?
1. Software
2. High-speed pizza delivery
--
wayne a. lee <a4...@mindlink.bc.ca> Vancouver, BC
Shakespeare's works weren't written by him, but by someone else with the same
name. -- DRH
Arthur Smyles
>
>In a previous article, DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith) says:
>
>>>America is leading in most high tech fields, and is catching up in the
>>>rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
>>>are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
>>>innovations"
>>>>.
>>>>.
>>???????Hello????Hello???? in what fields is america ahead (other than
>>the waste of time HDTV)?
>
commoditized, we are ahead.
>
> Tis true! Actually, HDTV was developed by the Americans in 1978
>or there abouts and didn't think it would fly. The Japanese bought it and
>ran with it, thus it's current popularity. Fuzzy Logic was also developed
>in the US and the Japanese ran with it again, Sanyo uses it in camcorders
>and Sony uses it in their XBR seires of TVs. Also, anti-lock brakes have
>been available in Germany on Mercedes Benz and BMWs for 15 years and only
>took off in the US 5 years ago. So...what was that guy saying about America's
>leadership in industry? Hell, even Canada has the world with it's telecommun-
>ications technology and the Candu reactors.
>
>
false. Granted the Japanese have a working system, but it is ANALOG.
What do all computers, including yours, use. DIGITAL. So the millions
of dollars that Japan spent on HDTV is completely lost. Why. Because
digital technology is more flexible, just like our country.
About Fuzzy logic. I would call that an incremental improvement,
wouldn't you?
About German cars. What do Mercedes and BMW have in common. They
are luxury cars. What are luxury cars. Cars that cost a lot of money
and have great nifty features like anti-lock brakes. Not cars that
America makes, which are not exactly of the same class, i.e. for most of
middle class america.
About Candu. What's Candu, i.e., please educate me on Candu
Paul Graham
: ???????Hello????Hello???? in what fields is america ahead (other than
: the waste of time HDTV)?
--
I read an interesting little analysis of the American vs Oriental society
and scientific abilities. I can't recall the authors but it was a
remarkably in depth study.. they made connections to everything from the
alphabet and the philosophies, to family life and current technology
levels. The very basic level of the study showed that Americans were great
innovators and inventors while Orientals could copy and develope faster
than the Americans. They gave plenty of examples of American inventions
now making $$$ for the Japanese and Chinese. It boils down to America
being full of inventors and Japan being full of producers. unfortunately
it is the end product in a consumer society that makes the $$$. one of the
many faults in capitalism.
.---------------------------------------. .-----------------------.
| Paul Graham | | "To hit the ball |
| Senior B. Landscape Architecture | | and touch them all, |
| Computing and Communication Services | | a moment in the sun." |
| University of Guelph | | |
| <pgr...@herman.cs.uoguelph.ca> | | - John Fogarty |
| <gr...@suppserv.ccs.uoguelph.ca> | | |
`---------------------------------------' `-----------------------'
Hugh MacMullan IV
DAS...@UHCCMVS.UHCC.Hawaii.Edu (David A. Smith) writes:
>In article <06SEP93.00...@lafibm.lafayette.edu>,
>SA5...@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Arthur Smyles) writes:
>
>>rest. Probably most of the difference in the number of patents are
>>are merely incremental improvements rather than "technological
>>innovations"
>>>.
>>>.
>the waste of time HDTV)?
Why I'm surprised at you Mr. Smith. The U.S. is ahead in the only
field that matters -- Military Technology.
----Hugh
Mark Hills
In a previous article, SA5...@lafibm.lafayette.edu (Arthur Smyles) says:
> Also in another article about HDTV, that we aren't ahead in it, is
>false. Granted the Japanese have a working system, but it is ANALOG.
>What do all computers, including yours, use. DIGITAL. So the millions
>of dollars that Japan spent on HDTV is completely lost. Why. Because
>digital technology is more flexible, just like our country.
I didn't know that. HDTV will probably go the way of the dodo, it'd
cost millions to turn EVERY TV station in America and Canada to the HDTV
standard, that's providing consumers want to spend the kilobucks to buy new
TVs. Last I heard the US was trying to make the two systems compatible with
each other, HDTV & NTSC in the same box. Thanks for the info.
> About Fuzzy logic. I would call that an incremental improvement,
>wouldn't you?
Hey, Sanyo wants to stuff it in washing machines...'course Bill Gates
wants to put Windows in our toasters and Nintendos...sigh.
> About German cars. What do Mercedes and BMW have in common. They
>are luxury cars. What are luxury cars. Cars that cost a lot of money
>and have great nifty features like anti-lock brakes. Not cars that
>America makes, which are not exactly of the same class, i.e. for most of
>middle class america.
In some countries, the Middle East, etc. BMW's and Mercedes are just
cars.
> About Candu. What's Candu, i.e., please educate me on Candu
Candus are nuclear reactors, arguably the best designed and safest
in the world. The only two that ever failed are the ones in India, which
Canada did not build and the one in Romania that was never finished.
Paul Graham
: Why I'm surprised at you Mr. Smith. The U.S. is ahead in the only
: field that matters -- Military Technology.
: ----Hugh
--
I *hope* you were being sarcastic.
Hugh MacMullan IV
>: field that matters -- Military Technology.
>
>: ----Hugh
>
>--
>I *hope* you were being sarcastic.
Oops...sorry...please append to my post:
=) :) 8) ;) |) ,etc.
David A. Smith
loc...@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>>the waste of time HDTV)?
>
>(I suppose regular TV technology is also a "waste of time")
HDTV being a waste of time does not mean that TV is a waste of time
(unless of course you're watching it ;>) It means that IMHO the
advantages to be gained, either as a consumer product or for any but
the most specific of uses, is not that significant.
>BTW, whoever said that the US is ahead in HDTV technology is a liar;
>the Japanese already have a HDTV standard in operation that is superior
>to anything in the works for .us televisions.
>
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news. There is a U.S.
standard, established a few months ago and inconjunction with Phillips
(which means that europe will adopt the same standard). Of course this
standard is not very ambitious in comparison with the japanese standard,
but that was one reason it was chosen, to allow U.S. manufacturers to
start production before their japanese competitors were able to reach
their more far-looking standard. (They only forgot one thing - there are
no U.S. manufacturers ready to produce TV's of any kind)
>Some representative fields that the US is "ahead in" are (for example)
>Supercomputing
>Minicomputers
>Personal Computers
>Biotech
>Pharmaceuticals
>Biomed Engineering
>Software engineering
>Aerospace
>Mass Storage Technology
>Microprocessor/CPU design
>etc...
>
>Some things the US is behind in;
>Certain types of Chip Manufacture
>HDTV
>TV
>Consumer Electronics in General
>etc...
I'm going to have to disagree with you on most counts here ---
Supercomputers and Aerospace I'll grant you (though the lead in aero-
space is getting smaller by the day.
For all the others I think you just aren't current. A year ago I would
have agreed with you on software, not I'm not sure at all. The biggest
problem had been the character barrier. That is now solved and, from
what I've been told in a manner which not only allows tacking back and
forth between two scripts within programs, but also at the programming
level (I don't pretend to understand how this is done, but I've been
told this by people I trust).
For the others you should check out some japanese publications at some
time. You'd be amazed. I worked at a japanese pharmaceutical company
a few years back and they felt they already had the lead, largely
because the FDA slows things down to much here. As for the bio-tech and
micro-processor fields, five years ago maybe, today not. Sure, intel is
the world's largest producer of general purpose microprocessors - but
japan has been concentrating on dedicated microprocessors and is way out
in front (why they've had MD's for over three years and they are just
now hitting the shelves in the U.S. (japanese brands of course).
>I find it rather amusing that net--people (presumably "cyberpunk"
>net-people) find it alarming that a certain geographical area
>has certain technological and manufacturing advantages; its all so dang
>decentralised & global these days that the difference between sony
>and Hewlett Packard just don't seem like all that big a deal (they are
>both .com addresses from my keyboard)
>
>just my $0.02
>
I'd have to agree with you there. I see no difference, and as a consumer
I'd just as soon go with whatever is quality. My only concern here was
that the original poster seemed to think that it was great that the U.S.
is the world's tech leader (which I obviously don't believe), and that
that kind of thinking actually holds back the very real need we have for
trying harder to compete with the japanese and europeans.
P.S. Butcher, you'll note that I'm responding to your post. I don't like
kill files and have removed the one I had for you. We got off to a rough
start last time, maybe this exchange can be a little more congenial?
David A. Smith
pgr...@uoguelph.ca (Paul Graham) writes:
>--
>I read an interesting little analysis of the American vs Oriental society
>and scientific abilities. I can't recall the authors but it was a
>remarkably in depth study.. they made connections to everything from the
>alphabet and the philosophies, to family life and current technology
>levels. The very basic level of the study showed that Americans were great
>innovators and inventors while Orientals could copy and develope faster
>than the Americans. They gave plenty of examples of American inventions
>now making $$$ for the Japanese and Chinese. It boils down to America
>being full of inventors and Japan being full of producers. unfortunately
>it is the end product in a consumer society that makes the $$$. one of the
>many faults in capitalism.
>
>
>
Paul, don't know who your author for this was, but it sounds like a
convenient bit of orientalism to me. And while I certainly see that
a good few western inventions have been taken, molded, adopted, and
marketed by the japanese, I also see lots of creativity among the
japanese as well. And just to through a bit of a monkeywrench into the
works (no, not Rush) consider the case of gunpowder.
Have one, David
Robert Mah
> And just to through a bit of a monkeywrench into the works (no, not Rush)
> consider the case of gunpowder.
Or printing presses, paper money, siesmographs, watertight bulkheads,
armored warships, central heating systems, coke steel furnesses, civil
service exams (hmm, maybe not all inventions are "advances" :-), the
compass, etc. etc.
Sourcerer
Lest we forget, the Japanese have had a full-tilt commitment to...analogue
HDTV.
Mark Hills
In a previous article, dje...@telerama.pgh.pa.us (Sourcerer) says:
>Lest we forget, the Japanese have had a full-tilt commitment to...analogue
>HDTV.
I posted earlier that I wasn't aware of this...Why?
Scott Gregory
[wa.. by David A. Smith@UHCCMVS.U
> convenient bit of orientalism to me. And while I certainly see that
> a good few western inventions have been taken, molded, adopted, and
> marketed by the japanese, I also see lots of creativity among the
> japanese as well. And just to through a bit of a monkeywrench into the
> works (no, not Rush) consider the case of gunpowder.
You are of course correct here, and we young (societally speaking)
Americans shoudl remember that there is little doubt amongst
anthropologists and the like that up until the 14th Century, the
technological and cultural (no value judgment, just complexity) world
leaders were the Chinese. There is an amazing "time-line" in the
National Museum in Taiwan, separated by various cultures. About 1/3 of
the way through it, you start seeing Western societies beginning to make
some contributions, but if you make comparisons up to about the 14th
Century, its obvious who the masters were...and they weren't us, not
even our oh-so-charished ancient Greeks.
-S
Paul Graham
: convenient bit of orientalism to me. And while I certainly see that
: a good few western inventions have been taken, molded, adopted, and
: marketed by the japanese, I also see lots of creativity among the
: japanese as well. And just to through a bit of a monkeywrench into the
: works (no, not Rush) consider the case of gunpowder.
: Have one, David
--
ahhh, no, sorry If that came across as biased against the orientals. This
study was simply a look at the two different culturs and what the
differences in them might reflect. One example i mentioned was the
alphabet... the orientals alphebet is basically a one to one mapping of
reality, a symbol for each concept they wanted to express. Western
ALpha-numeric system takes advantage of the many combinations and
permutations of 26 (+10) symbols and is based more on what we hear than
what we see. The book explored many different aspects of the two cultures
and simply made as accurate a guess as possible based on what was found..
there are always exceptions to the rules, and no one would argue that
orientals were farther advanced than many cultures at similar time
periods, It is not so much what they accomplish but the method they use.
my apologies to any I may have offended.
.---------------------------------------. .-----------------------.
| Paul Graham | | "To hit the ball |
| Senior B. Landscape Architecture | | and touch them all, |
| Computing and Communications Services | | a moment in the sun." |
David A. Smith
pgr...@uoguelph.ca (Paul Graham) writes:
>
>ahhh, no, sorry If that came across as biased against the orientals. This
>study was simply a look at the two different culturs and what the
>differences in them might reflect.
No, that is not whats meant by an "orientalism." The idea comes from
Edward Said's (1977?) work by that name. It references a vision of
another peoples based not on any specific knowledge of the other cul-
ture, but on the historical/social constitution of the other culture
within the culture speaking.
>my apologies to any I may have offended.
>
none taken
David
Robert Mah
>differences in them might reflect. One example i mentioned was the
>alphabet... the orientals alphebet is basically a one to one mapping of
>reality, a symbol for each concept they wanted to express. Western
>ALpha-numeric system takes advantage of the many combinations and
>permutations of 26 (+10) symbols and is based more on what we hear than
>what we see.
Well this is silly. If you mean that the Han Chinese _are_ the orient,
then yes. However, many alphabets in the far east are NOT hieroglyphic.
Take Korean (Hangul) for example. It uses a 24 character alphabet (with 5
additional lax "characters" which are actually simply doublings). The
alphabet considered is phonemic (not the same as phonetic, but I'm not sure
what the difference really is).
Take two of the three japanese alphabets, Hiragana and Katakana. Both
consist of 46 characters and is, by my limited understanding, sylabic in
nature. BTW, the same sounds are represented in both. It's just that
Hiragana is for native Japanese words and Katakana for foreign words that
have been borrowed.
The Chinese alphabet is widely used throughout the far east and westerners
could look at it sort of like a living version of Latin. However, to use
it as an archetype for the other languages and alphabets in the area and
then draw cultural infrences from it is silly. It would be sort of like
saying that the Germans, British, Italians, French, Spaniards, Irish,
Americans, Brazilians and Mexicans are all the same in XYZ because they all
use the same alphabet.
The bredth of cultures in mainland China is phenominal. As broad a range
as in Europe, if not more so. And if one goes farther west to India, then
you find a land of dozens of languages and independent cultures. I
realize that it is difficult to not generalize the cultures of the area
without the experience of direct contact so I just wanted to shed some
light :-)
David A. Smith
loc...@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:
>>>BTW, whoever said that the US is ahead in HDTV technology is a liar;
>>>the Japanese already have a HDTV standard in operation that is superior
>>>to anything in the works for .us televisions.
>
>>Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news. There is a U.S.
>>standard, established a few months ago and inconjunction with Phillips
>>(which means that europe will adopt the same standard). Of course this
>>standard is not very ambitious in comparison with the japanese standard,
>>but that was one reason it was chosen, to allow U.S. manufacturers to
>>start production before their japanese competitors were able to reach
>>their more far-looking standard. (They only forgot one thing - there are
>>no U.S. manufacturers ready to produce TV's of any kind)
>
>That may be true (actually, I do recall hearing something about this), but
>the Japanese already have a HDTV standard in widespread use with somthing like
>twice the resolution of current .us screens.
>As far as .us manufacturers starting production with the new far reaching
>standard; what .us manufacterers? What makes you think they are capable of
>doing this when they can't even sell plain old tv's here (with the exception
>of Curtis Mathis).
>
You're right about the japanese standard. From what I have read about,
it would appear that one of the big stumbling blocks has been there
commitment to an analog standard (others have pointed this out in this
thread also), which may provide certain advantages as far as picture
quality are concerned, but obvious disadvantages as far as translation
and recording are concerned.
>>have agreed with you on software, not I'm not sure at all. The biggest
>>problem had been the character barrier. That is now solved and, from
>>what I've been told in a manner which not only allows tacking back and
>>forth between two scripts within programs, but also at the programming
>>level (I don't pretend to understand how this is done, but I've been
>>told this by people I trust).
>
>This may be true, but I do not see how it is significant. Programming
>is largely done in english based languages (fortran, c lisp unix etc.)
>and largely done in .us (as far as .us consumed software goes, that is).
>Charachter emulators might be nice for data entry, assuming the new
>standard is practical and accepted, but it doesn't seem all that
>significant to me.
>In fact, the structure of Korean, Chinese and Japanese seems rather too rigid
>and formal for the creative process needed in writing software.
>
After I posted the last time about this, I checked with my friend again
about this stuff so I'd have some more info. What he told me about is
essentially on OS which allows indiscriminant use of japanese or english
and allows for the running of programs in either language. This fellow
is a lawyer and can afford more expensive toys than I, but tells me he
can now multitask between his standard U.S. programs and japanese pro-
grams. Maybe not that exciting for those of us whose japanese is
marginal, but think what it does for the japanese.
stuff on dedicated processors munched
>
>"Big Ticket" CPU's are basically all produced by .us companies now,
>and the next 3 generations (which are already in the works, believe
>it or not) of cpu standards are all .us as well; the DEC Alpha series,
>the Pentium (and the 686 and 786 already in the works) and the apple/ibm chip
>that is in the works will be the standards of the future; nothing like
>a "fujitsu" chip is in the works as far as I know, though they do make good
>copies of older cpu's.
>
The question here, of course, when it comes to technological lead, is
which type of processor is constitutes the "advance." If one goes
strictly by theory then you who have to see the general processor, but
if one goes by application and use, well then there is a lot to be said
for the dedicated processor
>As far as harmaceuticals (pun intended), it still seems that the .us companies
>are coming up with the various breakthroughs despite the restrictive fda.
>This may be due to the fact that we spend more than any other country
>on this type of research...
>
I'm not so sure this is the case. I do know that the pharmaceutical
researchers I worked with were convinced that their only real competi-
tion was the french. The y laughed at american research efforts. To
be precise, they had quite a bit of respect for the researchers them-
selves, but thoughtthe way that the federal bureaucracy meddled in
research efforts was ridiculous. That is why, they told me, that the
japanese have access to new drugs sooner than americans (even when the
original breakthrough is american), and also why, they told me, that
japanese research was ahead of american as they did not face constant
meddling from bureaucrats.
David