What on Earth is going on in Iran ?
Jerry
mis-represented, the guy is howlingly naive.
It seems very convenient to have a 'mad dog' emerge
- yet at first sight this does look like a WMD problem
Peculiar - and rather worrying
Norman
reality of the situation is what exists today. Previously Arab
aggression, even if it covertly had the support of governments within
the Arab world, could be put down to independent groups of out of
controls like HezBalah. What is different now is that the burkah has
been removed to show the true face of the country. Yes they may be
nutters but they are controlling a very large country with a population
which is susceptible to rhetoric.
It was interesting that Algeria was moderating the whole thing down.
Should they be kicked out of the UN? This is a difficult one; they have
violated one of the fundamental tenets of membership, namely
threatening aggression against another member state (although hasn't
this happened before without any real effect on the aggressors
membership). On the other side, diplomacy can't have a chance if you
don't have a table to sit around, if at all they want to give it a
chance.
Even though they have acquired the WMD technology from the 'Godfather
of the Pakistan bomb' they are reported to be several years away from
actual nuclear capability.
It looks as if he World Policeman has shot his bolt too early at the
wrong target and appears to be too much over his ears in domestics at
the moment to respond. Alternatively however, there is no need to
'Wag the Dog' when you have a potential war thrown into your lap.
It could turn out to be just the attention diverter Bush needs at the
moment.
Best
Drew
the extent of N. Korea but if Western Sahara declared death to the
infidels would anyone pay any attention whatsoever? Were Bush's
pronouncements on 'the axis of evil' not tantamount to the same
thing as Iran? I'd say so. And he's a naive nutter too, or at least
would be if he were sufficiently elevated in intellectual capacity to
be honoured with the appellation of nutter.
Language may too play a part. Subtleties are difficult to express in a
foreign tongue and one tends to utter crudities. Then if the listener
has an agenda which he is determined to have confirmed, black becomes
white. It's all bluster from Iran. Who's going to build them
weapons capable of deploying a thousand miles without themselves
becoming a durty great hole in the ground? Home grown, yea right. Allah
may will it but he's not proven to be too successful in separating
U235 from 238 merely upon the strength of prayer.
Lot of similarity between the US and Iran groundswell. Both have a
(misbegotten) un-swaying belief in their own righteousness. Both
manifest an alarming Ptolemaic view of the universe. Both are socially
undeveloped. All a bit like Girvan -- perhaps Bush'll set his myopic
sights on South Ayrshire.
Best
Norman
Security Council does not go into emergency session to debate
somebody's opinion so there must be some substance in it somewhere.
Tehran apparently repeated the sentiments instead of playing them down,
thus ratching things up a notch. Is the dog being wagged? I don't
know.
The best military brains in the US don't have very much to do with
the military, they spend their time playing out 'what if' games; so
the possibility if Iran going AWOL must have been considered. When a
real situation starts to build they would naturally advise President
Wayne who would then round up all the miscreants, put them in a field
and bomb the b*stards.
On this note don't you have the impression that Bubba thinks like
John Wayne talked. After 11/9 and Katrina he looked like he was the
guilty one. As one report had it "He looked like he had been caught
with his hand in the cookie jar" and flat footed for a response.
One report I read overnight said that Iran had bought the nuclear
technology from the designer of the Pakistan nuclear capability so that
is who could actually put it together for them. It is interesting that
the timing of Iran going 'capable' coincides roughly with the end
of Bush's term.
Watch and Wait!
Best
Norman
and that it had never threatened any second country. Meanwhile
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Has not withdrawn his remarks. So there
you have it; the situation is entirely equivocal.
Best
Jerry
with nuclear material.
- Also that they got their 'technology' from Pakistan
Fairly recently it was 'generously decided' that the Plutonium traces
found during an inspection were down to 'contamination' from equipment
from Pakistan.
Then Iran started blethering about giving nuclear technology to other
Arab states (not that the Iranians are Arab but they seem to have
forgotton that).
Now we have this ridiculous thing with Israel.
I assume that there is some sort of brinkmanship and taunting going on,
but if so it is incredibly miscalculated.
The Israelis will have been keeping a very close eye on developments,
both literally on the ground and from US (and possibly Russian &
Chinese) supplied satellite pictures.
It would take them very little to get them to do a bombing raid as they
did to Iraq in 1982, it would take them even less to arrange an
'accident', forensics on very large explosions are a bit tricky.
All of which makes me suspect that the Iranian President is howling
mad, or is somehow in league with Bush.
It must be perfectly obvious that the USA and all observers have
realized that it is pretty easy to bomb the daylights out of a state,
but very difficult to occupy it.
Since occupation is a mug's game as clearly demonstrated by the
Russians in Afghanistan, I doubt that anyone will bother.
I could understand Saddam, also I reckon I know what N. Korea is up to
(working out the bride price), but this one just bemuses me.
Norman
people are fairly easily beguiled so the potential leader with the best
rhetoric wins the game. Could it be that our fundamentalist friends are
there in the background working the strings, through the legacy of
Ayatollah Khomeini. I think that the Iranian military is a lot more
joined up than Iraq was so I think that they would not just roll over
like Sadam did. If you have overwhelming power however, occupying a
country is not that difficult; it is getting out that is the problem.
I think the question one has to ask is, allowing for the possibility
that he isn't raving mad, who has to gain what, from this latest
outburst? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is new to the game and I feel
he is establishing a stand by sticking his spear in the ground. With
the populous behind him and Al Qaeda in front of him......
Best
Drew
Iveadinnerjacket does him fair justice and accords him appropriate
sincerity.
Best
Norman
Drew Wrote:
Were Bush's pronouncements on 'the axis of evil' not tantamount to the
same thing as Iran? I'd say so............
Lot of similarity between the US and Iran groundswell. Both have a
(misbegotten) un-swaying belief in their own righteousness. Both
manifest an alarming Ptolemaic view of the universe. Both are socially
undeveloped.
Well "the Australian" newspaper agrees with you, but Drew said it
first, maybe they read our posts:
"experts have found remarkable parallels in the careers of the Iranian
and American presidents. Were it not for their different languages and
family backgrounds, Bush and Ahmadinejad might be political
"soul-mates", according to Juan Cole, a Middle East historian at the
University of Michigan.
Both men relied on right-wing religious forces for their recent
election success. Both campaigned as comparative "outsiders",
denouncing their respective political establishments. Bush first ran
for president as governor of Texas and frequently criticised Washington
insiders; Ahmadinejad ran as mayor of Tehran denouncing central
government corruption.
Both men have exploited their personal piety -- Bush with evangelical
Christians and Ahmadinejad with fundamentalist Muslims. And both see
themselves not as intellectual policy-makers but as down-to-earth
problem-solvers".
Link:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17084566%255E2703,00.html
I am still convinced that this whole thing was primarily for home
consumption.
>From the Kashar News:
The official IRNA news agency quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad Friday as saying
international scorn had no validity. He said his words express the
views of the Iranian people.
Link:
http://www.kashar.net/complete.asp?id=2496
Best
Drew
defence I would say that crap is crap and it matters not to me its
consistency or from which creature it emanates. Is it not also
ingenuous Australian nature to get to the heart of things without
dignifying by all manner of clever observation and argument?
Repeating a tendentious assertion of mine from yonks ago, I also
likened the US Republican party to the Soviet Politburo. This doesn't
go down too well with rednecks but there is generally sufficient time
between the confused state of brain caesura and violence for one to
make good ones escape.
Best
Jerry
But it is just amazing how many are.
Back in the 1970's my uncle was considered of sufficient interest to
have his own 'ex US Diplomatic Service' sicced onto him. A very curious
guy.
Around 1974 US policy was to set up a triangle in the Middle East,
Israel for technology, Egypt for manpower and Iran for finance.
Of course the Shah got the big C and world opinion lambasted him for
the 'excesses' of SAVAK, hence the 'revolution' which has remarkable
similarities to Russia in 1917.
I wonder how the theocracy are feathering their own nests.
Norman
Apparently Iveadinnerjacket got the job by being on the side of
theology in principle instead of theology in practice.
Best
Drew
representative cross section though.
Following on Norman, there was a prog on TV tonight hosted by Jonathon
Millar, with contributions from Dawkins and others, exploring reasons
for belief. Nice to have open dismissal of the rubbish for once, albeit
that it was discussed with far too much dignity. Anyway, a quote (more
of less)....
The masses believe religion. The educated don't. Those in power find
it useful.
Apparently Shrub senior said of people who don't believe in god have
no entitlement to American citizenship. Think he should have
familiarised himself with the constitution.
Best
Norman
here.
The masses believe religion. The educated don't. Those in power find
it useful.
Read this and said Phew then cooled my open hands up and down in front
of my chest. Quite succinct; mind you I seem to remember an "Opium of
the masses" statement from somewhere.
I think Shrub senior should be the first person to bring the message to
Mars.
Best
Jerry
'Religion is the opiate of the masses'
A subtle, but very significant difference.
Do you think Shrub can read ?
I'm not convinced myself
- when the Twin Towers thing happened he was supposedly reading to
kids, but I'll bet he was being prompted on his ear set.
There was a fairly eminent law Prof who, in his earlier days, got
arrested in the USA for handing out seditious literature, he was
handing out copies of the American Constitution.
Norman
thought of the quotation in terms of the effect rather than the
substance. I am usually fairly ok with word distinctions but I got this
one wrong, probably because I misheard the quotation.
Can Shrub read? I don't know but think he is a disaster when he tries
to think for himself; he definitely needs help along the way. Remember
the president of America wearing a badly tailored shirt on an election
TV debate? People joked about Ronny but he was a lot more joined up
than this guy.
Best
Jerry
main tutor liked to point out.
Marx was quite an interesting guy, but his writing is incredible
turgid.
Reagan (or the Gipper) was actually surprizingly smart.
He got hacked off with being deluged with 'situation papers' that
looked like telephone directories, and insisted on 'mini memos'
- if it don't fit on one side of an A4 sheet of paper, it don't get
read.
That really impressed me.
I've got a slight hunch that Arnie might make a good president if they
can amend the constitution.
Professional actors might just be a bit better at doing the job than
non-professionals.
If the acting comes naturally, then they can concentrate on thinking
rather than playing to the gallery.
Norman
present lot.
Best
Drew
to do with him being a bit stupid, in keeping with requisite Republican
mindset. As for acting, much as I enjoyed 'The Terminator', he is
one of the few leading men who has never professed a desire to act
Hamlet -- Wayne and Raygun being two others.
Best
Jerry
- and is reputed to be a smart investor
There is also something reassuringly 'off the wall' about him
- like his tent - which I suspect has something to do with LBJ's famous
statement
Amazing that they could not fit Blunkett up with a nice H of C
secretary who knows how to keep her mouth shut ... they can be nice
lasses, and very interesting conversationalists.
Norman
I'm sorry I just said that.
What fomous statement from LBJ?
Drew
still stupid. Barry Norman detests him which is good enough for me.
World's richest man is dead bright too, but stupid as a hamster, and
I'm comparing with a hamster which even its fleas think is stupid.
When I think of clever stupid people, Edward Teller comes to mind. He
of the fusion bomb, the betrayer of Oppenheimer, the bedfellow of
McCarthy and Raygun's inspirer for the unbelievably ludicrous
starwars defence system.
My point being that in addition to intelligence quotients there should
be a stupidity quotient too. Most politicians would score rather high
in the former but rather low in the latter. Blunkett is stupid, piggin
ugly too. Then there is Condie Rice, very accomplished and brainy, just
last week decrying countries who interfere with the internals of other
ones. Last time I said anything so profoundly stupid I'd just taken a
brief slide down a birth canal. Oh yes, and police chiefs are a
particularly uninspiring lot too are they not?
Ever noticed that perhaps 95% of 'news' relates to stupidity in
some form or another? Or 'Question Time' type programs. Why can't
the panel just say "It's down to stupidity"? Save a hell of a lot
of air time for really incisive stuff such as The Simpsons. Oh god and
are the airwaves filled with Muslim concession stuff. So what if they
are offended. Tough. I feel it is ones duty to gently offend anyone of
a religious persuasion, be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. Oh
yes and *especially* Mormons. They offend me and I have it on good
authority that they offend God too. Obviously I have no animosity
towards 'believers', only the beliefs and what is done to humanity
in the name of fairy tales. Mmm, well maybe I make an exception for
Mormons........ shuffle up.
Best
Norman
>From what I have read, Blunket's antics didn't have much to do with
love though. Yeh, right on, stupid and ugly.
When it comes to the stupidly intelligent (or should it be the
intelligently stupid?), they don't come much better than our home
grown Clive Sinclair.
I guess that common sense is something that you can't learn at
school.
I suppose that everybody in the police rank and file aspires to the top
position but it amazes me that anybody wants the job of the general
that is loosing the war. Is that stupid or what?
Just as an aside, 23 coppers from our nearest reasonable sized town
have just been thrown out of the force for drugs racketeering. A case
of not beating; joining and then getting grassed up! And now the
pushers are still there getting even fatter.
It was the newscaster Martyn Lewis who for years peed into the wind
trying to get his bosses to include some good news items in The News.
But like the saying goes, "There is not much call for that sort of
stuff these days".
I think it was one of you, not altogether sure though, that recently
said, "If you were God, would you pick some slick mouthed black Yank
with a television show to be your true representative on Earth"?
Best
Jerry
- pretty interesting - sounds like couch testing to me.
I'm not so sure that Bill Gates is thick
- I've watched him fighting a rearguard battle since the mid 1980's
- also he is very similar to a type of person that I've known in a few
other guises, slightly effeminate males with minds like razors - but
curiously a core of honesty.
- I've worked with them, they need someone to do their dirty work in a
bluff and upfront manner.
A pal of mine is very interested in Oppenheimer and has lent me a book
on him, which for some obscure reason I've not touched - apart from a
skim in a pub.
This Saturday R4 21:00 has something on Oppenheimer, it might be worth
recording.
I'm not so sure about politicians being more 'intelligent' than
'stupid'.
The ground rules have been changing steadily over the years, so the 4th
Estate has lost its inhibitions and is more likely to take out the odd
trophy, pour encourager les autres
- and because someone else will get there first
My take is that the majority of politicians have long been
unintelligent and prats, but it was generally covered up.
Blunkett should have seen it coming - or at least Lucy should have
warned him, that Siddiqui guy reeks of a con - one does not need a
slide rule to assess what he was up to.
.. mind you that Sally Anderson lass had some tangible assets -
obviously no brain otherwise she would have steered a mile away from
Max Clifford.
The joke is that as a back bencher Flunked-It can tout himself as much
as he likes, and if he has half a brain he could run a glove puppet
show.
Roughly paraphrased, Bertram Russell said:
'If there were a god then I would be a member of the parliamentary
opposition'
Nowadays he would probably be looking into the calibre of a
Kalashnikov, and experimenting with casting silver bullets.
However, it is far more amusing than a soap opera.
Drew
what she wishes is often stupid.
And of course Uncle Clive. I learned of his stupidity in the late
sixties, following his trash through all its manifestations to the C5
open declaration of outright stupidity which even the least critical
could not avoid. Member of Mensa too. 'Nuff said.
Best
Jerry
He would come out with some really good things like his calculators and
the ZX80 and ZX81, then follow them up with rubblish like his 'stringy
disk', his final PC and the Electric Clog.
I suspect that he surrounded himself with sycophantic rectum crawlers
- and did not think critically himself
Dyson did something similar with his washing machine
Norman
seemed to go wrong was in thinking that success in one area meant that
all household appliances could be improved. 'Which' magazine more
or less said that his washing machine was made for people who liked to
pay more for the same thing. He was so carried away with success that
he didn't stop to think that the limiting factors in getting clothes
clean are the washing powder and the quality of the water. Provided
that the machine is built to an adequate standard and it does enough
rinses this doesn't really come into it. Washing powders were sorted
out by the late 50's. It was found that it was fairly easy to get
garments free from dirt but they looked grey. Optical brighteners
overcame this but after a certain level the brightness was not
improved. The only radical change was the introduction of biological
powders to remove difficult organic stains and these are fine if you
are not allergic to the enzymes regenerating themselves when you sweat.
Hard water is just hard water and double rotating drums are not going
to stop the internals from calcing up. Another inventor that went
wayward because he couldn't see through the euphoria of success.
Drew
fan of them. Suck well but too expensive, too plasticy, and quite
horrific to clean out if you've got a greasy dog. What they reek of
is single minded design with no alternative opinion contributing
sensible input. We're all guilty of that and I find it invaluable
just to talk through designs with another engineer, even if they
aren't associated with the project. So were Dyson to ask me, I would
have said don't use clear plastic for the bucket. Looks great for
about a minute then looks yeuch. A transparent window (preferably
glass) would have sufficed. Base plates too should have been much more
resistant to wear, either by more suitable (filled) plastic or metal. A
little more attention should have paid to the quality of the on/off
switch. Etc.
As for the washing machines, just as has been said. Plus when one
designs *anything*, size is crucial. If it won't fit in a standard
hole, you're not going to sell many.
What pisses me off is that when a TV or radio program want a designer
or entrepreneur input for a discussion, they wheel out Dyson or
Bayliss(?). Used to do the same with Sinclair too. These guys are
amateurs and promote a false, skewed perspective. Ah well, shuffle up
again.
BTW, one piece of design which pleases me is ZIP drives. OK a bit
expensive but great for transferring files when building up computers.
They *always* work seamlessly, just plug them in and there they are all
ready to go. Exemplary.
Best
Jerry
well.
The vacuum cleaner was a spinoff from keeping his ball barrow paint
shop clean.
I quite like them, but there are a few simple improvements that should
have been made.
Zip drives are pretty good, I was using them before I used Windows, I
especially like the SCSI ones.
Reportedly later Zip drives are failing - probably due to a decline in
QC.
Norman
new kid on the block has secured his position with the people who are
going to keep him in the job, now he is sending conflicting messages to
the world. He is offering talks with Europe who will look pretty bad if
they take their ball home. At the same time he is doing things the rest
of the world doesn't like. He is sending a message to Shrub that he
is not going to roll over and play dead and hoping that the American
people will have become tired of both winning and loosing
simultaneously. He is also relying on Russia needing him enough to veto
any referral to the Security Council should it come so far. And life
will go on.
The older you become, the more you realise the truth of the saying that
the more things change, the more they stay the same.
A few topics ago, I made a throwaway line about trying to guess the
thread length from the topic title. Jerry, quite rightly said that what
was really interesting was the way that the subject mutates; hence Iran
to Dyson.
Yes Dyson; Bayliss(?) et al, I think they are just the easiest for the
researchers. I remember in the early 70's, if they wanted homosexual
input, they always picked on Tom Robinson (from Tom Robinson Band) and
on one occasion he rounded on the interviewer and said something like
"I really don't mind doing this kind if stuff but am I the only
queer the BBC can find"?
Zip drives do everything you say but they are an extra bit to sit on
your desk or top of the computer. They always seem to me to be for the
people who like their radios painted British Racing Green with
stainless steel grab handles on the front. Personally I have always
found a lap-link cable works fine for me. I even saw a serial to USB
converter in the shops the other day and I thought "I wonder who
would want that"?
Probably the same sort of person who would find a PS/2 splitter useful!
Best.
Drew
for fluff build up as being often to blame. Certainly is with floppies,
well the drives anyway. Floppy disks themselves are horribly unreliable
these days, or maybe it's just the atmosphere in my bedroom which
kills them with alarming alacrity.
Ah well, I inherited 3 ZIPs and easier to set up than laplink if just
for loading drivers onto a computer build, especially since my burner
has died. Which is a case in point as I have never discovered what
actually goes wrong with CDs, be they computer or audio. Of course I
suspect the laser but can't get it confirmed. Virtually always the
same failure mechanism, just initially goes a bit iffy on reading and
then downhill from there. Could be misalignment but my best bet is beam
geometry screws up. Any info?
PS/2 splitters and serial to USB. Well I guess somewhere in the world
there was someone who made a Norumph (as opposed to a Triton) with a
Norton engine in a Triumph frame.
Best
Jerry
The Iranian guy must be horribly naive
- when faced with an 8' giant who is slightly off balance, you do not
kick him in the balls and stand there dancing.
I used to use Fastwire rather than laplink, but both mean that you have
to have another computer handy.
Incidentally I was using 10mb Iomega Bernoulli drives back in 1986
- they were fairly large, but did the trick
Those USB/Serial things are pretty handy, one of my systems using those
probably flies over your head daily - I must confess I prefer real
RS232 ... but life is like that.
Now, the Norvin was something, that Featherbed frame was a really good
design, just a cradle that could hold most engines.
Norman
the daily backup when I worked in the hotel in Luton.
Is this serial / USB connector on one of the many computers that vote
with each other?
Drew
-- parallel was sold as being faster than serial and then serial (USB)
was sold as being faster than parallel.
Yea Norvins were cool. Shoehorned into a featherbed. Ah glory days.
Best
Jerry
USB -> Serial
I would dread to think of them being used in a flight control system.
Drew, yes it is peculiar that USB is now (probably) faster than
parallel
- I put it down to them having worked out how to bump up the flow
without interference
- rather like RISC being faster than more complex instructions
Drew
bits, but it'll all be down to matched impedances so the signal
doesn't bounce back and forwards. And if you want to get really
nurdy, group delay is not distorted either. Probably twisted pair.
Scuzzi I does a similar trick of course but more obviously. Still
doesn't anything like match the data (analogue) down a satellite
cable though. And you tell that to the digital kids of today.....
Best
Jerry
- something that has puzzled me
Yes, the USB seems to be twisted pair - but four pins - almost
certainly power and a heavily pulled down earth.
Satellite would have a much wider band width, but without
bi-directional switching it is probably fairly inflexible.
Drew
match the impedance of both ends to the characteristic impedance of the
cable, so it is a transmission line. That's why the terminators have
to be set at the far end. Slightly crudely implemented because in the
early days there were technological difficulties. The recent serial
systems were less constrained so even one pair of wires can easily
outperform SCSI.
Spec for USB is 0.5 amps power capacity (I think). So that's two
wires for power (feed and zero volts return) and two for data, either
as a balanced pair or signal / return. Thanks for the twisted pair
confirmation.
Satellite does tend to be a bit one way at the consumer end, but one
can if required send bi-directional data at extremely high rate along
co-ax although half-duplex is a tad easier. As for fibre optics, it's
mind boggling how much can be chucked along a hair of glass. And what
does all this technology get used for -- Aunty Flora's crappy digital
pictures of her ghastly snotty little grandchildren.
Best
Jerry
In my experience the major problems with USB are that the connectors
are very vulnerable, and that the standards have not really settled
down.
Also, that I've not really found out how to control them at the low
level
- I detest Plug and Pray
Drew
that you are frustrated at the USB 'low level' obstacles -- it is
exactly the same for me when a bit of kid defies disassembly. Never
beaten, even if recourse to the 'impact' method. Watching the
Gadget Show on 5 a couple of weeks ago, quite impressed with their
knowledge of kit, less impressed with their techie knowledge. Classic
case of 'users' without a clue. They wanted to take some stuff to
bits to dry it out after doing a drenching test but were defeated by,
as they said, "curious three slotted head screws which we've never
seen before". Bunch of dummies, they're called 'tri-wing' and
have been around for absolutely yonks. Anyone messin with techie kit
has to have screw drivers for absolutely everything. Readily available
form Farnell and others. Might I suggest.... shuffle up again.
Personally I love Plug and Play -- never seen it yet though. Imagine
having to manually configure a new tank of petrol before you could
drive off.
Best
Norman
Drew Wrote:
Obviously I have no animosity towards 'believers', only the beliefs and
what is done to humanity
in the name of fairy tales. Mmm, well maybe I make an exception for
Mormons........ shuffle up.
Well someone else agrees with you and is trying to offend Shrub by
legally trying to ban the reading of the Pledge of Allegiance in
schools because of its reference to God and also to have the words
"In God We Trust" removed from American money because it offends
non-believers.
http://www.kcbs.com/pages/kcbs/news/news_story.nsp?story_id=85369425&ID=kcbs&scategory=Computers
If this is successful, I wonder how it will affect the 'Intelligent
Design' silliness that the great American nation is getting its
knickers in a twist about at the moment?
Best
Drew
Yes, strange that 'Intelligent Design' should be promoted by the
(colloquially) least intelligent. Severe rumblings like that web link
have been going on for years but it's a slow struggle. Perhaps
because of the oppressive religious overtone which hangs over The
States, those who have impressed me most with their eloquence and
clarity of thought, opposing mindless belief have been Yanks. A
prerequisite is of course 'Freedom of Speech', the pillar of which
has largely resisted assaults from the bigoted right. Were such a
clause to be inserted as a constitution keystone in less developed
non-secular states, one might be equally impressed and humbled by
religious dissenters the world over. I am convinced that they do exist,
but their lives would be short and unmerry. Such is the love of god.
But I don't decry freedom of expression. There was a prog series on
TV recently with Kirsty Wark touring the ex Iron Curtain countries,
ending up in the three Baltic States. All suffered from religious
persecution under the Stalinist legacy. On balance, my sympathies lie
with religious adherents over the atheist yet hideous Soviet Block
system. Can't recall which state it was, but there is a hillock which
over the decades has been swathed by literally millions of crosses of
all sizes. The Soviets tried to bulldoze it but gave up. So though of
course there is no final enlightenment in beliefs, I applaud the souls
who risked all to at least elevate themselves beyond the obscenities
which were being visited upon them. One step at a time, I think you
might agree.
Best
Jerry
religion.
I've heard that things got distinctly tricky in Poland, state
apparatchniks had mothers who were in league with the priests.
There is also the Moslem problem in the ex-soviet states
- probably the best way of killing a religion is to make church
attendance compulsory and to impose a 'church tax' on all citizens
- actually in Germany you used to have to prove that you were not
religious to avoid paying it.
I remember guys in a computer dept Malaysia who were distinctly
unenthusiastic about their compulsory Friday morning prayers - another
interesting thing I spotted was that the majority of the smarter ones
had a good dash of Chinese blood and I'll swear that the IT director
was a Japanese by blow ( they have a problem handling beer ).
I've no truck with the 'intelligent design' school of thought, but I do
have a sneaky suspicion that evolution is a bit more than random
selection of 'those most fitted to survive'
- my gut feeling is that there is a degree of genetic adaptation in
response to the environment
Something like genes getting switched on or off by outside factors.
Freedom of expression is an interesting problem, it is Ok if those
freely expressing their views have an iota of sense, but when you get
rabble rousers screaming lies and gross bigotry, then there is in my
view a pretty good case for removing their microphone - or using it as
a suppository. Ian Paisley comes to mind ...
Norman
rather a mish-mash; something like the fittest adapting; but no outside
hand doing any guiding. If there was then he didn't do much for the
dinosaurs. Maybe history is about to repeat itself and it is our turn
next.
We would have quite happily walked away from the NI question, or pulled
the plug out and let it gently sink into the atlantic but for all those
nutters who wanted to be in with the in crowd. But what have the
Northern Irish ever done for us........
Best
Drew
oppressive overlords has not always been particularly commendable.
Guess it's a case of hanging on to as much power as they are able to,
rather than an expedient of retaining god's presence. Doubtless the
Quislings convince themselves of the latter.
I had an experience of Malaysian forced adherence too. Very kindly
billeted for a night in a Malaysian battalion camp in Bosnia, we were
woken at some ungodly hour with that dreadful call to prayer. We turned
over and went back to sleep but the squadies *had* to get up and
prostrate themselves. They appeared to be none too delighted by the
enforced ritual.
Agreed that the story of evolution has not yet been fully told. Seem to
recall discussing this before. Anyroad out, Darwin *nearly* got there
but couldn't quite make a vital leap, nor would it appear that much
progress has been made in the trailing 150 years. With all humility
that I can muster, every so often I hear the evolution experts almost
catching up with what I already know. So tantalisingly close they are,
but appear fearful of toppling the pillar. Pillar won't topple, just
needs a bit of straightening. And the big apocalypse? Antagonism. For
every advantage conferred by evolution there has to be antagonistic
evolution to maintain the status quo, otherwise the species so endowed
would destroy its environment. Dawkins nearly gets there with The
Selfish Gene. Evolution has the capacity to endow the recipient with
absolutely anything within the bounds of physics, which includes the
application of all and every exotic engineering material which can
exist. Doesn't though. Too much success would breed almost immediate
demise.
The amusing side of this is that it will be found that rather little
genetic manipulation will be required for a life form (such as we) to
attain immortality. This (which was a premise of mine many years ago)
was recently confirmed by the tenfold life extension of nematodes
achieved by just a little tweaking.
I confess though that I hadn't anticipated the recent epigenetics
revelations, whereby there does seem to be some sort of carry-over to
generations not directly attributable solely to genes. Perhaps Lamarck
can be rehabilitated in modern genetics.
Yea those ingrate North Irish -- after all that England has done for
them.
Best
Jerry
I've run into something similar in terms of the 'successful disease'
- if a parasite is too lethal it kills its host before it has a chance
to spread
To some extent mankind has got round the environment destruction angle,
by replacing other creatures in the food chain
- but there is more to an 'environment' than just food ...
It looks as we are genetically programmed to die, something to do with
DNA replication screwing up as we get older.
Virtual immortality would have some interesting side effects, economic
for a start, have you ever read 'The Sleeper Awakes' by H G Wells - not
his best tome, but ... interesting
Unfortunately I have so little faith in the medical profession that I
suspect that 'immortality' might be rather painful.
I need to mull over your 'balanced evolution' concept
- it definitely works for parasites and saprophites
My understanding was that NI was historically something of a threat to
Eire
- just as the Republicans are more of a menace to Eire than anyone else
Hopefully the whole problem will just go away
Norman
Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck? Well maybe he had a
point after all. Perhaps this is one of those subjects where an opinion
is all you need to know. Like economics it depends on your politics and
whose views you like the best. Or you can go off and start a church of
your own. As seemingly did Mr Paisley.
Woody Allen's views on immortality have been raised before - he
doesn't want to achieve it through his work, he just doesn't want
to die. I must admit that I was gobsmacked when I found out what has
been learned about the aging process and what it is that eventually
kills us. It is the same thing that keeps us in life - oxygen; how is
that for a cute little circular trick of nature. Apparently, at body
temperature, one in so many trillion oxygen molecules dissociates into
free radicals; O2 --> O + O. Free radicals of anything are incredibly
reactive and will grab onto the nearest thing around to stabilise
themselves. In this case it is the rungs of the DNA ladder which
gradually get stripped out leaving flailing ends and this is why they
cannot replicate themselves further. All we need to do is find a way of
tying off the ends of the spiral whilst still enabling it to replicate
and bingo, everyone will live forever. That's all there is to it.
Here is an interesting thought. Do you think that there is a future
limit to the extent of human knowledge, in that some specialised
subjects will take a human lifetime to assimilate what has gone before
so that no new progress can ever be made? I guess the answer is not if
we live for ever. This in turn leaves a bigger question of do we want
to live forever? And I guess the answer to that one is, it depends.
I must admit that we needed to map the human genome before we could
move on to the human epi-genome but this is a whole bigger more
fascinating subject. I just wish I could give it the time it deserves.
Freedom of expression is an interesting problem, it is Ok if those
freely expressing their views have an iota of sense, but when you get
rabble rousers screaming lies and gross bigotry, then there is in my
view a pretty good case for removing their microphone - or using it as
a suppository. Ian Paisley comes to mind ...
As does Oswald Mosley; Hitler and who remembers Jack Dash, who was
given that meaninglessly curious title of 'The Union Whip'. When I
worked in the hotel in Luton, one of the long term residents was the
guy who handed Red Robbo the black spot. That was not something he
admitted to until he knew you pretty well.
Yea those ingrate North Irish -- after all that England has done for
them.
Well we gave them John De Lorian and I think he was a republican.
Best.
Drew
registered with me. What I really need is for someone such as yourself
to lock me into a room with a pile of selected literature which I have
to wade through before I get let out and fed. Trouble is that I take
two weeks to read a book so I'd be mighty thin by the time of
release. I can recommend some excellent electronics books ....... well
maybe not. Got an absolute £80 beauty on ebay for £16.
'Tis indeed Jean etc etc etc Lamarck to whom I refer. History has not
been kind to him due to his proposal that adaptation was inspired by
use / disuse of attributes. Although this was incorrect, he had fully
recognised evolutionary forces and for this he should be afforded great
respect. To the victor goes the spoils and history of conflict.
However, epigenetics opens a whole new can of nematodes.
My slant of evolution was of course only the briefest and simplistic
outline, food being as you say only one factor in survival. I'll let
you mull it all over and see where it gets you. Essentially though, for
genes to survive, the host must be vulnerable. Allied to this are all
the conditions of existence, such as fecundity or lack of it, length of
life etc. Every facet which you (or at least I) can think of appears to
be subject to survival induced fallibility. Childbirth difficulty, rate
of growth, poor temperature control, all can be explained as necessary
antagonisms to counter adaptations which would otherwise ensure
dominance and hence ensure demise.
This too applies to free radicals degrading telomeres at the end of
chromosomes. Didn't have to be this way, but nature arbitrarily
plumped for this as a convenient means to restrict age. What I'm
trying to say is that we view genetic evolution from the wrong end.
Telomer degradation shouldn't be viewed in the traditional manner of
being akin to wear in an engine. More it is a case of built in failure,
and for similar reasons that cars aren't made to last particularly
long -- we'd be overrun by them and further development (and
manufacturers) would cease. Were it to become vital that telomers did
not degrade, nature would oblige. In the near future we may be able to
give nature a little hand, although the repercussions are quite
alarming.
So it's not a case of 'the body is unable to replace a limb', but
we have evolved not to be able to replace a limb. We would need to have
evolved in a particularly vicious environment to be able to perform
such a feat but it is not fundamentally forbidden. Likewise there are
great claims made for warm-blooded creatures being on the top of the
heap due to the conferred advantages. Well actually, how about one
views warm-blood as being as much a 'detractor' from success in
that food requirements are much more severe? One might argue that warm
blood is necessary for higher brain function -- not so. Occasionally
nature screws up though and half a liver will quite happily regenerate
to full size. Not sure why it forgot about this one but the whole
business is completely arbitrary and palpably completely lacking in
intelligent design.
The genetics community exhibit a remarkably narrow view of the genome
(same is true of artificial intelligence experts). What is not
appreciated is that there is no such thing as definitive species
(actually they are slowly beginning to grasp this). Just because a
creature is cold blooded, swims, has scales and gills, doesn't define
it as a fish. It *could* be a human, and vice versa. Granted, that is
stretching things to extremes, however humans don't have tails -- or
do they? Occasionally they do. Extrapolate this and you end up with
something which to all intents appears to be a fish but is actually
human -- probably Republican.
Needless to say I could rabbit (missed them) on for pages but I'll
leave you to ponder for your own amusement. Do throw up clever counters
where (my) extended evolution doesn't ring true because every theory
needs a good carpet beating. Having mulled for years though, I feel
that eventually the rest of the world will catch up. As my dear 96 year
old Grandmother says, "You'd be a genius if you'd a glass
arse."
--------------------
A limit to the extent of human knowledge? Absolutely, as far as an
individual is concerned. But we live in a collective so I ask you about
chemistry and you would refer to another chemist for info up tight
intellectual alleys. We're so much at the beginning, and in time no
reason why we can't be programmed with prior info. Hell, we only
learned to fly a hundred years ago and hopefully we've got a few
million to go. Abhorrent though such manipulations are at the moment,
even the Pape church got inured to heart operations (though it did take
them to the 80s to apologise to Galileo).
Axiomatically we must get smarter and essentially we do, Paisley, Shrub
etc notwithstanding. Perhaps I was influenced to ultimate optimism by
Olaf Stapeldon 'Star Maker'. Either that of hero worship of the
immortal Legolas for nigh on forty years.
Best
Jerry
this :-
<quote>Ozone, along with hypochlorite ions, is naturally produced by
white blood cells and the roots of marigolds as a means of destroying
foreign bodies. When ozone breaks down it gives rise to oxygen free
radicals, which are highly reactive and damage or destroy most organic
molecules.
Ozone has a number of medical uses. It can be used to affect the body's
antioxidant-prooxidant balance, since the body usually reacts to its
presence by producing antioxidant enzymes.
</quote>
The synchronicity is alarming, white cells produce Ozone as a weopon,
which in turn kills us slowly, but also generates enzymes that protect
us.
A rather curious balancing act.
I suppose that the inability to grow a new limb is actually a survival
feature for the entire species, as it acts as a form of weeding out -
and also the possibility of diverse replacement.
Liver regeneration might be down to the fact that it is large and
vulnerable to sudden poison attacks (Tennents ?), yet unlike most
organs, we only have one. (The heart is not particularly vulnerable -
having two of them might be a liability). Skin and fingernails are
also vulnerable, and also regenerate.
It looks as if there is an 'optimum level of vulnerablitity' for long
term survival - strength through weaknesses.
- Racial crumple zones
I have also pondered the definition of 'human', but it started when I
was studying philosophy, and I pondered the possibility of something
that was entirely human in appearance etc, yet due to a minor genetic
modification was incapable of any form of true social cooperation - eg:
a psychopathic sport.
It would be quite a laugh if we discovered some plant that was
genetically nearly identical to a human.
On the finite/infinite knowledge side, for some time I've reckoned that
we could be fitted with a form of wristwatch that teaches us to
communicate with it
- something close to an implant
We are getting close with computers, mobiles and PDAs
There is also the possibility of subliminal teaching ...
Norman
Anton Chekhov called The Bet. If you haven't then it may be
interesting to come to terms with it. It is short so it won't take
you that long to read.
It is a shame that Lamarck was castigated for taking his theory half a
step too far after all the good work he had put in. If he had said
something like; communities that have evolved in the tropics generally
have darker skin to protect them from the effects of the sun, or I have
never seen a thin Eskimo, then he would have been on a bit firmer
ground rather than to claim (suggest) that fundamental changes can
occur from one generation to the next.
What you seem to be arguing is that nature as a whole obeys Newton's
Second Law and acts in such a was as to keep things in balance. Changes
that are made; natures experiments if you like, occur slowly so that
they can be absorbed and not swamp the status quo.
Essentially changes in human development over the last two hundred
years have outstripped nature's ability to make corrective changes,
but I have no doubt that these are waiting for us around the next
corner.
Yes we can regenerate half a liver but not half a leg; the jury still
seems to be out on whether a starfish can or cannot re-grow a severed
limb. Nature has made an arbitrary balance line somewhere and this is
where it is. Perhaps nature regards someone with a severed leg as a
write off as far as advancing the species is concerned. But there are
exceptions like Stephen Hawking for instance.
I seem to remember an experiment done in the late 50's / early 60's
to see if primitive life forms could exist on planet Venus (I hope is
was not a hoax), whereby the researchers placed a group of terrapins in
a sealed environment and every day over a hundred days they decreased
the air supply by half a percent and increased methane gas by half a
percent. It was eventually found that they survived quite happily in a
pure methane atmosphere but an autopsy revealed that their blood had
changed into something else since its job was no longer to transport
oxygen. It was like a third class of life supporting fluid alongside
blood and chlorophyll. I just have the feeling that if this was an
authentic controlled experiment, I would have heard a bit more about it
by now.
But that essentially doesn't matter. What is important to take hold
of is that just taking humans as an example, if the original
inhabitants of the earth had never died but just stopped reproducing
when they saturated the food supply, then life would have continued in
the same way without any fresh thinking and therefore never progressed
beyond a fundamental state. New generations bring new ideas to old
problems therefore it is essential that old generations are replaced.
About two hundred years ago we seemed to have hit point where the axes
of the hyperbola switch over.
Perhaps Shrub; Bin Laden; Ivadinnerjacket and so on are one of
nature's sneaky experiments.
Epigenetics is still interesting though.
Best
Norman
chatting, we are discussing genetics at the moment and sometimes you
learn good stuff”.
I had absolutely no idea there was any ozone in the body. It is formed
naturally by radiation from the sun splitting oxygen molecules in the
high upper atmosphere and also in the lab by passing what is loosely
described as a ‘silent electrical discharge’ through air or oxygen
(or the other way round).
In molecular oxygen the electrons form a bond directly between the two
atoms whereas in ozone, which has three oxygen atoms, the bonds are all
at 60° which it doesn’t feel comfortable with and makes it unstable
3O2 2O3
2O3 3O2
But you can imagine that every so often this reaction can take place
near a telomere and 2O3 2O2 + O + O and there is the source of free
radicals. These things usually happen by forming for a nanosecond or so
an intermediate like nobody letting go until everybody is holding
hands. Sometimes there can be steric hindrance which will push the free
radical oxygen nearer to the telomere and that is the most likely way
it will happen. Incidentally hypochlorite is what we normally refer to
as bleach. Not too good for one in larger quantities but may be a
disinfectant in trace amounts. As Drew points out it is not important
how it happens,
only that it does. A curious balancing act indeed but according to his
argument, if it wasn’t this it would be something else.
Since it was humans who gave the definition of humanness then it is
anything the namer decided it would be. It is desirable to make the
distinction between species as scientific as possible although there
must be many areas of overlap. I am guessing but I suppose our nearest
plant relative would be a triffid.
Jerry wrote: for some time I've reckoned that
we could be fitted with a form of wristwatch that teaches us to
communicate with it. Sounds dangerously like “A for Andromeda” by
Fred Hoyle. After building the first radio telescope scientists
discovered a two day repeating message coming from the Andromeda
constellation. They built a computer to decode the message which was a
self teaching program. Eventually it learned so much that humans were
superfluous to its needs as it gradually took over the World.
I don’t want any of this to sound if I am decrying the relatively new
science of epigenetics which I am sure has many more fascinating
discoveries to make.
For the sake of sounding a complete ignoramus, I have no idea who Olaf
Stapeldon or the immortal Legolas are.
Drew
all the way, yet still manage to miss a few common things. I never
noticed rubbish skips till I was 21. OK they weren't nearly so common
in the early seventies but nevertheless....... Then a few years later I
was describing somewhere in Edinburgh to a workmate and I said it was
right next to the gasometer. He looked blank. "Massive great thing,
grey, rises up and down as it fills." Still blank. Next day he came
into work and said "I'd just never noticed it before." So the
point of all this? Olaf Stapeldon and Legolas. The former is as seminal
in SF as Wyndham, Wells or Verne, and Liverpool connections too :-) For
brief bio, click these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Stapledon
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/dani/015.htm
Especially Sirius (and Odd John) is pertinent to the genetics
discussion but all his work is thought provoking, without being too
pleased with itself.
Now Legolas, my favourite character (an elf) in Lord of the rings,
having always identified with the role of those upon whom the leaders
rely, such as he.
--------------------------
>It looks as if there is an 'optimum level of vulnerability' for long term survival - strength through weaknesses.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
>It would be quite a laugh if we discovered some plant that was genetically nearly identical to a human.
Well we do share something like 40% of our genes with a carrot and
inserting genes from disparate organisms (and kingdoms!) has become
almost routine. So what is species? *Finally* this question is being
asked. Traditionally a unique species was one which cannot breed with
another species, either by incompatibility or if apparently physically
very different, geographically. The trouble is though that
'species' took on a higher meaning, as if it was defining something
ultimately profound. More and more it is being discovered that this is
not so, however rather than rubbishing the term I would suggest
continued usage in it's simplistic sense but simply appreciate that
it is simplistic.
-----------------------
OK I read "The Bet". Mmmm, I do like syllogistic stories. That was
him from the original Star Twek wasn't it?
----------------------
>From what the pair of you have written, you appear to have completely
grasped the Drew Hypothesis, whether right or wrong. I would of course
expect the devil's advocate, it would be remiss not to. The thing is
though, there is nothing new, it's just an appreciation from a
slightly different angle. All the information is already there, to be
juggled into the right order. Just like all ecumenical questions can be
answered completely by "There is no god". Such a tiny step, but it
does (for me at least) impart a revelation in understanding and
realigns a hell of a lot questions. I've only discussed it with a few
people, biology grads too, but the majority just can't quite grasp
the subtlety. Most successful have been engineers, or those closely
allied with engineering such as yourselves. Now what does that tell
you?
Best
Jerry
- the computer program created a crude organic being that then
'replicated' a female with alien intelligence - and an inability to
swim.
- maybe I'm getting confused
Rather than being dominated by a computer 'intelligence', I suspect
that we will become, in some ways, cyborgs as we become increasingly
dependant on IT
- just as people nowadays rely on calculators
Digressing I believe that the 18th or maybe 19th century French were
very interested in finding physical indicators of criminality -
earlobes - that sort of thing.
I've also vague memories that the original inhabitants of Southern
Africa had lightish skin, and that there was a massive migration of
Nubians from Central Africa that went both North and South - a fairly
sudden explosion.
Curiously, I suspect that if one did evolve, it would be handy not to
be so physically dependant, so the ultimate state would probably be
pure energy - for all we know such things exist - if they did, they
would keep well clear of us.
I also had not heard of Olaf Stapleton, he sounds rather interesting, I
wonder how I missed that 'gasometer'.
The 'species' stuff is interesting, like a lot of things it is a useful
framework, however I suspect that we are going to see rather a lot of
exceptions to the rule as we get better at fiddling with genes.
We are at a most peculiar stage, we can tinker with things and map
them, but we don't really understand what we are doing - one classic
example being the use of stem cells which look like a universal
panacea, but we have no idea how they are really working.
I'm not that surprized that engineers are quicker at grasping concepts,
there is a degree of self selection that takes place - being able to
visualize a mechanical model is a talent that a lot of people don't
have - also the ability to put something into practise.
Engineers tend to make good computer programmers.
Norman
for a few days now and once you realise the implications, it is hard to
fault something which is so self evident. That of course doesn't mean
it isn't a complete load of bollox, just that I can't see where the
fault is.
All I can do is to quote Winston Churchill as follows:
...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to
pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.
Why not write a letter to Nature and see what happens, you will have a
bigger audience of sceptics than relying on us two and it may just be
fun to start a controversy and then to sit back whilst it rages out
before you.
Pity Zydie is not with us for an opinion, this is on subject for her.
What do you think of the idea that we all separately send her an
e-Christmas card?
Best
Norman
fills up the clusters tend to go unstable. Must put myself in for a
defrag or a compression sometime; I think on balance a defrag sounds a
better option. Maybe Drew can tell us what really happened?
The trouble with IT is that there will still be a need for people who
make, grow or raise things. As we became more efficient at this, all
the redundant management found that the IT umbrella was a good place
under which to hide. If we didn't have IT would we still be able to
make things and get them to the people who want them?
"Ah", I hear you saying "But how do they know what they want"?
To which I would reply "Do you know how stupid that sounds"?
Yes, the pure energy beings are the ones that light up in the dark so
that we can stay well clear of them.
I am sure the theory will be modified quite a few times before everyone
gets around to Drew's way of thinking. Publish, be damned and have
some fun with the fracas.
Best
Drew
dozens of exponential calculations at the press of a few keys. Prior to
that I would have had to use tables but thankfully never did. The
purists would work each one out by hand ---aaaagggghhhh. Mainly now I
use a simulator which can rubbish my designs in a minute fraction of
the time. How the they got Apollo 13 back with paper and pencil is
awesome.
Had a word with some kids (at badminton) who are studying IT. So I
asked my standard question, "Define please." Still none the wiser.
Shuffle up.
Re the Drew Origin of Species, I wrote a condensed letter to New
Scientist a good few years ago. Published, and generated a couple of
replies but now't more. Got more response from my letter suggesting
plukes evolved to promote social bonding at a time when adolescents are
being stroppy. Principle being that mutual grooming is very important
in primates. That of course appears to fly in the face of the
antagonistic theory, but no. An antagonistic facet can actually be in
the traditional Darwinian mode, evolving to counter a destructive
element. In truth, there is no difference between the two because both
evolve to ensure survival. Traditional Darwinian theory would however
suggest that animals would grow bigger and stronger, require little
food and live for an awfully long time. Palpably this is not so, but it
has always been assumed or accepted that to ensure survival, animals
reached the pinnacle of what was physically possible. The cheetah for
instance, physically compromised for the express purpose of going as
fast as possible. Well that's absolute bollox I'm afraid. There is
nothing inherent in physics to prevent a creature travelling twice as
fast, being cold blooded and as intelligent as we but with a brain one
tenth the size. Just wouldn't last very long. What it must be, to
ensure survival, is to have just an edge over its prey. Were it to have
a huge differential advantage it would have to compensate by lowered
fecundity or some other such limiter. It is staggeringly obvious,
isn't it?
Another aspect of this analysis is that groups are important. The
theory falls down if merely individuals are examined. Within a discrete
group, there will be a tendency for the biggest and strongest to
dominate. By itself, this individual won't usually damage its
environment but the dominant genes will soon characterise the group
and then *will* make a hole in their environment. So the group dies out
or becomes weakened. The most successful groups will be the ones where
change is relatively slow. It's rarely as clear cut as that, more it
goes in damped oscillations. Amazingly, the oscillation aspect of life
in the wild has been studied and discussed for decades but the further
step just hasn't surfaced. Weird.
Incidentally (think I brought this up some time ago in passing), the
original revelation came in a flash when I was shooting rabbits.
Powerful beasts which could give a predator a hard fight, but they
don't. Why is that I thought? Please do keep pondering though,
discuss over polite dinner parties etc. You can start of by announcing
(slightly drunkenly) that the biggest blue tit won't necessarily be
the one which survives the winter. Also explains why there are so many
ugly wumin in Girvan -- something has to restrain the breeding.
Can't quite grasp the nature of 'pure energy' life forms, beloved
of Star Trek but sort of pre-dated by Olaf Stapledon. Is it anything
like getting out of ones head? Can do that.
Defrag the brain. Interesting notion :-) Some moons ago I did threaten
to unleash one of my other revelations upon the group -- relating why
lie detectors actually work (sometimes), dreams, and how we are able to
believe in bleedin obviously untrue religious guff without mental
schism. Perhaps I'll get round to it for derision. Not that I (yet)
know why we dream but hope to have solved that and the nature of
consciousness before I croak.
Great idea, Xmas card email bombing Zydie.
Best
Jerry
Originally IT was wonderful as it massacred white collar clerical staff
I once wrote a small system that replaced a team of temps working for 3
months bashing calculators. The delay in the production cycle was
intolerable, accuracy was dramatically improved and the data on the
computer was in the ideal state for rapid manipulation by a pair of
mavericks both drunk and sniffing butane, rapidly pricing the products
against the brochure of our major competitor that was hot off the
press.
My approach to IT is pretty simple, if a system does not make someone
redundant or save employing someone else, then there is no point in
writing it.
Bloodthirsty, but a realistic criterion.
Sadly, now things have changed, and your view is close to what I have
seen.
Drew, your reference to 'grooming' astonishes me.
When I was at college, we had a guest speaker called Parfitt, a
philosopher from All Souls
- he was highly unusual - he was coherent and smart
Anyway he had latched onto Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene' and produced a model
consisting of islands with colonies of birds. They had the following
characteristics :-
Suckers - those that would groom anyone regardless of reciprocation
Cheats - those that would be groomed, but not reciprocate
Grudgers - those who would groom but only once if no reciprocation
The Cheats had a short term advantage, especially over the Suckers.
The Grudgers had the longer term advantage over the other two.
Parfitt was smart enough to point out that the Cheats had another
survival technique, they could always migrate and infiltrate another
colony - in effect they were cuckoos, although he did not use that
phrase.
I wonder whether you ran into that, I've not heard of the model
anywhere else, although I don't tend to read Nature. Alternatively it
might be synchronicity at work again.
Recently I read (following the discovery of some pygmy bones on an
Indonesian island) that small islands tend to lead to miniturization of
animals - pygmy elephants etc.
It does not seem to work for tortoises !
I expect the attractive women in Girvan migrate - we've acquired a fair
selection of lasses from round Glasgow, who are busily improving the
local gene pool.
My take on religion is that we (or most people) have an inbuilt talent
for hypocrisy.
- possibly a survival trait - it makes crowd following a lot easier.
Yes - it would be interesting hearing Zydie's take on things, but I'm
nervous of pestering her.
Norman
five minutes. Ask a kid "What did you learn in school today"? And
expect the universal answer "Dunno". I remember once in the first
lesson of the day, the teacher asked "What was the subject of the
assembly this morning". And thirty kids had not a clue; mind you I
think this has more to do with the nature of morning assembly than any
lack of intellect on the kids' part. Again we come back to genetics;
education seems to be a process of slow osmosis, you can't feel
yourself getting better day by day but at the end you know that you are
better for having done it. I think there is another subject here; are
the learning of life skills in a developed society more or less
intellectually satisfying than in a tribal society? "Dunno guv".
And you try asking that on the kids of today.
I think that the wide diversity of species exists to take advantage of
some aspect of the earth's environment that other species don't
exploit. Just as an example of this say, monkeys in the tree canopy
pick fruit, take one bite and then drop it onto the forest floor. You
can bet there is some other animal underneath that can't climb trees
that is dependant on the monkeys' profligate nature. If the seeds of
the fruit are then excreted in the right environment they will
propagate another tree and so it goes on.
Penguins huddle together in the Antarctic winter because of the
pleaniiful fish supply and because no other animal wants to be there,
so the penguins have claimed that for their own. I don't think that
there are many different species competing for the same food in exactly
the same territory unless the food source is enough to satisfy all the
species at their present population.
"There is nothing inherent in physics to prevent a creature
travelling twice as fast, being cold blooded and as intelligent as we
but with a brain one
tenth the size. Just wouldn't last very long".
The common shrew does everything a human does, has a childhood; learns
skills from its parents; builds a place to live; mates; brings up the
offspring(s) and dies. All in eight to nine months but the amazing
thing is that in that lifespan it has roughly the same number of
heartbeats as a human does over about seventy years. This is life in
the fast lane. Although it might appear to, this does not necessarily
endorse the engine wearing out theory.
The cheetah is as fast as it needs to be in order to survive in
reasonable numbers. If it was faster it would proliferate and encroach
on the territory of some other species which would either die out or
act to redress the balance of the cheetah numbers.
The group overview is important. We should not fall into the trap of
trying to explain Brownian motion with reference to one molecule.
Sometimes the lion will kill the boss wildebeest but not often enough
for it to affect wildebeest society as a whole.
Drew, how does your dampened oscillation theory fit in with human
development pre and post 1800?
I don't know that much about blue tits but I do know of an experiment
with great tits. The male that gets the most girlfriends was not the
physically largest but the one with the broadest stripe down the front.
Some experimenters captured the runt from the flock, dyed its stripe
half an inch wider and apparently the bird didn't do much complaining
about its stay in captivity.
"Also explains why there are so many ugly wumin in Girvan --
something has to restrain the breeding".
If you think they are so bad maybe you could arrange a cultural
exchange with Glasgow.
I remember doing the sleep subject with Steph. And the Pink Lady on GA.
Can't remember if you came in on that one, it was a long time ago and
the clusters are going wobbly.
Best.
Norman
How would you know? :- )
That is interesting stuff about grooming. Only in the last week (here)
did I learn of Dawkins work.
I too do not read Nature but just know of it as the vehicle for
distributing new ideas or discoveries to the world.
I think that religious people are mainly hypocritical towards people of
other beliefs rather than to atheists.
I can't claim originality for this view of the Christian message but
it is worth repeating here.
"It is a good code of practice so long as everybody else follows it
too; otherwise the pacifist gets it first".
In other words has the aggression factor a high ranking amongst the
genes?
It would be interesting to see if you guys see any parallels between
evolution amongst species (in the broader sense) as we have talked
about it and the steady march of the so called global economy? Is war
inevitable as new markets decline?
It could be argued that the global economy started with Marco Polo and
the like but the scale has rapidly increased in terms of overall world
history. How does Drew's dampened oscillations fit in with this
sudden expansion? Could it be compared to some sort of Marxian
dialectic break point; ie a long term build up of stress with a sudden
release of pressure like ice to water and water to steam etc?
Best
Norman
Not that I (yet) know why we dream but hope to have solved that and the
nature of consciousness before I croak.
Here is an overview of thinking from earliest times up to the present.
I make no comment other than remarking on the high proportion of
experts of the mind who sported facial hair.
http://www.thebigview.com/mind/
Best
Drew
Unfortunately it wasn't a lossless algorithm. Think Jane Goodall came
out with grooming observations of the mode you mention, and it
certainly applies to other social relationships too. As I've
commented before, the 'favour system' works a treat, and I live in
a world of 'grudgers' though I'd prefer a different term.
However my original grooming observation was inspired by a love making
act which was interrupted by the discovery of a pluke on a back. I
shan't reveal which way round it was. You know how it goes though --
many people find it excruciatingly difficult looking at someone with a
huge ripe whitehead on their nose. Fingers twitch uncontrollably, just
like the excited glee of chimpanzee when they find something juicy when
mutual grooming.
That story about the 'hobbits' of Indonesia was rather interesting
in that it displayed the entrenched mindset of Darwinists. The jury is
still out, but one of the arguments against it being a human
sub-species is that the brain was proportional to the body and
therefore much too small for human intellect. If you followed my
previous reasoning, brain size is little indicator of mental capacity.
Indeed, there has been slight upset in the discovery that some birds
(crow family especially) have intelligence way beyond that which would
be assumed based upon brain size. For whatever reason, they needed more
intelligence but couldn't tolerate a heavy brain, so nature obliged.
Could have told the experts that twenty years ago if they had bothered
to ask.
That point about different species feeding on the same food source is
quite interesting. A biology graduate whom I tried unsuccessfully to
initiate on my evolution principle took the absolutist position that
there are (and cannot be) two species who feed off the same food
source. As a general rule it does tend to go like this, quite
obviously, but there are so many exceptions. There are for instance
many insect species which feed exclusively upon the oak tree and
several regionally coexistent species of whale feed exclusively upon
krill. And so it goes. This has to be factored into the Drew principle
and one arrives at interesting species interrelationships. Not a social
thing (generally) but it does relate to the group considerations.
Incidentally, same chap accused me of pseudoscience when I mentioned
vacuum virtual particle energy but he'd never heard of Heisenberg.
Damped oscillation in human development since 1800? Mmmm. I think the
more scholarly (such as yourselves) are more fitted to the analysis.
Wall Street crash was an interesting one, not a lot of dampening.
American witch hunt was poorly damped. Then there was Thatch inspired
e-bubble, obviously the bitch being ignorant of the South Sea bubble
experience. Did you know that tulip bulbs fetched a king's ransom a
couple of hundred years ago -- for a little while. And as Norman kinda
suggests, war may be also result from undamped oscillation. Thing is
though, all these oscillations can be modelled electronically, same
formulae, tank-slappers too. And if you really want to get nurdy it's
all to do with poles and zeros in the 's' plane.
This thing about the width of the great tit strip has had me musing for
some time -- glad you brought it up. Problem is that I have been unable
so far to assimilate it (and other similar examples) into my Grand
Evolution Unification Theory. Have a whole lot of notions but trouble
balancing them against each other. Perhaps it needs to be a topic all
to itself for exploration.
Sleep thing was as usual an interesting exploration (facially hairy and
otherwise), full of interesting observation but never getting to the
heart of it. Same problem with consciousness and dreams. However, sleep
probably evolved as a positive adaptation for survival. Many years ago
in the early hours, I was driving a lass around the outskirts of
Edinburgh harbouring hopes of intimacy. We were hungry but everything
was closed, when finally we came across a turnip field. She got out,
climbed the fence and went to pick a neep. Oh, did I mention she was
loopy? Anyway, point is that with no food available (apart from raw
turnip) we were consuming more energy than we would had we been asleep.
Hence I reckoned we evolved sleep, which subsequently has apparently
become accepted theory. Obviously the premise is far more convoluted
because it evokes the biology dictated in all life forms from a billion
years ago, and the irreversibility of processes -- such as mammals
which returned to the sea didn't re-evolve gills. Principle is
reasonable though.
Bugger, it's nearly 3am!
Best
Norman
outside and not on the inside then it was only your sensibilities that
were offended.
Hobbits etc; I don't see that the two theories need to be mutually
exclusive. Darwin did some good work as also did Lamarck, Dawkins et
al. The fact that they didn't make a final cognitive step doesn't
mean that all their work should be rubbished. If you regard their
efforts as a precursor, then you can pick out the bits which fit into
your solution and say the rest was well meaning but wrong.
Tell your biologist friend that everything feeds on wildebeest. They
make a lot of noise when they move from here to there but they don't
run all that fast, relying instead on safety in numbers. The ones that
are picked off by big cats of various sorts are just an over-breeding
control.
I wonder if they are the same tank slappers that I have met? Poles and
zeros in the s plain? This is just a flagrant attempt to muddy the
waters and not answer the question. Have you thought of going into
politics? President Nixon was good at this sort of thing.
The sleep question, interesting as it is, is too big for me. Do simple
structures like the amoeba need a dormant period and if not, at what
stage of the evolutionary process does recognised sleep become a
factor?
Have you ever noticed that after periods of high activity, sport etc,
you would expect your body to need to replace the calories it has just
burned off but in fact you have no feelings of hunger whatsoever. I
came to realise this when I used to play squash in my lunch break and
would miss out my midday meal. So instead of spending the late evening
gathering turnips, pleasant as this is, you should have galloped the
trot instead;- )
Best
Jerry
I reckon that kids at school learn slowly because they are not
particularly well taught.
The bright ones are bored 90% of the time, and the dim ones are
struggling and despairing.
One to one tuition from a competent teacher can have alarming results
on both extremes, and even the ones in the middle.
On the other hand, one could regard 'education's primary function as
being getting the blighters out of the way while their parents hunt and
gather.
There is definitely symbiosis when it comes to food supplies, jackals
and lions, the prairie dog and the buffalo - sure, when it comes to
major scarcity, my guess is that creatures change their eating habits -
'food chain migration' ...
The problem of a Defrag (or ChkDsk or ScanDisk) on a hooky disk, is
that one can have cross linked files, so they can mess up a system that
appears to be functioning.
Christianity as a principle could work - but empirically it seems to
have been used as a reason for massacring other people - my take is
that most religions are really tribal and it does not matter much what
they are about - basically a form of rugby kit.
The brain size bit is interesting, there have been numerous examples of
people with shrunken brains who were perfectly competent - also Cro
Magnon had a larger brain than us, and it did not help them much.
Often I've suspected that intelligence as perceived in others is
largely determined by what they look like - people will take an idiot
seriously if he looks like a savant - and I've a strong suspicion that
some dumb blondes are having a laugh.
If we look at warfare since 1800, the Napoleonic war was territorial -
an attempt to build an Empire where none had existed for a rather long
time.
The Franco-Prussian war was about unification of Germany, using France
as the common enemy - interestingly most of the lost French territory
was returned.
The German version of WWI was that Germany felt left out in the
imperial land grab in Africa, since I only heard that version in
Germany, I'm inclined to give it credence.
WWII with Germany was about Lebensraum - plus recapturing a lot of
territory that once belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Recently I Iearnt that the Japs were pushed into an accelerated attack
by the USA cutting off their oil supplies - at that time the USA was
OPEC - the Russians were also terrified of the Japs as they had been
soundly duffed up in 1905 - and the Japs were well aware of the
potential of the Soviet Far East.
Korea was a settling of the tectonic plates after WWII
Vietnam was largely a hangover from colonial days, amazingly the French
used Japanese troops to regain control - and things got out of hand. I
suspect it was also handy having a nice distant testing ground for
advanced weopons.
Since WWII the zest for 'Empire' seems to have waned, and things are
more about influence.
If I remember correctly Clausewitz described war as an extension of
trade.
Somehow I think he got it wrong - and currently at least, trade is an
alternative to war, and rather a lot safer as physical conquest is
dangerous when the natives have Kalashnikovs rather than bows and
arrows.
Pity Bush and Blair did not realize that.
I have heard the suggestion that once one has got an adequately full
stomach and satisfied reproductive duties, then the safest thing for
most creatures is to crawl into a burrow and fall asleep. A sort of
daily hibernation - probably exploited for other functions like repair,
just as wakes weeks were used for giving factories a lick of paint and
rudimentary repair while the primary purpose was to give holidays
without having to staff up for times when labour was absent.
Jerry
More like, in an office it is convenient to have the vacuum wielder and
telephone hygiene operators trotting round after the staff have gone
- but if the staff worked 24/7 then other (less convenient)
arrangements would be made
Drew
Indeed. As I suggested before, I am inclined to proffer due respect to
Lamarck, and opine that he was done gross injustice. How or why Norman,
are you familiar with his work? The time was of course a hotbed of
debate, and history favours the victor. Cuvier too was a major player
but like Lamark and Darwin, his entrenched position stifled
development. This is I feel the condition which has existed since
Darwin.
Poles and zeros in the s plain (sic). Suspect it's not your thang,
'plane'. I was going to expound more but my editor (common sense)
red penned it and a paragraph got heaved. Fascinating stuff though, in
that my electronic circuits are subject to the same equations (albeit
with different nomenclature) as, say, the oscillating of an aircraft
wing or social phenomenon. You know I presume of complex numbers,
though you would probably use 'i' where I would use 'j'. So if
you have -j, it means that the vector rotates backwards (clockwise) and
results precede stimuli. People understandably get upset by non-causal
concepts but the negative frequency (or economic or social) phase lead
which is implied does have physical form, just like negative numbers
which took a long time to become accepted by even the mathematical
community. Is this sufficient for de-Nixonification? If not, I can
oblige by writing tons more on the subject for your delectation ;-)
Yup, even amoeba sleep. And I would tend towards them dreaming too. OK
they don't wake up in a hot flush after particularly close encounter
with Angelina Joli but the principle's the same. Something way down
deep inextricably hung sleep, dreams and consciousness together, and I
know not what. Keeps me awake at night thinking about it.
I get hungry because it is meal time. If on my travels I forget to eat
and don't get hungry. I'm sure too that had I indulged in the
preferred energetic pursuit (rather than hunting turnips) I wouldn't
have got hungry. Incidentally she bagged off with one of my flatmates
and I never did. I'm reminded again of great tits.
Told you Jerry you know a lot more on social events than I do. Tell me
though, do you think the cold war was deliberately fought as an
economic thing, ie USA developing expensive exotica in the hope that
there would come a time when the USSR would have to throw in the towel?
Or was this merely the result rather the intent (which would of course
have required a modicum of intelligence from the planners).
Best
Norman
junior school when the rest of the class did Nature, I skipped out to
do a phsio session or something similar. I just know of it out of
curiosity, interest and regarding it as something I should know the
rudiments of without getting into great depth. In a similar way you can
know that cirrus clouds occur in really good weather but when you see
them it is a fair bet something nasty is going to fall on your head the
following day, without the need to study meteorology. I thought I
should know enough to hammer the Jehovah Witnesses that woke me up on a
Sunday afternoons into the long grass. They completely ignored the fact
that giraffe developed long necks to take advantage of elevated food
that was going to waste and tried to tell me that it was all bollox
because God just wanted an animal with a long neck and I should accept
it as that. Lamarck and Dawkins I learned of from you and the Internet.
But I thought that the idea of brainstorming was to air ideas and not
bring a pre moulded mind into an old subject. The ones who know more in
some way instruct the ones who know less and the ones who know less are
not psyked out of asking the dumb questions and learn by the enthusiasm
of joining in. If I have come over as being too pompous or a five
minute expert then accept my apology.
I can accept that similar equations occur throughout different
disciplines, after all isn't that what The Theory of Everything is
all about and Standard Theory tries to do but not very well at all. I
also have no problem that you use examples from different disciplines
to make a point sic my reference to meteorology above. The poles and
nodes thing is very familiar to you but a bit esoteric for the rest of
us I thought. Don't take the political reference too seriously, it
was tongue in cheek, I should have put an emoticon behind it. Nixon had
a couple of cute tricks; one was to expand the answer so much in such
an entertaining way everybody forgot what the question was. The other
was to use strange, unusual words and whilst everyone was working out
what it was he meant, he had moved onto the next subject.
Can we take a few steps back because I am getting a bit lost here. I
have re-read this topic all the way through from post 41 which was the
start of the mutation into genetics and evolution. We quickly
established that DNA degradation was a design feature and not a design
fault; it was that way for a good reason and therefore doesn't need
fixing although there are people so close to their subject they can't
see what they have in their hands.
We jumped to the evolutionists and more or less said that the car was
going nicely forward but now it is stuck in the mud and the back axle
is going groundward. I said that along the way they did some good stuff
which when more closely examined from a different standpoint could lead
to a change of direction and a reversal of fortunes. Drew more, or less
said the same thing, saying "All the information is available it just
needs a bit of rearranging"; he then questioned my credentials for
such an opinion. The short answer is that I don't have any.
We accepted the notion of human and other progress occurring in slow
dampened oscillations. I asked opinions on economic development as a
special feature of human development, in that in the last couple of
hundred years humankind has raped the planet and the oscillations have
gone off the graph. I then suggested that occurrence of war would
increase as world markets or/and resources decreased, in much the same
way as behavioural experiments in which animals co-exist in a cage
until the food is gradually reduced. Organized war does not often occur
in the animal kingdom, it is a specifically human trait. Jerry listed
all the major wars in that time scale and I was amazed at the number.
The only omission I could see was Malaysia which was probably a
precursor for Vietnam and the only one we have won by not meeting a
guerrilla war with a military presence. Oh how the modern world has
ignored the ways of success. I have expressed the opinion in a previous
topic or GA, that war is nature's way of regulating the population to
the food/ resources supply. The other way nature, in my view, achieves
this in peace time is through homosexuality of either sex. Removing
breeding couples has the effect of dampening the oscillations.
Sometimes, as with the newer topic I don't yet have a clear enough
view to see where classical theory is moribund and newer ideas can
possibly supersede them but we should continue with it and see where it
takes us.
Best
Drew
go back to it a week later and viciously edit, removing the occasional
arcane word too. Same thing with circuit design, component count
shrinks over time.
Sparing use of emoticons is not a worry, they are read in :-) Rest
assured that you never come over as pompous. Cynical, iconoclastic,
irreverent, yes, but nothing wrong with that. I'd also suggest that
eclecticism is a prime qualification for comment, albeit that with the
range of topics, all the educated person can possibly be is a
dilettante. And since dilettantism threw up the lateral thought of
homosexuality as an evolved inhibiter to over expansion, it pre-empted
the discussion on Darwin+. That leads me to a concern of previously
mooted future technical developments facilitating mental programming.
Knowing is not enough, knowledge has to integrate into the interstices
of consciousness, otherwise one doesn't know what one knows and the
information is of limited use. Darwin+ slid in so easily because the
information was (slightly) unknowingly already in place.
Best
Jerry
qualification for looking at things in a new light - a dumb question
can be a very smart one.
On the warfare thing, I am pretty sure that Reagan's Star Wars program
was designed to economically milk the USSR - and to some extent I
reckon it was successful.
Afghanistan really made Russia 'review the situation'.
I'm not so sure that the Cold War had that intention before then, more
likely it was convenient for the military-industrial complex to keep up
an arms race. Also it was the continuation of an old scrap, the
Americans were very anti-'cawmunist' after WWI - and the UK had troops
in Russia in the early 1920s.
Malaya was more of a police action, during WWII we armed the Malay
Chinese in the hope that they would turn on the Japs, I've read that
they did not bother, but afterwards had a crack at taking control -
fortunately they were in the racial minority, otherwise the Bumiputra
Malays would have become a subject race (which they sort of are now).
Actually I left out a fair number of scraps, after college I toyed with
joining the Army and had an interview with a Colonel in the RE who told
me he had been in wars that I would never have heard of.
I don't know whether war is a form of population control, generally it
looks like people going barking mad (as in Africa) or an attempt to
grab resources - or fend off a perceived threat.
Humans, especially when young, are pretty aggressive. With some animals
young contenders tend to get forced out of the herd - it could be that
warfare is the human way of doing something similar. The instinct
finding supposedly rational reasons.
War has also historically been rather profitable - especially for those
not directly involved.
- ending them has generally left a lot of trained up and unemployed
males wandering around, say the sailors after the Napoleonic wars,
returning UK troops were a problem after WWI, after WWII the UK was
careful to confiscate uniforms and issue de-mob suits. In Germany after
WWI there were the Stahlhelm - bunches of uniformed troops with no
gainful employment who contributed to the rise of Nazism. And of
course the US Vietnam vets.
This is getting quite interesting, thinking of Alexander, Ghengis Khan,
the Romans - they all swept out and absorbed the local population's
surplus males to duff up the next place. Conveniently very few went
home.
Possibly the problem with modern warfare is that too many return ...
Incidentally, I've read that when rats are seriously overcrowded the
males become homosexual.
I can safely say that I do not know what I know, things sort of get
reeled out like pulling a long submerged rope from a stagnant pond.
Mostly I think that I work on pattern recognition, applying principles
from one discipline to another area to see whether things fit.
- empirically I can say that this generally works rather well
It does however, lead to digression ...
I've got another subject that I would like to mull over with you.
Norman
the world population decade by decade since 1800; additionally
calculate on a similar basis, the war dead; excess deaths from natural
disasters and famine, any figures I could find for homosexuals as a
proportion of the population and then work backwards to see what the
world population would be now if people just lived and died without any
of the above. I was then going to compare this with world food and
other resources and see the outcome. As you will realise this was a bit
of a big task. However along the way I found a most interesting site by
a historian called Michael White in which I became totally absorbed. It
is a big rambling site full of side alleys. He lists all the wars since
records began and discusses the authenticity of the figures etc. This
guy is so cool; he groups together atrocities; wars; massacres;
slaughters and oppressions as acts of mass unpleasantness. I do love
the understatement.
Since you asked about the cold war, this is what he has to say on it
although he doesn't mention economic aspects.
In a section entitled "The ten most over rated people, trends or
events of the 20th centaury is the following:
The Cold War (1949-87)
It's defining characteristic is that there was no war, so when we start
listing the major events of the Cold War, we're talking about the major
events of a non-event. Can you get any more Zen than that?
Consider, for example, the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets attempted
to plant nuclear missiles in Cuba, but the US imposed a blockade and
threatened to attack if the Soviets didn't stop their shenanigans. The
world hovered on the brink of a nuclear showdown, but the Soviets
backed down, so the world wasn't destroyed.
By my count that's six non-events in a row:
"Attempted to plant nuclear missiles" means that they didn't.
"Imposed a blockade" means that the Soviet ships didn't go to Cuba.
"Threatened to attack" means they didn't.
The Soviets didn't challenge the blockade...
... or finish installing nuclear weapons.
The world wasn't destroyed.
AND
The Berlin Wall (1961-89)
Berlin: the grim and lonely front line in the Cold War.
What exactly happens on the front lines of a non-event? Border guards
glare at one another; they patrol the barbed wire perimeter, and
carefully check your papers before waving you through.
Big deal; they do that on the Canadian border.
Can anyone explain the importance of the Wall without using the word
"symbolic"?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Population
& Home page:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm
Best
Drew
>I've read that when rats are seriously overcrowded the males become homosexual.
Also a rich tradition in the navy and prisons.
>Can anyone explain the importance of the Wall without using the word "symbolic"?
Dumb?
Best
Jerry
My uncle, who was pretty well informed, maintained that Krushev said
that the 'missiles' were cardboard. That sounds a bit odd - but
deception has long been used as a way of keeping ones options open.
If anyone other than my uncle had said that, I would not have even
considered taking it seriously, however he was incredibly well
connected and well informed and did not have an 'agenda' - apart from
talking to all parties.
There was a bit of 'war by proxy', I'm pretty sure that the Russians
were involved in Vietnam, they bankrolled the Cubans in Africa and
assiduously armed, mainly Egypt, in the Middle East.
Of course Afghanistan ...
I liked Michael White's debunking of the American Indian stuff, I have
a deep suspicion that a large number of them were simply absorbed into
the population.
The Berlin wall was to keep the East Germans (and neighbours) in rather
than keeping the West out - my understanding is that rather a lot of
people were migrating to the West.
I think that it was quite effective at preventing migration, my guess
is that they were worried by a 'brain drain'.