Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Dan M. wrote: As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010 I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It shows than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how things work in other countries. :-) Maybe we could work around a Big Bet about which is the next country that will disintegrate. Russia? Canada? USA? China? Brazil? India? Australia? South Africa? I bet on China, but Bolivia came close to it a few months ago. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Right. As everyone knows, Mexico is a great power that is poised to take over the entire Southern tier of the United States. And those damned Canadians have been quietly biding their time since the American revolution, lying in wait for just the right moment to arrive. And the European Union is so blatantly an effort to organize Europe for a take-over of the United States that it's a wonder no one's mentioned it before... Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
I'm no twitter as http://twitter.com/dland Nick has been kind enough to mention me several times in his musings on Twitter. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, David Land wrote: I'm no twitter as http://twitter.com/dland Nick has been kind enough to mention me several times in his musings on Twitter. OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see dumped to LiveJournal. Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other folks. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
Julia, OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see dumped to LiveJournal. Thank you (if you're referring to my twitter feed). I try to remember that the people who are following me (there are a little under a hundred, with some falling off and new ones replacing them over time) are an audience, so I write with them in mind. Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other folks. In my experience, the least interesting tweeple are the ones who use twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something like: @boogerbrain *Yawn* @mesopotamia That's what she said! @fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? @noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... There is a hierarchy of engagement on Twitter in which following is worth one point, replying is worth more -- maybe two to five points, and retweeting is maybe double that again. I don't think I've been retweeted. Not bleeding edge enough, I guess. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Paul Saffo on non-human intelligence
Paul Saffo: DISCOVERY (OR CREATION) OF NON-HUMAN INTELLIGENCE CURES HUMANKIND'S EXISTENTIAL LONELINESS The last two sentences are great: A world shared with super-intelligent robots is a hard thing to imagine. If we are lucky, our new mind children will treat us as pets. If we are very unlucky, they will treat us as food. http://snipurl.com/9f313 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, David Land wrote: Julia, OK, that one looks somewhat more interesting than some of the Tweets I see dumped to LiveJournal. Thank you (if you're referring to my twitter feed). I try to remember that the people who are following me (there are a little under a hundred, with some falling off and new ones replacing them over time) are an audience, so I write with them in mind. Then again, the less interesting things are in response to other Tweets, and the person Tweeting the most is engaged in discussions with other folks. In my experience, the least interesting tweeple are the ones who use twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something like: @boogerbrain *Yawn* @mesopotamia That's what she said! @fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? @noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. That's what the most prolific feed I see is, mostly. Except a little more interesting than that. It lends a cheerful surreality to my day, so I don't complain. And I get information about the guy's life that I wouldn't otherwise. I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... That one does, actually. His LJ is about half LoudTwitter and half actual posts with real information, and it's usually information I'm glad to have. (Even if it's bad stuff, I like to know what's going on with folks.) There is a hierarchy of engagement on Twitter in which following is worth one point, replying is worth more -- maybe two to five points, and retweeting is maybe double that again. I don't think I've been retweeted. Not bleeding edge enough, I guess. I know someone who has a Twitter account just so's he can send stuff to his to-do list, which is on a website which won't take text messages, but will accept Tweets and convert them into to-do items. He has several people following him, and the fact of that creeps him out just a little. (I think they just need the clue that he's not intending to interact with anyone there.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who's on Twitter?
At 02:20 PM Saturday 1/3/2009, David Land wrote: In my experience, the least interesting tweeple I suppose calling them twits is frowned upon . . . are the ones who use twitter as a kind of public instant message with their friends. Every message is a reply to someone else, and they often look something like: @boogerbrain *Yawn* @mesopotamia That's what she said! @fooboo Was that thing actually _on_ your plate? @noobee If you say so, but actually, I like em crunchy. I wonder if these people have anything at all to say on their own... The conversation in the Niven chat room (in session now) is rather more intelligent than the above . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
David Land wrote: Right. As everyone knows, Mexico is a great power that is poised to take over the entire Southern tier of the United States. And those damned Canadians have been quietly biding their time since the American revolution, lying in wait for just the right moment to arrive. And the European Union is so blatantly an effort to organize Europe for a take-over of the United States that it's a wonder no one's mentioned it before... Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Alberto Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Sheesh, don't you know? Israel _controls_ all those countries. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Israel to collapse in 25 years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:17 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Alberto Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Sheesh, don't you know? Israel _controls_ all those countries. Switching the conversation to something not as much fun, I've been wondering if Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have found a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. The first two attack Israel with rockets located in the middle of civilians. If Israel doesn't respond, they up the attacks. If it does, it kills lots of civilians and Hamas and Hezbollah gain in popularity. Iran is setting Israel up so it (or the US which is doubtful) will have to bomb its nuclear facility or face an enemy with the ability to wipe out Israel and virtually all of its population in 15 minutes. If Israel does bomb, it won't know if it got all of the facilities, or if there is a buried one. Plus, demographics favor the Palestinians in the long run. Further, since Arabs control oil, there is a great desire to please Arabs by many world powers (the UN tacit approval of the genocide in the Sudan is a good example of this), other countries will have to act against their own self interests to worry about Israel. So, can anyone argue me out of this pessimistic viewpoint? I honestly hope so, even though I'll argue hard for this pointit's one argument I'd love to lose. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Israel to collapse in 25 years?
Dan M wrote: So, can anyone argue me out of this pessimistic viewpoint? I honestly hope so, even though I'll argue hard for this pointit's one argument I'd love to lose. Well, note that there has never been the kind of tacit support for Israel from moderate Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as there is in this particular conflict. The Sunnis are probably more fearful of Shia/Iranian ascendancy than they are of a stable Jewish state. I don't know if it will happen, but if the current incursion takes control of the Gaza/Egypt border and allows wounded Palestinians (that Hamas is not allowing to cross) to get to the emergency facilities that have been set up there, they might gain a little popular support. Of course the idea is to weaken Hamas enough so that more moderate factions can take charge. I'm sure that there are more than a few members of Fatah that aren't too unhappy with the idea. In any case, what the nut case running Iran would like to see is world war 3, and I'm not even sure that he would mind if Iran itself was cauterized as a result. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Israel to collapse in 25 years?
At 05:54 PM Saturday 1/3/2009, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:17 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Alberto Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Sheesh, don't you know? Israel _controls_ all those countries. Switching the conversation to something not as much fun, I've been wondering if Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have found a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. The first two attack Israel with rockets located in the middle of civilians. If Israel doesn't respond, they up the attacks. If it does, it kills lots of civilians and Hamas and Hezbollah gain in popularity. Iran is setting Israel up so it (or the US which is doubtful) will have to bomb its nuclear facility or face an enemy with the ability to wipe out Israel and virtually all of its population in 15 minutes. If Israel does bomb, it won't know if it got all of the facilities, or if there is a buried one. Plus, demographics favor the Palestinians in the long run. Further, since Arabs control oil, there is a great desire to please Arabs by many world powers (the UN tacit approval of the genocide in the Sudan is a good example of this), other countries will have to act against their own self interests to worry about Israel. So, can anyone argue me out of this pessimistic viewpoint? I honestly hope so, even though I'll argue hard for this pointit's one argument I'd love to lose. Dan M. Apparently the strategy works, as I've heard on the news when Gaza citizens are interviewed they blame America as well as Israel for civilian deaths rather than Hamas for launching rockets from civilian neighborhoods. . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Israel to collapse in 25 years?
On 04/01/2009, at 10:54 AM, Dan M wrote: Plus, demographics favor the Palestinians in the long run. Further, since Arabs control oil, there is a great desire to please Arabs by many world powers (the UN tacit approval of the genocide in the Sudan is a good example of this), No it's no - the UN and African Union have peace-keeping operations in Darfur. They're underfunded and undereffective, but that's not tacit approval. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
