This is what my children are - digital natives. Think about it - my generation, "Generation X" - we're the first settlers in the newly discovered digital world. We grew up with satellite TV, satellite communications, the very beginnings of the Internet, and pretty much every home eventually had a computer in it - our first was an Epson that had a tiny 4-inch green screen and folded up into a suitcase.
My parents were missionaries in the digital environment. My mother worked for a while as a computer networking technician for Alaska Pacific University. She set up computers in villages the Alaska bush, which were networked to the University in Anchorage via satellite, and then to the central hub for the company which was running the program, Control Data. These are the very basic underpinnings of the tool we know and share on a daily basis, the Internet.
Mom's parents, my Grandparents, were the discoverers of this amazing new digital world. Grandpa ran the program at APU (nepotism, I know). People of his generation built the first actual computers - from ENIAC to the invention of the microchip. These were the Columbus's of their time - those who dared posit that the world was not flat at all ...
Which makes me and my generation the proud parents of the first generation born fully immersed in the ever-changing world of digital technology.
Think about this: since my daughter was born in 1991, cell phones have shrunk from the size of a walkie-talkie almost down to the size of a credit card. The computer has shrunk from a box the size of a suitcase and a monitor the size of a house to a thin notebook which you can fit in an envelope or a hand-held device 1,000 - times more powerful than that first Apple IIe I was so very proud of in the 7th grade. For her, technology ebbs and flows like the tide does for us, and she's used to instant information, instant entertainment and instant gratification. Why not? All she has to do is Google it if she wants to find something out.
The problem with this - and I see it as a generational problem from which even my generation suffers to a degree - is that in learning that she can find it now, she has failed to learn the PROCESS. She doesn't understand, and we're, as a generation, as two or even THREE generations, failing to teach, to train her generation in how the PROCESS is as important as the RESULTS.
Why learn to exercise when you can get liposuction or lap-band surgery? Who cares about learning to take care of ones self when all one has to do is get a pill to fix it?
Why learn how to perform long division when you can just pull up your calculator on your laptop?
Why balance your checkbook? Why even HAVE a checkbook? Just log on to the bank and look at your account balance!
But when they don't understand the need for Process, the need for learning the steps, they don't truly learn the hows and whys as to the way the world (OUR FAULT, not THEIRS), they feel entitled to the benefits of that process even though they didn't go through it.
And now the government is following through and entitling their entitlement. Let's bail out the economy! Let's socialize medicine! Let's tax the rich and give to the poor not because they deserve it, but because we CAN.
We no longer have to work to earn our living - we can be guaranteed housing, medical care, food - why bother working? We are ENTITLED to these things, according to the president. We needn't EARN them!
I, for one, am going to teach my children how to EARN what they need, and how to protect what they EARN. It's the only way we, as a society, are going to survive - the way our forefathers built this nation, and something we need to return to.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Robots of war
.Military’s killer robots must learn warrior code
Creating devices to do our dirty work for us, in my opinion, would create a particular heartlessness that I believe would actually INCREASE our proclivity for violence. If all I suffer is a robot destroyed while you lose villages and people, what difference is that to me? My people didn't die, my land was not over-run ... It seems a dark road to travel down.
As it is, human suffering, ours and theirs, gives us, the U.S. reason to think twice before sending in the troops - at least, I hope it does. In my mind, if a situation could be avoided by diplomacy then it is worth far more to pursue that avenue than to send in the military. That being said, there are certainly good reasons to send in the military - with the understanding that it will cost us, most likely as dearly as it will cost "them".
But if we were to send in machinery to do the dirty work, where is the cost? Money for more machines. Where is the human suffering? Not in MY hometown ... Who would benefit? The contractors who build the robots and their employees - hell, it would be a boon to the economy. But what would stop us or any other nation from pursuing war as a solution when we don't stand to lose much at all? And what IF those machines develop "minds of their own"?
General Douglas MacArthur said, "I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes."
How true is this? I think of what the ramifications would have been had we sent robots into Iraq - machines have no conscience, no compassion, simply a mission. If robots overthrew Saddam, drove out insurgencies and dismantled the Iraqi military, who would help rebuild the country? I think it would be naive in the extreme to say, "We would."
No, we wouldn't. We already spent x-numbers of billions of dollars sending our robot army over to do our will. Mission accomplished, regime overthrown, now what? We ship the robots home. We vote not to extend our time "over there" or keep wasting our tax dollars "over there". We withdraw from our neighbors and into ourselves and any time someone pisses us off, we simply launch our robots.
And let me ask this: if "THEY" have robots, too, and the robots fight the robots - WHO WINS????? What would be the point in the first place? We'd fall back on the diplomatic routes and eventually end up sending humans, or worse, using bigger weapons (nukes), because, "Hey, 'Kreblakistan', we don't like you, so we're sending our robots to beat up your robots" just doesn't make any sense! The whole point of war, or a fistfight, for that matter, is, "I don't agree with you, so I'm going to beat you until you submit or until you beat ME and I HAVE to put up with your point of view."
I am all for defending those who are suffering and standing for freedom and democracy. I feel that the current war(s) are and were justified and that we will have, ultimately, done some good in this world. But if we start doing that "good" via remote control, we lose yet another piece of our humanity, and if, as the linked article mentions, those robots develop a "mind of their own" and decide to turn their programming and abilities back on their creators, we've done nothing but develop yet another form of human suffering and warfare.
Let's use robots to disarm roadside bombs, fly reconnaisance missions and conduct deep strike missions. But when it comes to feet on the ground warfare, we need to remember that it's the humanity of the mission that keeps us from escalating and ultimately destroying ourselves.
Creating devices to do our dirty work for us, in my opinion, would create a particular heartlessness that I believe would actually INCREASE our proclivity for violence. If all I suffer is a robot destroyed while you lose villages and people, what difference is that to me? My people didn't die, my land was not over-run ... It seems a dark road to travel down.
As it is, human suffering, ours and theirs, gives us, the U.S. reason to think twice before sending in the troops - at least, I hope it does. In my mind, if a situation could be avoided by diplomacy then it is worth far more to pursue that avenue than to send in the military. That being said, there are certainly good reasons to send in the military - with the understanding that it will cost us, most likely as dearly as it will cost "them".
But if we were to send in machinery to do the dirty work, where is the cost? Money for more machines. Where is the human suffering? Not in MY hometown ... Who would benefit? The contractors who build the robots and their employees - hell, it would be a boon to the economy. But what would stop us or any other nation from pursuing war as a solution when we don't stand to lose much at all? And what IF those machines develop "minds of their own"?
General Douglas MacArthur said, "I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international disputes."
How true is this? I think of what the ramifications would have been had we sent robots into Iraq - machines have no conscience, no compassion, simply a mission. If robots overthrew Saddam, drove out insurgencies and dismantled the Iraqi military, who would help rebuild the country? I think it would be naive in the extreme to say, "We would."
No, we wouldn't. We already spent x-numbers of billions of dollars sending our robot army over to do our will. Mission accomplished, regime overthrown, now what? We ship the robots home. We vote not to extend our time "over there" or keep wasting our tax dollars "over there". We withdraw from our neighbors and into ourselves and any time someone pisses us off, we simply launch our robots.
And let me ask this: if "THEY" have robots, too, and the robots fight the robots - WHO WINS????? What would be the point in the first place? We'd fall back on the diplomatic routes and eventually end up sending humans, or worse, using bigger weapons (nukes), because, "Hey, 'Kreblakistan', we don't like you, so we're sending our robots to beat up your robots" just doesn't make any sense! The whole point of war, or a fistfight, for that matter, is, "I don't agree with you, so I'm going to beat you until you submit or until you beat ME and I HAVE to put up with your point of view."
I am all for defending those who are suffering and standing for freedom and democracy. I feel that the current war(s) are and were justified and that we will have, ultimately, done some good in this world. But if we start doing that "good" via remote control, we lose yet another piece of our humanity, and if, as the linked article mentions, those robots develop a "mind of their own" and decide to turn their programming and abilities back on their creators, we've done nothing but develop yet another form of human suffering and warfare.
Let's use robots to disarm roadside bombs, fly reconnaisance missions and conduct deep strike missions. But when it comes to feet on the ground warfare, we need to remember that it's the humanity of the mission that keeps us from escalating and ultimately destroying ourselves.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Interesting thought:
Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised.
- Marilyn Manson
- Marilyn Manson
Monday, February 02, 2009
Since when?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D963IPR81&show_article=1
Since when did we start expecting our elite athletes to be elite humans? It doesn't work that way -- we're all just human and we all make mistakes. Whether it's Michael Phelps loading up a bong or a Catholic Bishop caught having an affair (or worse), people whom society tends to place a higher set of characteristic and behavioral expectations on almost never fail to let us down.
I am certain that part of the issue is the fact that media is now instantly accessable - we can see the exploits of our "heroes" almost as it happens - people are posting photos and video to the Web from their phones in near-real-time, giving a judgemental media ability to instantly condemn or praise their actions and send the word out world-wide. The pressure that this creates on public figures has got to be overwhelming, and the expectations of a public whom understands only what the media shows them of a person - who only gets a two-dimensional view - well, one can only assume that that creates a crushing weight.
So what do we do as responsible citizens? Point and cluck our tongues, wagging our heads knowingly? Disassociate ourselves from any fan-dom or reverence of said transgressors? Shove it in the backs of our minds and try to ignore it? What do we do when one of our children comes up and asks us why their hero decided to smoke pot?
I don't really have an answer except to explain that Mr. Phelps made a poor decision and let's learn from his mistake and not do it ourselves. But it certainly does raise a few questions.
Since when did we start expecting our elite athletes to be elite humans? It doesn't work that way -- we're all just human and we all make mistakes. Whether it's Michael Phelps loading up a bong or a Catholic Bishop caught having an affair (or worse), people whom society tends to place a higher set of characteristic and behavioral expectations on almost never fail to let us down.
I am certain that part of the issue is the fact that media is now instantly accessable - we can see the exploits of our "heroes" almost as it happens - people are posting photos and video to the Web from their phones in near-real-time, giving a judgemental media ability to instantly condemn or praise their actions and send the word out world-wide. The pressure that this creates on public figures has got to be overwhelming, and the expectations of a public whom understands only what the media shows them of a person - who only gets a two-dimensional view - well, one can only assume that that creates a crushing weight.
So what do we do as responsible citizens? Point and cluck our tongues, wagging our heads knowingly? Disassociate ourselves from any fan-dom or reverence of said transgressors? Shove it in the backs of our minds and try to ignore it? What do we do when one of our children comes up and asks us why their hero decided to smoke pot?
I don't really have an answer except to explain that Mr. Phelps made a poor decision and let's learn from his mistake and not do it ourselves. But it certainly does raise a few questions.
Friday, January 30, 2009
You have GOT to be fucking KIDDING!!!
http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
Our friends at PETA have begun a new campaign - to rename fish "sea kittens" because, "nobody would hurt a a sea kitten!"
Seriously ... sea kittens?
Heh ...
I kill "sea kittens" for sport - although I guess you'd really have to call them "River kittens" or "Creek kittens" or sometimes "Pond kittens." Trouble is, when you throw an actual kitten into one of these bodies of water, people frown on you and try to attack you!
I think PETA's stupidity could breed additional stupidity as people will be so confused over which kitten is which that they'll try to throw all of 'em into the water, causing the Great Kitten Civil War and destroying the nation in a paroxism of kitten-defending/dunking gunplay.
Nope, PETA's true goal here is clear: to undermine the government by confusing stupid people, thus causing the war. I say we tie PETA in plastic bags and throw them over bridges - that way they can go play with their "Sea kittens."
Our friends at PETA have begun a new campaign - to rename fish "sea kittens" because, "nobody would hurt a a sea kitten!"
Seriously ... sea kittens?
Heh ...
I kill "sea kittens" for sport - although I guess you'd really have to call them "River kittens" or "Creek kittens" or sometimes "Pond kittens." Trouble is, when you throw an actual kitten into one of these bodies of water, people frown on you and try to attack you!
I think PETA's stupidity could breed additional stupidity as people will be so confused over which kitten is which that they'll try to throw all of 'em into the water, causing the Great Kitten Civil War and destroying the nation in a paroxism of kitten-defending/dunking gunplay.
Nope, PETA's true goal here is clear: to undermine the government by confusing stupid people, thus causing the war. I say we tie PETA in plastic bags and throw them over bridges - that way they can go play with their "Sea kittens."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
New career for C-4!
If you haven't seen "Livin' the Low Life" on Speed, you're missing out on a treat - sawheeeeeet! low riders, some great videography and the hotness that is Vida Guerra, although I think C-4 could probably do a better job - bikinis and guns!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
