Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 04:14 AM

I know that I already deeply love this game, before I do not know how to play the FF11, when my classmate talk about the FF11 and the FFXI Gil, I often do not know what they talked until I played the game, I know all things.

Posted by: FFXI Gil at September 2, 2008 02:42 AM

A great helper team, consisting of tutors and game masters, ensures that players can enjoy Tibia Gp.

Posted by: Tibia Gp at August 28, 2008 12:55 AM

The world is filled with hundreds of games, from multi-player RPG's to puzzles and buy SL gold grid-wide contests.

Posted by: buy SL gold at August 28, 2008 12:54 AM

She still every day effort to upgrade and earn the archlord online Gold, until today, the girl like to played Archlord online, the boy for the girl in the game not to be bullied by other people so that he secretly to played this game

Posted by: archlord online Gold at August 16, 2008 12:03 AM

he will find it very boring, In this way, has been in the sweet recollection of the urgency and look forward to spending a week, I think that when I return I will give him a surprise, because I know how to buy the cheap fiesta online gold.

Posted by: fiesta online gold at August 15, 2008 11:54 PM

I remember that in the Cronous, I had a good friend, because he did not have enough money to buy cronous gold, so his level was lower, but after when I met him, I often help him, he was very thank me.

Posted by: buy cronous gold at August 15, 2008 11:45 PM

“why you do not pick the things, if you do not pick you will do not have the flyff gold to buy the blood, I know that she was well-intentioned so I picked the things and chatted with her, in the end we together to killed the wolf

Posted by: flyff gold at August 15, 2008 11:35 PM

Reward: 3500gold, 5000xp, scroll of adventurer moving order increase agility 20% Silkroad online gold for one hour.

Posted by: Silkroad online gold at August 8, 2008 09:21 PM

Reward: 3500gold, 5000xp, scroll of adventurer moving order increase agility 20% Silkroad online gold for one hour.

Posted by: Silkroad online gold at August 8, 2008 09:21 PM

Also the game system is well built concerned with oriental fantasy world such like the speedy level-up, fast moving of character more than 3~5 times than other game and various 12Sky Silver Coins skill system and there are extra interesting factors for adult such like hardgore, strip and gambling system.

Posted by: 12Sky Silver Coins at August 8, 2008 09:20 PM

Oh, we are headed in a bad direction. As is the case with so much of the technology appearing with increasing speed and frequency in our society, this is a really bad idea.

Posted by: wow gold at August 7, 2008 03:52 AM

It was the last month that I contacted HOLIC,because my young sister was playing this game then she let me play with her.her promised me give me holic online money.

Posted by: http://www.holiconlinegold.com at August 6, 2008 12:06 AM

We can also maplestory.io this site to buy, cheap and safe. It was so non-stop the escalation, in order to satisfy their desire to want things, the upgrading of non-stop!

Posted by: maplestory.io at August 5, 2008 02:40 AM

From novice to play is not too difficult, mainly Liandao a bit high, we should sell what ah, we should start to buy what the point, of course, has often been Qiangguai，Then we have no choice but to buy mesos, can also buy cheap mesos.

Posted by: cheap mesos at August 5, 2008 02:39 AM

Friendly feelings may be, as a friend like; feelings can be a family, like brothers and sisters like; can also be feelings of love, like lovers like has happened is, not what can not be young. In the game, I believed every player can make many friends, and many players also find their own wife. At first they will buy runescape to send each other.

Posted by: buy runescape at August 2, 2008 12:15 AM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 1, 2008 11:58 PM

We provide all wow goldservices. You can buy World Of Warcraft gold Cheap WOW Gold here ! Age of Conan gold(buy aoc gold)is on sale on wow7gold.com.We provide cheap aoc Goldaoc goldLord of The Rings Online goldLotro Goldbuy warhammer golddiablo3 goldgames gold

Posted by: World Of Warcraft gold at July 10, 2008 12:14 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 02:36 AM

very interested

Posted by: cars for sale at December 7, 2007 10:46 AM

Impressive, can't wait until weaponary, small nuclear generator and a program to identify friend from foe is installed. It could actually be made to hunt down terrorist. Made in the thousands this would save a lot of US lives and would be a force to deal with.

Posted by: john doe at March 8, 2006 07:35 PM

If anyone is a socialist here, it's the technophiles. After all, high technology relies on a well-established system of massive public subsidy for research, development and deployment. These subsidies primarily come from the Defense Department, but there are plenty of other agencies, as well.

Take, for instance, RFID. That technology would not exist if not for the socialist market intervention of DoD, which has been the biggest purchaser of RFID for some time now. Said another way, DoD, by insisting that all suppliers be RFID compliant and by purchasing massive quantities of related technology, has created an artificial market for it - after having subsidized the research.

Capitalists long ago realized that they hate risk, and so they transfer (socialize) risk through subsidy, especially with R&D. After all, risky investments are not a safe path to wealth. Then, when the tech is cheap enough, capitalists jump on board and implement it or privatize it. This is the stage we are in with RFID. Wal-Mart and other large companies are now coming on board in a big way.

So, RFID will bring increased "efficiency" to the workplace, but what will that mean, practically? More control over workers and distribution, to begin with, which means less freedom for workers on the job. Voila! The government has thus subsidized an attack on workers, making possible higher profits at our expense. It's socialism for the rich!

Anyhow, I suppose there's little more to say. I've offered plenty of hard examples of key technologies that work in precisely the manner I described initially. Defenders of high tech on here - or those who see it as merely neutral - seem to me to be hitting what I call the "ideological wall." You all have been taught that technology is good, just like you have been taught so many things that aren't true about America, but that the elite need you to believe. When the facts to the contrary appear, they cause confusion and a reiterating of mythology and false common sense (and some elitism emerges, as well).

It's really pretty funny, when you think about it. I could have made the exact comparison about campaign funding and most of you would have probably agreed with me. I really doubt anyone here would say that all the money rich folks and corporations give to politicians has no effect on politics. Wouldn't that be a naive position to take? But, why would technology be immune from these same forces? No one here has described to me the mechanism through which, despite all these economic and institutional pressures, technology somehow remains aloof from the interests of its funders and defenders - much less how beyond that it somehow acts as a benevolent force, lifting all boats equally.

Of course, the evidence goes quite to the contrary, so I'm not really surprised by that disconnect.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 8, 2006 05:39 PM

"When you say, improves life, what do you mean? How do you measure quality of life? Live longer? Die Richer?"

well in my case, YES. youre damn right I do. with the added proviso of increased overall happiness. increased wealth only increases happiness to a point, but for most of the world, that point hasn't been reached yet, and only technology can help that, becuase the number of people is increasing as always, and the the resources are the same as ever.

If you don't think that technology increases quality of living, then why not stop using modern medicine and die at 50 for all I care.

I'd say people won't be any happier in a truely freer society than one like a developed country, most people are too apathetic about it to know the difference anyway. I think the best we could hope for is to increase the US and other countries contributions to the development of third world countries, even though we give the most out of any country.

anyway, I'm sleep deprived and arguing with anti-government quasi-socialist crazies on the interweb who in a bout of irony use said interweb to announse their displeasure at technology.

I've never been a fan of legged robots, but this is quite a schnazzy one. ugly summabitch though. like a brick crossed with a llama.

Posted by: Max at March 8, 2006 02:25 AM

Relevent in the news today:

'The lab is also, Moss boasts, "clearly the coolest place on the planet" to work, for those interested in how technology can change society. Its 30-plus research groups have names like Biomechatronics (how technology can enhance physical abilities), Lifelong Kindergarten (creative ways to learn), and Smart Cities (how buildings can respond more intelligently to inhabitants). Most of the lab's $32 million yearly budget comes from corporate sponsors ranging from the expected - tech giants such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Intel, and Cisco Systems - to the less obvious, such as Campbell Soup, Philip Morris, and The LEGO Group, maker of LEGO toys.

One of Moss's top priorities is to make sure these 80 or so corporate sponsors feel they benefit from the work of the lab. In the go-go days of the late 1990s tech boom, companies could simply decide, "This is cool. We're going to put money behind it," Moss says. But today, "You have to be able to justify that [spending] as a good investment that has a return."'

300 geniuses call him boss
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p13s01-stct.html

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 7, 2006 10:22 PM

In fact, my point is not wedded to Marx. I find his perspective informative to this discussion, but my point is wedded to freedom, and technology limits freedom in very important ways. So, yes, I cite power in the workplace because the workplace is a vital part of human existence, and instead of the dictatoriship we have now, we ought to have democracy there instead.

Technology empowers the boss, the bureaucrat and the powers that be. That's bad for human freedom. If you're on the side of the bosses, bureaucrats and the powers that be, and count yourself among those who have faith in their benevolent intentions, then you might find the future world to your liking (and you might really like China, for instance). Some others are more skeptical.

Anyhow, the truth is that technophilia is not as rampant as you suggest. Sure, the public dialogue, with a few exceptions (stem cells, GMO, nuclear power, for instance), is dominated by gushing enthusiasm. That would make sense, since the elites own the media and the professional class that manages it is thoroughly indoctrinated. Elites in general are mostly very fond of it as well, for obvious reasons I have already gone into. However, when you delve a little deeper, it turns out that there's massive distrust and alienation out there when it comes to technology.

But, it's no surprise that people under that kind of propaganda barrage exhibit a certain schizophrenia on the issue (hell, almost 90 percent of US soldiers, according to Zogby, think the war in Iraq is in retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11!). And, sure, there are benefits from the technology that people genuinely find useful. But, our participation in these technologies is an authoritarian one because we have no input on their development, little on their deployment and are forced to accomodate ourselves to them, for the most part.

Now, you can be FOR that - perhaps you don't trust people, let's say. But you shouldn't pretend that technological development is democratic. That's precisely why you can't vote against it. Voting against technology in this society would be like voting against the state. Or voting against capitalism. Good luck. Technology is too imbedded in the state for us to use a tool of the state to eliminate it. And, technology would collapse without the nanny state, anyhow, so why bother organizing to preserve the state as a tactic to undoing technology?

You, yourself admit that labor makes wealth (which is true, though not in the limited sense you mean it), and you admit that technology helps create wealth (true, but again, not exactly as you mean it). Why is it so difficult for you to follow through your own logic? If these are all true, wouldn't it make sense that the people with all the wealth would want to keep this tool of theirs under their control and to use it for their own ends? Have they made police, armies or workplaces democratic institutions? Did the bureaucrat dictatorships of Stalin, Mao or Hitler permit such things? Why, then, would a dictatorship of capital do it either?

Here's the problem with your analysis. It isn't just, for instance, American labor that makes American wealth. Plenty of other places, like Africa, have lots of labor and even resources, and yet have limited wealth. Much of this wealth and labor has been stolen outright, through slavery and colonialism.

Much of it now is bought through artificially low labor costs maintainted by neoliberal institutions like the WTO along with compliant local leaders and, when it becomes necessary, militaries (one reason why powerful militaries are not a good thing for those people without power).

So, what you have mistaken for an information economy in which labor is less important is really an economy where labor is less obvious to YOU. Mostly because so much of it has been offshored, as Marx predicted it would be. This is not to say that I am defending industrialism or industrial jobs, but nonetheless, the neoliberal system, thanks to technology, has made it possible to accumulate vast amounts of wealth for small minorities, to manage and exploit far off populations, to pit first world workers against third world dispossessed, and to manage it all from the center of the empire.

Now, you can say that labor is less important, but that sure won't fly to a woman sewing t-shirts seven days a week for 20 cents an hour in Bangladesh. Nor will it fly with the Wal-Mart worker stocking it in your home town.

Or, frankly, with me. You're wrong if you think class war is dead. It's very much alive, and technology is a major component in the attack on workers and others without power in this society. The aim of the elite today is always, first and foremost, to stay the elite tomorrow. If you don't think technology is part of that - that technology is somehow neutral despite the immense institutional, propganda and financial pressure to the contrary, then you need to show me how that is true, which you haven't.

One big reason that the elites have the confidence here at home to transition from an economy in which industrial production transformed third world resources for a domestic market (and where work itself served as a tool of social control), to one in which production has been offshored, to be managed by foreign despots and supply chain managers at home, is precisely because of the power to control and regulate that elites derive from technology. It's no coincidence that the two transitions, economic and technological are happening at the same time.

Anyhow, maybe it just comes down to this: if I'm on the side of the workers, what side are you on?

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 7, 2006 08:40 PM

The fact is that technology does create its political reality. It changes the political unit, the individual, and who the individuals relate. It changes the speed at which one can utilized another. Ever it is the object of man or woman, when he or she sees another person going about thier business and perfectly happy, to change that person and make them useful, to make them a source of wealth. This tendency is made much broader by technology.

God made the world. Man merely alters it. And we can't possibly stop. The very language we and Marx used is an utterly artificial technological inovation. We have to be aware of what it does.

Gasoline driven pony is scarey not in itself but because of what other people could use it for, if they turned it against us. And we know about people. People would use it against us. Thats how people are. So we have to be aware and careful and thats about all we can do.... and not elect Twits for president of course.

Posted by: exclab at March 7, 2006 05:18 PM

Yes, I mentioned Marx. No, he doesn't undermine my position, because my position is not rooted in Marx. I merely suspected yours was.

Truly, we reach the crux of the matter. This isn't about technology. It's about your support of the rise of the workers. Thus, anything which increases the power of a capitalist state is seen as "bad" by you. However, I don't subscribe to a class warfare paradigm. Marx was wrong.

Technology allows for individual initiative and the creation of wealth. We exist in a society where knowledge and skill, not merely labor, are the foundations for success. In the information age, Marx's 19th century industrial theories are out of date.

You wish to vote against technological developments? Run for office yourself. Find a candidate to represent you in the House of Representatives or the Senate. If enough people support your position, you can redirect research dollars. The problem is, you're in the extreme minority. People don't support your position. You won't win. Democracy in action.

Posted by: Brian at March 7, 2006 04:36 PM

Also, if I may quickly offer one more example from the past, consider the patrol wagon and signal system instituted between the 1880's and 1900. Initially, this system, which utilized telegraph technology, was only available to police and rich people (who could rent them for their homes and shops, interestingly). Through it, police patrols could really call for back up for the first time (before this police had to use whistles or bells, which had obvious limitations in terms of range and the number of other officers that could potentially deploy in response). And with the combination of the patrol wagon, they could deploy forces quickly and make mass arrests easily and routinely for the first time. Interestingly, this technology didn't reduce the need for police - in fact police force size jumped as a result because the new technology required more police to operate and maintain it.

As an aside, we're seeing the same thing now with surveillance cameras, which are not reducing police ranks the slightest while definitely (and exponentially) increasing the power of the police to enforce and deter crime.

Returning to the main point, the political context of this development (again, subsidized by the state), was the rising labor movement of the time. Following on the Great Upheaval of 1877, labor, which had been violently put down, rose up again during the economic collapses of the 1880's. These technologies were used to great effect to attack the mobilized working class in Chicago, for instance, but many other places as well.

And, so now, yes telephones are everywhere. And wi-fi (like the municipal kind sweeping the nation) vastly increases the investigative, response and surveillance powers of the police. So not just rich people can call the police these days. But is that a good thing or a bad thing? For a workers movement, it is a bad thing because more police power means more power for the capitalists. And more power for the capitalist means more exploitation for workers.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 7, 2006 02:47 PM

Well, Marx would disagree with you on several points. First of all, imperialism and the transfer of wealth from the third world to the first - enhanced by powerful militaries - was very much criticized by Marx and highlighted by him as one reason for differences in wealth between nations. If it were just resources, then, to take your own example, Japan would starve. But, it doesn't, thanks to imperialism (or it's kissing cousin, neo-colonialism), maintained abroad primarily by the United States. Domestically, uncompensated slave labor served a similar purpose.

Second, Marx was very critical of the technology of his era, seeing it as a class war weapon by the capitalists to attack labor or even to replace it with capital. He said, in fact,

"It would be possible to write quite a history of the inventions made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class."

That seems to undermine your position. As would his point about machinery and capital:

"The separation of the intellectual powers of production from the manual labor and the conversion of these powers into the might of capital over labor is... finally completed by modern industry erected on the foundation of machinery."

Both quotes come from Capital I, a book you are probably familiar with if you know Marx.

Now, the point isn't to get academic here, but I can give you a very good example of how a technology had a wide impact after a highly subsidized development process.

Take for example, numeric control. This process was developed for the military in order to meet the demands of increased wartime production. But it served another purpose aside from increased production. It served specifically to replace the machinist - someone who had a lot of power on the factory floor (and was therefore a threat to the capitalist desire for complete control over production). It replaced the machinist with capital, essentially, by replacing him/her with a machine that didn't require the skill of a machinist to run.

This reduced workers freedom on the job and increased their level of exploitation. At the same time, it vastly increased the power of the boss on the factory floor. Capitalists took the technology up with this in mind, and if you read the trade and technology journals at the time, you will see that everyone involved in the development of this technology, with very few exceptions, wanted it for this very reason. At the time, the technology was developed and put into place, wartime no-strike pledges had expired and labor was acting quite aggressively (and justifiably) after years of restrictions and wage freezes.

The thing is, the state and capital are political. As are state and capitalist managers. Their desire is to restrict freedom, particularly the labor and social power of the working class. They do this, of course, because it is one of the main ways that they both stay in power and derive profits. Profit, after all, is the difference between the wage a worker (or workers, collectively) can demand and the value of that labor to the capitalist. Under capitalism, backed up by the state, this profit is redistributed upward thanks to the ownership of capital. Therefore, to the extent that a capitalist can replace labor with capital directly, or de-skill it through technology, s/he has improved his/her relative power versus workers, and therefore improved his/her bottom line. And, because these technologies are subsidized by the state, often through guaranteed markets (as with n/c then, RFID now), they become relatively cheap for bosses to implement. Since these capitalists are also the ones who direct defense budgets and almost all technological research either directly or through the state, it only makes sense that the technologies they develop will necessarily reflect their class interest.

As I said, we saw that with, n/c, for instance, but it is not alone. Before that we saw it with the assembly line and the factory system, to name two more. And we are seeing it now with cameras, wireless technology, RFID, etc. Interestingly, all of these technologies have been or continue to be heavily subsidized by the state.

All these may have the benefit of securing your apartment (ironically, from people who have been disempowered through technology, capital or the state - i.e., the camera is restricting their autonomous redistributive activity). But they also restrict all kinds of other independent action.

And, sure, it may offer other choices (which do have consequences, often, for others), but the question is, what about the fundamental choices we have to have as humans? Like the fundamental right to challenge power. Or to have control over the basic conditions of our lives. These are undermined by technology, for the most part, and not just on the job (although that is VERY important).

I have no control over technological development, except perhaps through my purchasing. Of course, if I have no money, I have no vote - and no matter how much money I have, I cannot compete with the state or the combined power of capital. And, in order to refuse to buy something, it has to be already created, so that's a losing game anyhow, isn't it?

So tell me, where do I vote against RFID? Who do I talk to at the university to stop that research? The answer is no one, because those technologies are developed in undemocratic ways.

I hope that helps answer your questions.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 7, 2006 02:34 PM

Phoenix Insurgent, you ask irrelevant questions and then assume there is evidence to back your faulty suppositions.

"Of course, the point is that technology doesn't offer equal amounts of good and bad. Very often, it offers almost all bad. Nor does it level the playing field, either, despite what Samuel Colt's boosters may suggest. Nor does it make our lives necessarily easier, better or give us more freedom to act."

Unsupported statements. Where is your evidence? Very often, it is all bad? Says who? It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims.

"Does a surveillance state give us more freedom? Does a nuclear weapon enhance everyone's life? Does the rifle I own make me equal to a SWAT team barging into my house? Even if we all have the SAME rifle it doesn't do that!"

What do you mean by a surveillance state? Cameras don't strip away freedom. There were security cameras in my apartment building when I lived in Washington DC, and I was happy about that. It made my life safer. Nuclear weapons and the deterrent they provided prevented a third world war. SWAT teams charging into your house with rifles? If you have the same rifle, technology hasn't played a role at all. If 10 guys ran into your house with big rocks, they'd overwhelm you just as easily.

"Sure, there are some benefits, but the view that it all comes down to the individual is naive and, I think, ideological. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Just where is this individual participation and choice that you are talking about. If tech enhances choices, then it would be obvious."

I have the choice to drive to Mexico tomorrow if I want. I have the choice to talk about defense technologies on the internet. I have the choice to fly to Alaska, get some sled dogs, and explore the wilderness. I have the choice to smear myself down with jello and run down the sidewalk singing America the Beautiful while listening to "Inna gadda da vida" on an Ipod.

"And yet, the people who really make the choices about technological research and applications are hardly accountable at all."

Unsupported statement. Who makes choices about tech research? How are they unaccountable? Evidence, please. Use examples.

"One needs to take a wider view of technology's effects and who has control over it to understand how it works. Just because DoD made the highways doesn't mean that the highways are universally good. After all, tens of thousands of people die every year on them and the shit they pump into the air causes cancers and global warming."

Certainly. Yet isn't it society's right to make that determination? To make that choice? Every time I get in a vehicle, I take a risk. That's my right, my choice, to take that risk. I've weighed the consequences and I understand the odds. Technology has given me the opportunity to make that choice. The interstate commerce that is provided by those same highways also allows us to feed millions more than we would otherwise. Technological innovations allow us to stop things like the Spanish Influenza. Tell me again how saving millions of lives is a bad thing?

"And that's not to mention the fact that moving armies and weapons around the country may not, in fact, be a good thing, no matter how easy it makes it for the rest of us to move around the country. Said another way, the freedom to drive 85 miles per hour from New York to Phoenix might not, in the end, balance out the oppressive power of a more flexible military apparatus."

You haven't shown that a flexible military apparatus is a bad thing. You assume it to be so. A better infrastructure, with stronger roads that were built to withstand flooding, would have speeded National Guard hurricane relief to New Orleans. Better levees would have prevented flooding.

"Plus, the resources to build those highways came because the US had the power to extract wealth from other countries. The existence of state subsidized highways in the US is directly related to the lack of them elsewhere. So, are highways in the US good for people in Africa, for instance?"

It's not a zero sum game. We didn't steal highways from Africa. Increased labor causes the creation of wealth. Every economist and political theorist from the dawn of time understood that--including Marx. Pouring concrete doesn't require taking any African resources. Concrete is basically ground up rocks and water--we have enough of both here.

Ultimately, technology allows more people to survive on the Earth than would otherwise. Tokyo cannot survive without the benefits of technology--there are simply too many people in too small an area. As the population of the planet grows, we need more and more technology. Technology is simply understanding our universe and using that understanding to better meet our needs. Without technology, Earth cannot support 6 billion people.

Posted by: Brian at March 7, 2006 12:29 PM

Of course, the point is that technology doesn't offer equal amounts of good and bad. Very often, it offers almost all bad. Nor does it level the playing field, either, despite what Samuel Colt's boosters may suggest. Nor does it make our lives necessarily easier, better or give us more freedom to act. Does a surveillance state give us more freedom? Does a nuclear weapon enhance everyone's life? Does the rifle I own make me equal to a SWAT team barging into my house? Even if we all have the SAME rifle it doesn't do that!

Sure, there are some benefits, but the view that it all comes down to the individual is naive and, I think, ideological. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Just where is this individual participation and choice that you are talking about. If tech enhances choices, then it would be obvious. And yet, the people who really make the choices about technological research and applications are hardly accountable at all.

One needs to take a wider view of technology's effects and who has control over it to understand how it works. Just because DoD made the highways doesn't mean that the highways are universally good. After all, tens of thousands of people die every year on them and the shit they pump into the air causes cancers and global warming.

And that's not to mention the fact that moving armies and weapons around the country may not, in fact, be a good thing, no matter how easy it makes it for the rest of us to move around the country. Said another way, the freedom to drive 85 miles per hour from New York to Phoenix might not, in the end, balance out the oppressive power of a more flexible military apparatus.

Plus, the resources to build those highways came because the US had the power to extract wealth from other countries. The existence of state subsidized highways in the US is directly related to the lack of them elsewhere. So, are highways in the US good for people in Africa, for instance?

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 6, 2006 07:30 PM

Of course, Tom. Whether we're clubbing someone with a rock, or shooting them with a gun, it's ultimately our responsibility. Technology doesn't take away our choice to be as good, or as bad, as we want. All it does is give us more freedom to act, and make our lives easier. Technology is empowering. How we choose to use it is our decision.

Is that good or bad? Well, that's for philosophers to discuss. That's a question of spirituality. What is "good"? Please ask Socrates that one, because it's a bit outside the bounds of this discussion. But I'm pretty sure a robot dog isn't going to call down the wrath of the Almighty. I don't remember the Commandment that said "Thou shalt not build a shopping cart with legs."

Posted by: Brian at March 6, 2006 04:47 PM

"Technology improves life for everyone. I don't live in a cave, like my ancestors did. The Ford F-150 that sits in my driveway allows me to travel at speeds unimagined just over a century ago. I'm sending data across the world at a billion bits a second, communicating with people all over the world, reading the insane ramblings of a lunatic at my whim. Hooray, internet. Thanks, US military, for linking together defense computers!"

When you say, improves life, what do you mean? How do you measure quality of life? Live longer? Die Richer?

Do you mean you can travel faster, transer bilions of bits faster, etc etc? What happens when you can travel at the speed of light and transfer data instantly? How do you imporve your life then?

All I was trying to say in my earlier post is, how can we say we are better off now, than we were with just stone tools and apples? (sans ipod)

And also anything we develop that can be used to do good things, like lasers and roads. Can also be used to do bad things, like taking down planes and car accidents. Its not the technology at fault, but us as human beings. Now im starting to get a bit pesimistic, and I don't like it.

So maybe il go watch the men fighting over who gets to take a leak first

Posted by: Tom at March 6, 2006 11:11 AM

Phoenix Insurgent:

You can't possibly believe the rhetoric you spew. Technology is inherently undemocratic? Bull.

"God made men different. Samuel Colt made them equal."

Technology improves life for everyone. I don't live in a cave, like my ancestors did. The Ford F-150 that sits in my driveway allows me to travel at speeds unimagined just over a century ago. I'm sending data across the world at a billion bits a second, communicating with people all over the world, reading the insane ramblings of a lunatic at my whim. Hooray, internet. Thanks, US military, for linking together defense computers!

Let's do a quick list:
The interstate freeway system--developed to move military equipment rapidly across the country
The internet--linked research and defense computers designed to allow communication during a nuclear attack
Jet engines--developed for military use, now used to transport people all over the world
Lasers--originally developed for military uses, now used in everything from CD players to cancer treatments
Superglue--originally designed to glue soldiers' important internal organs together when they'd been shot--now helps children make mother's day cards

About a year ago, I choked on a piece of food, and went to the emergency room. Thankfully, a doctor sent a scope down my throat (with a fiber optic camera attached), pushed the food out, and discovered that I had a stomach condition that needed treatment (easy treatment, one pill a day for about a month). 20 years ago, they'd have had to cut my throat open to get the food out, and I'd have walked around with 3 ulcers until I had to go back. Gee, technology sure does suck, doesn't it?

Posted by: Brian at March 5, 2006 08:04 PM

"The first quote is far more relevant and edifying."

Well, Joe, that's because you made the second quote up. However, I can tell that was the argument you WISH very badly that I made. Unfortunately for you, it wasn't. As they say, you go to war with the army you have, not with the army you wish you had.

But, just so I can understand what you're getting at here, are you saying that the kind of economic and organizational system a society has matters not at all to the development of technology and the way it is used? That it makes no difference whether there is a small, powerful elite in control of the design, development and applications of technology? And, that, if apes, to use your example, just kept on playing with sticks, they would eventually have come up with atom bombs, even if they had never organized themselves beyond small bands?

I wonder, though, if you think that spears and ak-47s are essentially the same thing, which one of the two you would choose to go into a fight with...

Finally, you said:

"But a big part of it is defending your right to spew your robotic horse hatred on this blog."

I'm wondering just who you think is trying to take away my right to write on this blog, if the military is defending me from them, as you say? It seems to me that the government is much more of a threat to free speech here in the US than any foreign threat. And that they become even more of a threat the larger and more powerful the military they control is.

I mean, elites seem to think so, it would seem, if one just judges by the military apparatus they have created. Surely, they don't think that a small military with no weapons is better than a large one with lots of them, as far as accomplishing their policy goals is concerned. I just don't see how you can disentangle the military from the goals of the elite that controls it.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 5, 2006 03:58 PM

Psst, the IDF has decided to go with llamas in a competition against donkeys and horses. I think it was that they carried 40kg and only needed food every other day.

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:H_dl6KcTf7MJ:www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7002455428+Israel+llamas&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

CNN states "The military tried using mules for similar tasks, but although they could carry heavier loads than the llamas, they behaved badly -- at one point, staging a "mutiny" and fleeing, the newspaper said.

According to Brig. Gen. Itzik Ben-Tov, llamas are well-disciplined and move quickly.

They also have highly developed senses of smell and hearing, are nimble, and only eat once every two days."

Posted by: Charles at March 5, 2006 02:42 PM

Lets compare:

"It looks like two guys wrestling who really need to take a pee"

to Phoenix

"blah blah blah I'm a commie freaking out about a robotic horse blah blah blah, still freaking out about a robotic horse blah blah blah, gonna write a novel about a robotic horse that makes sweet love to Ayn Rand and spurts out Ronald Reagan nine months later, blah blah blah I'm a commie and I hate robotic horses"

The first quote is far more relevant and edifying.

Hey Phoenix, do wheelchairs benefit everyone equally? No. Do ramps? No. Do buzzers at the crosswalk? No. But, by god, technology made these things, and the people who need them are a damn sight happier I bet.

As for making a distinction between tools and technology. Bullshit. Tools are technology, and technology is a tool. A gorilla in the jungles of Africa using a twig to scoop out delicious termites is using a tool, and using technology. Sure, he or she didn't make the twig (or maybe they did, after all they broke it off the tree), but they damned sure learned how to use it. That's technology. That's tools. A hammer is useless if you don't know how to use it.

As for what benefits our soldiers, that's damned easy. Anything that makes their job easier and/or keeps them hale and hardy longer. What's their job? Defense of our land. Wide open for interpretation, I know. But a big part of it is defending your right to spew your robotic horse hatred on this blog. Your intolerance is intolerable. Ciao.

Joe.

Posted by: Joe at March 5, 2006 04:44 AM

Off Topic

Just checking this blog out

really nice work Mr. Noah Shachtman

Posted by: exclab at March 4, 2006 12:27 PM

Phoenix Insurgent

I agree with most of what you said. Right now what gets called spiritiuality is a passive state. Most people rely on that old book that every one says disproves evolution. This is not a very spiritually imaginative or inspired time. A scientist is like Marco Polo. He comes back from China and people either believe him or not. It doesn't change the fact of China's existence.

People's relationship with thier bodies, minds and the universe are not places of hard fought realization, these days as they were say during the enlightenment. Most people drift along and get into the "ideological feedback loop" as you call it. A machine can present you with a continually improving image of what you passively have accepted ( the recieved notion) of yourself to be. So as one descends into the introverted narcissistic feedback loop, the machine will only confirm the rightness of this recieved notion of self, more and more completely with every passing cycle.

To paraphrase the immortal Oscar Wilde, ( not sure if I have absolutely right) "The late nineteenth century disgust with realism is the rage of Caliban at seeing himself in the mirror". Machine are going to help us with that disgust.

In a sense the technology that made the B Empire possible also created the spiritual ( and I am beginning to hate that word ) passivity possible that rules us today.

Posted by: exclab at March 4, 2006 12:10 PM

It looks like two guys wrestling who really need to take a pee

Posted by: exclab at March 4, 2006 11:54 AM

"Yea, this is just terrible. I'm sure this amazing and remarkable technology will benefit no-one. Not the soldiers in the field, not ethnobotanists, not archeologists, not the elderly, not the parapalegic, not the double or quadruple amputee."

It's not that it will benefit no one (that's a strawman argument, because I never said no one would benefit), but that, like police, prisons, the military and other institutions that the rich have designed and control, this will primarily and overwhelmingly benefit them. Whatever benefits this technolgoy brings them, parapalegics will still have to live in a world in which the other negative effects dominate, regardless of what it does for them otherwise.

I mean, take another of your own points and analyze it, Joe. What does benefiting the soldiers in the field really mean? Does it mean a more efficient projection of US imperialism, which is a function of elite power? Does it mean technology transfer to domestic police agencies, as is so frequently the case these days (both in terms of personnel and technologies)? And how, then, does that compare the other benefits it will bring? If Iraqis and poor people at home are more oppressed and controlled as a result of this, can we really say that it is beneficial? We can't pretend this will benefit everyone equally, especially since so little else in this society benefits everyone equally.

Science and technology are ideologies, and unless you're willing to do something other than act as an uncritical booster for it, you've essentially fallen into an ideological feedback loop. The parallels between the ideology of technology and religious fanaticism are many, made even more ironic by scientists' charade of neutrality and objectivity.

When you want to understand who owns a political candidate, or a political party, you look at where the money comes from and what their associations are. It seems to me you are hard pressed to come to egalitarian conclusions when you run this equation for science. Further, if it were democratic and egalitarian, tell my why the elites who run this country fund it and adore it so much? Self-hatred? Altruism? You have to be able to explain that, somehow.

And, yes, it's true that humans have made tools and used them for a hundred thousand years. But, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between a bow and arrow and a F-22 fighter, for instance, both in terms of the potential for democratic participation into its development and use and the types of authoritarian instutitions and associations required to muster the resources to create and maintain it.

Lumping everything from a bow and arrow to a F-22 into the same category is not analytically useful and only serves to obscure the argument. Would it be fair to say that just because humans had fire twenty thousand years ago that therefore we cannot now criticize nuclear weapons, the assembly line, the army or factory farms? This falls apart on the face of it by merely looking at the difference between those two societies. They are very obviously different.

Technology (we should make a distinction between technology and tools), when it comes down to it, is a class war weapon, controlled by the rich and wielded to remake and control the working class according to the needs of capital. This was true with industrialism, the assembly line, automation and now with high tech. And, in each phase, scientists justified it with the same promises of future freedom and benefits. And each time the elites were pretty clear about what they expected from it - better weapons against workers and other potential threats to capitalist rule. Do a little research. Read the trade journals right now. The elites are coming right out and saying it, just as they always have.

The long and short of it is, if you can't feel your level of freedom shrinking, you're probably not paying attention. And it's not as simple as blaming Bush. Unless you develop a deeply critical view of technology, you are missing the way the elite wields power now and how they will increasingly wield it in the future.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 4, 2006 11:49 AM

Yes it is creepy. Because it protects itself. Remember that video that went around the net some years ago of a guy getting frustrated with his office PC. He attacks and destroys it. Very funny. Poor silly computer. Not any more. This thing also is a chimera of animals it immitates. You can see horse-like movements, chicken-like movements and dog-like movements. It reminds you of all these animals... but it isn't one.

But it is beautiful. Elegant. Delicate, Graceful.

If the government goes rotten, there will be no more running to the hills with these babies around.

Posted by: exclab at March 4, 2006 10:57 AM

"Oh, we are headed in a bad direction."

Well surely we have been heading in a bad direction since the start? Ever since humans started creating tools and weapons? It seems to be human nature to first create these tools, then abuse their uses.

The question is:
Whether or not we are better off now, with our wheels and IC engines and telcoms, than we were with nothing but our hands and loin cloths? How do you measure that?

But how weird was that video, made me feel very uneasy. Love the slo-mos too :)

Posted by: Tom at March 4, 2006 09:43 AM

"Oh, we are headed in a bad direction. As is the case with so much of the technology appearing with increasing speed and frequency in our society, this is a really bad idea."

Hahahaha

Yea, this is just terrible. I'm sure this amazing and remarkable technology will benefit no-one. Not the soldiers in the field, not ethnobotanists, not archeologists, not the elderly, not the parapalegic, not the double or quadruple amputee.

In the fullness of time, when this matures from a creepy, wheezing monstrosity of a prototype to a slick, quiet and unbelievably useful product... I'm sure its only the evil Bushies and their Big Oil buddies who will get any value out of this kind of research.

Yup. Yawn.

Posted by: Joe at March 4, 2006 05:13 AM

Robo-Dog!

Posted by: pedestrian at March 3, 2006 11:03 PM

Oh, we are headed in a bad direction. As is the case with so much of the technology appearing with increasing speed and frequency in our society, this is a really bad idea.

Particularly with modern technology, there is no public input and no accountability, and preatty much the only people thinking about its long-term effects are the military and capitalists who fund the research. And I wonder even how many of them have really thought it through beyond the power they expect to derive from it.

Whenever scientific "progress" comes into question (which it rarely does), scientists are fond of saying that, whatever the consequences, we can't go back. Even they may one day see the irony in that defense.

Posted by: Phoenix Insurgent at March 3, 2006 08:08 PM

Totally!

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at March 3, 2006 05:54 PM

Did anybody else find that thing kind of creepy to watch?

Posted by: rutty at March 3, 2006 05:49 PM