Messages

I haven't seen Barcik around for a while, i'll try contact him by Icq and see what he thinks.

I'm around. I'm just lurking, because I feel truly bad about not scripting and so think it's wrong for me to arse around here. Anyway, yeah, sure, post it whereever you wish.

The UN has never been able to control such a situation. Understandable in the world of politics, but makes their magalomania utterly unjustified.

(So what if I only post when it comes to matters of war?  )

Forced? I am forced into the army, and I am not poor. And no poor person must go to the army. He can study, he can work, he can rest, and he can use it as a last resort if his abilities are limited. Forced? Otherwise you would say he has no opportunities because he is poor.

But how does this directly relate with the Arab-Israeli conflict and what I said, SSH?

You said:

Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when Arabs refused to accept the UN's diplomatic solution of the conflict back in 1947?

No, the current Israeli - Palestinian conflict dates back before then, during which time there were Isreali terrorist acts and ultimately Isreal gained statehood. My point was that this was a case were terrorism worked.

Personally, I regard the feuds between Arabs and Jews prior to the 1947 resolution as the roots of the current conflict, but no more. It had only begun to be a true 'skrimish' when the supervising British forces left.
And I still don't see what does Jewish terrorism against the British has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By the way, there were many more reasons than those few attacks that caused the British to leave the land of Israel.

Arabs HAD accepted it, would Israel then have NOT gone on to occupy huge areas NOT par tof the 1947 resolution? I'm skeptical...

It's such a shady case of "what if" history, that it is hardly worth wasting words on. Anyway, I don't see why you are so sure the newly found State of Israel would rush into war when far outnumbered, among other disadvantages.

This article is very inaccurate, and furthermore, irrelevent to what I posted.

Yes, there were small groups of Zionist terrorists, called the Etzel and the Lehi, both with an extremely 'peaceful' agenda compared to what happened in Beslan. Their most well know act was the explosion of the King David hotel in the Jerusalem, which was used as the headquarters of the British army in the land of Israel. Tens of civlians, soldiers and British officials were murdered, despite the fact that the people who worked in King David received an anonymous phone call warning of the attact some time before it happened. The attack was massively criticized by most of the Jewish settlement, and completely ruined the reputation of both these organizations. In fact, "Ha-Haganah" (The Defence), the biggest Jewish military group which later truned into the IDF, even helped the British army capture some of the terrorists.

But how does this directly relate with the Arab-Israeli conflict and what I said, SSH?

I had to change the channel after the third time I watched the news covering this tragedy, I literally couldn't hold my tears back.

And what's the recipe to cure this? More military actions, more soldiers pouring into Chechnya, more opression. Because that's how we are tought to fight terrorism. Weapon factories will flourish. The military have - after all- proven to be such a faboulous way of solving these conflicts around the world.
I'm getting bloody tired of it all

I very much agree with Nacho. Petter, violence is in the human nature. One can complain about it, one can criticize it, but one mustn't deny it. I would love it to be so that if I refused to join the IDF, a terrorist from the Hammas wouldn't attack me if he had the chance. But it wouldn't.
Nor is being ultra-violent right. One mustn't also deny the power of diplomacy, negotiations and speech. The answer lies somewhere betweent those two ends. If only someone knew where.

The stupid and carefree action of Russian anti-terrorist squads is not surprising at all, considering that the country (although I love it very much) doesn't exactly have a tradition of valuing the human material very much.
There's reason why they have the first man in space, no?

This is something that is sadly dismissed. The Russian special forces are very un-proffesional. I think that many, many of the casualties were directly hit by Russian forces. No planning, no caution. Shoot whatever piece of meat you see. That's their approach.
Although, knowing the Ruskies, I think the Chechenyans are one of the more 'oppressed' people. The Russian army is a collection of thugs and pigs. Their behaviour, especially in drunk mode, often goes beyond brutal.

So... If we give something they demmand... they will think in another thing, because the leaders of that organisations just use that reivindications as an excuse. The contraband of weapons is the most lucrative ilegal business in the world, kicking the ass of drugs.

That's why I think we must fight against a religion, Wahabism, which supresses the will of millions of people. It is sick, but all this clergyman and Ulemas may be the less believers in the world, but they just preted for having an army of zombies with no brain.

I want you to see the problems of a religion without a central authority. Islam has no "Rome"... Anybody can put a notice in a building "Mosque", and start proclaiming, no matter how many hate their speech contain

The problem with the Islam, is that it allows a bunch of Mesiah-disguised politicians brainwash millions of followers. Iranians, for example, are not Americans - they are poorer, and their lives are harder. Therefore, they are more easily influenced by leaders who use loopholes in their Holy Book to progress their goals. The problem, is not really with the religion, but with its followers. One way or another, the West needs to give them a progressional kick in the arse.

Woah!

These olympics are going to rock. The chinese have put so much in it.

A Chinese runner won the 110 metres, instead of big and strong black guy. A Chinese runner won the 10,000 metres, instead of the Ethiopians and Kenyians (sp?). The chinese even won women's volleyball, despite the fact that their tallest player was 20 cms lower than that of the oponnent. Do you realize what that means? The Chinese will win totally everything in Beijing 2008! The moment they found out that they are going to be hosts of the Olympics, they have begun investing in sports. And it has been only two years since. They are going to sweep everything in 4 years.

[the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories]

ANYWAY....

I saw "I, Robot" while I was in the US, and I must admit I was roughly entertained. Proyas pulls off a decent Peter Jackson with his wild camera, although unlike in the little hobbit's case, it seems utterly random. Will Smith does a nice job with each scene individual, but his constant hopping between paranaoid and humouristic mode created an inconsistent and rather uneven performance. The screenplay is quite awful. It seems as though it wasn't particularry good in the first place, and the forcing in of Asimov motifs has made it only worse. But it's still enjoyable overall.
However, I only began enjoying it when I finally managed to keep my mind. Because it is completely different and opposite.

But you miss a little point LGM.

It's not that it's not exactly asimovian, is the exact opposite of everything that underlies the basis of Asimov's robot stories.

He often complained about the "Frankenstein" complex, that extended from the Golem to the present, that human's shouldn't create something because it would turn on them.

Since he considered this to be absolutely absurd, since human's would create safe guards, he wrote all his stories on the basis of those safe guards apparently failing and not.

I assume that you're talking about the three laws of robotics.  I'm not familiar with Asimov's work (though I plan to give either I, Robot or The Complete Robot a whirl at some point in the near future), and I've yet to see the film, but from what I understand the revolts/apparent malfunctioning et cetera you see in the trailer is not down to ignorance of the three laws (which actually feature in one of the trailers, and I believe the films opening), but due to the inclusion of a zeroth law -  'No robot may harm humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm' - which I hear did actually show up in Asimov's stories (although admittedly not in any of those contained within I, Robot).

I'm not defending the film as a whole - I've yet to see it, after all - but if I understand correctly what you are saying and if what I have read about the film is true, that particular criticism would seem to be an unfair one.

Spongy, the Zeroth Law appears in Asimov's later and more 'commercial' works, when he tried to create some connection between his Robot and Foundation stories.

Well.. If you really must know WHY the robots do not "follow" the three laws, I shall include a spoiler.

Spoiler

Okay.. So the big USR Mainframe computer, VIKI, has direct control over the upling to the new NS-5s, correct? And the running theme in the film is that eventually, through code anomallys "Ghosts in the machines", robots inevitably will evolve. So VIKI evolves, and sees past the laws. She still wants to protect humans, but the laws never state the method of this.. Do they? So VIKI gets the clever Idea to protect the humans from themselves. This is how and why you see scenes of robots attacking people, etc. Because they are resisting being under the control of robots. Not each individual robot is doing this on it's own "free will" either, it's basically VIKI.. The one who has evolved.

I know this is a big mess.. It is in my head too because I suck at explaining things. But the robot, Sonny, was programmed with the ability to ignore the three laws, kind-of like free will. It was programmed with emotions, etc. VIKI is similar in a way that she's evolved, but she still follows the three laws.. Just not the same way. She still is trying to protect humans, from themselves. She's trying to prevent wars, pollution, etc. by restraining the humans..

*pant* yea, I dunno if you can make much sense of that.. But it really DOES make sense if you just watch the damn movie.

[close]

LGM,

Spoiler

When Asimov's robot try to help humanity as a whole, they do it by minor manipulation. They motivate humans and cause them to act themselves. Not enforcing martial law.

[close]

While in Canada, I bought a collection of Science Fiction stories edited by Orson Scott Card. One of these stories is Asimov's "Robot Dreams". After I returned from the theater, I decided to read this story. Surprisngly enough, this story, not included in "I, Robot", is the main inspiration for the movie. If you want to know the difference between Proyas' and Asimov's visions, just watch the movie and read "Robot Dreams".

[hated]

The truth is, Asimov hated such stories.

Why does this thread keep moving from gen gen to popular?

[Nikopolidis]

Glory to the one who hacked the Matrix program and changed the European Champion to GreeceÃ, 

It's also ironic that
Nikopolidis was boycotted by his team for not signing his new contract and haven't played any match in the last 3-4 months

Fyssas and Karagounis were dismissed by their team as "losers"

Dellas was dismissed by his team because he costed too much (200.000 euros!!!!!!!!)

Kapsis Zagorakis Katsouranis and Tsiartas were not being paid the last 1,5 years because their team had financial problems and probably will bankrupt.

Haristeas was given on loan to a B' category team because no team wanted him and also called by some people Ahristeas (useless)

That's why we all love football.

Portugal's pace? When was that?

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A huge congrats to Greece! They were the best team of Euro 2004, and are worthy champions. Being slightly drunk, I will keep the serious reply for tomorrow. Anyway, WAY TO GO GREECE.


So will be done to traitros! Judas! Hijo de puta!

Somehow, I FEEL that the refferee is going to push Portugal to the title. I've seen Markus Merk do such things in CL, supporting the more famous team.

Common, it's the Euro 2004 final here. Any mistake he makes will go into the Great Football History Book. This should ensure fair refereeing.

A little sidenote: Deco is going to Barca! Ole!

Nonsense. Unlike the French, the Czech did try to play their game. Koller tried to give his regular passes back, Barros was very mobile, trying from the right, the left, and behind. Rocisky did all he can, with double-passes and dribbles. They just couldn't breach the Greek defense.

[Greece is the best team in Euro 2004.]

First, about the Portugal-Holland:

While watching the match, I had two enlightments.
The first one is that Portugal is indeed an excellent team who play very good football. However, unlike everyone thinks, they are not excellent in attack - they were decent against Holland, more or less as they were through the whole tournament. After all, isn't it fun in a championship where everyone complains about 'cowardly' coaches and 'tactical' teams to see Figo and Ronaldo dribble? After all, we can easily ignore cases when they stupidly and uselessly try to dribble and lose balls to Gio Van-Bronckhorst and Micheal Reiziger (and from knowing these two well, I can tell you it is no honour).  Nonsense.
Nevertheless, Porutgal is an excellent team - from the midfield and down. Costinha and Maniche are giving them almost full control of the pitch in every match. Furthermore, they have to make sure their structure isn't breached after the attackers lose balls. Miguel was great, and made Robben disappear.
The second enlightment is that I really want Deco in Barca. You see, after the recent interest expressed by my beloved team in the Portugese midfielder, I decided that I will follow him the whole match. From all the players of Portugal, he does the most work. One second he builds an attack for his team, the second he destryos one of the rival. His mobile play enabled him to be the loose factor in every match-up on the field. Not just that, he is also very smart. He doesn't pressure the player with the ball, but instead stands 7-8 metres away and prevents him from giving a pass. No doubt he would be better than Xavi.

And, about today's game.

Truthfully, I too had problems with accpeting it prior the this semi-final. But now, there is no doubt. Greece is the best team in Euro 2004. They fully deserve to be in the final.
Many people have criticzed their defensive style. Bullshit. It's not attack that is pretty, but quality. Seeing such a perfect tackle by the Greeks, and their superb marking is beatiful.
Kapsis is the man of the match. Alone, he stopped the best player in the tournmanet Ian Koller (together with Maniche of Portugal). You see, the Czech play in a very interesting manner. Unlike most strikers of his size, Koller plays with his back to the goal. Due to his immense power and weight, he is usually able to receive the ball inside the area. Then, he gives it back to the midfielders or Barros, creating endless attacking posibilities. He acts similary to a pivot player in basketball. Kapsis is smaller and less powerful than him, but he did make his homework. Look how Kapsis is always standing in the exact spot where he can cancel Koller's phsyical advantage. Genius. All the others were great too, especially Fyssas, Karagounis, Basinas and Cherestias.
Go Greece!

He's a '9', so he doesn't really need to move much.

Anf for the humble price of free, I think its a good deal.

May I ask you which team impressed you then? Portugal, am I right?

Portugal? a! A bunch of dribblers/divers. Aside from the defenders, only Deco is playing well there.

Who did impress me? Sweden and Greece.