on the contrary my nitwit companion, all my knowledge has been conjured up by myself, including a one letter mistake in a whole rant some prof? well, sure. I guess sitting home reading these books and going on Amazon.com thinking a review will suffice for the understanding of a text. Ultimately, you understood nothing, not the text nor the statement of Hanson who would base his findings and thoughts on precedents like he does in his books (don't even attempt to bullshit your way into saying that you've read anything because you've already proved that you haven't) unlike Orwell whose works of FICTION are influenced by something that's going on in the world.


oh no...i'm thinking...HERE COMES THE THOUGHT POLICE OMFG!

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto on the contrary my nitwit companion, all my knowledge has been conjured up by myself, including a one letter mistake in a whole rant some prof?

Actually, reoccurring doesn't contain a hyphen, and you spelled remembered wrong as well - but I wasn't really trying to nit-pick.

sue me, bitch it's 2 a.m. and i could type lIke D1s if i's want to. don't feel bad, son. Can't even quote right you're funny.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto (don't even attempt to bullshit your way into saying that you've read anything because you've already proved that you haven't)

What have I proven?

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto sue me, bitch it's 2 a.m. and i could type lIke D1s if i's want to. don't feel bad, son. Can't even quote right you're funny.

Yeah, and I just walked in the door after catching a Cypress Hill show. Five Red Bull and vodka's and I still school your sorry ass.

As Lepanto said, Orwell was a very astute social observer. He was able to paint a broad picture of the society in which he lived, and realized this picture could apply to any number if not all societies. He used an extreme application for effect, I would guess.

However, I don't think thats the purpose of his book. While it could be a forboding warning to those of the future, you can imagine that Orwell was only trying to show people what their societies had become. Even though it's not nearly factually accurate, you can certainly apply alot of the facets to modern life, just as well as you could have applied it to Greek society, or the Ottoman empire.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu As Lepanto said, Orwell was a very astute social observer. He was able to paint a broad picture of the society in which he lived, and realized this picture could apply to any number if not all societies. He used an extreme application for effect, I would guess. However, I don't think thats the purpose of his book. While it could be a forboding warning to those of the future, you can imagine that Orwell was only trying to show people what their societies had become. Even though it's not nearly factually accurate, you can certainly apply alot of the facets to modern life, just as well as you could have applied it to Greek society, or the Ottoman empire.

Orwell envisioned a society where every citizen is constantly being watched and monitored by Big Brother.





Now my question is, how can you even attempt to make the stretch in saying that this could have been possible in other, less technologically advanced societies of the past? It couldn't possibly have, because up until more recent years the surveillance and information technology that we have today was still being developed. Did the Greeks or Ottoman Turks (I'm actually LOL from that one, btw) have visual or thermal facial recognition, iris scan, or other such biometric technologies coupled with enormous computer databases in which to store the information?



And btw, one of Orwell's major motivations for writing his works Burmese Days and 1984 was his ever growing hatred of British Imperialism. He had worked for BBC's Eastern Service during WWII and was fully aware that he had been instrumental in disseminating British propaganda in India and E. Asia.



http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/e...privacy.orwell/

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/pri...8,56152,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...veillance_x.htm

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107159,00.asp

http://news.com.com/2010-1069-979276.html

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,54598,00.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2...s/index_np.html

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11573&c=39

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Ne...d=226173&page=3

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/pri...8,54078,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...e133242_000.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...-security_x.htm


http://www.spy.org.uk/camerasf.htm

I agree that they can watch us closely, but they only have so much money and time for development. Additionally, there have been pro government spies for centuries, and throughout (likely) hundreds of civilizations. While their methods and thoroughness may not have been as great as is now possible, the fact remains that they were still there; I believe this is what Lepanto was pointing out.

I agree that our current government is somewhat Orwellian, but I believe people under any large government would say that be it the Egyptian Empire or French Imperialism in Algeria. Yes, I will agree that the intrusiveness is ever increasing, but I think Orwells point went further than a warning for the world. I believe Orwell's point was to show the Proles who would eventually be forced into reading his book (via public schooling) that they were being watched period. This is likely to turn said Proles into Party Members similar to the main charcter in 1984; distrustful and rebellious against the large government.

Furthermore, 1984 is often pulled out by people complaining about the amount of security and identification at the federal governments hands; they must often forget that the main character in 1984 was so overwhelmed by the amount of control had over him that he simply laid down his arms and submitted. However, I'd assume that out government has much less control then displayed by the Party, and that's what makes modern day a stretch. Id love to see some figures of the percent of square footage in America that is under video surveilence and how much we are increasing biometric use in the public sphere. You cant show me a couple onlife gifs of cameras and biometrics you found via google and expect me to believe the US has total control over the nation. Even the Atlanta Olympics bomber avoided detection for a year, and he was just hanging out in th Eastern US forests.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu I agree that they can watch us closely, but they only have so much money and time for development. Additionally, there have been pro government spies for centuries, and throughout (likely) hundreds of civilizations. While their methods and thoroughness may not have been as great as is now possible, the fact remains that they were still there; I believe this is what Lepanto was pointing out. I agree that our current government is somewhat Orwellian, but I believe people under any large government would say that be it the Egyptian Empire or French Imperialism in Algeria. Yes, I will agree that the intrusiveness is ever increasing, but I think Orwells point went further than a warning for the world. I believe Orwell's point was to show the Proles who would eventually be forced into reading his book (via public schooling) that they were being watched period. This is likely to turn said Proles into Party Members similar to the main charcter in 1984; distrustful and rebellious against the large government. Furthermore, 1984 is often pulled out by people complaining about the amount of security and identification at the federal governments hands; they must often forget that the main character in 1984 was so overwhelmed by the amount of control had over him that he simply laid down his arms and submitted. However, I'd assume that out government has much less control then displayed by the Party, and that's what makes modern day a stretch. Id love to see some figures of the percent of square footage in America that is under video surveilence and how much we are increasing biometric use in the public sphere. You cant show me a couple onlife gifs of cameras and biometrics you found via google and expect me to believe the US has total control over the nation. Even the Atlanta Olympics bomber avoided detection for a year, and he was just hanging out in th Eastern US forests.

I'm not trying to insult you, so I will just keep my mouth shut for now. Anyway, I'm sure that you, like just about everyone else, will one day realize it - I'm just hoping that it will be BEFORE it's too late.

I'll write more later, but right now I'm on my way out the door.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/

http://www.epic.org/privacy/budget/fy2006/

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/cr...as_in_new_.html

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55994,00.html

Well, I certainly agree that surveilence is out of control and that the federal governments increasing desire to have eyes everywhere is frightening, but it certainly isn't at the level in 1984. I stand by my statements.

come on TX big brother does not care for you or any of its people; why would they waste so much money just to watch it's 290million people? The government can not even secure the soutern border or any border.
London has the most cameras in the world and were they able to prevent the bus attacks? nope.
You are just to paranoid TX if the big brother were watching us they wouldn't like the fact that you know so much while we the masses know nothing .

EDIT* would this spying would it also be used on politicans? Because that would be real good imagine a world where you didn't have to worry about crooked politicans, judges, etc

Last edited by metalgearsolid on Sep-17-2005 at 16:37

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid come on TX big brother does not care for you or any of its people; why would they waste so much money just to watch it's 290million people? The government can not even secure the soutern border or any border. London has the most cameras in the world and were they able to prevent the bus attacks? nope. You are just to paranoid TX if the big brother were watching us they wouldn't like the fact that you know so much while we the masses know nothing . EDIT* would this spying would it also be used on politicans? Because that would be real good imagine a world where you didn't have to worry about crooked politicans, judges, etc

You're right, 6000 cameras in the London Underground didn't stop any bombs.

It could be a part of a more elaborate plan involving subdermal microchip implants and a global computer grid.

But that's just me. I gather people rather believe little grey cow mutilating aliens are coming to destroy the earth or holes in the ozone. Or that trees need hugs because dead dolphins in tuna cans said so.

___________________