Active Denial System

[Jim]

Hi,

Who is John Galt ? ;)

Will "Atlas Shrugged" Change your Life Forever?

See 1963, Ap Bac, for an example of how small arms are a remarkably effective counter to high tech weapons systems, if used correctly.

This system is right out of Atlas Shrugged.

Oh tidings of comfort and joy.

Occhi

[Munkay]

Will "Atlas Shrugged" Change your Life Forever?

Yes. And not for the better. <_<

Cheers,

YMMV Munk

[Jim]

Hi,

I'm Sorry Munkay that it did not work for you. I read it 40 years ago [I was your age] when times were kinder, it changed my life for the better.

Do me a favor read it again and see if it works better, you have Nothing to loss & ALL to Gain, IMHO...did you read any of Rands other novels ?

Yes. And not for the better. <_<

Cheers,

YMMV Munk

[Munkay]

Hi,

I'm Sorry Munkay that it did not work for you. I read it 40 years ago [I was your age] when times were kinder, it changed my life for the better.

Do me a favor read it again and see if it works better, you have Nothing to loss & ALL to Gain, IMHO...did you read any of Rands other novels ?

During my undergrad there was plenty of arguing about Ayn Rand. I found Rand to be a merger of ancient Greek ideals and modern materialism. As a double major in ancient Greek and Philosophy, I agreed with the ideas Rand learned from the Greeks, but found the rest unconvincing.

With that said, Rand isn't all bad. But I think of her good points, others said it before her, and put it better. Homer's Achilles declares he was put on the earth to 'ever excel' and to be 'the best amongst all other men'. As a personal ethic, always pushing to be the best you can be is a great goal. Its a theme I saw in Rand, and agree with from a personal standpoint.

But my problems with Rand start when it comes to the direction to take that drive and passion. Its in these materialistic views that Rand loses my audience. In one of her character's speeches (it may be the famous John Galt speech?), they argue that money is inherently good because it is the end result of the positive hard work of man.

Now, I'm not arguing about the value of money. Good or bad, the value isn't whats important here. What matters to me is Rand believes we should act virtuously for the sake of something else. And in Rand, this something else is often a material object (money or otherwise).

The converse view is the Aristotelean one. Aristotle also believes we should 'ever excel' and thus maximize our potential. But for Aristotle the act itself is where the virtue lies, not in the material results. Being virtuous is about the act of striving itself, not for the sake of attaining money and objects.

And that is the problem I've always had with Rand. There's nothing wrong with attaining objects as a result of your hard work and labor, but they shouldn't be the reason or the goal from the start.

With that said, I'm we live in a society where 'do work for the sake of x' is an everyday assumption. Most of us work a 9-5 for the sake of providing dinner, a vacation, or a bigger house. That's how society works, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But when it comes to where you find the value in life, what you set as your personal ethic, the goal in life isn't about flashy cars and a vacation house in Fiji. We can all agree the value is in being a good person, a mentor, a father to look up to, a pillar in the community.

And I'm not saying you can't believe in Rand's ethic and still attain true virtues of life. Of course you can. But for me personally, I find it a bunch of hogwash, and not a personal ethic for my own life.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Just to clarify, this post isn't an attack against believing in Rand. I'm still responding to the headline "Will "Atlas Shrugged" Change your Life Forever?", and trying to explain how Rand just didn't cut the mustard for me. Your mileage may vary, and if Rand betters your life then more power to you:)

[Jim]

Hi.

Munk I read your reply more times than I can count on one hand. It's as if you Read a different version of Atlas Shrugged than I did.

Your reference to materialistic views thoughout your reply was Not the Subject of the book. I credit the book for my being able to Retire @ age 50, however I was always an "ever excel" person from birth :wub:

I wish you a Life as Rich as mine my Friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugge...phy_and_writing

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in man's existence and, consequently, presentation of the morality of rational self-interest.

The main conflicts of the book surrounds the decision of the "individuals of the mind" to go on strike, refusing to contribute their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas of any kind to the rest of the world. Society, they believe, hampers them by interfering with their work and underpays them by confiscating the profits and dignity they have rightfully earned. The peaceful cohesiveness of the world disintegrates, lacking those individuals whose productive work comes from mental effort. The strikers believe that they are crucial to a society that exploits them, denying them freedom or acknowledging their right to self-interest, and the gradual collapse of civilization triggered by their strike.

The novel's plot is split into three parts. The first two parts, and to some extent the last, follow Dagny Taggart, a no-nonsense railroad executive, and her attempt to keep the company alive despite repeated encroachments by a society moving toward collectivism, altruism, and statism. Throughout the novel people repeat a platitude Dagny greatly resents: "Who is John Galt?" It is a reflection of their helplessness, as the saying means "Don't ask important questions, because we don't have answers."

Rand's heroes must continually fight against the "looters" and "moochers" of the society surrounding them.

The looters are those who confiscate others' earnings "at the point of a gun" (figuratively speaking) —often because they are government officials, and thus their demands are backed by the threat of force.

During my undergrad there was plenty of arguing about Ayn Rand. I found Rand to be a merger of ancient Greek ideals and modern materialism. As a double major in ancient Greek and Philosophy, I agreed with the ideas Rand learned from the Greeks, but found the rest unconvincing.

With that said, Rand isn't all bad. But I think of her good points, others said it before her, and put it better. Homer's Achilles declares he was put on the earth to 'ever excel' and to be 'the best amongst all other men'. As a personal ethic, always pushing to be the best you can be is a great goal. Its a theme I saw in Rand, and agree with from a personal standpoint.

But my problems with Rand start when it comes to the direction to take that drive and passion. Its in these materialistic views that Rand loses my audience. In one of her character's speeches (it may be the famous John Galt speech?), they argue that money is inherently good because it is the end result of the positive hard work of man.

Now, I'm not arguing about the value of money. Good or bad, the value isn't whats important here. What matters to me is Rand believes we should act virtuously for the sake of something else. And in Rand, this something else is often a material object (money or otherwise).

The converse view is the Aristotelean one. Aristotle also believes we should 'ever excel' and thus maximize our potential. But for Aristotle the act itself is where the virtue lies, not in the material results. Being virtuous is about the act of striving itself, not for the sake of attaining money and objects.

And that is the problem I've always had with Rand. There's nothing wrong with attaining objects as a result of your hard work and labor, but they shouldn't be the reason or the goal from the start.

With that said, I'm we live in a society where 'do work for the sake of x' is an everyday assumption. Most of us work a 9-5 for the sake of providing dinner, a vacation, or a bigger house. That's how society works, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But when it comes to where you find the value in life, what you set as your personal ethic, the goal in life isn't about flashy cars and a vacation house in Fiji. We can all agree the value is in being a good person, a mentor, a father to look up to, a pillar in the community.

And I'm not saying you can't believe in Rand's ethic and still attain true virtues of life. Of course you can. But for me personally, I find it a bunch of hogwash, and not a personal ethic for my own life.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Just to clarify, this post isn't an attack against believing in Rand. I'm still responding to the headline "Will "Atlas Shrugged" Change your Life Forever?", and trying to explain how Rand just didn't cut the mustard for me. Your mileage may vary, and if Rand betters your life then more power to you:)

[Munkay]

Hi.

Munk I read your reply more times than I can count on one hand. It's as if you Read a different version of Atlas Shrugged than I did.

Your reference to materialistic views thoughout your reply was Not the Subject of the book. I credit the book for my being able to Retire @ age 50, however I was always an "ever excel" person from birth :wub:

I wish you a Life as Rich as mine my Friend.

Fair enough my friend:)

As for the materialism, it was a big focus in the discussions we partook in. Perhaps it was taking Rand in more of a historical context, since she very much countered the socialist ideals in a time when communism was 'spreading'.

After a bit of poking around on the interwebs, I found the wikipedia entry on Ayn Rand repeats a few of the things I said - glad I'm not completely crazy!

Cheers,

Munk

[Taem]

I worked in the lab of a bio-engineering professor who had a few really cooky contracts from the Department of Defense (and know several individuals who still work for him).

His first contract was to develop a chip that could be implanted in the brain of a human that would allow said individual to... *drum roll*... remotely control an army of robots. Note that the ability to control large numbers of robots (100+) was specifically stated in the initial design doc. Weird stuff. They never got past the first stage of trying to get a rat to control the movement of a single robot before the funding got cut. Interesting enough, the PhD/grad students working on the project said the toughest aspect was just trying to get the rat to care about moving a robot around doing mundane tasks in the first place. lol:blush:

Of course he immediately got a second DoD contract because the Navy wanted to be able to remotely control sharks for some reason. Literally they wanted to be able to place some implants in a living shark, seal it up and then swim the shark around like a video game via a joystick. Seriously. That project was still going last I heard.

The DoD was throwing tens of millions of dollars at this guy and his rampant imagination.

I don't think DARPA failed at all: link

If you thought "Robocop" was a little far-fetched, think again. Cyborgs — especially cyborg insects — are making the spy technology scene.

The newest recruits in the War on Terror are high-tech "flies on the wall." Scientists in the U.S. are fitting insects — and rats, moths, pigeons, bulls and even sharks — with special implants so they can be remote-controlled and deployed for surveillance.

The creatures are installed with special electrodes, batteries and even video cameras. The goal is to create the ultimate cyborgs to serve the U.S. as undetectable super spies.

• Scientist: Military Working on Cyborg Spy Moths

So how will cyborg rats be critical to national security?

They will be incredibly useful in search-and-rescue missions. Because they can identify specific scents, such as those of humans or explosives, cyborg rats are expected to be used to find people trapped under rubble or to sniff out bombs.

Cyborg rescue rats will be equipped with mini-backpacks to transmit to mission control messages such as "mission accomplished" or "target located." The most advanced generation will carry "rat cams" to give the cyborg commander a "rat's-eye view." They also will be trained to board a "ratmobile," so they easily can be transported to the site of their mission.

Israel has picked up this American program to use cyborg rats in its search-and-rescue missions.

Taking "Jaws" to an entirely new level, the small, spiny dogfish shark was successfully turned into a cyborg in a project conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. (They're the folks who brought us the real-life R2D2.) To steer the cyborg, a brain implant directs the shark to turn left or right by tricking it to follow phantom odors.

The U.S. was left behind last year when a Chinese team successfully transferred cyborg technology to birds. Pigeons’ brains were implanted with electrodes that allowed the Chinese team to command them via wireless signals from a laptop. They created the ultimate cyborg "spy in the sky."

Scientists plug into and hijack these living animals’ sensory abilities because they are vastly superior to the majority of artificial sensors available on the market. The cyborgs’ intense sense of smell, for example, allows them to detect the faintest trace of chemicals — a skill very useful in counter-terrorism.

Rats, pigeons and sharks are big enough to carry miniature video cameras, computers and the batteries to power them.

But they are all too large, and not to mention too unpopular, to blend into the background and conduct stealth operations. So to produce the Jason Bourne of cyborg spies, DARPA’s latest cutting-edge project focuses instead on developing cyborg insects whose flight agility is unmatched.



• Spy Flies All the Buzz at Washington, N.Y. Political Events

The Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems project, or HI-MEMS, is miniaturizing the technology to fit within the body of an insect.

DARPA has been inserting tiny brain probes into insects such as moths and beetles while they are still in the pupa stage, so the implants are naturally incorporated into their bodies as they grow. The implants, wired into the cyborg insects' nerves, allow operators to control their movement remotely and send back information to a central computer.

Almost indistinguishable from the average insect, these cyborg spies will provide our military and counter-terrorism specialists with a huge surveillance advantage.

The U.S. military could deploy the cyborgs in hostage situations or even send them into enemy barracks. The goal is to engineer insects that can fly up to 300 feet away, land within 15 feet of their target and stay in a particular place until they are commanded to leave.

DARPA-funded research teams are prohibited from speaking about their work, but check out this sneak peek of a cyborg tobacco hawkmoth taking orders from its operator.

•Click here to see a video of the hawkmoth in action.

So next time you think that is just a pesky ordinary moth munching on your favorite sweater, think again. It could be a cyborg spy.

And once enemy nations and terrorists catch up to American cyborg technology, our soldiers and law enforcement may need to think about adding flyswatters and bug spray to their arsenals.

Looks like we are really entering the world of the "invisible war."

Although I like this one better personally: link

LONDON — A camera that can see through people's clothing at distances of up to 80 feet has been developed to help detect weapons, drugs and explosives.

The camera could be deployed in railway stations, shopping centers and other public spaces.

Although it can see objects under clothes, its designers say the images do not show anatomical details. However, it is likely to increase fears that Britain has become a surveillance society.

• Click here for FOXNews.com's Patents and Innovation Center.

The new technology, known as the T5000 system, has attracted interest from police forces, train companies and airport operators as well as government agencies.

It has been developed by ThruVision, an Oxfordshire-based company spun out from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, one of the British government's leading physics research centers.

It was designed for use in spacecraft and astronomy but researchers soon realized that cameras capable of seeing through clouds of cosmic dust could also see through clothing.

This week the camera will be displayed at the Home Office scientific development branch's annual exhibition, Britain's premier showcase for security equipment, to be held on an RAF airbase in Buckinghamshire.

ThruVision already offers a smaller system designed for office foyers that can scan through clothing at a range of 30 to 40 feet.

This has been used at the Canary Wharf complex in east London, which is home to several global banks and is regarded as a target for terrorists. The Dubai Mercantile Exchange has a similar installation.

The system can be linked to a computer so that it can automatically scan anyone passing and alert its human operator to anything suspicious.

Clive Beattie, ThruVision's chief executive, said: "Acts of terrorism have shaken the world in recent years and security precautions have been tightened globally. The T5000 dramatically extends the range over which we can scan people."

Bill Foster, the president of Thermal Matrix, an American defense contractor specializing in imaging systems for the U.S. military, is one customer. He said: "This could be deployed at major sporting events, concerts and rail stations as well as for military use."

The technology works by detecting and measuring terahertz waves, or T-waves for short. These are a form of electromagnetic radiation, emitted by all people and objects that lie between the infrared and microwave parts of the spectrum.

The waves from any given material also carry a distinctive signature, offering the potential to distinguish Semtex plastic explosive from modeling clay and cocaine from sugar.

You have got to love that name, the T5000; where's Skynet in all of this? Maybe it's name has been disguised as DARPA all along :ph34r:.