His format is interesting even if his prose is weak though. 70 chapters in his first book, distributed amongst approximately 7 characters, none of whom have died so far. Another heavily promoted book I've recently read was called Leviathan Wakes, and it followed the exact same format. Not until I read the interview with the author at the end did I learn that he was one of Martin's protégés.
My D&D group will be encountering electrified spiderwebs shortly.
Some good points there. I think in a stable environmental niche, intelligence would never develop, most of the oldest species have been in such niches as long as they've been around. However that an entire biosphere which remains permanently environmentally stable exists out there is something I find difficult to credit. I mean sure it's possible but the universe is a tumultuous place.
In such changing environments adaptability is king, and intelligence is the best enabler of adaptability.
Intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary adaption, I believe that life inevitably tends towards higher and higher levels of it. Consider, we're ill suited for anything but temperate climates in our bare skin, and even then we'd make easy prey for predators, being neither fast nor especially strong.
Add a sprinkle of intelligence and suddenly we're wearing animal skins in the cold, building fires at night, and protecting ourselves with spears.
Intelligence is absolutely a survival trait, perhaps the most powerful one.
Fact is, those people don't get a choice. They are barely surviving, and they are facing men who hoarded resources to procure weapons and other tools that help them to stay in power.
Men? Shitheadery knows no gender. Ever heard of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Imelda Marcos, Yingluck Shinawatra, the Womens Sultanate, Margaret Thatcher? Anyway one would have thought that such conditions were fertile ground for a revolution of the people.
Something missing from your narrative perhaps?
You are utterly convinced that poverty is a choice
Oh I never said anyone chose to be poor. They can choose not to be victims however, and they can choose not to listen to people who want them to be victims, objects, acted upon.
They can choose to stand up against corruption and fight for a better future. Many of them are, and their collective fortunes are improving accordingly, even if they individually remain poor, and for those I have nothing but the highest regard. I don't blame the ones that just go with the flow mind you, but they don't get much sympathy either.
argument is quite impossible without proper third party moderator.
Yes, the free environment of slashdot with its darned new concepts and open exchange of ideas must burn a cunt such as yourself.
Burn harder. Your time is coming to an end.
while billions live in abject misery
Maybe if they sorted out their own shitty political systems and made their politicians and beaurocracy, public sector, what have you accountable they would be able to enjoy the fruits of modern civilisation along with the rest of us.
Have you ever lived in a developing country? As soon as anyone pokes their head above the crowd there's a queue of plebs with pieces of paper in their hands stretching around the corner looking for bribes, their cut, their piece of the pie, and before too long there's no pie left at all. This is the reality.
Which has already been explained to you three times.
Yes capitalism is harnessed greed and that's a good thing. I rejoice to see corporations battling it out, I weep to see a single clear winner.
I'm none too happy with the banks myself, property bubbles completely loot middle class wealth and that needs to never happen again, but look at all the posters in this story gibbering about equality of income - do they have any understanding of how insane that is? Clearly not.
So they indulge in masturbatory fantasies about the indefinable paradise that awaits humanity after all the bourgeoise are killed off. Or was that the jews. No, wait, the intellectuals. White men?
Better they use their minds instead of parroting the delusions of a nineteenth century habitual drunk.
Right. You are here, suggesting that corruption exists in a vacuum rather than as a result of our resource distribution system creating overwhelming motivator for those in leadership position to become corrupt in order to grab more resources?
"Our" resource distribution system, capitalism, has regulations to prevent corruption from doing too much damage. It's a bit hit and miss but overall things have been steadily improving for the average person.
The distribution systems in poor countries may or may not have similar regulations, but they aren't enforced if they are in place. Having lived in many such countries I know whereof I speak.
I'm not even sure what "marxist" means here. Pretty much every single economist in the world subscribes to the same notion. The only thing they disagree with one another is what is the better alternative that would serve both needs and desires of imperfect human beings while keeping their vices in check. Are they all marxist in your opinion?
I wasn't aware you'd been elected king of the economists. Apologies your royal spokesperson for Mises and Keynes, perhaps someday someone will do communism right and not end up killing 100 million people to achieve nothing. The congratulatory coronation fruitbasket shall be along in the post presently.
Attempts to rebuild it resulted in massive suppression from systems using the old distribution system who understood that all it takes is one such new system becoming functional to destroy them.
Ahahaha! I swear you marxists live in as much of a fairy tale world as any conspiracy nut.
The reason poor countries are poor is because of their shitty corrupt politicians. See for reference what happened to Zimbabwe, or the President of South Africa looting all of the UK foreign aid to build his palace, or the way that the government in the Philippines can't account for over 90% of the aid it received for Haiyan.
"Derived directly from our resource-limited past" my ass, the only thing that matches the zeal of the marxist is their ignorance.
So, in your world all the money in the banks is owned by a few super rich people, and they can just take it with them and go to New Zealand.
Maybe Huey, Dewey, and Louie will save the day?
Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.
Moral panic mongers are finding this whole information age thing quite the botherance, aren't they.
A bunch of rich people with no real military protecting them will be like ripe fruit for the picking (as they have been over and over and over for centuries).
Not really no, for example during the French revolution which supposedly directly targeted the wealthy, the majority of those that went to visit Madame were not nobles.
I'm not entirely sure what the fixation is with income equality anyway, shouldn't people be thinking more about a continually improving standard of living? I mean surely that's what matters most to almost everyone. I know I don't wake up every morning bitterly jealous that someone else is richer them myself, or upset that I can't buy a Lear jet, seems like a pretty sorry way to go through life.
I don't have a problem with people being richer than me as long as they aren't using their wealth to fuck with people, like the banks did with their artificially inflated property bubble. Yes, when one party is providing 90+ % of the price for a good or service, that party controls the price. So, fuck the banks basically. But not due for ideological reasons.
You could say the same about almost any skilled labour though, good enough is often good enough. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't make what I'm saying less true.
Nope, let's not even justify it to that extent. Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that. This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.
“No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned,” said Mark Bernstein, a writer and Wikipedia editor.
In contrast, he says, “by my informal count, every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned. This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance — not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page (and Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia.”"
Link to Original Source