robots &machines for the Empire :: essays research papers

ROBOTS & MACHINES FOR THE EMPIRE THE GEORGE LUCAS NIGHTMARE! Coming very soon to a theater of war near you, your family and your home, will be the machines and robots which will greatly magnify and make more mobile the State’s deadly force for deployment against its eternal enemy: the people. Government Executive Magazine, traditionally pro-federal government, includes an article in its April 15th issue entitled "Future Combat Zone." Staff correspondent George Cahlink begins his article, "Six years ago, the Army decided to stake its future on an untested approach to acquiring futuristic weapons in support of a grand theory about the nature of 21st century warfare. The resulting program, known as Future Combat Systems, has turned out to be the most expensive and complex program procurement effort in Army history. According to current estimates, the service will spend well in excess of $100 billion by 2014 to develop the ‘system of systems,’ which includes manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles and sensors tied together by a wireless network." [Emphasis mine.] "Untested approach?" "Futuristic?" "Grand theory?" It doesn’t sound very supportive of our nation state’s latest high-tech investments consistently touted as absolutely necessary for our defense in an increasingly technologically hostile world. The Army’s Future Combat Systems program was recently examined against the backdrop of totally uncontrolled federal spending, which long ago has left the State’s fiscal launching pad roaring skywards both in defiance of gravity and any modicum of budgetary restraints. Tim Weiner in his NY Times article of March 28th offers, "The Army’s plan to transform itself into a futuristic high-technology force has become so expensive that some of the military’s strongest supporters in Congress are questioning the program’s costs and complexity." The article, "An Army Program to Build a High-Tech Force Hits Cost Snags," goes on, "Army officials said†¦that the first phase of the program†¦could run to $145 billion. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the ‘technological bridge to the future’ would equip 15 brigades of roughly 3,000 soldiers, or about one-third of the force the Army plans to field, over a 20-year span." The "grand theory" Cahlink explains, is "[t]he Army’s bid for unprecedented speed and killing power require[ing] double the amount of computer code than is contained in the Joint Strike Fighter’s systems, rely[ing] on 53 new technologies and require[ing] more than 100 network interfaces." The "wireless network" Cahlink mentions is described by Weiner as the "Joint Tactical Radio Systems," known as JTRS [pronounced ‘jitters’].

robots &machines for the Empire :: essays research papers

ROBOTS & MACHINES FOR THE EMPIRE THE GEORGE LUCAS NIGHTMARE! Coming very soon to a theater of war near you, your family and your home, will be the machines and robots which will greatly magnify and make more mobile the State’s deadly force for deployment against its eternal enemy: the people. Government Executive Magazine, traditionally pro-federal government, includes an article in its April 15th issue entitled "Future Combat Zone." Staff correspondent George Cahlink begins his article, "Six years ago, the Army decided to stake its future on an untested approach to acquiring futuristic weapons in support of a grand theory about the nature of 21st century warfare. The resulting program, known as Future Combat Systems, has turned out to be the most expensive and complex program procurement effort in Army history. According to current estimates, the service will spend well in excess of $100 billion by 2014 to develop the ‘system of systems,’ which includes manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles and sensors tied together by a wireless network." [Emphasis mine.] "Untested approach?" "Futuristic?" "Grand theory?" It doesn’t sound very supportive of our nation state’s latest high-tech investments consistently touted as absolutely necessary for our defense in an increasingly technologically hostile world. The Army’s Future Combat Systems program was recently examined against the backdrop of totally uncontrolled federal spending, which long ago has left the State’s fiscal launching pad roaring skywards both in defiance of gravity and any modicum of budgetary restraints. Tim Weiner in his NY Times article of March 28th offers, "The Army’s plan to transform itself into a futuristic high-technology force has become so expensive that some of the military’s strongest supporters in Congress are questioning the program’s costs and complexity." The article, "An Army Program to Build a High-Tech Force Hits Cost Snags," goes on, "Army officials said†¦that the first phase of the program†¦could run to $145 billion. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the ‘technological bridge to the future’ would equip 15 brigades of roughly 3,000 soldiers, or about one-third of the force the Army plans to field, over a 20-year span." The "grand theory" Cahlink explains, is "[t]he Army’s bid for unprecedented speed and killing power require[ing] double the amount of computer code than is contained in the Joint Strike Fighter’s systems, rely[ing] on 53 new technologies and require[ing] more than 100 network interfaces." The "wireless network" Cahlink mentions is described by Weiner as the "Joint Tactical Radio Systems," known as JTRS [pronounced ‘jitters’].

robots &machines for the Empire :: essays research papers

ROBOTS & MACHINES FOR THE EMPIRE THE GEORGE LUCAS NIGHTMARE! Coming very soon to a theater of war near you, your family and your home, will be the machines and robots which will greatly magnify and make more mobile the State’s deadly force for deployment against its eternal enemy: the people. Government Executive Magazine, traditionally pro-federal government, includes an article in its April 15th issue entitled "Future Combat Zone." Staff correspondent George Cahlink begins his article, "Six years ago, the Army decided to stake its future on an untested approach to acquiring futuristic weapons in support of a grand theory about the nature of 21st century warfare. The resulting program, known as Future Combat Systems, has turned out to be the most expensive and complex program procurement effort in Army history. According to current estimates, the service will spend well in excess of $100 billion by 2014 to develop the ‘system of systems,’ which includes manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles and sensors tied together by a wireless network." [Emphasis mine.] "Untested approach?" "Futuristic?" "Grand theory?" It doesn’t sound very supportive of our nation state’s latest high-tech investments consistently touted as absolutely necessary for our defense in an increasingly technologically hostile world. The Army’s Future Combat Systems program was recently examined against the backdrop of totally uncontrolled federal spending, which long ago has left the State’s fiscal launching pad roaring skywards both in defiance of gravity and any modicum of budgetary restraints. Tim Weiner in his NY Times article of March 28th offers, "The Army’s plan to transform itself into a futuristic high-technology force has become so expensive that some of the military’s strongest supporters in Congress are questioning the program’s costs and complexity." The article, "An Army Program to Build a High-Tech Force Hits Cost Snags," goes on, "Army officials said†¦that the first phase of the program†¦could run to $145 billion. Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said the ‘technological bridge to the future’ would equip 15 brigades of roughly 3,000 soldiers, or about one-third of the force the Army plans to field, over a 20-year span." The "grand theory" Cahlink explains, is "[t]he Army’s bid for unprecedented speed and killing power require[ing] double the amount of computer code than is contained in the Joint Strike Fighter’s systems, rely[ing] on 53 new technologies and require[ing] more than 100 network interfaces." The "wireless network" Cahlink mentions is described by Weiner as the "Joint Tactical Radio Systems," known as JTRS [pronounced ‘jitters’].

Vespucci View on Native Americans

The impression that I got from people accounted to Vespucci is that Native Indians are barbarians with no shame. Vespucci gives the impression by showing that they are cannibals (Vespucci 18). For example, they will eat human flesh from their enemies. They have no leader and no rules are set. Basically, I picture humans running around like wild animals without shame. In addition, the men are lustful without shame, taking as much women as they can. Even the women are crazy; they would cause abortion if their husband anger them (Vespucci 18). I get the impression that they have no remorse and that they are evil. The only positive thing that I feel is that they are creative, when it comes to music and that food is plentiful. For example, the Indians play various instruments such as horns and bells (Vespucci 18). Overall, I feel that these Indians are too psychotic and that they need to reform their ways immediately. The document shows that the author is pretty honest, but cocky. He would offer friendship first, but if the Indians do not accept, they would be subjected to slavery (Vespucci 18). This shows me that he’s at least fair when making deals. I feel that he’s fascinated by the way the Indians live, but not in a good way. His tone is arrogant, because his people see Indians as a pathetic civilization. The author shows that he did not know that such people existed, until he discovered them. He contradicts himself though, when he would capture Indians and make them into slaves if they did not accept his friendship. Enslaving people is also immoral and unethical. Vespucci is a bit headstrong when judging others, when he too is judged by others.

These 25 Famous Family Quotes Will Make You Proud of Your Folks

With so many unique personalities that make up a family, sometimes its tough to find common ground. And yet, families are the most defining of all human relationships. The theme of family is a recurring one that great minds have speculated on and remarked about for as long as there has been language to record human thought. Read on to find out what some famous folks had to say on the subject. Famous Quotes  on Family Erma Bombeck: â€Å"The family. We were a strange little band of characters trudging through life sharing diseases and toothpaste, coveting one anothers desserts, hiding shampoo, borrowing money, locking each other out of our rooms, inflicting pain and kissing to heal it in the same instant, loving, laughing, defending, and trying to figure out the common thread that bound us all together.† Leo Tolstoy: â€Å"All happy families resemble one another; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.† Legouve Pere: â€Å"A brother is a friend provided by nature.† Eva Burrows: â€Å"In family life, love is the oil that eases friction, the cement that binds closer together, and the music that brings harmony.† Jim Rohn: â€Å"Your family and your love must be cultivated like a garden. Time, effort, and imagination must be summoned constantly to keep any relationship flourishing and growing.† Jeannette Walls,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Glass Castle†: â€Å"Mom always said people worried too much about their children. Suffering when youre young is good for you, she said. It immunized your body and your soul, and that was why she ignored us kids when we cried. Fussing over children who cry only encouraged them, she told us. Thats positive reinforcement for negative behavior.† Marsha Norman: â€Å"Family is just accident. They dont mean to get on your nerves. They don’t even mean to be your family, they just are.† Lee  Iacocca: â€Å"The only rock I know that stays steady, the only institution I know that works is the family.† Marie Curie: â€Å"I have frequently been questioned, especially by women, of how I could reconcile family life with a scientific career. Well, it has not been easy.† Robert Frost: â€Å"Home is the place, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.† Anais Nin: â€Å"I know why families were created with all their imperfections. They humanize you. They are made to make you forget yourself occasionally, so that the beautiful balance of life is not destroyed.† George Santayana: â€Å"The family is one of natures masterpieces.† William S. Gilbert: â€Å"My family pride is something inconceivable. I cant help it. I was born sneering.† Thomas Jefferson: â€Å"The happiest moments of my life have been the few which I have passed at home in the bosom of my family.† Brad Henry: â€Å"Families are the compass that guides us. They are the inspiration to reach great heights, and our comfort when we occasionally falter.† Dalai Lama: â€Å"I pray for a more friendly, more caring, and more understanding human family on this planet. To all who dislike suffering, who cherish lasting happiness, this is my heartfelt appeal.† Mark Twain: â€Å"Adam was the luckiest man; he had no mother-in-law.† Buddha: â€Å"A family is a place where minds come in contact with one another.† Jane Howard: â€Å"Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.† George Bernard Shaw: â€Å"If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance.† Charles Lamb: â€Å"A poor relation is the most irrelevant thing in nature, a piece of impertinent correspondence, an odious approximation, a haunting conscience, a preposterous shadow, lengthening in the noon-tide of our prosperity. He is known by his knock.† English Proverb: â€Å"A small family is soon provided for.† George Burns: â€Å"Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in another city.† Mitch Albom, â€Å"The Five People You Meet in Heaven†: â€Å"All parents damage their children. It cannot be helped. Youth, like pristine glass, absorbs the prints of its handlers. Some parents smudge, others crack, a few shatter childhoods completely into jagged little pieces, beyond repair.† Margaret Atwood,  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The Handmaids Tale†: â€Å"No mother is ever, completely, a childs idea of what a mother should be, and I suppose it works the other way around as well. But despite everything, we didnt do too badly by one another, we did as well as most.†