tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Look up Lanchaster's Square Law (warfare) between litres of cheap red. It applies to ants, too, apparently. Ant warfare is arelly interesting...and really, really brutal. somebody was listening to jew-pee-arrrrr yesterday! suicide bomber ants in malayasia - hot shit!!! i liked the researcher: "yeah, ants fight a lot like people - the leaders just kinda stay towards the back and let all the workers sort shit out before finally wading in to finish off the enemy" Meh. Sci Am. But you know how these media waves work...print to TV and radio. Pictured are the 'suicide bombers' of the insect world. California has a 'super colony' - a network of colonies that are all in the same genetically imprinted 'army', that stretches from SF to Mexico...over a trillion individuals, perpetually at war with their genetically differentiated neighbors. Programmed to fight...forever. We should NOT let the insects take over. Quote
rob Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 California has a 'super colony' - a network of colonies that are all in the same genetically imprinted 'army', that stretches from SF to Mexico...over a trillion individuals, perpetually at war with their genetically differentiated neighbors. Programmed to fight...forever. We should NOT let the insects take over. It doesn't sound like there would be much functional difference if they did. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) One difference: There are no 'wounded' in an ant war. Edited November 17, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 It doesn't sound like there would be much functional difference if they did. "the world" segment i heard (which yeah, featured the author of the sciam article), made more or less exactly that point life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Another: ants have different types of workers. In one species, the 'majors' are 500 times larger than the 'minors'. About the same ratio as a human to a blue whale. The 'minors' ride into battle on the 'majors' (who travel a lot faster). At a certain distance, the 'minor's dismount, surround the enemy, and hold them down Lilliputian style, pulling off a limb here and there. The 'major' then comes a long and bites the enemy in half. Repeat. Quote
sobo Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Life cooperates at various levels just as much as it competes. Takes the two to tango. Quote
sobo Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Another: ants have different types of workers. In one species, the 'majors' are 500 times larger than the 'minors'. About the same ratio as a human to a blue whale. The 'minors' ride into battle on the 'majors' (who travel a lot faster).You mean like these guys? Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Life cooperates at various levels just as much as it competes. Takes the two to tango. the ecological equivalent of abbott and costello? Quote
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 How is my 'version' of the media any different than yours? My reaction, and action, re: the media is different, fo shiz. Successfully using corporate media to promote one's message on occasion won't prevent it from demonizing the movement that threatens the corporate status quo. Saying so isn't "whining", it's recognizing what we are up against so spare me the macho posturing. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Eventually, and probably soon, the police will kill one or more OWS protesters. That is usually a wake up call for the public at large, the government, and the movement. People are not as shocked by that kind of thing as they used to be (sorry Sobo and Ivan, but I'm older than you...and we HAVE changed...a lot). We'll see. Quote
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Nobody is putting the homeless up front but the corporate media. nobody is putting anybody up front at all b/c there is no leadership and no front - in the absence of either it's pretty easy for anyone, corporate or otherwise, to characterize you as they want. and if there were a front, they'd find ways to demonize it too. Quote
sobo Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 People are not as shocked by that kind of thing as they used to be (sorry Sobo and Ivan, but I'm older than you...and we HAVE changed...a lot).Not that much older, ya lil' whippersnapper... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 How is my 'version' of the media any different than yours? My reaction, and action, re: the media is different, fo shiz. Successfully using corporate media to promote one's message on occasion won't prevent it from demonizing the movement that threatens the corporate status quo. Saying so isn't "whining", it's recognizing what we are up against so spare me the macho posturing. I save my macho posturing, usually accessorized with his and her lucha libre outfits, for the privacy of my own home. Dealing with whiny progressives requires little posturing of any kind. Just a dribble of reality usually does the trick. Quote
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successfully using corporate media to promote one's message on occasion won't prevent it from demonizing the movement that threatens the corporate status quo. Saying so isn't "whining", it's recognizing what we are up against so spare me the macho posturing. I save my macho posturing, usually accessorized with his and her lucha libre outfits, for the privacy of my own home. Dealing with whiny progressives requires little posturing of any kind. Just a dribble of reality usually does the trick. Except that your reality is in fantasy-land. Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you. Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you. walter kronkite, a corporate shill, didn't admit on national tv in january of 1968 that the vietnam war needed to end? Quote
sobo Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you. walter kronkite, a corporate shill, didn't admit on national tv in january of 1968 that the vietnam war needed to end? Before or after Tet? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successfully using corporate media to promote one's message on occasion won't prevent it from demonizing the movement that threatens the corporate status quo. Saying so isn't "whining", it's recognizing what we are up against so spare me the macho posturing. I save my macho posturing, usually accessorized with his and her lucha libre outfits, for the privacy of my own home. Except that your reality is in fantasy-land. Yeah, but WHAT A REALITY! Quote
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you. walter kronkite, a corporate shill, didn't admit on national tv in january of 1968 that the vietnam war needed to end? at some point you'll have to sort out the anecdotal from the generalized case. Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you. walter kronkite, a corporate shill, didn't admit on national tv in january of 1968 that the vietnam war needed to end? Before or after Tet? tet was in january of 1968, so right after the point being, you can get the mainstream media to acknowledge your views and report your demands in an impartial and perhaps even sympathetic way, it's just not going to happen instantly and in all venues mainstream news throughout much of the us eventually swung round civil rights for blacks and fags too, no? certianly though, protest movements do need to have an eye towards controlling their message and getting it out independtly where possible - the abolitinists of hte 19th century generally owned their own printing presses, only half of which got thrown into rivers by angry mobs Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 at some point you'll have to sort out the anecdotal from the generalized case. not being a protestologist, i'll have to muddle my way through w/ what anecedotes my eye-balls happen upon... Quote
sobo Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Successful movements build their own media because they certainly can't rely on that of the establishment to relay their message. But, please, do go on pretending otherwise and calling everybody who says so a whiner if it amuses you.walter kronkite, a corporate shill, didn't admit on national tv in january of 1968 that the vietnam war needed to end? Before or after Tet?tet was in january of 1968, so right after Woulda had to have been right after, I reckon... like on the CBS Evening News. January 31, 1968 Quote
j_b Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 at some point you'll have to sort out the anecdotal from the generalized case. not being a protestologist, i'll have to muddle my way through w/ what anecedotes my eye-balls happen upon... well, the first rule of thumb is that power doesn't concede anything unless all other choices are worse for those in control. Quote
ivan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 tet was in january of 1968, so right after Woulda had to have been right after, I reckon... like on the CBS Evening News. January 31, 1968 fact checking motherfuckers! okay, FEBRUARY 1968! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.