World of Walls : The Structure, Roles and Effectiveness of Separation Barriers
http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=641876
Example quote from conclusion:
It is argued in the previous paragraphs that the fences Ceuta and
Melilla will continue to influence negatively Morocco’s relations with
Spain and the EU. Spain’s policy to fence the two enclaves’ borders
reflects contradictory pressures in the region. While the Mediterranean
sphere has witnessed an increasing number of cultural and economic
cooperation projects in the last two decades, new physical and virtual
walls are being built in the region to achieve “Fortress Europe”.
The way I "read" books like these is to skim through intro and conclusion to see if there's a chapter I want to delve into deeper. I'd argue it's slightly better than reading the newspaper summary of a book.
The U.S.-Mexico border wall marks the fault line between two different
worlds. Regardless of how many billions of dollars will be spent on
the further fortification and militarization of the common border, illegal
cross-border activities will continue so long as there is a huge disparity
in economic prosperity, political stability and social security between
the two countries.
Regional integration and advanced partnerships may reduce the
attractiveness of emigration, but they cannot erase the American dream
from the mind of millions of Latin Americans who will continue to seek
new ways to reach the America El Dorado — regularly or irregularly.
The common denominator of new immigration policies taken
by the host countries in the last two decades is the linking between
immigration policy and border-control management on one hand,
and between the immigration policy and security issues on the other
hand.
[…]
Security concerns remain a main determinant of the current border-
control policies which aim at preventing infiltration of members of
armed groups, irregular migration, goods smuggling, drug trafficking
and other clandestine cross-border activities. In some cases, border
fortification reflects the desire to impose unilaterally the de facto border.
[…]
One of the paradoxes of “globalization” is that an increasingly
interconnected and interdependent world is simultaneously marked by
intensified militarization and fortification of national borders. Today,
some regions — whether in North America, the Mediterranean or some
Asian sub-regions — are being pulled in two different directions: one
toward more complementarity and integration (e.g., NAFTA, Union for
Mediterranean, ASEAN, SAARC) and another toward the erection of
further tangible and intangible border barriers.
Despite relentless efforts by receiving countries to prevent
unauthorized border-crossing by immigrants, drug smugglers
and dissidents, these groups have not been deterred. Rather, they
have adapted to the strategies designed to impede their movement,
developing new ways and means to circumvent such barriers.
[…]
Though military walls may reach some short-term goals by
destabilizing the enemy, armed groups can adapt to the new situation
by developing missiles that can exceed the height of these barriers,
by digging tunnels or by penetrating the enemy lines using forged
documents as has been seen in Palestine and Kashmir.
One thing the conclusion and therefore perhaps the book overlooks in my view on walls is that they might improve security short-term, but long-term the psychological distance between the two groups of people will only increase. They won't just be neighbors anymore, but people from the Other side of the wall.
Kama Sutra
The Koran
Doesn't this thread more properly belong to the Hobbies & Entertainment section?
It's not my hobby to not read things I'd like to read if life were decades longer. :P
Kama Sutra
Maybe a few decades earlier it would have been a beneficial reading for you but one that doubtlessly can be skipped for now. :D
Reading drives the fantasy. :)
You're both right, Krake and Barulheira. :lol:
And pray tell me Barulheira why you would like to read the Koran? I love history and occasionally nuy a book on aspects of that subject that interest me in particular.
Good question.
I'd like to have an opinion on my own, instead of hearing from others, about such a relevant belief system nowadays.
It has its moments but overall it's terrible. Much more so than the Bible, imo. I would probably advise not repeating what I did and reading an abridged version instead. Note that when I say abridged I don't mean something aimed at children, but something that lays out the stuff in a slightly more logical order than biggest to smallest and gets rid of all or at least most of the repetition. I hear
An Abridged Koran by CSPI is good.
AN ABRIDGED KORAN recreates the historical order of the Koran of Mohammed's day. The first chapters start with Mohammed's first recitation and the last chapters are those he recited before he died. Mohammed's life gives the Koran clarity, meaning, and order. When the Koran and Mohammed's life are brought together, the Koran becomes a powerful epic story.
AN ABRIDGED KORAN is identical to A SIMPLE KORAN except it has all of the repetition removed. For instance, the story of Moses and the Pharaoh is told 39 times. In AN ABRIDGED KORAN the story is told only once. Read AN ABRIDGED KORAN. It will change the way you see the world.
Of course the story of Moses isn't told the exact same way 39 times. It's vaguely Rashomon-like in its variations and different emphases, so I'd say you can only truly safely cut two thirds of it. If you want to get the full experience (like me) you should just read it in a more chronological order instead. For example, see here (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Qur%27an).
Also not uninteresting: http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/ (though the quality of the Dutch translation I've read was, at least as far as the target language goes, significantly better than some weird King James Bible sound-alike)
Thank you, very much. As already said, I would like to read it but (probably) won't.
I have studied the Bible in many schools, in many translations, in several languages. I have got a broad comprehension of the mainstream Protestant Christianity. After all, only after learning how the current translations relate to the original languages' text could I see clearly how much of the doctrine was influenced by (or has influenced) the way how the text was (wrongly) translated.
Probably, I would have to follow a similar path to understand the Koran and Islam.
how much of the doctrine was influenced by (or has influenced) the way how the text was (wrongly) translated.
If one replaces "doctrine" with
history (influenced by bias) and "translated" with
written then there is a certain similarity to history books. ;)
Well I think if a person has an interest re books on a special interest it SHOULD be followed up. In some people that direction can show on occasions a touch of stress, etc that can put them off. I have always had a great interest in history and re one country have followed that up by particularly good books.
The way I "read" books like these is to skim through intro and conclusion to see if there's a chapter I want to delve into deeper. I'd argue it's slightly better than reading the newspaper summary of a book.
It's definitely better to both read a few reviews and skim the book itself. Provided that the book is available for skimming of course.
[Koran] has its moments but overall it's terrible. Much more so than the Bible, imo.
The upside is that Koran is shorter than NT, i.e. just a fraction of the size of the Bible. If one is able to read half the Bible, Koran will be a piece of cake. And the easy way to "make sense" of the chapter arrangement in Koran is to regard the chapters as if distinct books, like Bible consists of distinct books.
I would like to read the classical Greek master pieces but I probably will never do it... shame on you Belfrager.
shame on you Belfrager
:lol:
You haven't read at least a few? Or do you mean in the original Ancient Greek?
Only some light version of Ulysse's Odyssey when the lady does a tapestry by day and unmake it by night... if I'm not confusing everything.
Yes, Penelope did something like that. I found her character (or lack thereof) and the double standard disappointing. Odysseus is sleeping around with every goddess and sorceress who's vaguely attractive and meanwhile she's expected to remain celibate. I much prefer the likes of Dido, even if Vergil is a bit… heavy-handed. Oh well, such is the Golden Age of Roman Literature. I prefer the later Silver Age, I suppose.
I'd like to [but probably won't] go back and read some of the early American authors. Emerson, Thoreau - even Twain - and the others I'm not thinking of right now. Stories I read back when and without appreciation for them. Ones where have the gist of the derived meanings, tho, have long since lost the nuances of the stories.
That desire isn't really limited to American authors, but one post at a time. :)
Apparently there's such a thing as poisonous books. I'd like to take a look at it, but I probably won't… (and not just because of the geographical distance to Michigan).
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/shadows-from-the-walls-of-death-book
Shadows from the Walls of Death, printed in 1874 and measuring about 22 by 30 inches, is a noteworthy book for two reasons: its rarity, and the fact that, if you touch it, it might kill you. It contains just under a hundred wallpaper samples, each of which is saturated with potentially dangerous levels of arsenic.
The book is the work of Dr. Robert M. Kedzie, a Union surgeon during the American Civil War and later professor of chemistry at Michigan State Agricultural college (now MSU). When he came to serve on the state’s Board of Health in the 1870s, he set out to raise awareness about the dangers of arsenic-pigmented wallpaper. Though a lethal toxin, arsenic can be mixed with copper and made into beautiful paints and pigments, most commonly Scheele’s Green or Paris Green. This was no fringe phenomenon: near the end of the 19th century, the American Medical Association estimated that as much as 65 percent of all wallpaper in the United States contained arsenic.
It's been digitized:
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/bookviewer?PID=nlm:nlmuid-0234555-bk
Apparently there's such a thing as poisonous books.
Of course. For example, in Umberto Eco's
Name of the Rose, Aristotle's Poetics Book II was poisoned.
Umberto Eco is lightyears ahead of Dan Brown. Based on reviews, both write ancient-themed thrillers, so they can be legitimately compared. I'd like to read Umberto Eco, but probably won't. And I've done a pretty good job staying away from Dan Brown.
Of course. For example, in Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, Aristotle's Poetics Book II was poisoned.
I fail to see why something fictional means "of course." :)
It means that when you are familiar with the Name of the Rose, a poisonous book is old news.
:left: :right: :eyes:
Death by wallpaper (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/could-this-wallpaper-kill-you-victorian-britains-lethal-obsessio/) was a peculiar Victorian vice, up there with vitriol attacks. The latter having a revival lately.
Basically re this thread my point would be that when a subject is raised that i have an interest in I tend to buy a book.........
And I've done a pretty good job staying away from Dan Brown.
Dan Brown is not a writer, he's a fraud for idiots to buy. The first three chapters were enough for realize it.
It comes to my mind two completely different books that maybe I should read but probably I'll never do - Mein Kampf and Kama Sutra.
Dan Brown is not a writer, he's a fraud for idiots to buy. The first three chapters were enough for realize it.
Three chapters? You read that long? He must be disguising his badness very well.
I recently attempted to read an essay titled
Are economists basically immoral? (http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/heyne-are-economists-basically-immoral-and-other-essays-on-economics-ethics-and-religion). First there was a nice long intro relating the bio of the author and stating that the position of the author was that economists are not immoral, despite common perception to the contrary. Then began the main text.
The very first page made it lucidly clear that the author was immoral. The second page started with a hypothetical illustration about an IC (international conglomerate) trying to argue that it's not immoral to go producing in a country where labour is cheaper, but that illustration painted a clear picture of an immoral IC. I doubt I will read more to find the author's arguments about actual economists.
So that took just two pages to settle.
As a baptized and confirmed economist I would say that if the Malaysian workers know what the risks are, then IC is not behaving unfairly to anyone. It is providing gizmoes to people who value them, providing profits to the shareholders of IC, and providing income to the Malaysian workers; everyone wins, or at least everyone with the right to be consulted. No one is exploited or treated unjustly.
"No one is exploited or treated unjustly." W. T. F. Oh sure, I'll just go starve to death instead of facing those terrible risks…
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fcartoons%2Fenglish%2Fmy_library.jpg&hash=9f91ae61319c08eaf55e391cc7f76752" rel="cached" data-hash="9f91ae61319c08eaf55e391cc7f76752" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/cartoons/english/my_library.jpg)
Now reading the latest edition of an American published book on the shocking level and practices of the US military towards German soldier prisoners after WW2. Shocking and disturbing truths. Just prior to that got a very fascinating book on Russia pre-1917. The author was very clever and acted as if he had been there visiting and staying with a comfortable family in St Petersburg. He then related stories about the different classes and visiting contrasting parts of the city and so on. He was "staying" with a wealthy family and taken about to see the facts of life good and bad. Even the worst aspects were covered and was ingenious in it's composition.
Steven Seagal co-authored a novel. From a review it sounds like an interesting book that I most likely won't touch even if I by some weird coincidence come across it in real.
Obama is in cahoots with a motley assortment of evildoers, including his Islamic terrorist brethren, a murderous Mexican drug cartel and the shadowy Deep State—forces that would be only too happy to replace the Constitution with sharia law. All that stands in the way of this sinister cabal, with their hashish-fueled and hooker-laden sex-murder orgies, is a godly, morally pure assemblage of “Shadow Wolves,” Native American lawmen uniquely adept at tracking drug dealers and illegal immigrants. (I was shocked to discover that Shadow Wolves actually exist and are a real unit of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, because they’re portrayed here as the ultimate romanticized fantasy of Native Americans: real-life Jedi whose heritage gives them borderline supernatural powers and allows them to live in perfect harmony with nature.)
Enjoy.
As cautionary warnings go, this is the socio-political equivalent of Reefer Madness in terms of unintentional laughs. Instead of being a terrifying dispatch from tomorrow, it reeks of high camp.
That reminds me of the parody in
That '70s Show. :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHqjHFrzGwk
The important thing here it's Krake's post - My Library (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=3013.msg78793#msg78793).
It's even better than my own posts...
Course no one wants / has the capacity for discussing it.
It menaces a few, it is not understandable by the rest.
Truth is always uncomfortable.
Our relationship with books, that's the essence we should be discussing, not "what" we read or not.
Krake presents nine different ways we look at our books. Well done. (A little bit too much German way...)
A Brief History of Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time)
A Brief History of Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time)
RIP.
And the first two chapters of that book are recommended reading for everyone.
Have had a book for a while recommend to me by my brother entitled "Other Losses" by James Bacque and a second issue as he got even more information about the hard fact that America wilfully murdered hundreds of thousands of Germal prisoners at t the end of WWS. The chief guilt party was Eisenhower. He not only lowered the level of food below 2000 and no shelter or help. He hated the Germans whether SS or regular military. Even when a couple of generals earmarked prisoners for simple release that brutal git over-ruled them. The French were involved but Ike's corner was the distinct leader. Not only the statistics shown but the hard facts of deliberate starvation to the lowest possible then cart lorries of bodies away for burial.
Dresden, RJ, Dresden… :(
Body-swerving Yank.
Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers died appallingly. Eisenhower actually reduced the food supplies as low as he could and the content below 2000. It was disgraceful and actually happened smug man. On top of that the shocking conditions, infections along with the mass deaths all suitably ignored. Disgusting for a so-called democracy. We used to get the stuff about what the Soviets did whilst wonderland got away with mass deaths. Maybe you should get a copy of the book organised in nutjobland instead of using satire as a swerve thing. Ike was a rat bag.
And I've done a pretty good job staying away from Dan Brown.
Dan Brown is not a writer, he's a fraud for idiots to buy. The first three chapters were enough for realize it.
I agree 110%. I
tried to read Angels & Demons. It's the most annoying piece of author wank I've ever seen.
I tried to read Angels & Demons.
Feeling adventurous were we? ;)
I tried to read Angels & Demons.
Feeling adventurous were we? ;)
It was ages ago, and I didn't know any better. One of the very,
very few books I couldn't finish.
We have the Da Vinci Code in the house I believe. (A gift of some sort.) I saw the movie over a decade ago and for what I assumed to be a relatively braindead adventure type movie à la Tomb Raider or The Mummy it was surprisingly dull.
It's in a different category. Something like "a book I might almost consider reading to understand what everyone's talking about."
Three out of three for figuring out the would be code! :up:
From a review of
Isaac Newton: The Asshole Who Reinvented The UniverseIn his new book, “Isaac Newton: The Asshole Who Reinvented The Universe,” author Florian Freistetter depicts Newton as a thoughtless genius with no social skills and a harsh demeanor who, despite his scientific acumen, was also devoted to alchemy.
“Alchemy was . . . not merely a hobby [for Newton],” he writes. “If anything, it would be closer to the truth to call Newton’s research into physics a ‘hobby’ that he fitted in between his theological and alchemistic studies.”
[...]
Based on extensive studies of biblical texts, he estimated that the world would “reset” in 2060, when “the Kingdom of God” would prevail on the Earth, Freistetter writes. Meanwhile, Newton castigated other doomsday prophesiers for foretelling a more imminent apocalypse.
“It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner,” Newton boldly proclaimed.
It's not really clear to me why we're supposed to be quite so dismissive of alchemy. Sure, there was some idée fixe about making noble metals out of base ones, but just about everyone from Newton to Leibniz was into that. Perhaps in a few centuries someone will sit there pointing fun at the Large Hadron Collider. What a ridiculous idea, building particle colliders; can't they tell a false hypothesis when they see one…
Or as they put it on Wikipedia:
Isaac Newton contributed to the dawning sciences of chemistry and physics, even though he was also an alchemist who sought chrysopoeia in various ways including some that were unscientific.
That chemistry mentioned there — that was alchemy too…
Put another way, I wonder how ridiculous Newton's writings on physics might look if you actually read them. (I haven't.)
It's not really clear to me why we're supposed to be quite so dismissive of alchemy.
Clearly enough scientists (and this particular science historian) are ashamed of the roots of science.
That chemistry mentioned there -- that was alchemy too...
Chemistry is alchemy where the spooky aspects such as spiritual and immaterial have been cut off. Modern scientists cut much of the context away and assume they have a more advanced science at hand. In some sense modern science is more sober, but at the same time it's more callous, soulless, purposeless, and dangerous due to too much de-contextualisation.
In my view, the heart of science is analysis. A scientific analysis is always analysis
of something. Analysis in the abstract would be pure logic, but even in the abstract it would occur in the mind (not in mid-air like a "useful fiction" which is neither here or there), so it's properly coupled with the analysis of mind.
Analysis or logic cannot stand contextless by itself. It requires a mind, as a minimum, and a commitment to the nature of the mind, whether it's material, immaterial, mechanical, or what not.
In old times, scientists were more properly philosophers whose aim was to connect everything. Nowadays scientists tend to assume their little field (little because it's a radically reduced version of a historically more full-blooded version) of expertise extrapolated without expertise on anything else kind of is all there is to reality.
Chemistry is alchemy where the spooky aspects such as spiritual and immaterial have been cut off.
Yep. The same happens with old and modern ("scientific") medicine.
I was reading a XVIII century medicine text and got very surprised with the extreme lucidity of thought and rigor of analysis. What have basically evolved in medicine were the machines for every and all diagnosis.
Old doctors discussed if fever was a fluid or a humor, moderns ones have no idea about the whys and they don't care, enough to know that fever appears as a body reaction and some particular substance makes it to go down.