So this is the 21st century's answer to 7am god botherers. Not that those ever went away.
]]>Given that this is a paranormal agency and the novel we are reading are a personal journal of sorts written by the protagonist and are also after-action reports, paranormal means of extracting the information would be possible. (And Laundry enhanced interrogation of detainees is likely more effective than the CIA's version.) I believe the last Laundry novel was the first time Bob started speculating about what must have surely happened beyond his sight and this one was far more extensive. Given that he is now a necromancer, he should be able to dip into the last hours of the recently deceased or copy the transcription of a remote viewer's session.
How much of a headache has this been for you?
]]>So while it may be moving with regards to the Earth's location in space, it is fixed with regards to the Earth. At least that's how you could explain it if there's no way to move it. Or it may operate according to alien logic we can't rationalize but which ends up at "no, we can't do anything about it."
]]>The one thing I wasn't clear on, frequent feedings kill a person more quickly but my understanding is a single feeding is a death sentence, it's just going to take longer. Once the parasite has been pointed to a new host, it won't let go until it dies. So the trick of keeping the boy in the bubble, grampy vamps can keep feeding on him for a while, though the kid is going to be anemic soon since there's no recovery time between each sample, effectively being on ice, but each taste gives the vampire the full buzz while the parasite doesn't have as much time to chew? I would think the way it works is more of a kickback. A blood draw and thus brain munch releases x much power, half goes to feed the parasite, half goes back to the vampire to keep it humming and hunting for more victims.
]]>My assumption was that the slayer isn't likely to be a badass normal since that wouldn't just be foolhardy, that would be suicide. That and the neck-snappy thing. Normals can't just snap human necks like that. So there must have been something paranormal about her. I'm assuming that it wasn't just "add-ons" the way some mundane given a Laundry ward would suddenly be a tougher target than Joe Muggle. I was wondering if she might have a parasite that feeds on parasites.
]]>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dreams_in_the_Witch_House#Brown_Jenkin
]]>It's on pre-order regardless, no sale lost, but now I just don't know whether to start it sooner or later.
]]>I saw this article and am deeply, deeply skeptical, though I really have no qualifications to ask anything but "what does a real marine ecologist have to say about this?" It seems like the iron rule of ecology is "If you catch yourself saying 'Well, this seems simple enough,' you probably don't understand it at all." Start tampering with things and you'll always learn why you shouldn't, usually the hard way.
That being said, I'd be pleased as punch if it really was this simple and tuck into our lox and bagels without a care in the world.
]]>Iron Law of Bureaucracy In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
Iron law of Oligarchy All forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.
Wikipedia hints at what the counter-measure might be. One of the best known exceptions to the iron law of oligarchy was the now defunct International Typographical Union, described by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1956 book, Union Democracy.[7] Lipset suggests a number of factors that existed in the ITU that are allegedly responsible for countering this tendency toward bureaucratic oligarchy. The first and perhaps most important has to do with the way the union was founded. Unlike many other unions (e.g., the CIO's United Steel Workers of America (USWA), and numerous other craft unions) which were organized from the top down, the ITU had a number of large, strong, local unions who valued their autonomy, which existed long before the international was formed. This local autonomy was strengthened by the economy of the printing industry which operated in largely local and regional markets, with little competition from other geographical areas. Large locals continued to jealously guard this autonomy against encroachments by international officers. Second, the existence of factions helped place a check on the oligarchic tendencies that existed at the national headquarters. Leaders that are unchecked tend to develop larger salaries and more sumptuous lifestyles, making them unwilling to go back to their previous jobs. But with a powerful out faction ready to expose profligacy, no leaders dared take overly generous personal remuneration. These two factors were compelling in the ITU case.
If politics is about who gets what and how, then inequality in a country usually means something went wrong with the political process. The person with the short end of the stick was left agreeing to a bad deal, or they didn't even have to give the fig leaf of consent.
The story of unions in the US of A is complicated. There's no absolute good or evil when it comes to any human organization and you can get good ones and bad ones. The bad unions went rotten for the same reasons as bad corporations. I've read accounts from proud union members who moved from one plant to another and found themselves in a bad shop. Management loves cherrypicking those stories, just like using the welfare queen stereotype to lambaste all social safety net programs.
It's a tough balance to strike here. If you decentralize power too much you get something like the US under the Articles of Confederation, a sloppy mess. Centralize power too much and you get something like the US under the Constitution in the 21st century, a global empire whose political and economic leaders do whatever the hell they want and the common people are effectively disenfranchised.
]]>It's getting stinky hot down here and we haven't even hit high summer yet. The ride to work is an endurance feat. At least there aren't any hills.
]]>