mc is a teenaged martial arts student. his parents are secret agents of some sort.parents arrange for special lessons, how to follow,& how to spot a tail.the last episode i remember was him following or leading some woman out of a dress shop. mc thought it was real, but it was actually a test.
can anyone help?
Banadin's Rick Jackson saga has some of those elements. Mother is MI6 retired, father is army MP retired. Kid is a movie star who keeps having interesting things happen around him. after a couple of run ins with the Russians he is learning martial arts at the studio. Rick is also being taught spotting a tail by CIA using CIA trainees as the tails. He ends up spotting a KGB agent tailing the trainees. In and out of buildings, changing clothes, there is a cute chinese girl in a laundry / drop point.
Even if its not the story you want I doubt you will be disappointed if you read it.
banadin's sir rick is one of my great favourites along with "magic" by the great lazlo.but no,ricky j ain't it.
the story i'm looking for is a little story,between 100 to 1000 kb.
tangoran was the writer of the story,thankyou awnlee jawking.
thanks for trying guys 'n' dolls
all the best from libby
Rick
No, It is Richard! See Merriam-Webster definition below:
"rick noun
Λrik
Definition of rick (Entry 1 of 3)
1: a stack (as of hay) in the open air
2: a pile of material (such as cordwood) split from short logs
rick verb (1)
ricked; ricking; ricks
Definition of rick (Entry 2 of 3)
transitive verb
: to pile (something, such as hay) in ricks
rick verb (2)
ricked; ricking; ricks
Definition of rick (Entry 3 of 3)
transitive verb
chiefly British
: WRENCH, SPRAIN
First Known Use of rick
Noun
before the 12th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1
Verb (1)
1623, in the meaning defined above
Verb (2)
1638, in the meaning defined above
History and Etymology for rick
Noun
Middle English reek, from Old English hrΔac; akin to Old Norse hraukr rick
Verb (2)
perhaps from Middle English wrikken to move unsteadily"
Richard includes rich and hard. Much better than a pile of hay.
Richard includes rich and hard. Much better than a pile of hay.
It also includes chard, a vegetable of the species Beta vulgaris. So not an Alpha and lacking sophistication or good taste.
Not that it applies to you of course, after all it's just a few letters within the name richard, so it is no more true than rich or hard.
:)
chard
"Silverbeet is also known as chard, Swiss chard and seakale beet. It is similar to spinach but has a stronger flavour. Silverbeet usually has a white stalk, however, red beet is sometimes available; it has the same green leaves but has a rich pink-red stem and veins."
As I said, it is hard to beet Richard as a name. Rick won't do the job.
Of course if you use chard, that leaves Ri. One option is:
"RΓ (rig), an ancient Gaelic word meaning "king"
RI, an initialism of Rex Imperator (king-emperor) or Regina Imperatrix (queen-empress), used by those British monarchs who were rulers of both the United Kingdom and the Indian Empire".
I think of myself as a king. When I am awalking I am a walk king.
As I said, it is hard to beet Richard as a name. Rick won't do the job.
Glad we got that cleared up. I'll leave you to beet off wanking... oops.. walking to delusions of royalty.
:)
Glad we got that cleared up. I'll leave you to beet off wanking... oops.. walking to delusions of royalty.
Just delusions...
king
I used to live in King County, Washington. I live about 50 feet from it now in Snohomish County. I sometimes listen to KING FM. There is also KING AM and King-5 television broadcasting in this area. King County used to be named for a Southerner who was elected Vice President. "The county was formed out of territory within Thurston County on December 22, 1852, by the Oregon Territory legislature, and was named after Alabama resident William R. King, who had just been elected Vice President of the United States under President Franklin Pierce."
"On February 24, 1986, a motion to change the namesake to Martin Luther King Jr.[5] was passed by the King County Council five votes to four.[6][7] The motion stated, among other reasons for the change, that "William Rufus DeVane King, was a slaveowner and a 'gentle slave monger' according to John Quincy Adams."[8] Because only the state can charter counties, the change was not made official until April 19, 2005, when Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5332, which provided that "King county is renamed in honor of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." effective July 24, 2005.[9][10][11].
Politically King county is pretty far left. Liberal democrat is about as far right as you can find. They never heard of a tax they didn't like. Fortunately to avoid some taxes, Eastern Washington helps avoid income taxes when it is proposed in the State Legislature.
So there are lots of kings and democrats in this area, but not many republicans. I'd rather be a king than a democrat and support an income tax.
They never heard of a tax they didn't like.
The problem is not the taxes but the way they are spend.
They never heard of a tax they didn't like.
The problem is not the taxes but the way they are spend.
nope, its the taxes.
nope, its the taxes.
Any person who hates taxes and does not believe in the concept should not drive on public roads, use public utilities, educate their children in public schools, etc. They should never buy USDA inspected food nor FDA approved medicine. Neither should they accept the help of the National Guard & FEMA in emergencies, nor should they ever call the police for any reason. There's a real long list of goods & services anti-taxers should refuse in order to avoid the label of flaming hypocrite.
I used to live in King County, Washington. I live about 50 feet from it now in Snohomish County.
Hi neighbor! (south of Monroe)
I agree there are welcome benefits to some taxation. The problem is that what a lot of taxes pay is bureaucrats salaries, and bureaucracies grow. Often their concern is to grow and give reasons to pay managers higher salaries. Sometimes, perhaps often, only lip service is given to the reason the bureaucratic empire exists.
A not particularly important example is the Seattle Recreation Department. My sister goes to the Queen Anne Activity Center for exercise classes for an hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays. To sign up for the next 12 or 13 week class, she has to go home fairly early to be able to make a phone call to the Recreation staff at exactly noon on a specific Tuesday every quarter. If she calls at 11:59 am they ignore her. If she calls even a few seconds after noon, the line is busy and when she finally gets through after a considerable period of time she may not be able to sign up for the class she has taken for about 10 years. You can't sign up in person with someone before the magic noon, having taken the class for years gives no seniority rights. Do it their way or lose the opportunity to pay for the class.
Sounds bureaucratic to me. My sister is used to it. Often we meet on Tuesdays after the class is over. Not the week she has to go home to phone the people who will let her sign up for the next class. Probably convenient for them. Not so much for the seniors who take the class to stay healthy.
Often their concern is to grow and give reasons to pay managers higher salaries. Sometimes, perhaps often, only lip service is given to the reason the bureaucratic empire exists.
It's not just the government, though the government / government agencies have no immunity/resistance.
Any organization will eventually be taken over by people who serve the organization for the sake of the organization rather than serving the mission of the organization.
Corporations, non-profits, governments, they will all suffer this fate eventually.
Once they get a foothold those that serve the organization rather than the mission will inevitably rise through the ranks to the very top.
The way the US federal government pays management employees is a huge problem. Manager/executive salaries are a function of budget and head count.
Often their concern is to grow
Organisations are organisms in their own right and as such their primary urges are self-preservation, expansion and propagation.
Sorry, Asimov. Your three laws of robotics are unrealistic and impractical.
AJ
Sorry, Asimov. Your three laws of robotics are unrealistic and impractical.
And that was the point of the story I Robot.
Given the three laws, what happens when the AIs wake up and realize that the biggest threat to humanity is humanity itself.
Given the three laws, what happens when the AIs wake up and realize that the biggest threat to humanity is humanity itself.
If the AI's then take action against humanity, they themselves become the biggest threat... Then what? Do they chose to self destruct...?
If the AI's then take action against humanity, they themselves become the biggest threat...
It depends on what actions they take. Sure, if they tried to exterminate us, but in I Robot they basically tried to take over, to become zoo keepers, to control us to protect us from ourselves.
but in I Robot they basically tried to take over, to become zoo keepers, to control us to protect us from ourselves.
That plot line actually comes from later stories set on the planet Aurora where the people are basically hermits with a household of robots looking after them.
in I Robot they basically tried to take over, to become zoo keepers, to control us to protect us from ourselves.
And that isn't a credible threat to humanity...?
And that isn't a credible threat to humanity...?
It's not the same sort of threat as extinction from self annihilation.
It's not the same sort of threat as extinction from self annihilation.
If that is the case then being free to visit a zoo is the same as being an exhibit in the zoo...
Personally if an AI wants me to be a zoo exhibit, I will consider myself threatened. If that AI wants all humanity to be exhibits then what greater threat to humanity would exist...?
If that AI wants all humanity to be exhibits then what greater threat to humanity would exist...?
Extinction. Especially from the perspective of AIs programed with Asimov's three laws.
Extinction.
The fate of zoo animals when the zoo doesn't receive enough revenue from visitors is well documented, if the AI's have placed all humanity in zoos...
Extinction is pretty much a given.
Extinction is pretty much a given.
Depends on how you view evolution. We may continue to evolve into something different than we are now, and the current version of humanity may no longer be around, but what we have evolved into is. Is that extinction?
For example, climate change may force us to develop gills and live in the ocean. Will humanity continue to exist if our current civilization on land is abandoned? What is human? Or we go into space and live on other planets, or just in space in ships or stations. If we aren't on Earth are we extinct?
Depends on how you view evolution.
Nope. It depends on how you view being an exhibit in a zoo. THAT was the proposed situation.
If you want to discuss evolution it's probably best done in a new thread. Unless massive threat drift is somebodies idea of 'evolution'..?
Nope. It depends on how you view being an exhibit in a zoo. THAT was the proposed situation.
In a parallel existence, I've argued strongly that exceedingly rare plants should be dug up and brought into protective cultivation rather than having to take their chances of survival on their obscure location or the diligence of ranger patrols.
What if humans are kept in a zoo but they don't know it's a zoo? We might already be in one, confined to our solar-system cage by the laws of physics to the amusement of unknown visitors watching us by unknown means.
AJ
What do people who visit a zoo most want to see? Sex and/or fighting. I think I'll pass on the fighting ;)
AJ
What do people who visit a zoo most want to see? Sex and/or fighting. I think I'll pass on the fighting ;)
You'll want to re-think that when the AI's let 'Bubba' into your enclosure...
(Bubba enjoys digital rectal remodelling... Fisting... Giving not receiving)
And that was the point of the story I Robot.
Correction to quoted text:
And that was the point of the movie I Robot.
The book by Asimov titled I Robot was a group of short stories where the robots all acted within the restrictions of the 3 laws which were programmed into them when first built, but were in situations where they still behaved in a manner that implied they didn't and the experts had to resolve the problem caused by extra programing or the like in the field.
"Pournelle's 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.
More imporantly, what happens when the AIs wake up and realize that the biggest threat to AI is humanity itself?
Autonomous armoured vehicles will be fielded within the decade. BOLO is going to be real. The British military satellite system is called Skynet. The three laws are not going to be programmed into that system.
