What if a 'drug' were discovered which allowed the alcohol intolerant to actually enjoy alcohol? Would this be morally questionable? The market would be huge and as we all know, the market is good at making the morally questionable, morally acceptable.
Rand wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness".....that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”
Also....Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968....
There's an even greater irony here in that she needed health care benefits >> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.
Non-capitalist? Maybe. But whatever you do want to call their earlier system, it wasnt socialist because the population had absolutely no say in the way their country was governed, which is the true hallmark of the socialist ideal.
At this time Russia was (and actually still is) governed by a self appointed, self-serving elite with no regard for the consequences of their policies on people or environment. . They weren't hell-bent on a glorious future for their subjects, only a glorious present for themselves. In this respect there wasn't much to seperate them from how the 'west' is governed nowadays.
"Google has the lead, but, if we're good at advertising, we'll compete with them in the consumer business."
Surely he means 'good at developing', or 'good at designing', but advertising!
The destruction of wetlands which would have largely minimized the extent of the damage, is one of the trragedies here. And why did this happen? Deregulation/opening up of these assets to corporations who want to develop them for profit....and nothing else. Libertarians never explain how this misuse of natural assets can be avoided. Without regulation of the environment there would be nothing left for these corporations to exploit, and America would resemble an ashtray.....
The competition's title should be changed to 'Best parody of bad literature'.
Most of the entries I have read are funny, and intentionally so because they are parodying bad writing. Unless their parody fails in the most abysmal way I dont see how it qualifies as bad prose. For writing to qualify as bad, terrible or 'worst' it should be unwittingly so.
I've got a system based round a highend turntable and why? Is it because I am an audiophile tosser?
No. Simply because it sounds fantastic. If music is reproduced as close to the original performance as possible, then the detail, and dynamics and passion that led to its creation can be felt more. I can lose myself in the music, feel it more, and that is after all why I listen to music, to feel, to live. If that makes me an audiophile tosser then thats what I am happy to be.
By the way, it aint just subjective poppycock like 'warmth' and 'roundness' that back me up. There are many reasons (based in science and logic) why vinyl is superior to CD.
Does this support their theory of panspermia ?
( http://www.wickramasinghe.freeserve.co.uk/ ) It doesn't seem so far fetched after reading this article......I think it could be integrated into their research.
I used a little poetic license....
The basics of Marx's arguments have been maintained and refined over time by carriers of the torch (!), most of what I wrote is based on my experience with the RCP in England...
The state I talk about has no leaders....power is not centralized...it is a stateless state..informed by the will of a true democracy
as for feudalism.... history is vast and complex....nothing happened across continents in a uniform way....but there are many examples of such struggles...
I believe that we can produce a surplus of every basic good now....food, clothing and shelter. Not many people would dispute this. I also believe that if we devoted our science and technology to solving the most pressing problems we could find solutions to these problems. Clean and unlimited energy. Industrial processes without pollution. etc..
There is absolutely no chance of this happening under capitalism. Capitalism has no interest in this...
and beyond food, clothing, shelter, energy, a clean environment...we will find ways to provide for the needs of people, whatever those needs may be.
Under capitalism we are told to believe that resources are finite...(it's an essential prop for it's arguements)
...I say, resources are infinite (but not under capitalism)!!!
I read the science journals....everyday something new that could fundamentally change the way we live, produce wealth is discovered. These discoveries are never harnessed until it can be proven that they will not threaten capitalism.
Think about the trillions of dollars wasted on arms...think about channeling this into productive sciences (yes, I know military science does feedback into our society, but its not an efficient method)..... I really believe that science can cure all our ills, and provide a standard of living which would be'sublime', and provide this for everyone. It would take time, but we could achieve this.
Most of the 'ills' of human nature that plague us would vanish. Where is the need for crime in a world where everything (and more) is provided? Such a world would put such a high value on education and art (yes art!) and openess that the pressures that lead to the distorted dysfunctional behaviour we all know, would no longer exist.
As for the comment that communism works only when the human factor is removed...well Yes and No....
The communist state would exist purely to help communication, resource allocation, production etc. The state wouldn't actually have any power or consciousness. It will only be a tool for the needs of society. So yes, there will be no human factor in the communist state. We will provide the human factor. The 'state' will provide the needs...the science to produce. We will provide the 'love' if you will, that makes life worth living.
What vision does capitalism have....NONE....look at Bush, the puppet rep. of the establishment...what vision does he have?....looks like he wants to start a mini cold war with Russia again...pollute the world, provide more for the already sated haves......capitalism has no ideology except to produce more capital...to feed itself.
My words may seem out of synch with the world, they may seem idealistic.....but they hold an argument that is persuasive. Unless like many, you have become resigned to the fact that the world will always underachieve and stumble on under the threat of ecological or nuclear disaster....
all the best, Guy
re someones comment "I've heard that from people defending the forced famines and purges in 1920's Russia, and the forced famines of the Great Leap Forward..." This isnt relevant to my argument as I stated that Russia (apart from the short time after the revolution) and China have nothing to do with communism. Just read a little Marxist 'theory' to see this as true. These tragedies were at the hands of fascist regimes...totalitarian control with no regard for humanity.
The transition from Capitalism to Communism is never going to be easy...
in the same way that the transition from slavery to the feudal system wasn't...or from the feudal system to capitalism wasn't...there was a lot of blood shed over a long time....
So far Communism has failed to take root anywhere in the world and this isn't surprising. Capitalism is a formidable opponent...it was a dynamic system which has benefitted mankind greatly. However, it's benefits nowadays are dubious to say the least. Our potential is constrained by a system which has no interest in improving our condition. Any benefits we get from capitalism are a by-product of its intent, which is to provide wealth only to the capitalist (or his shareholders etc)...this is very limiting. If the constraints of turning a profit were removed (and the REAL form of Communism were implemented) then development and progress would explode....wealth would be produced on such a scale that it would lose relevance as a concept.
But how to get there...? You mention the problem of power being abused. This is without doubt the biggest problem. Firstly, communism does not rely on a 'state mechanism' as we understand the term. The finished product is the 'stateless' state (transparent and without power) There has to be a transition between capitalism and this stateless state....the stepping stone is a temporary state which has some powers....it is essential to make sure this power isn't abused. This is where it has failed in the past. That is not to say it would fail again. Remember that Capitalism had a tremendous struggle. fighting against the reactionary system of royalty and feudalism. It won in the end because its arguments were so strong and progressive. These arguments have been supplanted by the stronger ones of its natural successor, Communism. Look at the arguments for Capitalism provided by Ayn Rand. She is a third rate philosopher and her ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. They are riddled with contradiction. Why are her arguments so successful?..because in her uncritical (blind) support of Capitalism she got the whole support of the Capitalist establishment. If this is the best that the modern day advocates of Capitalism have to offer then the ground beneath their feet is shakier than they know. The myths have to be dispelled.
We all know that Capitalisn doesn't work. Look at the Capitalist nations and see how life has improved in these last 50 years.....it hasnt. We are churning in neutral.
In a communist society this wouldn't be a problem. (I am talking about Communism as defined by K. Marx and not China, Russia etc, or the media machine of greedy mediocre capitalists.)
In communism the state is supposed to be transparent, not centralised and all powerful (this is Facism...the opposite end of the scale). It is a way of coordinating the balance of needs that society has.
The world is capable of producing near infinite wealth. We have the resources and science to do this. But we don't because it is at odds with the Capitalist system.
A Communist society would liberate us through production, research and development. Take away profit as a motive and the sky is the limit.....Remember, we have the ability to create so much wealth that the word 'wealth' would no longer have any meaning. Invention and discovery would be spurred by our thirst for knowledge and our thirst for progress. Far more noble reasons than profit.
Under Communism, Aids would never have become a problem. Education would have prevented its spread. If this had failed then we would have used our technology to invent the drugs neccessary to halt its spread and eventually to banish it.
all the best, Guy
p.s. Before you come back with remarks about the supposed nature of Communism (please dont mention Russia etc)I suggest that for the first time in your life you research it yourself.
If you think it's against human nature then think how this reflects your own nature and not the nature of others.
"The code could also be purchased by an unscrupulous company looking to make its applications work more smoothly with Microsoft's dominant operating systems"
Who is 'unscrupolous'?, the company trying to improve their software for the greater good of everyone? I think it is the company that won't reveal the source code...the company that has systematically crippled/sabotaged other companies by keeping their 'intellectual' secrets under wraps in an attempt to leverage themselves into any software based market they see fit to at the expense of others.
I think this quote basically sums up the whole open source/closed source debate.....
No article on battling robots is complete without a link to Survival Research Laboratories.
http://www.srl.org/
...random quote: "......such as the Finger, with its spinning-split titanium sphere, the Air Launcher, Christians pneumatic Claw, People Hater's Dual Picture Slamming Machines, etc. assaulted each other and whomever in the audience cared (or dared) to venture into the bulletproof plastic-covered parlor room. On the floor, a Swarmer with a spinning mummified dog head paraded about, as a mechanized survivalist hermit occasionally burst from his shack and sprayed the room with automatic gun fire, responding violently to disturbances such as the Rail Gun which showered his abode with molten metal....."
For a public forum supposedly composed of rational intelligent people I am often amazed at the complete naivety and complacency when it comes to politics and philosophy.
COMMUNISM
China, Korea, Cuba , Russia etc have nothing to do with Communism. They were NOT communist. Just because someone applies a name/label to their being does not mean they are actually what they claim to be.
All the above countries have adopted the label of Communism to further their own causes, whatever they may be.
COMMUNISM is a system which will...
completely liberate the worlds potential to create wealth for everyone. Capitalism does not create wealth in any real sense. Capitalism does not want to create wealth. It wants to create riches for those whom it serves and not the people of this world in general.....
You should know by now that the world is not becoming a better place to live in each year....in spite of the giant increases in knowledge we see. None of it gets applied to make the world a better place unless a capitalist can skim a profit from it....great system...
Communism wants to take knowledge and use it to produce wealth/produce based on the needs of the people.
You may all be laughing at what I write here, but I bet none of you have ever read up or studied or even considered questioning the capitalist view of communism.
The world has unlimited potential. It will never realise this potential under a system which rewards exploitation and negative practices, be these practices aimed at people, the environment or the suppression of questioning and reasoning......
Look at open-source...by no means a model of communism but it is very closely tied. It is the contribution of knowledge to create something for the people and by the people. Just think if this was applied to the world in general...
And if anyone says it is against human nature then I say that is a more an indication of your own nature than of human nature in general.
There is an irony here. Back in the 80's, record companies found a new way, thanks to the digitization of music on CD's to sell entire back catalogues of music again. How many millions have bought the Beatles, etc. re-releases on CD and the countless milk-it-till-bleeds box-sets...
These 'artists' cannot be held responsible for the greed of record companies as such, but did you hear of any artists complaining about this new increase in revenues via exploitation of their 'art'.......? No! And when you consider that CD quality sound is actually vastly inferior to its analogue counterpart (another story), you would have thought that the combination of exploitation of fans and the compromise in quality would have caused a few squeaks of discontentment from these artists...but no....silence prevailed...
...what goes around, comes around....
Now, that this digitization has led to the inevitably easy transfer of music on-line, they have a different perspective. Now that it doesnt serve these artists pockets anymore its....blah blah blah...its our very art and souls they are stealing.....
I do not condone the pirating of music. Every piece of music I ever liked, I ended up buying.
I also cannot condone the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the likes of Metallica , Dr Dre etc
...Metallica recently released a whole heap of drivel aka...classically backed re-recordings of their greatest hits....By symbolic protest I suggest that everyone download the whole recording and (echoing the Baptists 'revenge' against Lennons remark about being bigger than the Beatles) burn the whole recording with military strength erasing software.
>>I'd like to see a return of music to the days before the synthesizer took over...
This is a typically shortsighted argument.....and while we are burning our synthesisers lets get rid of all technologicy. After all, it's responsible for the decay of civilization (some would have us believe this). The fact is there was just as much garbage before the synthesiser 'took over'.... you just dont hear it anymore. Most bands who rely on their musicianship to sell their product have also been responsible for some of the biggest crimes against music.
Why do you mention Brittany Spears and the charts? Yes, it's depressing to listen to but mainly for the worrying fact that our future generation is being weened on it. You don't have to listen to it do you?
Look a little further, deeper and wider and you will find 1000's of examples of genius, fuelled by the Moog and its descendants...the scope is endless...witness.....
Kraftwerk (heavy use)
Can (sporadic use)
Pere Ubu (twined into the fabric)
When listening to the above three 'bands' you can can imagine the universe being endlessly dismantled and reassembled anyhow you like it.....the imagination and innovation make me believe (albeit temporarily) that 'Hey' the world may not be doomed.....
Synthesisers, samplers and sequencers are just tools to make music in the same way that guitar, drums and bass are tools. It all depends on how the 'artist' uses them....could be an abomination or revelation either way. In the end, its your choice what you listen to.
((I am responding to my previous near unintelligable post! (written in haste under stress!))
The wheel.....some things will be invented in due course. If not today, then tomorrow, or later. The same goes with game formats...I am sure most of the games Hasbro lay claim to would have been 'invented' at some point or other. I don't see how anyone can claim intellectual rights to something so trivial. They are not paradigm shifts or works of genius that came from the heavens..........
Pop/rock bands use the same song format and melodies over and over again (ad finitum ad nauseum)......if someone could prove they 'invented'this song structure would we expect them to sue the hell out of every band in the business? And the movie industry? ...the art world in general.....where do we stop?
If the world were to pool its resources together and use them to the best advantage of society the world would be cured of all its present inflictions..war, poverty disease etc.
This kind of news gives me little hope for change....insanity prevails
Logically.... I guess all the bands churning out a million verse chorus verse songs should be quaking too... This is insane.... The wheel would have been invented a million times if no-one had got round to it... The same with most games formats insane.......
Slashdot Mirror
First commerically available FPS? I nominate Phantom Slayer..1982
FIrst Person? Yes!
Shooter? Yes!
Spooky as well....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFxq0dZ49c
What if a 'drug' were discovered which allowed the alcohol intolerant to actually enjoy alcohol? Would this be morally questionable? The market would be huge and as we all know, the market is good at making the morally questionable, morally acceptable.
Rand wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness".....that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”
Also....Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968....
There's an even greater irony here in that she needed health care benefits >> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.
Non-capitalist? Maybe. But whatever you do want to call their earlier system, it wasnt socialist because the population had absolutely no say in the way their country was governed, which is the true hallmark of the socialist ideal.
At this time Russia was (and actually still is) governed by a self appointed, self-serving elite with no regard for the consequences of their policies on people or environment. . They weren't hell-bent on a glorious future for their subjects, only a glorious present for themselves. In this respect there wasn't much to seperate them from how the 'west' is governed nowadays.
"Google has the lead, but, if we're good at advertising, we'll compete with them in the consumer business."
Surely he means 'good at developing', or 'good at designing', but advertising!
The destruction of wetlands which would have largely minimized the extent of the damage, is one of the trragedies here. And why did this happen? Deregulation/opening up of these assets to corporations who want to develop them for profit....and nothing else. Libertarians never explain how this misuse of natural assets can be avoided. Without regulation of the environment there would be nothing left for these corporations to exploit, and America would resemble an ashtray.....
"You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"
Those with power can own the truth....this is what we call propaganda.
Be afraid, very afraid....
my head still rests on a sheet and mattress, also hotbeds of fungal spores.
What should I do?
Levitate whilst sleeping?
The competition's title should be changed to 'Best parody of bad literature'.
Most of the entries I have read are funny, and intentionally so because they are parodying bad writing. Unless their parody fails in the most abysmal way I dont see how it qualifies as bad prose. For writing to qualify as bad, terrible or 'worst' it should be unwittingly so.
I've got a system based round a highend turntable and why? Is it because I am an audiophile tosser?
No. Simply because it sounds fantastic. If music is reproduced as close to the original performance as possible, then the detail, and dynamics and passion that led to its creation can be felt more. I can lose myself in the music, feel it more, and that is after all why I listen to music, to feel, to live. If that makes me an audiophile tosser then thats what I am happy to be.
By the way, it aint just subjective poppycock like 'warmth' and 'roundness' that back me up.
There are many reasons (based in science and logic) why vinyl is superior to CD.
Regards
Does this support their theory of panspermia ?
( http://www.wickramasinghe.freeserve.co.uk/ ) It doesn't seem so far fetched after reading this article......I think it could be integrated into their research.
GN
ceci n'est pas une sig
I used a little poetic license....
.... history is vast and complex....nothing happened across continents in a uniform way....but there are many examples of such struggles...
The basics of Marx's arguments have been maintained and refined over time by carriers of the torch (!), most of what I wrote is based on my experience with the RCP in England...
The state I talk about has no leaders....power is not centralized...it is a stateless state..informed by the will of a true democracy
as for feudalism
all the best, Guy
I believe that we can produce a surplus of every basic good now....food, clothing and shelter. Not many people would dispute this. I also believe that if we devoted our science and technology to solving the most pressing problems we could find solutions to these problems. Clean and unlimited energy. Industrial processes without pollution. etc..
..... I really believe that science can cure all our ills, and provide a standard of living which would be'sublime', and provide this for everyone. It would take time, but we could achieve this.
There is absolutely no chance of this happening under capitalism. Capitalism has no interest in this...
and beyond food, clothing, shelter, energy, a clean environment...we will find ways to provide for the needs of people, whatever those needs may be.
Under capitalism we are told to believe that resources are finite...(it's an essential prop for it's arguements)
...I say, resources are infinite (but not under capitalism)!!!
I read the science journals....everyday something new that could fundamentally change the way we live, produce wealth is discovered. These discoveries are never harnessed until it can be proven that they will not threaten capitalism.
Think about the trillions of dollars wasted on arms...think about channeling this into productive sciences (yes, I know military science does feedback into our society, but its not an efficient method)
Most of the 'ills' of human nature that plague us would vanish. Where is the need for crime in a world where everything (and more) is provided? Such a world would put such a high value on education and art (yes art!) and openess that the pressures that lead to the distorted dysfunctional behaviour we all know, would no longer exist.
As for the comment that communism works only when the human factor is removed...well Yes and No....
The communist state would exist purely to help communication, resource allocation, production etc. The state wouldn't actually have any power or consciousness. It will only be a tool for the needs of society. So yes, there will be no human factor in the communist state. We will provide the human factor. The 'state' will provide the needs...the science to produce. We will provide the 'love' if you will, that makes life worth living.
What vision does capitalism have....NONE....look at Bush, the puppet rep. of the establishment...what vision does he have?....looks like he wants to start a mini cold war with Russia again...pollute the world, provide more for the already sated haves......capitalism has no ideology except to produce more capital...to feed itself.
My words may seem out of synch with the world, they may seem idealistic.....but they hold an argument that is persuasive. Unless like many, you have become resigned to the fact that the world will always underachieve and stumble on under the threat of ecological or nuclear disaster....
all the best, Guy
re someones comment "I've heard that from people defending the forced famines and purges in 1920's Russia, and the forced famines of the Great Leap Forward..." This isnt relevant to my argument as I stated that Russia (apart from the short time after the revolution) and China have nothing to do with communism. Just read a little Marxist 'theory' to see this as true. These tragedies were at the hands of fascist regimes...totalitarian control with no regard for humanity.
You make some valid points.
....the stepping stone is a temporary state which has some powers....it is essential to make sure this power isn't abused. This is where it has failed in the past. That is not to say it would fail again. Remember that Capitalism had a tremendous struggle. fighting against the reactionary system of royalty and feudalism. It won in the end because its arguments were so strong and progressive. These arguments have been supplanted by the stronger ones of its natural successor, Communism. Look at the arguments for Capitalism provided by Ayn Rand. She is a third rate philosopher and her ideas do not stand up to scrutiny. They are riddled with contradiction. Why are her arguments so successful?..because in her uncritical (blind) support of Capitalism she got the whole support of the Capitalist establishment. If this is the best that the modern day advocates of Capitalism have to offer then the ground beneath their feet is shakier than they know. The myths have to be dispelled.
The transition from Capitalism to Communism is never going to be easy...
in the same way that the transition from slavery to the feudal system wasn't...or from the feudal system to capitalism wasn't...there was a lot of blood shed over a long time....
So far Communism has failed to take root anywhere in the world and this isn't surprising. Capitalism is a formidable opponent...it was a dynamic system which has benefitted mankind greatly. However, it's benefits nowadays are dubious to say the least. Our potential is constrained by a system which has no interest in improving our condition. Any benefits we get from capitalism are a by-product of its intent, which is to provide wealth only to the capitalist (or his shareholders etc)...this is very limiting. If the constraints of turning a profit were removed (and the REAL form of Communism were implemented) then development and progress would explode....wealth would be produced on such a scale that it would lose relevance as a concept.
But how to get there...? You mention the problem of power being abused. This is without doubt the biggest problem. Firstly, communism does not rely on a 'state mechanism' as we understand the term. The finished product is the 'stateless' state (transparent and without power) There has to be a transition between capitalism and this stateless state
...all the best, Guy
What the hell does Cuba have to do with communism?
It has absolutely nothing in common with the basic tenets of communism.
It is NOT communist!
100 years of propaganda......100 years of sheep
all the best, Guy
p.s. same goes for Russia, China, Vietnam etc
We all know that Capitalisn doesn't work. Look at the Capitalist nations and see how life has improved in these last 50 years.....it hasnt. We are churning in neutral.
In a communist society this wouldn't be a problem. (I am talking about Communism as defined by K. Marx and not China, Russia etc, or the media machine of greedy mediocre capitalists.)
In communism the state is supposed to be transparent, not centralised and all powerful (this is Facism...the opposite end of the scale). It is a way of coordinating the balance of needs that society has.
The world is capable of producing near infinite wealth. We have the resources and science to do this. But we don't because it is at odds with the Capitalist system.
A Communist society would liberate us through production, research and development. Take away profit as a motive and the sky is the limit.....Remember, we have the ability to create so much wealth that the word 'wealth' would no longer have any meaning. Invention and discovery would be spurred by our thirst for knowledge and our thirst for progress. Far more noble reasons than profit.
Under Communism, Aids would never have become a problem. Education would have prevented its spread. If this had failed then we would have used our technology to invent the drugs neccessary to halt its spread and eventually to banish it.
all the best, Guy
p.s. Before you come back with remarks about the supposed nature of Communism (please dont mention Russia etc)I suggest that for the first time in your life you research it yourself.
If you think it's against human nature then think how this reflects your own nature and not the nature of others.
.....eat the phone.....
This quote taken from the Yahoo coverage..
"The code could also be purchased by an unscrupulous company looking to make its applications work more smoothly with Microsoft's dominant operating systems"
Who is 'unscrupolous'?, the company trying to improve their software for the greater good of everyone? I think it is the company that won't reveal the source code...the company that has systematically crippled/sabotaged other companies by keeping their 'intellectual' secrets under wraps in an attempt to leverage themselves into any software based market they see fit to at the expense of others.
I think this quote basically sums up the whole open source/closed source debate.....
Guy
No article on battling robots is complete without a link to Survival Research Laboratories.
http://www.srl.org/
...random quote: "......such as the Finger, with its spinning-split titanium sphere, the Air Launcher, Christians pneumatic Claw, People Hater's Dual Picture Slamming Machines, etc. assaulted each other and whomever in the audience cared (or dared) to venture into the bulletproof plastic-covered parlor room. On the floor, a Swarmer with a spinning mummified dog head paraded about, as a mechanized survivalist hermit occasionally burst from his shack and sprayed the room with automatic gun fire, responding violently to disturbances such as the Rail Gun which showered his abode with molten metal....."
Scary/Inspired/Insane/Cute
all the best, Guy
Dear all,
For a public forum supposedly composed of rational intelligent people I am often amazed at the complete naivety and complacency when it comes to politics and philosophy.
COMMUNISM
China, Korea, Cuba , Russia etc have nothing to do with Communism. They were NOT communist. Just because someone applies a name/label to their being does not mean they are actually what they claim to be.
All the above countries have adopted the label of Communism to further their own causes, whatever they may be.
COMMUNISM is a system which will...
completely liberate the worlds potential to create wealth for everyone. Capitalism does not create wealth in any real sense. Capitalism does not want to create wealth. It wants to create riches for those whom it serves and not the people of this world in general.....
You should know by now that the world is not becoming a better place to live in each year....in spite of the giant increases in knowledge we see. None of it gets applied to make the world a better place unless a capitalist can skim a profit from it....great system...
Communism wants to take knowledge and use it to produce wealth/produce based on the needs of the people.
You may all be laughing at what I write here, but I bet none of you have ever read up or studied or even considered questioning the capitalist view of communism.
The world has unlimited potential. It will never realise this potential under a system which rewards exploitation and negative practices, be these practices aimed at people, the environment or the suppression of questioning and reasoning......
Look at open-source...by no means a model of communism but it is very closely tied. It is the contribution of knowledge to create something for the people and by the people. Just think if this was applied to the world in general...
And if anyone says it is against human nature then I say that is a more an indication of your own nature than of human nature in general.
all the best, Guy
Have any members of Metallica ever owned an illegal recording of someone elses music...?
Tape/bootleg/CD etc
There is an irony here. Back in the 80's, record companies found a new way, thanks to the digitization of music on CD's to sell entire back catalogues of music again. How many millions have bought the Beatles, etc. re-releases on CD and the countless milk-it-till-bleeds box-sets...
These 'artists' cannot be held responsible for the greed of record companies as such, but did you hear of any artists complaining about this new increase in revenues via exploitation of their 'art'.......? No!
And when you consider that CD quality sound is actually vastly inferior to its analogue counterpart (another story), you would have thought that the combination of exploitation of fans and the compromise in quality would have caused a few squeaks of discontentment from these artists...but no....silence prevailed...
...what goes around, comes around....
Now, that this digitization has led to the inevitably easy transfer of music on-line, they have a different perspective. Now that it doesnt serve these artists pockets anymore its....blah blah blah...its our very art and souls they are stealing.....
I do not condone the pirating of music. Every piece of music I ever liked, I ended up buying.
I also cannot condone the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the likes of Metallica , Dr Dre etc
...Metallica recently released a whole heap of drivel aka...classically backed re-recordings of their greatest hits....By symbolic protest I suggest that everyone download the whole recording and (echoing the Baptists 'revenge' against Lennons remark about being bigger than the Beatles) burn the whole recording with military strength erasing software.
sincerely, Guy
>>I'd like to see a return of music to the days before the synthesizer took over...
This is a typically shortsighted argument.....and while we are burning our synthesisers lets get rid of all technologicy. After all, it's responsible for the decay of civilization (some would have us believe this). The fact is there was just as much garbage before the synthesiser 'took over'.... you just dont hear it anymore. Most bands who rely on their musicianship to sell their product have also been responsible for some of the biggest crimes against music.
Why do you mention Brittany Spears and the charts? Yes, it's depressing to listen to but mainly for the worrying fact that our future generation is being weened on it. You don't have to listen to it do you?
Look a little further, deeper and wider and you will find 1000's of examples of genius, fuelled by the Moog and its descendants...the scope is endless...witness.....
Kraftwerk (heavy use)
Can (sporadic use)
Pere Ubu (twined into the fabric)
When listening to the above three 'bands' you can can imagine the universe being endlessly dismantled and reassembled anyhow you like it.....the imagination and innovation make me believe (albeit temporarily) that 'Hey' the world may not be doomed.....
Synthesisers, samplers and sequencers are just tools to make music in the same way that guitar, drums and bass are tools. It all depends on how the 'artist' uses them....could be an abomination or revelation either way. In the end, its your choice what you listen to.
((I am responding to my previous near unintelligable post! (written in haste under stress!))
The wheel.....some things will be invented in due course. If not today, then tomorrow, or later.
The same goes with game formats...I am sure most of the games Hasbro lay claim to would have been 'invented' at some point or other. I don't see how anyone can claim intellectual rights to something so trivial. They are not paradigm shifts or works of genius that came from the heavens..........
Pop/rock bands use the same song format and melodies over and over again (ad finitum ad nauseum)......if someone could prove they 'invented'this song structure would we expect them to sue the hell out of every band in the business?
And the movie industry?
...the art world in general.....where do we stop?
If the world were to pool its resources together and use them to the best advantage of society the world would be cured of all its present inflictions..war, poverty disease etc.
This kind of news gives me little hope for change....insanity prevails
Mean-spiriteness and mediocrity reign supreme
sigh........................
Logically.... I guess all the bands churning out a million verse chorus verse songs should be quaking too... This is insane.... The wheel would have been invented a million times if no-one had got round to it... The same with most games formats insane.......