I think it's safe to say that a Democratic president would have done the same thing eventually.
I'm all for tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee political analysis (as a Californian, I was allowed to vote tactically Nader, but I voted for Brown instead, Jerry Brown...), but Key-Rist!, you're well off the mark here. Wasn't a recent Democratic President's DoJ pursuing MS all the way to OS-side and App-side dismemberment? Right, that wobbly centrist, tech-sector lovin', high-finance pandering, WJ Clinton.
And if it weren't for Presidential Term limits, it still woulda been Clinton's DoJ biting at MS's heels.
To paraphrase Orwell (Animal Farm), "they're all corrupt, but some are more corrupt than others."
So, you wouldn't even know who did it. As this is very public research, has the US army something better or have they not realized the potential of it?
I hope it is the latter.
Unless you're an IT guy for some tinpot dictator with a hard-on for the US, I think you meant to type 'former.'
That's not really a subsidy. That's those other countries in essence paying for private charter service for their citizens.
Those other countries might be better served if they kept their money and gave it to enterprising locals interested in developing 'private charter services' for their own citizens. That way profit and capital stays in country, where it can do the most good.
Kinda like how the USA managed its own industrial revolution and capital accumulation.
Actually, there are (at the moment) some 27 amendments to the United States Bill of Rights.
Er, that's 27 Amendments to the Constitution as a whole.
"Bill of Rights" refers to the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution (and to those Ten alone), ratified a few years after ratification of the Constitution itself.
Why try hard when, the better you do improving your products, leading to more profits, they're taken by a government lead by politicians riding to power blathering nonsense to "the people" about how evil you are?
Because you can still make more money by trying harder. More is more (even if it is less more than CEOs might like).
Some 'Facts': 1. IIRC, the corps paid 'their fair share' (whatever) back in the 1950s. Wasn't that the USofA's Golden Age (economically & hegemonically speaking)? 2. Aren't regulated electric utilities (regulations = profit ceilings) nevertheless healthy & profitable, still better than free market utilities at providing juice, and the more generous funders of the industry's R&D institution (the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI) ?
Dumbfuck AC writes: You look like an idiot point to CA as "power deregulation." It most certainly wasn't.
It most certainly was 'power De-regulation.' The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulated all aspects of electricity generation in Cali before DeReg, including price. After DeReg, much less control from the PUC (including price). From a highly regulated environment (State-sponsored Monopoly subject to oversight) to the less regulated environment now (retail rates, service guarnatees via the ISO, etc) qualifies as 'De-regulation.'
I'll try to head few counter-claims off at the pass...
The canard about artificially low retail rates and naturally high wholesale prices is exactly that, a canard. The high wholesale prices are a result of market manipulation by a handful of the largest players. The retail price 'cap' was originally a price 'floor' intended to guarantee the Utilities a pre-determined rate of profit for a pre-determined period. Power supply in the west was way Way WAY beyond demand for the last fifteen years (one of the reasons the De-Reg plan was hatched). The so-called energy supply crisis is way over-blown and mostly the result of plants (in California, but owned by out of state operators -- another result of De-Reg), being taken off line for maintnenace at inopportune times. One aspect of De-Reg not often commented on: In the Past, Utilities had to ask the PUC before taking a plant offline. The PUC could then coordinate maintnenace and maintain capacity across the system. After De-Reg, maintenance scheduling was left up to the market players. An interesting effect of the DeReg has been the increasingly rigorous maintenance schedule of Cali based power plants.
If you want to define De-Regulation as No Fucking Rules at all (or whatever..), go right ahead. I'm curious how it might work. Just try to pull your head out of your ass long enough to get the names and numbers right.
Like I said, eventually you Libertarians will wise up. In the context of the start of my post, that means y'all get the idea that we need Govmint. How we put that Govmint together is a matter of considerable (and ongoing) debate. I'm pretty convinced that the Libertarian model of extremely limited Govmint is silly. That doesn't make me a fan of Total Govmint, nor does it make me a Slave.
As to the meaning of that statement after it's been modified by the Mob Rule comment that closes the post, well thanks for re-stating clumsily what I only implied! Of course, you silly Libertarians never seem to spot the relationship between Mob Rule and your valorization of the Free Market.
As to the Monkeys, if I recall from Grade School History, the really successful ones figured out to effectively organize themselves. With Government.
You said: So here is the reason that privacy is always a greater issue between the State and citizen, and between citizens or groups of citizens(including corps): the State can use force. Citizens can't. Isn't that distinction quite clear?
Yeah, that's pretty clear. See it from a lot of the Ayn Rand crowd (I have no idea where you fit in with respect to Libertarianism...).Maybe We the People who give the state its authority and power to kill oughta do something about that?
Might that be a good way to solve the problem? Then we can have a State and eat it too!
Pretty clever bit. I'm not sure how much is yours and how much is PJ O'Rourke's, but whatever...You get a little slippery here... As for corporations, as long as they stay within the law, and are not using the power of the gun against me (which the government is), they can be as greedy and corrupt as they like.
Where do corporate charters come from? That's right, State Governments (who have pretty much the same power to kill as the Feds do). So your Corp owes its very existence to the Guvmint's power to kill. Your other two stipulations are awfully telling, too: The Law -- well that's the Guvmint, and of course, Corps will always go for the gun when they think their interests are seriously threatened. (Don't pay your credit card bill -- just be sure to run up the bill high enough so they'll consider it fraud -- get thrown in jail, try to escape, get shot...Same deal you described re taxes.)
Eventually you Libertarian's will wise up. Not that it matters; the rest of us poor dumb non-libertarians got you out-numbered a coupla hundred to one. But at least you'll be able to remind yourself its better to be right than it is to win!
It's a lot closer than you think. In fact as close as your nearest public library, or public school. Not much further from there to your apartment.
Here's an idea: Why not fund highspeed access to the libraries/schools, and let them sell service the rest of the way. That way, they get money, the rest of us get cheap, reliable broadband access.
Where do you think "Rights" come from (whichever "Rights" you seem to think are legitimate in contrast with the illegitimate rights to broadband/internet rights)?
Well?
God? The ether? Nature? Tradition? Old pieces of parchment?
Try this: "Rights" are "Rights" when enough people decide they are.
So how about we take a look at the possibility/desirability of making broadband/internet access a "Right" instead of bleating about what is and isn't?
If I owned a juice plant, Id tell California to stick it and enjoy the dark.
Which is why Utilities were originally setup as publicly regulated, privately held monopolies. I woulda skipped this De-Reg nonsense (cause it guarantees service providers will have an attitude like that exhibited above), reformed the old PUC way of doing things, and I'd tell the juice plant owner: If you want access to the nation's (and the world's) most lucrative market, you gotta learn some ground rules (and some manners) first.
Yer right, the incident 'means' neither. But we're talking people, politics and money here and the 'meaning' of the thing is not necessarily one derived from 'objective facts.' And the solution we probably end up with (more traditional power plants) may not be the best solution ('alternative' power plants).
I say get out there and take advantage of the incident to advocate for the better solution.
Just don't bet that the other side's advocacy won't swamp yours (under Nuke waste sludge and bilious coal-fired clouds...)
Not sure the figure given in the second point (US$250/MW) is accurate: The LA Times reported this morning that CAL-ISO (California Independent System Operator, the wholesaler or market-maker) was trying to purchase juice from a BC hydro-plant at US$1000/MW, 4x normal price. The BC plant refused to sell to Cal-ISO because CAL-ISO had reached it's credit limit with the company(!!). San Diego Edison (?) stepped in and made the purchase (at US$1000/MW) for the system as a whole, thus averting rolling blackouts.
BTW: Edison (and PG&E, et al) have been eating the difference between what they pay to buy power from Cal-ISO and what consumers are willing to pay, enforced by governmental authorities in the form rate-caps. These rate-caps are basically those instituted as part of the transition to a de-regulated market. Edison claims US$3 Billion is owed it as result of the difference (and only since last summer!).
As I ranted to my pair-bond last night (as we walked the (still) well-lit sidewalks of Long Beach, CA -- part of the de-regulated market)): How's it possible that here in the richest region, of the richest state, of the wealthiest nation in the history of the fscking world we're ducking our heads and waiting for a Rolling Blackout? This may be SOP for the Third & Second world, esp those places that haven't fully tossed off the chains of Socialism, but this ain't fscking Havana! If the Free-market can't deliver the goods, what's it good for?
Face it: Cali De-regulation hasn't worked thus far. However, Socialist power up in Los Angeles (via a municipal utility, the DWP) has been awfully successful: Their rates are due to go down 10% next year, and they've made a killing selling excess juice to CAL-ISO, so much in fact they'll be able to replace a real dirty coal-fired plant in Nevada with alternatives (NG) much sooner than planned.
Of course, we all know the free-market is not doing well in this case because it isn't free-market enough...
..." In fact, these projects use strong central control, which is crucial to their success."
This sentiment seems to be frequently on Timothy's mind. A while back, he gave us this topic: Peter Wayner on the Spread of Information , along with this comment: "Complexity seems to demand individual autonomy, doesn't it?"
My reply is the same:
Complex systems require control at a more fundamental level.
Clipped the long quote below from an essay by John Zerzan, http://www.furious.com/perfect/zerzan.html , while seeking out a discussion of T. Adorno indirectly on the subject of complexity and autonomy. Adorno is a dead Western Marxist (Frankfurt School, ie lots of cultural criticism...). Discovering a Zerzan essay on the topic was a happy accident.
Some talk about the composer Schoenberg's experiments with atonality (ie musical notes freed from the dominating center - the harmonic scale) in order to better express the 'Modern' individual's alienation followed by...
"By the early 1920s he had given up the systemless radicalism of atonality: not a single "free" note survived. In the absence of a tonal center he inserted the totally rule-governed 32-tone set, which, as Adorno judged, "virtually extinguishes the subject." Dodecaphony, or serialism as it is also called, constituted a new compliance in the place of tonality, corresponding to a new phase of increasingly systematized industrialism introduced with World War I. Schoenberg forged new laws to control what was liberated by the old tonal rules of resolution, new laws that guarantee a more complete circulation among all twelve pitches and may be said to speak to capital's growing need for improved recirculation. Serial technique is a kind of total integration in which movement is strictly controlled, as in a bureaucratically enforced mode. Its conceptual drawback for the dominant order is that while greater circulation is achieved via its new standardized demands (none of the tones is to be repeated before the other eleven have been heard), the concentrated control actually allows for very little production. This is seen most clearly in the extreme understatement and brevity in much of the work of Webern, Schoenberg's most successful disciple; at times there are as many pauses as notes, while the second of Webern's early Three Pieces for Cello and Piano, for example, lasts only thirteen seconds.
The old harmonic system and its major/minor key points of reference provided easily understood places of departure and destination. Serialism accords equal use to each more, making any chord feasible: this conveys . a somewhat homeless, fragmentary sense, suitable to an age of more diffuse, traditionless domination."
Zerzan continues on, of course, but this is a good place to stop.
What looks like autonomy (equality, homelessness, fragmentation, traditionlessness) on the part of individual notes is actually the result of a heightened system of control.
It seems to, but it doesn't. Complex systems require control at a more fundamental level.
Clipped the long quote below from an essay by John Zerzan, http://www.furious.com/perfect/zerzan, while seeking out a discussion of T. Adorno indirectly on the subject of complexity and autonomy. Adorno is a dead Western Marxist (Frankfurt School, ie lots of cultural criticism...). Discovering a Zerzan essay on the topic was a happy accident.
Some talk about the composer Schoenberg's experiments with atonality (ie musical notes freed from the dominating center - the harmonic scale) in order to better express the 'Modern' individual's alienation followed by...
"By the early 1920s he had given up the systemless radicalism of atonality: not a single "free" note survived. In the absence of a tonal center he inserted the totally rule-governed 32-tone set, which, as Adorno judged, "virtually extinguishes the subject." Dodecaphony, or serialism as it is also called, constituted a new compliance in the place of tonality, corresponding to a new phase of increasingly systematized industrialism introduced with World War I. Schoenberg forged new laws to control what was liberated by the old tonal rules of resolution, new laws that guarantee a more complete circulation among all twelve pitches and may be said to speak to capital's growing need for improved recirculation. Serial technique is a kind of total integration in which movement is strictly controlled, as in a bureaucratically enforced mode. Its conceptual drawback for the dominant order is that while greater circulation is achieved via its new standardized demands (none of the tones is to be repeated before the other eleven have been heard), the concentrated control actually allows for very little production. This is seen most clearly in the extreme understatement and brevity in much of the work of Webern, Schoenberg's most successful disciple; at times there are as many pauses as notes, while the second of Webern's early Three Pieces for Cello and Piano, for example, lasts only thirteen seconds.
The old harmonic system and its major/minor key points of reference provided easily understood places of departure and destination. Serialism accords equal use to each more, making any chord feasible: this conveys . a somewhat homeless, fragmentary sense, suitable to an age of more diffuse, traditionless domination."
Zerzan continues on, of course, but this is a good place to stop.
What looks like autonomy (equality, homelessness, fragmentation, traditionlessness) on the part of individual notes is actually the result of a heightened system of control.
If I knew how to make the link above pretty, I would have done so.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to say that a Democratic president would have done the same thing eventually.
I'm all for tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee political analysis (as a Californian, I was allowed to vote tactically Nader, but I voted for Brown instead, Jerry Brown...), but Key-Rist!, you're well off the mark here. Wasn't a recent Democratic President's DoJ pursuing MS all the way to OS-side and App-side dismemberment? Right, that wobbly centrist, tech-sector lovin', high-finance pandering, WJ Clinton.
And if it weren't for Presidential Term limits, it still woulda been Clinton's DoJ biting at MS's heels.
To paraphrase Orwell (Animal Farm), "they're all corrupt, but some are more corrupt than others."
EC
So, you wouldn't even know who did it. As this is very public research, has the US army something better or have they not realized the potential of it?
I hope it is the latter.
Unless you're an IT guy for some tinpot dictator with a hard-on for the US, I think you meant to type 'former.'
Didn't you?
Time to play that time honored American game: Who you gonna blame?
I blame this on the IT guys, just like I blame them for everything else.
EC
That's not really a subsidy. That's those other countries in essence paying for private charter service for their citizens.
Those other countries might be better served if they kept their money and gave it to enterprising locals interested in developing 'private charter services' for their own citizens. That way profit and capital stays in country, where it can do the most good.
Kinda like how the USA managed its own industrial revolution and capital accumulation.
EC
Actually, there are (at the moment) some 27 amendments to the United States Bill of Rights.
Er, that's 27 Amendments to the Constitution as a whole.
"Bill of Rights" refers to the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution (and to those Ten alone), ratified a few years after ratification of the Constitution itself.
EC
Why try hard when, the better you do improving your products, leading to more profits, they're taken by a government lead by politicians riding to power blathering nonsense to "the people" about how evil you are?
Because you can still make more money by trying harder. More is more (even if it is less more than CEOs might like).
Some 'Facts': 1. IIRC, the corps paid 'their fair share' (whatever) back in the 1950s. Wasn't that the USofA's Golden Age (economically & hegemonically speaking)? 2. Aren't regulated electric utilities (regulations = profit ceilings) nevertheless healthy & profitable, still better than free market utilities at providing juice, and the more generous funders of the industry's R&D institution (the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI) ?
EC
Dumbfuck AC writes:
You look like an idiot point to CA as "power deregulation." It most certainly wasn't.
It most certainly was 'power De-regulation.' The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulated all aspects of electricity generation in Cali before DeReg, including price. After DeReg, much less control from the PUC (including price). From a highly regulated environment (State-sponsored Monopoly subject to oversight) to the less regulated environment now (retail rates, service guarnatees via the ISO, etc) qualifies as 'De-regulation.'
I'll try to head few counter-claims off at the pass...
The canard about artificially low retail rates and naturally high wholesale prices is exactly that, a canard. The high wholesale prices are a result of market manipulation by a handful of the largest players. The retail price 'cap' was originally a price 'floor' intended to guarantee the Utilities a pre-determined rate of profit for a pre-determined period. Power supply in the west was way Way WAY beyond demand for the last fifteen years (one of the reasons the De-Reg plan was hatched). The so-called energy supply crisis is way over-blown and mostly the result of plants (in California, but owned by out of state operators -- another result of De-Reg), being taken off line for maintnenace at inopportune times. One aspect of De-Reg not often commented on: In the Past, Utilities had to ask the PUC before taking a plant offline. The PUC could then coordinate maintnenace and maintain capacity across the system. After De-Reg, maintenance scheduling was left up to the market players. An interesting effect of the DeReg has been the increasingly rigorous maintenance schedule of Cali based power plants.
If you want to define De-Regulation as No Fucking Rules at all (or whatever..), go right ahead. I'm curious how it might work. Just try to pull your head out of your ass long enough to get the names and numbers right.
EC
Hey AC!
Like I said, eventually you Libertarians will wise up. In the context of the start of my post, that means y'all get the idea that we need Govmint. How we put that Govmint together is a matter of considerable (and ongoing) debate. I'm pretty convinced that the Libertarian model of extremely limited Govmint is silly. That doesn't make me a fan of Total Govmint, nor does it make me a Slave.
As to the meaning of that statement after it's been modified by the Mob Rule comment that closes the post, well thanks for re-stating clumsily what I only implied! Of course, you silly Libertarians never seem to spot the relationship between Mob Rule and your valorization of the Free Market.
As to the Monkeys, if I recall from Grade School History, the really successful ones figured out to effectively organize themselves. With Government.
SL
Hey Wreck!
You said:
So here is the reason that privacy is always a greater issue between the State and citizen, and between citizens or groups of citizens(including corps): the State can use force. Citizens can't. Isn't that distinction quite clear?
Yeah, that's pretty clear. See it from a lot of the Ayn Rand crowd (I have no idea where you fit in with respect to Libertarianism...).Maybe We the People who give the state its authority and power to kill oughta do something about that?
Might that be a good way to solve the problem? Then we can have a State and eat it too!
EC
Hey Golias!
Pretty clever bit. I'm not sure how much is yours and how much is PJ O'Rourke's, but whatever...You get a little slippery here...
As for corporations, as long as they stay within the law, and are not using the power of the gun against me (which the government is), they can be as greedy and corrupt as they like.
Where do corporate charters come from? That's right, State Governments (who have pretty much the same power to kill as the Feds do). So your Corp owes its very existence to the Guvmint's power to kill. Your other two stipulations are awfully telling, too: The Law -- well that's the Guvmint, and of course, Corps will always go for the gun when they think their interests are seriously threatened. (Don't pay your credit card bill -- just be sure to run up the bill high enough so they'll consider it fraud -- get thrown in jail, try to escape, get shot...Same deal you described re taxes.)
Eventually you Libertarian's will wise up. Not that it matters; the rest of us poor dumb non-libertarians got you out-numbered a coupla hundred to one. But at least you'll be able to remind yourself its better to be right than it is to win!
EC
Hey AC:
It's a lot closer than you think. In fact as close as your nearest public library, or public school. Not much further from there to your apartment.
Here's an idea: Why not fund highspeed access to the libraries/schools, and let them sell service the rest of the way. That way, they get money, the rest of us get cheap, reliable broadband access.
Not a right, but getting there.
EC
You dope.
Where do you think "Rights" come from (whichever "Rights" you seem to think are legitimate in contrast with the illegitimate rights to broadband/internet rights)?
Well?
God? The ether? Nature? Tradition? Old pieces of parchment?
Try this: "Rights" are "Rights" when enough people decide they are.
So how about we take a look at the possibility/desirability of making broadband/internet access a "Right" instead of bleating about what is and isn't?
EC
Hey Ray-
.sig (if you don't mind...).
Your alt. names are okay, but I just wanted to point out a flaw in your
Air conditioners work fine when windows are open, they just don't work well. So:
Computers are like air conditioners; they don't work well with Windows open.
EC
If I owned a juice plant, Id tell California to stick it and enjoy the dark.
Which is why Utilities were originally setup as publicly regulated, privately held monopolies. I woulda skipped this De-Reg nonsense (cause it guarantees service providers will have an attitude like that exhibited above), reformed the old PUC way of doing things, and I'd tell the juice plant owner: If you want access to the nation's (and the world's) most lucrative market, you gotta learn some ground rules (and some manners) first.
EC
You may never see this...
m l
Good history and overview of Cali De-reg, plus a little on the LA-DWP (LA's municipally owned utility):
www.latimes.com/news/front/20001209/t000117859.ht
From today's LA Times
EC
Yer right, the incident 'means' neither. But we're talking people, politics and money here and the 'meaning' of the thing is not necessarily one derived from 'objective facts.' And the solution we probably end up with (more traditional power plants) may not be the best solution ('alternative' power plants).
I say get out there and take advantage of the incident to advocate for the better solution.
Just don't bet that the other side's advocacy won't swamp yours (under Nuke waste sludge and bilious coal-fired clouds...)
EC
Not sure the figure given in the second point (US$250/MW) is accurate: The LA Times reported this morning that CAL-ISO (California Independent System Operator, the wholesaler or market-maker) was trying to purchase juice from a BC hydro-plant at US$1000/MW, 4x normal price. The BC plant refused to sell to Cal-ISO because CAL-ISO had reached it's credit limit with the company(!!). San Diego Edison (?) stepped in and made the purchase (at US$1000/MW) for the system as a whole, thus averting rolling blackouts.
BTW: Edison (and PG&E, et al) have been eating the difference between what they pay to buy power from Cal-ISO and what consumers are willing to pay, enforced by governmental authorities in the form rate-caps. These rate-caps are basically those instituted as part of the transition to a de-regulated market. Edison claims US$3 Billion is owed it as result of the difference (and only since last summer!).
As I ranted to my pair-bond last night (as we walked the (still) well-lit sidewalks of Long Beach, CA -- part of the de-regulated market)): How's it possible that here in the richest region, of the richest state, of the wealthiest nation in the history of the fscking world we're ducking our heads and waiting for a Rolling Blackout? This may be SOP for the Third & Second world, esp those places that haven't fully tossed off the chains of Socialism, but this ain't fscking Havana! If the Free-market can't deliver the goods, what's it good for?
Face it: Cali De-regulation hasn't worked thus far. However, Socialist power up in Los Angeles (via a municipal utility, the DWP) has been awfully successful: Their rates are due to go down 10% next year, and they've made a killing selling excess juice to CAL-ISO, so much in fact they'll be able to replace a real dirty coal-fired plant in Nevada with alternatives (NG) much sooner than planned.
Of course, we all know the free-market is not doing well in this case because it isn't free-market enough...
EC
...because it's good to remember that good soldiers Adapt and Overcome.
EC
...And now (soon?) that digital sigs are real sigs...
It absolutely, positively was you that sent the incriminating email.
EC
..." In fact, these projects use strong central control, which is crucial to their success."
This sentiment seems to be frequently on Timothy's mind. A while back, he gave us this topic: Peter Wayner on the Spread of Information , along with this comment: "Complexity seems to demand individual autonomy, doesn't it?"
My reply is the same:
Complex systems require control at a more fundamental level.
Clipped the long quote below from an essay by John Zerzan, http://www.furious.com/perfect/zerzan.html , while seeking out a discussion of T. Adorno indirectly on the subject of complexity and autonomy. Adorno is a dead Western Marxist (Frankfurt School, ie lots of cultural criticism...). Discovering a Zerzan essay on the topic was a happy accident.
Some talk about the composer Schoenberg's experiments with atonality (ie musical notes freed from the dominating center - the harmonic scale) in order to better express the 'Modern' individual's alienation followed by...
"By the early 1920s he had given up the systemless radicalism of atonality: not a single "free" note survived. In the absence of a tonal center he inserted the totally rule-governed 32-tone set, which, as Adorno judged, "virtually extinguishes the subject." Dodecaphony, or serialism as it is also called, constituted a new compliance in the place of tonality, corresponding to a new phase of increasingly systematized industrialism introduced with World War I. Schoenberg forged new laws to control what was liberated by the old tonal rules of resolution, new laws that guarantee a more complete circulation among all twelve pitches and may be said to speak to capital's growing need for improved recirculation. Serial technique is a kind of total integration in which movement is strictly controlled, as in a bureaucratically enforced mode. Its conceptual drawback for the dominant order is that while greater circulation is achieved via its new standardized demands (none of the tones is to be repeated before the other eleven have been heard), the concentrated control actually allows for very little production. This is seen most clearly in the extreme understatement and brevity in much of the work of Webern, Schoenberg's most successful disciple; at times there are as many pauses as notes, while the second of Webern's early Three Pieces for Cello and Piano, for example, lasts only thirteen seconds.
The old harmonic system and its major/minor key points of reference provided easily understood places of departure and destination. Serialism accords equal use to each more, making any chord feasible: this conveys . a somewhat homeless, fragmentary sense, suitable to an age of more diffuse, traditionless domination."
Zerzan continues on, of course, but this is a good place to stop.
What looks like autonomy (equality, homelessness, fragmentation, traditionlessness) on the part of individual notes is actually the result of a heightened system of control.
EC
This arrives to you (and all) kinda late. We still own the airwaves; Licenses to use same are what's for sale.
.gov doc inclined).
Here's the relevant link at the FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/cib/handbook.html#mmb
The rest of the FCC's site is sweet, too (if one is
-EC
Not only was it not pretty, I left a part of it behind... http://www.furious.com/perfect/zerzan.ht ml
-EC
This comes a little late in the game, but...
Regarding Timothy's comment: "Complexity seems to demand individual autonomy, doesn't it?"
It seems to, but it doesn't. Complex systems require control at a more fundamental level.
Clipped the long quote below from an essay by John Zerzan, http://www.furious.com/perfect/zerzan, while seeking out a discussion of T. Adorno indirectly on the subject of complexity and autonomy. Adorno is a dead Western Marxist (Frankfurt School, ie lots of cultural criticism...). Discovering a Zerzan essay on the topic was a happy accident.
Some talk about the composer Schoenberg's experiments with atonality (ie musical notes freed from the dominating center - the harmonic scale) in order to better express the 'Modern' individual's alienation followed by...
"By the early 1920s he had given up the systemless radicalism of atonality: not a single "free" note survived. In the absence of a tonal center he inserted the totally rule-governed 32-tone set, which, as Adorno judged, "virtually extinguishes the subject." Dodecaphony, or serialism as it is also called, constituted a new compliance in the place of tonality, corresponding to a new phase of increasingly systematized industrialism introduced with World War I. Schoenberg forged new laws to control what was liberated by the old tonal rules of resolution, new laws that guarantee a more complete circulation among all twelve pitches and may be said to speak to capital's growing need for improved recirculation. Serial technique is a kind of total integration in which movement is strictly controlled, as in a bureaucratically enforced mode. Its conceptual drawback for the dominant order is that while greater circulation is achieved via its new standardized demands (none of the tones is to be repeated before the other eleven have been heard), the concentrated control actually allows for very little production. This is seen most clearly in the extreme understatement and brevity in much of the work of Webern, Schoenberg's most successful disciple; at times there are as many pauses as notes, while the second of Webern's early Three Pieces for Cello and Piano, for example, lasts only thirteen seconds.
The old harmonic system and its major/minor key points of reference provided easily understood places of departure and destination. Serialism accords equal use to each more, making any chord feasible: this conveys . a somewhat homeless, fragmentary sense, suitable to an age of more diffuse, traditionless domination."
Zerzan continues on, of course, but this is a good place to stop.
What looks like autonomy (equality, homelessness, fragmentation, traditionlessness) on the part of individual notes is actually the result of a heightened system of control.
If I knew how to make the link above pretty, I would have done so.
i.e:
1.Due to the unrelenting press, folks will spend their hard-earned elsewhere.
2.Folks who ignored the warnings won't be inspired to run out and purchase the BE Decalogue.
Speaking of the Decalogue, anybody how many L.Ron wrote himself?