Hell yeah, I love Photoshop / Illustrator and it would be inconsiderate not to include both for the box I'm building/buying. However, how disadvantaged is a PC running Photoshop vs. a Mac running it? With Win98, it was the frequent crashes, that's for sure.
IANAMOA (Mac-owning artist) but I do know that Macs are still superior graphic-wise.
Yes, acknowledged. But are you a PC-owning artist? And for that matter, what's your rig consist of?
I agree with your other posts, but my question wasn't intended to be about Mac vs. PC, but rather trying to figure out what's the best that IBM-PC can do for an artist.
For a moment let's forget about that comment -- I know Macs are ideal in terms of art production. Right now, it's looking like that's what we'll go with.
However, is there a cost effective hardware alternative to Macintosh? -- that's my question. Something that'll run photoshop fine, scan, plug into a firewire/USB tablet, etc.? You really don't hear much about integrated firewire for Intel/AMD boards...do you know of any?
I understand that Macs really are the best for an artist, but my question was in terms of saving money. Obviously, my friend is not intending to do artwork primarily on the computer because if she was she'd be willing to sink a much larger investment. I meant to say that I regret the part about the "barnd-loyalty" because it seems the more I look, the better and better Macs seem. And I have been looking -- but there are hundreds of PC hardware reviews, dozens of different motherboards, the configuration that each one forces...it's a bit overwhelming. If I was building a gaming rig I'd know exactly what to do.
What she's intending to do with it is more on the level of scanning in her artwork and putting it on websites, plus whatever other avenues she chooses to pursue.
I'm no IBM-PC/Linux zealot, but I was genuinely curious if people know of a competitive alternative to Apple.
I just finished her latest addition to the Earthsea series: The Other Wind. I have to say, it hardly falls under the category of fantasy-adventure, as there's hardly any action at all in the book! However, the book is highly philosophical, in a very strange way. The story of men cheating death to gain magical power can be seen as a contrast of Western technology vs. Eastern spirituality. Poignent.
Her favorite novel of mine, is of course: The Dispossessed, a distopian sci-fi novel of twin planets with completely opposite societies - the fertile, rich planet believing in stratified, hierarchical society, and the dry, barren planet populated by 12th generation (or so) anarchists. A traveller goes from the latter planet to the former, and what starts out as a fish-out-of-water story turns into a pretty damning political/ethical quandry. Read it!
Carpentry's a great racket. Get into the union and you start at $14/hr. Plus it's like playing with LEGOs all day, only bigger.
Or you if like riding bikes, bike messengering pays...well, not that much. I tell you though, I prefer working my ass off creating something tangible than sitting on my ass resetting passwords and creating user logins.
I agree entirely. I'm quitting my comfy computer job (gave my two weeks last friday) because all I friggin' do is read slashdot and slack all day. When I go home I won't even turn on my PC because I'm so sick of being a keyboard monkey.
I got a hookup with the local carpenter's union -- hopefully that job will enable me to use my home PC for leisure!
As an active political radical, I cannot stress enough that overuse of the internet is running rampant among other radicals. Sure, listservs are useful and all, but beyond simply informing other radicals, there's not much use to the internet. Indymedia certainly tries to not be big media, but again -- news by activists, for activists, and about activists. If they would at least admit that, then people could no longer complain about the bias!
The true changes in society are made face-to-face with people you see everyday. Memes are so much more contagious when you are sharing the same air with someone.
That really blows. Were there even US team tryouts/competitions? If so, it should be a requirement that you keep your original team roster from the very beginning.\
If this is a repeating event, and gets more attention, I'm sure there will be a US-qualifying tourney in the future.
I mentioned "consumerism" but I should have said "shopaholics" -- those who max out their cards and bounce balances around until declaring Bankruptcy. Your post reads like some "cooler than thou" flame, but I think it sounds more like a plea for help:
This sounds chilling. It sounds like Orwell. But it's not just me, either. Nobody in the USA has a higher purpose anymore. It could be argued that they didn't before, but the freedom to choose not to enter the military/go to church/work at menial labor has taken away our exposure to suffering.
You miss my point. You don't have to "suffer" when you live in the US, but you don't have to be materially addicted, either. When I walk out of an artistic movie, I feel vindicated (of the money risk I made in going in, for one thing!) and hopefully educated. I don't feel like my life is not sexy/action-packed/wealthy enough.
his being our society, explain how not being a part of the society in which we live is better for us in the long run than being a part of it?
Drop out of society? Bah, do no such thing! (as if you could) Society/culture is a choice you make on a minute-by-minute basis. And I don't know which women you're talking to -- most girls I meet (at least, the ones worth talking to) are glad to hear that I don't watch television more than one hour a week. I can't think of a bigger turn off than someone saying, "Did you see Friends/Buffy/The Simpsons last night?". "No," I answer, "I was writing/playing music/partying/painting/building something/working on my bike/reading/working out/cooking/coding/hanging out with friends/defacing billboards/experimenting with drugs/coaching mentally handicapped kids/at a neighborhood meeting/seeing a play/organizing a strike/cleaning my house/entertaining guests/etc."
Shit, you simply can't say to some woman: "So, what shows/video games do you like?" Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe those are the kinds of people that you're attracted to, but that's fine with me! My point is: what shape society takes is your responsibility. Ted Turner and Michael Eisener don't control it, yet.
I'm a mean guy...really. I can't help it. I've been looking through the Counter-Strike team profiles and laughing really hard.
The thing is, in the normal Olympics you get every country's most physically fit representative. In this case, you get every country's most horribly geeky representatives!
PS: for a view of a team that fits under the "frighteningly pale" category, check out the French team.
PPS: Okay, I looked at the team from [*cough*], and the term "Ironic Mirror" just stopped my laughing. :^p
I was wandering around the site when I found the qualifying finalists list. Digging up the Half-Life USA team, I can't find a single person born before 1980. I guess we old-timers ( "gen-X" ) don't have a chance.
I used to be quite a gamaing addict. And an IRC addict. And a porn addict. And a alchohol addict (hmm, isn't there a special term for that?). All of these things are forms of escapism, duh. Anyone could have told you that. What most people can't tell you is how to break those addictions.
The truth is, the world is pretty fucked up. And we get into our little inward worlds to try and ignore that. Some of us are workaholics, others watch TV incessantly, etc. Every different thing has it's angle. Video games are addictive especially to the technophile crowd because face it, we geeks like flashy stuff (no rhyme intended). We want feedback, interactivity (another "duh"), eye-candy, excitement, etc. But when it comes down to it, these are just desires that get filled the same way as anyone else fulfills them: abuse. I would argue that 70% of Americans are television addicts.
The point I'm getting at here is that we are a nation of hedonists because we don't need to worry about the consequences of our consumerism, apathy, etc. (bear with me as I get a bit political) Not to induce a guilt trip here, but I don't think anyone in Somalia has a problem with buying too much crap, watching too much TV, or spending too much time jerking their thumbs in front of CRT's. But they have all their own problems to worry about: AIDS, drug warlords, starvation, etc. What do you do in a situation devoid of all pleasure? It probably would involve heavy, heavy drugs. I, for one, would not be able to sit through 6 hours of Metal Gear Solid while two gangs have a firefight next door.
My point is, people find outlets for their frustrated desires everywhere. Very seldomly do they have the courage to actually seek out the root causes of those desires. Here in the States, I think most of people's anxieties are caused by:
- working too much and taking it too seriously (ie. "miserable-ism" as termed by the Situationists)
- depending on others to make decisions for them ("pathological fascism" as called by Deleuze & Guattari)
- rampant commercialism driving down our self-esteem (and driving up demand)
To relieve this we watch: movies/shows about cops, criminals, rich people, sexy people, futuristic people, fantastic people, etc. (I'm talking mainstream, here, not "Clerks"-style stuff). All these movies/shows whatever romanticize these roles that only a few of us get to ever do. Since we're NOT those people, we feel more like a piece of shit, thus leaving us vulnerable to subconsicious suggestions that Diet Coke will instantly bestow us the sex appeal of Victoria Secret models.
So of course we want to feel like heroes, or drive ultrafast cars, or be the super-killer-soldier with the most frags: video games fulfill those vicarious pleasures because the media industry has successfully planted all those desires in us already!
So naturally, the best way to break a video game addiction is to withdraw from Hollywood/Viacom/AOLTimeWarner/Disney in every conceivable form. Or at least develop enough of a cynical veneer to be able to look someone in the eye and say, "The Matrix was good...for a Hollywood film."
Are they really using ethernet or are they simply using RJ45 jacks and plugs? Like another poster said, if they modified ethernet, than it ain't ethernet!
"Lenny, get another hub -- we've got too many packet collisions on bass!"
"Your amps may go up to eleven, be we've got 100Mbits/s!"
Bruce advocates that we all have access to completely tamper-proof, handheld digital camera devices and so forth so everyone has an even playing field for the growing info-war that is life today. Sorry to break the news, Bruce, but as idealistic as it sounds, geeks are pretty good at turning out open-source software, but when it comes to hardware, I doubt there's many philanthropists willing to fund the dissemination of little PDA-like crypto-cameras to every yokel on the street. Noble cause and all, but simply impractical.
Sure, perhaps we would suddenly see thousands more videos a la Rodney King or perhaps even volunteer "Thought Police"-types of citizan groups (there's a Louisville, KY paper called "Snitch") but isn't that reason alone NOT to make such things? Enabling people to securely document unseemly behaviour of authorities would surely prompt many "corporate privacy protection" laws or the outright declaration that video recordings of Federal, State, and Municipal employees are verboten. On the other hand, the goody-two-shoes neighborhood snitch crowd would threaten the private citizen's right to be anonymous.
But despite these objections, these things are already starting to happen -- the surveilence culture is already well established. Xcam, anyone? Indymedia is an example of how cheap video equipment, the internet, and PHP can provide an alternative news service for those who disdain the mainstream sources. The cops routinely videotape everything they do, and sometimes
re-edit it later as they see fit.
The difference between the current trend of surveillence culture and Sterlings's pleas to geeks are that regular joe can't compete with the likes of CNN in getting those memes out there. Plus States' resources in information management; ie. linking downtown London's streetcorner cameras to Interpol mugshots.
Imagine a Slashdot style system of posting video clips (except really really user-friendly); user-moderated, with "karma" exploded into multiple ratings axes (rather than being 1-dimensional), decentralized, with multiple points of entry (not just different browsers -- different ways of getting the info).
The difference between this and TV news is a reported doesn't simply present information -- they interpret and filter it to a large degree. However, how could a news organization ignore a video clip that gets boosted to the top of the pile?
You think that's bad? My ex-girlfriend from a year ago was positively obsessed with the Sims. The worst aspect was that she made exact replicas of all her friends, her and myself included. She even had every single Sim's zodiac sign match our real ones!
Guess what happened when we started dating? Our Sims moved in together. Argument in real life? Temper tantrum expressed via my sim has to sleep on the dreadful Comfort: 2 couch.
Guess what happened when we broke up? My sim moves out. She gets back together with her old boyfriend (who I maliciously drowned in a pool at the start of our relationship...er, I mean, his Sim!) so she remakes him and moves him in. She changes apartments -- her sim-house changes. I had to beg her to make a door in the room in which my Sim was locked up...fortunately I, I mean, my Sim is still alive.
After about six months of that (and playing with all the fan-made skins and things) I had to walk away from the sims. However, my worldview was scarred forever...
Please, if you're going to get someone a PC game this Christmas, make sure that it in NO WAY resembles reality.
Right there when the yellow words scroll up: Episode IV: A New Hope
I remember seeing it as a kid, thinking, "What the heck is this Episode 4 business?"
On an aside, Ep.4 was SO different, even from 5 and 6 in terms of pacing and direction -- there were actually SLOW moments! Probably because it was the only one Lucas actually directed. Just watch the original (not special edition) and you'll see what I mean.
Is that Alpha Centauri and the civ games never accurately portrayed the ideologies of anarchism or socialism. I mean, Alpha C. comes close with the "Social Engineering" aspect, but you'd think with a sci-fi setting there would be more possibilities for governments without a pro-American-system bias. It seems these games are only concerned with building cities up, waging war, and giving you total control over everything (in effect making the governments different from a dictatorship in name only).
Someone please tell me that Civ III gets beyond the Despotism/Feudalism/Democracy/Communism/etc. categories and colonialist values.
(disclaimer: I am an anarchist, so don't read further if you think my bias automatically invalidates my opinions)
I don't have to lecture you on the problems of large government. I fact, I can see that you see the merit of no government at all. However, the problem lies with the fact that you believe that the profit motive is the best thing for society.
Here's a news flash for you: values based on the pursuit of profit do not a good society make.
You may think that naturally capitalism will lead to a loose "network" of industries, small producers interacting on small scales. Anyone can start a business, right? Unfortunately there's this thing called "difference" as in one person is a bit different from another person. Perhaps it's because of geographic advantage, or perhaps it's from just brains, but one business is doing better than the others. So they succeed. They expand horizontally and vertically and establish themselves as a primary agent. Doesn't have to be a monopoly, and nothing's inherently "evil" about it, but a thorough materialistic analysis of the system of capitalism reveals that it is inevitable that the rhizomatic network of small businesses gives rise to hierarchies of corporations and individuals.
The State is a hierarchical organization, no matter how "democratic" it may claim to be. As long as a State or similar bully exists to coerce people do X, it is authoritarian. Any hierarchy inherently gives rise to the cycle of power and maintainance of power. As Foucault said, "Power only serves to make sure that power exists." The existence of any hierarchy means power politics, and thus somebody is getting stepped on.
Anti-capitalist demonstrators are attacking the SYMBOLS of institutionalized neoliberalism, meta-corporations paid for and wielded by the multinationals. The argument that "anti-globalization" protestors are isolationist is a straw man. They are against capitalism and for mutual aid. Many of them are against the State as it exists today or even (in my case) against the idea of a centralized (arbolic) State.
Oh, don't listen to me, I'm just an anarchist -- my opinion doesn't matter, I guess! Everything I've said is just baseless propagandizing! Don't even bother looking into the points because I'm just a dumb black-clad kid listening to angry music!
Wrong, wrong wrong. Scarcity is a myth, and has to be either
a) forced artificially (ie. dumping milk in rivers, letting tons of grain rot on the ground)
or b) by creating new needs out of thin air for which there is low supply for.
Market theories are meaningless when gigantic corporations can manipulate supply and demand.
FYI, nobody needs "half of 2000-2500 calories a day from meat". The production of meat is the most environmentally destructive and wasteful industrialized process going on in the planet. Did you know it takes 20 times as much land to feed X people with meat as it does with vegetables/grains? That's a waste of resources! The Earth is not overpopulated. Starvation is a problem of distribution, not production. The US grows enough grain to feed the world 5 times over but do you know where most of that grain goes? To pigs and cows! And after that, we Americans throw away 40% of the perfectly edible food we produce for ourselves. (go behind Burger King after the dinner rush and you'll find garbage bags full of warm, ready-to-eat whoppers)
As far as VCR's TV's and so forth: we can easily make enough for everyone who wants one but if they were priced so that everyone could afford them, nobody could make a profit! Jet ski and yacht? Who the hell owns these luxury items but the rich? Do they use these things all year round? Why can't they share?
Use your imagination. Imagine a world without capitalist values. Now imagine a world with authoritarian values as well.
Smallville - saw it while in the laundramat: cheesy crap.
West Wing - propagandistic bullshit.
Law & Order - sometimes interesting, though mostly plays to media myths. promotes needless faith in the judicial system (I know sometimes it doesn't, but the overall effect is a thumbs-up).
UC: Undercover - more cop culture.
Buffy - masturbation material, no redeeming qualities otherwise.
Angel - ??
Enterprise - SUCKS! (this is flamebait I know) formula writing -- no real issues like TOS.
Simpsons - ironic social commentary, sometimes poignent, always funny, but you can download every single episode commercial-free.
This Old House - good stuff, but doesn't beat doing it in real life. The episode you need to see is never on when you need it.
BBC America - you have to pay to see it.
public television - i've been trying to watch it, but the only good shows are usually "Frontline" episodes, and you can just get the one you want from a public library, anyway.
various cable channels. - pay to watch? No way!
Globalization is an abused word
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2
When Neo-liberals use the term "globalization" they mean the globalization of the free flow of capital and resources, free from tariffs and cumbersome transportation costs. The purpose is to make private property control the primary agent in the world theatre.
The International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders represent a different kind of "globalization", for which we used to use the term international. For example, many people make the claim of being an "internationalist", which means that they are loyal to no flag and their ethics are inclusive of the entire world population (but not necessarily a "one-world-government"). I wager that Doctors Without Borders would prefer to be called Internationalist rather than globalist.
Most opponents of "globalization" are not isolationists (a common straw man of neoliberals). If anything, they want to see even less restrictions on movement, communication, and goods than multinational corporations lobby for, but as a means of feeding people, not extracting profit. Central to this view is the idea of open borders--free and easy immigration for all. Anyone notice how long those people were marooned off the coast of Austrialia? Or how long refugees rot in camps in the U.S.?
The reason that multinational corporations oppose that kind of globalization, the globalization of population movement, is that they would lose the very profitble factor of geographic advantage -- the ability to pay a sweatshop worker in Burma $0.12/hr rather than a union worker in the U.S. $9.00/hr. So multinational corporations form PAC's and fincance politicians that want to lower trade tariffs while restricting immigration at the same time. And let's not forget IMF policies forbidding the nationalization of industries (or forcing privatization of State industries), cutting of social services, and leveraging loan promises against environmental protection.
As much as politicians make pretty speeches about "the New World Order" and globalization's bounty of technology and prosperity, the fact is that they are being bankrolled by multinational corporations. Listen closely and you'll hear that they are really saying nothing substantial at all.
If you start talking about Al Qaeda and the Russian "Mafiya" being globalized then you digress from the commonly accepted meaning of the word (and thus have an uphill semantic battle to fight). They are multinational organizations, for sure. The reason why those groups and corporations are multinational rather than international is that multi- signifies that they have membership/property in various nations, rather than having an ethical inclusiveness to ALL nations. Corporations and terrorist/crime organizations have selfish ethics (ie. a corp's loyalty is to it's stockholders, mafia's is to it's family, a terrorist network is loyal to their cause, etc.) Internationalists are loyal to the Earth and it's inhabitants, regardless of whom they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no intention of pushing her to Linux. MacOS 10.4 is probably what we'll have to wait for.
Hell yeah, I love Photoshop / Illustrator and it would be inconsiderate not to include both for the box I'm building/buying. However, how disadvantaged is a PC running Photoshop vs. a Mac running it? With Win98, it was the frequent crashes, that's for sure.
Yes, acknowledged. But are you a PC-owning artist? And for that matter, what's your rig consist of?
I agree with your other posts, but my question wasn't intended to be about Mac vs. PC, but rather trying to figure out what's the best that IBM-PC can do for an artist.
However, is there a cost effective hardware alternative to Macintosh? -- that's my question. Something that'll run photoshop fine, scan, plug into a firewire/USB tablet, etc.? You really don't hear much about integrated firewire for Intel/AMD boards...do you know of any?
What she's intending to do with it is more on the level of scanning in her artwork and putting it on websites, plus whatever other avenues she chooses to pursue.
I'm no IBM-PC/Linux zealot, but I was genuinely curious if people know of a competitive alternative to Apple.
Actually, no, she has no Mac right now. In fact, she's equally comfortable with Windows and MacOS, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.
Her favorite novel of mine, is of course: The Dispossessed, a distopian sci-fi novel of twin planets with completely opposite societies - the fertile, rich planet believing in stratified, hierarchical society, and the dry, barren planet populated by 12th generation (or so) anarchists. A traveller goes from the latter planet to the former, and what starts out as a fish-out-of-water story turns into a pretty damning political/ethical quandry. Read it!
Or you if like riding bikes, bike messengering pays...well, not that much. I tell you though, I prefer working my ass off creating something tangible than sitting on my ass resetting passwords and creating user logins.
I got a hookup with the local carpenter's union -- hopefully that job will enable me to use my home PC for leisure!
The true changes in society are made face-to-face with people you see everyday. Memes are so much more contagious when you are sharing the same air with someone.
If this is a repeating event, and gets more attention, I'm sure there will be a US-qualifying tourney in the future.
Shit, you simply can't say to some woman: "So, what shows/video games do you like?" Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe those are the kinds of people that you're attracted to, but that's fine with me! My point is: what shape society takes is your responsibility. Ted Turner and Michael Eisener don't control it, yet.
The thing is, in the normal Olympics you get every country's most physically fit representative. In this case, you get every country's most horribly geeky representatives!
PS: for a view of a team that fits under the "frighteningly pale" category, check out the French team.
PPS: Okay, I looked at the team from [*cough*], and the term "Ironic Mirror" just stopped my laughing.
:^p
I was wandering around the site when I found the qualifying finalists list. Digging up the Half-Life USA team, I can't find a single person born before 1980. I guess we old-timers ( "gen-X" ) don't have a chance.
The truth is, the world is pretty fucked up. And we get into our little inward worlds to try and ignore that. Some of us are workaholics, others watch TV incessantly, etc. Every different thing has it's angle. Video games are addictive especially to the technophile crowd because face it, we geeks like flashy stuff (no rhyme intended). We want feedback, interactivity (another "duh"), eye-candy, excitement, etc. But when it comes down to it, these are just desires that get filled the same way as anyone else fulfills them: abuse. I would argue that 70% of Americans are television addicts.
The point I'm getting at here is that we are a nation of hedonists because we don't need to worry about the consequences of our consumerism, apathy, etc. (bear with me as I get a bit political) Not to induce a guilt trip here, but I don't think anyone in Somalia has a problem with buying too much crap, watching too much TV, or spending too much time jerking their thumbs in front of CRT's. But they have all their own problems to worry about: AIDS, drug warlords, starvation, etc. What do you do in a situation devoid of all pleasure? It probably would involve heavy, heavy drugs. I, for one, would not be able to sit through 6 hours of Metal Gear Solid while two gangs have a firefight next door.
My point is, people find outlets for their frustrated desires everywhere. Very seldomly do they have the courage to actually seek out the root causes of those desires. Here in the States, I think most of people's anxieties are caused by:
- working too much and taking it too seriously (ie. "miserable-ism" as termed by the Situationists)
- depending on others to make decisions for them ("pathological fascism" as called by Deleuze & Guattari)
- rampant commercialism driving down our self-esteem (and driving up demand)
To relieve this we watch: movies/shows about cops, criminals, rich people, sexy people, futuristic people, fantastic people, etc. (I'm talking mainstream, here, not "Clerks"-style stuff). All these movies/shows whatever romanticize these roles that only a few of us get to ever do. Since we're NOT those people, we feel more like a piece of shit, thus leaving us vulnerable to subconsicious suggestions that Diet Coke will instantly bestow us the sex appeal of Victoria Secret models.
So of course we want to feel like heroes, or drive ultrafast cars, or be the super-killer-soldier with the most frags: video games fulfill those vicarious pleasures because the media industry has successfully planted all those desires in us already!
So naturally, the best way to break a video game addiction is to withdraw from Hollywood/Viacom/AOLTimeWarner/Disney in every conceivable form. Or at least develop enough of a cynical veneer to be able to look someone in the eye and say, "The Matrix was good...for a Hollywood film."
"Lenny, get another hub -- we've got too many packet collisions on bass!"
"Your amps may go up to eleven, be we've got 100Mbits/s!"
I think I'll stick with good ol' analog.
Sure, perhaps we would suddenly see thousands more videos a la Rodney King or perhaps even volunteer "Thought Police"-types of citizan groups (there's a Louisville, KY paper called "Snitch") but isn't that reason alone NOT to make such things? Enabling people to securely document unseemly behaviour of authorities would surely prompt many "corporate privacy protection" laws or the outright declaration that video recordings of Federal, State, and Municipal employees are verboten. On the other hand, the goody-two-shoes neighborhood snitch crowd would threaten the private citizen's right to be anonymous.
But despite these objections, these things are already starting to happen -- the surveilence culture is already well established. Xcam, anyone? Indymedia is an example of how cheap video equipment, the internet, and PHP can provide an alternative news service for those who disdain the mainstream sources. The cops routinely videotape everything they do, and sometimes re-edit it later as they see fit.
The difference between the current trend of surveillence culture and Sterlings's pleas to geeks are that regular joe can't compete with the likes of CNN in getting those memes out there. Plus States' resources in information management; ie. linking downtown London's streetcorner cameras to Interpol mugshots.
Imagine a Slashdot style system of posting video clips (except really really user-friendly); user-moderated, with "karma" exploded into multiple ratings axes (rather than being 1-dimensional), decentralized, with multiple points of entry (not just different browsers -- different ways of getting the info).
The difference between this and TV news is a reported doesn't simply present information -- they interpret and filter it to a large degree. However, how could a news organization ignore a video clip that gets boosted to the top of the pile?
Brainstorm, rant, reaction....
Guess what happened when we started dating? Our Sims moved in together. Argument in real life? Temper tantrum expressed via my sim has to sleep on the dreadful Comfort: 2 couch.
Guess what happened when we broke up? My sim moves out. She gets back together with her old boyfriend (who I maliciously drowned in a pool at the start of our relationship...er, I mean, his Sim!) so she remakes him and moves him in. She changes apartments -- her sim-house changes. I had to beg her to make a door in the room in which my Sim was locked up...fortunately I, I mean, my Sim is still alive.
After about six months of that (and playing with all the fan-made skins and things) I had to walk away from the sims. However, my worldview was scarred forever...
Please, if you're going to get someone a PC game this Christmas, make sure that it in NO WAY resembles reality.
Episode IV: A New Hope
I remember seeing it as a kid, thinking, "What the heck is this Episode 4 business?"
On an aside, Ep.4 was SO different, even from 5 and 6 in terms of pacing and direction -- there were actually SLOW moments! Probably because it was the only one Lucas actually directed. Just watch the original (not special edition) and you'll see what I mean.
Someone please tell me that Civ III gets beyond the Despotism/Feudalism/Democracy/Communism/etc. categories and colonialist values.
I don't have to lecture you on the problems of large government. I fact, I can see that you see the merit of no government at all. However, the problem lies with the fact that you believe that the profit motive is the best thing for society.
Here's a news flash for you: values based on the pursuit of profit do not a good society make.
You may think that naturally capitalism will lead to a loose "network" of industries, small producers interacting on small scales. Anyone can start a business, right? Unfortunately there's this thing called "difference" as in one person is a bit different from another person. Perhaps it's because of geographic advantage, or perhaps it's from just brains, but one business is doing better than the others. So they succeed. They expand horizontally and vertically and establish themselves as a primary agent. Doesn't have to be a monopoly, and nothing's inherently "evil" about it, but a thorough materialistic analysis of the system of capitalism reveals that it is inevitable that the rhizomatic network of small businesses gives rise to hierarchies of corporations and individuals.
The State is a hierarchical organization, no matter how "democratic" it may claim to be. As long as a State or similar bully exists to coerce people do X, it is authoritarian. Any hierarchy inherently gives rise to the cycle of power and maintainance of power. As Foucault said, "Power only serves to make sure that power exists." The existence of any hierarchy means power politics, and thus somebody is getting stepped on.
Anti-capitalist demonstrators are attacking the SYMBOLS of institutionalized neoliberalism, meta-corporations paid for and wielded by the multinationals. The argument that "anti-globalization" protestors are isolationist is a straw man. They are against capitalism and for mutual aid. Many of them are against the State as it exists today or even (in my case) against the idea of a centralized (arbolic) State.
Oh, don't listen to me, I'm just an anarchist -- my opinion doesn't matter, I guess! Everything I've said is just baseless propagandizing! Don't even bother looking into the points because I'm just a dumb black-clad kid listening to angry music!
8^P
a) forced artificially (ie. dumping milk in rivers, letting tons of grain rot on the ground)
or b) by creating new needs out of thin air for which there is low supply for.
Market theories are meaningless when gigantic corporations can manipulate supply and demand.
FYI, nobody needs "half of 2000-2500 calories a day from meat". The production of meat is the most environmentally destructive and wasteful industrialized process going on in the planet. Did you know it takes 20 times as much land to feed X people with meat as it does with vegetables/grains? That's a waste of resources! The Earth is not overpopulated. Starvation is a problem of distribution, not production. The US grows enough grain to feed the world 5 times over but do you know where most of that grain goes? To pigs and cows! And after that, we Americans throw away 40% of the perfectly edible food we produce for ourselves. (go behind Burger King after the dinner rush and you'll find garbage bags full of warm, ready-to-eat whoppers)
As far as VCR's TV's and so forth: we can easily make enough for everyone who wants one but if they were priced so that everyone could afford them, nobody could make a profit! Jet ski and yacht? Who the hell owns these luxury items but the rich? Do they use these things all year round? Why can't they share?
Use your imagination. Imagine a world without capitalist values. Now imagine a world with authoritarian values as well.
I have yet to see anything on television that justified having a TV. I use it to watch movies.
Dark Angel - crap.
Smallville - saw it while in the laundramat: cheesy crap.
West Wing - propagandistic bullshit.
Law & Order - sometimes interesting, though mostly plays to media myths. promotes needless faith in the judicial system (I know sometimes it doesn't, but the overall effect is a thumbs-up).
UC: Undercover - more cop culture.
Buffy - masturbation material, no redeeming qualities otherwise.
Angel - ??
Enterprise - SUCKS! (this is flamebait I know) formula writing -- no real issues like TOS.
Simpsons - ironic social commentary, sometimes poignent, always funny, but you can download every single episode commercial-free.
This Old House - good stuff, but doesn't beat doing it in real life. The episode you need to see is never on when you need it.
BBC America - you have to pay to see it.
public television - i've been trying to watch it, but the only good shows are usually "Frontline" episodes, and you can just get the one you want from a public library, anyway.
various cable channels. - pay to watch? No way!
The International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders represent a different kind of "globalization", for which we used to use the term international. For example, many people make the claim of being an "internationalist", which means that they are loyal to no flag and their ethics are inclusive of the entire world population (but not necessarily a "one-world-government"). I wager that Doctors Without Borders would prefer to be called Internationalist rather than globalist.
Most opponents of "globalization" are not isolationists (a common straw man of neoliberals). If anything, they want to see even less restrictions on movement, communication, and goods than multinational corporations lobby for, but as a means of feeding people, not extracting profit. Central to this view is the idea of open borders--free and easy immigration for all. Anyone notice how long those people were marooned off the coast of Austrialia? Or how long refugees rot in camps in the U.S.?
The reason that multinational corporations oppose that kind of globalization, the globalization of population movement, is that they would lose the very profitble factor of geographic advantage -- the ability to pay a sweatshop worker in Burma $0.12/hr rather than a union worker in the U.S. $9.00/hr. So multinational corporations form PAC's and fincance politicians that want to lower trade tariffs while restricting immigration at the same time. And let's not forget IMF policies forbidding the nationalization of industries (or forcing privatization of State industries), cutting of social services, and leveraging loan promises against environmental protection.
As much as politicians make pretty speeches about "the New World Order" and globalization's bounty of technology and prosperity, the fact is that they are being bankrolled by multinational corporations. Listen closely and you'll hear that they are really saying nothing substantial at all.
If you start talking about Al Qaeda and the Russian "Mafiya" being globalized then you digress from the commonly accepted meaning of the word (and thus have an uphill semantic battle to fight). They are multinational organizations, for sure. The reason why those groups and corporations are multinational rather than international is that multi- signifies that they have membership/property in various nations, rather than having an ethical inclusiveness to ALL nations. Corporations and terrorist/crime organizations have selfish ethics (ie. a corp's loyalty is to it's stockholders, mafia's is to it's family, a terrorist network is loyal to their cause, etc.) Internationalists are loyal to the Earth and it's inhabitants, regardless of whom they are.