Telephone companies provide unlimited local calling, and I've never heard of a subscriber being cut off for talking too much. That's because the phone companies have the required infrastructure to deal with the natural usage patterns which have evolved over time. The internet, however, is still new and the usage patterns haven't settled yet. Verizon made some assumptions about what normal usage would be, and they got it wrong. They made a huge mistake in offering 'unlimited' packages before they understood what they were dealing with or before they had the required infrastructure in place.
Your all-you-can-eat buffet argument is actually quite apt. People's eating habits can be mapped, the limit being based on how much one person can physically consume, so restaurants rarely end up with problems.
Verizon should have played it safe, looking at their resources and the real limits, (a customer using the maximum bandwidth 24/7), and they should have charged appropriately for that service package based on their ability to deliver it. Promising unlimited usage to everybody was unrealistic. 10 or 20 people using the full bandwidth is a spike, but 13000 users is evidence of normal mass behavior which they obviously didn't plan for. --They made promises they couldn't keep and they lost the gamble.
The nature of contract law is that people and companies must be held accountable to the promises they make. Why should Verizon be treated any differently? When other companies fail to meet their obligations, the ideal model is to find some way to sever the deal in a manner which leaves the customer feeling that they were dealt with in good will, either through a refund or similar. Verizon handled itself without grace. They could have been up-front in saying, "Oops. We screwed up by signing a contract which we couldn't fulfill. To make it up to you, we'd like to offer the next two months at the same service level for the price you are currently paying, but after that we have to charge more. This will give you enough time to find another service provider. --Or if you want to cancel immediately, we'll give you back your money for the last two months." --Something like that would have shown good will and would have established new systems to avoid future problems with new clients. Instead they chose to act like dicks in the hope that nobody would sue.
A. A GPS device. B. A pocket cutting torch capable of melting steel. (Still sci-fi AFIK) C. A white LED flashlight. (My nomination for coolest, most elegant tech solution of the decade.) D. An Asus Eee. (To replace my workhorse HP Jornada 800
with the busted hinge.) E. A lightsaber. F. A Trump Deck, (Amber) G. A Leatherman Mini (Still the very best folding pliers ever made) H. A SPACE 1999 stun gun (Campy as camp can be, but I was seven at the time, and the bar was forever set for cool space weaponry. Note the handy "Stun/Kill" toggle switch.) I. A Pentel Brush Pen. J. Afterbite mosquito bite instant relief. K. A lock pick gun (You have to have a locksmith license to own one in most states.) L. A humble pencil. --Possibly the best writing instrument ever invented. Still used today! M. A candle lantern. (Burns for hours, folds up neat and tidy. Best with the bees wax candles.)
That's all I can think of for now. The Sonic Screwdriver is certainly neat, but with one of those, you can pretty much do away with about half the items on the above list.
Oh, and the reason the Leatherman Mini is the best version of the now ubiquitous folding pliers on the market is that nobody has yet made a pair which when closed is as small, and when open is as large, AND (very important) which has a smooth grip that doesn't bite into your palms when you apply pressure. I find it somewhat astonishing that it was one of the very first models ever to grace the market place, and nobody has come close since. I still regularly use my original pair purchased fifteen years ago. Rugged, useful, small, comfortable to use. --The only thing I'd do to improve upon it is to remove the knife and file, which would make it even smaller and lighter than it currently is.
Japanese twinkie-iPhoney-too-small-keypad bits of fluff seem kind of utterly useless to me.
What happens to the developing brains of the people who don't end up autistic, but retain some sort of less noticeable brain damage.
Brain damage has been strongly linked to both sociopathic and psychopathic behavior.
You need psychopaths to fuel an evil empire. Good people cannot be trusted in positions of power, if you want to build an evil government. Imagine Cheney needs to hire somebody to oversee some element of his power support structure. Frontline's recent documentary, Cheney's Law had a great example of what happens when you fail to hire a similarly sick personality for a post in your government; you get resistance! (The guy had to be pressured out so that corrupt laws would pass). The more psychos you have available, the easier it is to build the Dark Empire.
Horrible, toxic, non-renewable phosphorescent chemicals and heavy metals that are only used once, instead of once per page, but which still inevitably head to the land fill where they fail to rot into base organics the way paper does.
I didn't call you insane because you were talking about the power of advertising, but because you were talking about people having "direct access to the subconscious" where they can program you with "sinister messages."
It sounds to me like your definition of 'insane' is somebody who describes advertising as 'sinister'. Sorry. Perhaps I should have said something bland like, "Manipulative with reckless disregard for health and welfare." If it smells like a rose and looks like a rose. . . And I can cite a lot more than one example, so please don't insinuate that I am somehow having to search within a shallow pool when you know so little about me.
It's interesting that the one example of control through advertising you cited occurred several decades before TV became commonplace. It's also interesting to read about cultural rituals involving head and body hair throughout recorded history, as there's stranger body modification practices than shaving legs, most of which existed before advertising or TV, or didn't depend on it.
No. Your points are only 'interesting' in that you seem to believe such half-baked reasoning validates your rudeness. The fact that advertising works was the point. Further, TV, which most certainly does put the brain into a highly receptive alpha state is not a matter of conjecture. It's proven fact which, combined with advertising and every other message sent at you by TV, makes humans highly susceptible to psychological manipulation. There's a reason billions of dollars are spent on television advertising and propaganda; it works extremely well. Read your Chomsky.
As for hair and body altering rituals. Yes, those behaviors are part of human nature. I am hardly contesting that. The point is that those behavior patterns can be switched on or off at will by powers which have no interest in public welfare. --Consider all the other human rituals and behavior patterns which TV has played a key role recently in activating and/or suppressing.
But then again, you're sitting here reading and posting on Slashdot. What was your argument again?
The internet is not television. The internet is a two-way communication technology which allows people like us to share and build and examine ideas as we are doing right now. People engaged in this manner on the internet exhibit heightened activity in numerous parts of the brain. --The more work you put into reading and thinking and using your brain in a dynamic way, the more you get back. TV, on the other hand, is a one-way medium and people's brain activity drops off within the first few seconds of viewing to levels similar to those in coma victims. --The fluorescing light from a TV screen is largely responsible for this effect.
Interesting that your most poignant memory with regard to TV, in opposition to it, elicited scenes actually drawn from a television program. You will be assimilated... er it seems you already have been.
Just because I've unplugged doesn't mean I don't still need to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. Or are you suggesting that I not use words or concepts if they could not be derived from my current way of living? Do you actually believe you've invalidated the point and that TV is healthy for you?
I see you've taken the time you would have spent watching tv and invested it into becoming completely batshit fucking insane.
Ha ha. Your ignorance makes your joke seem funny to you. Good one.
This is hardly contested science. --As in, nobody contests it. You want to know more about it? Study advertising, psychology and TV's effect on brain chemistry. Just because you didn't see it on the Discovery Channel doesn't mean that it isn't real.
Do you know why women shave their legs? You probably don't, so I'll tell you. Women shave their legs because razor blade companies realized that they were only selling product to half the population, only to men. So they set about trying to convince the population through advertising that body hair on women was somehow dirty and undesirable. They did a very effective job, so now women feel ashamed to have body hair. That's why women shave their legs.
Advertising IS thought control, and it is the simplest kind, driven by greed as opposed to fear. There are other kinds. --One of which is designed to make chumps like you ridicule anybody who points out the man behind the curtain. You need to start learning how this stuff works, or you will find yourself existing in a perpetual state of stupid.
But hey, as long as you're stupid, your jokes will still seem funny to you. Bonus! Who needs reality?
All things in moderation. Generally people who totally shun something or turn vehemently anti-whatever do this because they are afraid of not being able to control themselves. TV is OK in moderation. I mean it's not like it is going to turn you into a zombie for watching 30 minutes.
TV had the potential to do a lot of good, but that ball wasn't just dropped; it was hurled out the nearest window.
The fluorescing screen is instrumental in dropping viewers into a dissociative state akin to hypnosis. This is measurable, and indeed has been measured using good old EEG technology. You've no doubt heard the details at some point in your life with regard to the physiological and psychological changes which take place almost immediately upon settling in for an evening of viewing. Suffice it to say that there is a reason people regularly cannot remember the last commercial advertisement they just viewed thirty seconds ago. --All of that in conjunction wth the audio messages which play over an active television have direct access to the subconscious. No matter how aware one is, the programming happens. No amount of TV viewing is 'safe', because the sinister messages flow at a constant rate and no amount of will power or critical discernment can prevent them from affecting you. --So yes, I do tend to have a somewhat vehement attitude toward having my awareness 'sculpted'. It's best to just steer clear altogether. In any case, with computer screens these days, with cold cathode lighting, and the ability to choose and filter the messages, I see very few valid reasons for having a television or a cable subscription.
And nice, light, conveniently packaged programming is generally provided by those for whom money is god, and that means you'll never get a full or accurate view of reality through regular TV broadcasting. Everybody, and I mean everybody I know who watches TV is sickly and appears to be functioning most of the time as though their brains are full of glue --Whereas the people I have met who have accumulated and wield significant personal power are those who have unplugged. Yes, that's just my experience, but it is a pattern I have seen repeated time and time again. I can usually, after being around somebody for a few minutes tell you whether or not they are regular television viewers. But like I said, that's just me. Perhaps you're different.
Stop watching T.V. I haven't owned a television in almost a decade. Feels great.
Hear Hear!
I remember the cable company calling me up shortly after I'd moved into a new place. I'd not automatically called them up to turn my co-ax on.
"We notice that you haven't activated your cable yet, sir. We can take care of that right away! What sort of package would you like to have, sir? "
"None. I don't want to watch TV, thanks."
Confused silence. (I really think that the sales guy had never contemplated life without cable before.) Then, "Why not?"
"Because TV sucks and people who watch it are losers. --In the sense that they are losing out on hundreds of hours of life every year, missing out on personal growth, and falling behind in their mental development. Have you noticed how so many people act like adolescents in their thinking patterns until well into adulthood and beyond. I don't want to be a loser."
"Oh."
"Do you watch TV?" (I was feeling perky and pesky.)
"Um, yes."
"You might want to reconsider your life. Have a nice day!" Click.
The amazing thing is that TV really wants to be in your life. I had to bat away offers and pressing arguments from friends, and in the end, the cable company just ended up providing free cable even though I didn't want or ask for it, (and certainly didn't pay for it.) Luckily my life had become so robust and interesting with all those extra hours filled with actual living that it was very easy not to turn the crack-tube back on again. These days I don't even own a television set.
Most poignant memory with regard to TV: Walking home one night and passing a three story apartment complex with virtually every window flickering that creepy blue TV light. It looked like a damned Borg cube, an analogy which, I thought, worked on several levels.
First of all, the Democrats are not my party. They are the Sowing half of the human harvesting cycle, on which the Republicans appear to be the reapers.
As for your other points. . . The last time I checked in with Rush Limbaugh, he was blustering away using loud, bullying and logically flawed emotional arguments to sway his listeners. Emotional arguments are the lowest form of political persuasion available this side of brute force, worthy of no respect at all. Until people figure that out, they might as well get used to slavery and misery. But I guess that's okay if they think they like it and have no awareness of how others lead happier lives.
I studied quite a bit about the Night of Long Knives. --And I didn't need television's History Channel to do it. The History Channel is just another tool of perception shaping. Before I ditched TV altogether, (the propaganda and mind-control box that it is), what I saw of the History Channel was thinly and perhaps not even intentionally disguised. It makes war look like a fun, well reasoned and albeit a hard but necessary thing. --And it successfully, (in your case anyway), causes people to think that fascism comes in only one flavour. The understanding of how to control a population has come a long, long way since the 1940's.
Also. . . You commented upon health care. Sheesh. --One film I would direct you to is Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. (Yes, the conservatives can't stand him, and despite some of the liberties he has taken in previous films, I'm aware of no similar objections to this latest film. And in any case, he doesn't work up a lather yelling at the camera like Rush. He provides concrete research rather than John Wayne references.) As a Canadian, who enjoys a country with a far higher standard of living than the U.S., I must say that when my girlfriend cut the end off her finger, having it put back on at no cost to her was wonderful, and it happened within an hour of her walking into the hospital.
As a baker in a small business and with a prior history of previous abnormal illness, she wouldn't have been eligible for American health insurance, nor at the age of twenty-one would she have been able to afford the doctor's bill. Yet, amazingly, Canadian society manages to have a health care system which, while it does suffer from a few flaws which can be traced to bad government, it's pretty awesome, and we do it while maintaining a standard of living far higher than that of the U.S., with barely a fraction of the starving and illiterate people south of the border. Heck, the percentage of our population living in prisons is also not the highest in the first world, (unlike that of the U.S.). Indeed, I look at such a stunted system as the American one, and constantly hold myself in amazement that such a cruddy state of affairs can actually have hardened supporters who are not among the elite. --That believing a vibrant, giving and highly valued young woman as my girlfriend is in her community, can live with the benefit of excellent health-care is somehow limiting of her freedoms is the result of such an astounding con job by the American political system that I have a very hard time believing that people can be so easily misled. I see a free and happy girl as compared to a girl who would probably have lost her finger under the U.S. system. How is that freedom? --The people in Communist Russia were told lots of lies by their government as well, but the difference is that without television and lots of mind-numbing creature comforts and high-sugar foods, the people of Russia for the most part didn't eat up the propaganda like the Americans do. --That's an example of those advancements in population control techniques I mentioned earlier.
In any case, you asked if anybody has been inconvenienced by the surveillance problem in the U.S. and I said, "Yes." And your answer to that appears to be general apologist jargon, which I do not buy for some of the reasons I just described.
I don't understand how anyone can be complacent knowing their email is being stored away. Even if one is sure he poses no risk to those listening, how can any government be trusted not to abuse such a power?
You're right; Governments can't be trusted.
However, complacency is certainly not my position. But I'm not about to lead a muzzles-blazing charge into. . . well, where, exactly? The Military Industrial Complex isn't located in an office block somewhere. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the complex isn't more a psychological one; an inherent condition of the human race, resulting from the dual prongs of greed and fear. --Except even that I don't believe entirely, since we all have choice. I think the way to combat the system is to rigorously choose against it at every fork in every road. If I choose not to act selfishly and destructively, to call down the lies when I hear them and have the energy available to speak up, then I act to cut off the energy which flows to the Beast. If everybody simultaneously decided not to hurt people or to act selfishly or to keep secrets or to feed away their energy to the wrong people, the whole evil empire would shudder to an immediate halt.
I doubt that can happen all at once, so a little bit at a time is the next best alternative. I think a great way to start would be to figure out a fool proof genetic method to test for psychopathy, and to remove such individuals from all seats of power. It's doable, and it would do a lot to fix this world.
I'm a Canadian, too, and your conversations are being monitored all the time anyway through Echelon and similar. Our secret services are actually among the top sneaks in the world today. Canada is only marginally immune to the evils down south. The thing we seem to have going for us is that there is a somewhat more powerful collective awareness that people should treat each other nicely, and that this frequency of thought is better entrenched here in the Great White North than in other parts of the world. We can all do our bit by continuing to stay educated, to work toward self-awareness and positive self expression, to not put up with petty tyrants, and generally treat people respect and love.
This email has been filed away somewhere, but so what? I'd happily repeat the above to their faces.
You also have to wonder how well programmed the congressmen are. --You don't survive in politics unless you go with the orthodox version of reality, believe in lone gunmen, and have nothing to fear from Zionist persuasion and blackmail. Are any members of congress making less than six figures? --And where did that money come from? Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but it seems to me that those with spotless records and clear consciences tend to die in small plane crashes.
"We must indeed all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." --Yes, Prime Minister
There has yet to be a case filed where such surveillance has injured anyone that *wasn't* a terrorist. If you've been inconvenienced, please step up.
Well, I don't know about you, but I've lost people to Afghanistan and the world lives in fear and loathing and ill health as a result of Bush & Dick. I feel a little more than inconvenienced. Every day is a lot darker than it needs to be, and I don't like walking around knowing that with a pen stroke, Bush can put anybody behind barbed wire with zero legal recourse. Surveillance may not directly inconvenience you, but it's arguably the most vital organ in the fascist beast. --And while it was healthy and strong pre 9/11 it certainly wasn't used to stop guys with box cutters from boarding those jet liners. --In fact, I'd argue that it was used to make sure 9-11 went down the way it did. So if 10,000,000 people get atomized in an atomic fireball, it won't be because surveillance failed. It'll be because people aren't saluting quickly enough.
This police state is brought to you by BOTH halves of the demopublican party.
Amen.
It struck me last night that it works like this; "Sow and Harvest".
--That is, the system builds up a massive, robust economy, (using, of course, continued dirty pool via the alphabet agencies), and then sucks it all into the MIC when the crop is ripe. A Democratic government is sort of like feeding the beef cattle and letting them get some air before shipping them off to the Republican rendering plant.
John F. Kennedy was a spike in the system, so he had to die. Man, everybody in the power/money world hated him. (The linked on-line book was penned by the French secret service under pseudonym. It's an analysis of his presidency and all the forces he was setting into motion and doesn't really get into the actual assassination.)
I think Mark Shuttleworth is one of the few people this world has today who can be looked upon as genuinely heroic.
The man put up his own millions, fought to bring computer technology to the third world, and will mail you a free copy of the Ubuntu CD if you ask.
Yeah, talk about shortcomings and areas where it doesn't work, etc., but for crying out loud! It might be wise to treat it in a tone of constructive criticism rather than bitter complaint. A little respect is due here. Heck, a lot of respect is due here!
And sheesh, I'm not even a regular Linux user. (Not until the Gimp does more than 8 bits and builds a better layout and includes CMYK. And changes its creepy name.)
After a few days to contemplate, I have come to think of the Slashdot mod system as something akin to audience applause/booing. I know several people who visit Slashdot but who almost never post or engage in debate, but still enjoy reading the various discussions. --I do this all the time, posting only on those items upon which I have something useful to contribute. Audiences are swayed by perceptions of popularity; we are herd animals, after all, and that's just a basic reality. So I like looking at the mod points given to posts in that it allows me to know somewhat the mind of the community with regard t the issues being discussed. I am extremely fascinated by how societies think. The mod system provides another layer of information.
I don't know if this was how the Slashdot administrators intended the mod system to be used, but that's the way it works for many. --In our world, there will always be crowds and people will always have the option of booing people down who do not deserve to be booed down, and cheering on those who deserve to be silenced. --But that's the nature of human interaction. However, with skill and perseverance, this cannot prevent your message from propagating. It just offers a means for better knowing your target and of sculpting your message so that it can get in under the scales. The mod system thus provides extremely valuable feedback. That's what I've found, anyway. Those who post are performers in a very real sense, and performers need to know their audience.
--Also, to correct a false impression I obviously put forward, while I keep my slashdot filters open to all posting levels, certainly do not read all posts. I do not have the time. But I do skim. Skimming is an essential skill to have in Internet-Land. I have learned how to skim through information to quickly find the areas of value to me, but that only works when all the words are available. Those who use the mod system to hide from information are missing out, but that's their choice and their limitation and I don't let such things bother me. I just keep on posting as I see fit, and I never worry if anybody is actually reading because I know I'll be posting again later. The message isn't so important as the anchoring of a certain frequency of thought. Those who need to connect will, and those who do not want to will not. The vital thing is that the option remains open. --And of course, the vast side-benefit of being able to have your broken thoughts refined through debate.
So, the mod system may indeed be broken from your perspective, but it's not something which is going to change; the internet is all about audience participation. There will be wingdings and gadgets of all sorts on all the countless interfaces of the Web. Rather than be frustrated and thus limited by them, it's better to learn how to understand and surf them to your advantage. They're not going to go out of style anytime soon.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure to share this couple of posts with you! I very much hope you do stick around on Slashdot.
Here's the Frontline documentary, called, "Cheney's Law"
Also. . . I just saw the South Park episodes which dealt with 9-11 and Al Gore. Whew. Parker and Stone say they attack everybody equally, but that's nonsense. They're like everybody else; they have biases. While they're usually pretty good at cutting up issues to expose logical flaws, they have quite the conservative blind spot on several key items. They have a tendency to fall prey to their own cleverness; they declare opinions without fully researching the material they lampoon. "We're smart and witty, therefore we don't need to study the issue before rendering our opinion." Dude, that's so lame.
But something did strike me about this story which I wanted to share. . .
I find it amazing that such a small group of people, 123, could cause so much trouble for so many years. Luckily they were few enough to fall beneath the tide of the collective free-time efforts of the entire good-will internet. Job well done. I hope none of that 123 get hired ever again. --But that's a slim hope in this world. Typically, bombing out in a psychopathic organization is like passing a sort of evil initiation test; it proves you're one of the boys, so to speak. I see lucrative government posts in the future. Somebody should post a list of all of SCO's employees for future reference, (if it hasn't already been done). Keep your eyes out!
I guess the choice is, do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator or do you want to do something which you believe in? Both routes are valid, and if you can find happiness and fulfillment through creating crud, or if that does not take away from finding happiness in your life, then go for it! All experiences are valid. For my part, though, I avoid visiting or buying stuff from ugly sites.
--I figure, if a creator is resonating on the level of ugly, huckster design, then it probably means s/he has no respect for me or for the products being sold, and this translates into products/services which are probably also going to be dollar store junk. No thanks. Salsa lessons from a guy who creates a public image which has no grace? Huh? Isn't dance is supposed to be all about grace? There's a rational disconnect there for me. If he was passionate about his craft, then shouldn't that passion and desire for grace infect every other portion of his life?
You couldn't pay me enough to crudify my soul and surrender my values and become cynical, and guess what? Nobody has to, because sticking to high standards earns me a good income. Cynicism is not the only way to success. In fact, I would argue that it's a misleading way, since true success depends largely on how easy it is to love yourself at the end of the day.
I can't remember where I heard this little axiom, but it's one that repeats itself to me regularly and which I have found to be true; "People who refuse to settle for less rarely have to."
Healthy food I agree with completely, but there are quality television shows and videogames that don't turn your brain to mush. I'd prefer to be selective about what entertainment I consume, rather than completely cutting out entire mediums of entertainment which, if used properly, can be great sources of education and self-improvement. To follow your own drug metaphor, it looks like you were forced to go "cold-turkey", because you were unable to manage them any other way.
Well, I'll concede a point here. . . --I will certainly watch programs on a computer disk, etc, when they are my choice and the timing is up to me. It's a good way to stay in touch with culture and to track down the material which is of interest. But broadcast television I find to be just plain nasty; I've seen countless people plan their lives around broadcast schedules, and from what I've seen, it's rarely a simple matter of just watching the one program a person likes. It usually entails absorbing the crud before and after to kill time. And then it's not so much about the program, but about the calming, zone-out state created which I believe has been demonstrated to have a chemical and addictive component. --The known neurological effects of TV are really quite astonishing. After having removed the old CRT from my life and canceled the cable subscription, I'm always stunned when I enter a person's home where television still rules; the hammering of advertising and programming, (especially with regard to channel flipping), literally leaves my head buzzing, --in a bad way. I really don't think people can consciously put up the barriers necessary to avoid being negatively affected by television.
As for computer games. . . There are again some interesting elements which I pay attention to. --Without having played the games, I eagerly absorb the story ideas from the laest games. The stories we tell each other are the barometer of a society's awareness and psychological state. Stories are fun! But that can be studied in a relatively short amount of time without having to actually directly immerse oneself in the medium. But again, if it's drugs people want, then there's nothing actually wrong with partaking. All experiences are valid. I just prefer, for my part, not to experience having my mind re-written through hours of dissociative hypnosis in front of somebody else's world-view come to life and mixed with all manner of stress chemicals produced by the brain.
It seems to me that there is not really any such thing as 'being able to handle' it, when it comes to TV and video games. All exposure has a measurable effect. I find it best to just stay clear.
As for my attitude with regard to this. . , I really don't intend any sort of 'holier than thou' tone. This story is about MS computer games, a subject which fascinates me. So I'm just commenting on the patterns as I see them in good old public forum. The fact that my attitude happens to be different from the norm, while I can understand why it might annoy people, isn't my problem. I like different ways of looking at things, and I appreciate it when others post new ideas. Same-ness is dull, and in this world, same-ness also usually indicates something to be wary of.
Don't go drawing silly conspiracy theories and backhandedly painting yourself as superior simply because you don't enjoy things that other people do.
Silly? I'm just looking at the results of the forces which have been playing upon society and drawing conclusions which, yes, I believe do infer intent, though not probably from the standard sectors people might assume. --But wherever it stems from, the old patterns still work; Bread and circuses, and all that. And even in the event that there is no deliberate intent to dumb people down, the results remain the same.
Because the thing is, I DO enjoy video games. A lot. --As I'm sure I'd enjoy heroin were I to use it, but I choose not to because I don't want my brain to fry out and become mushy. Same with video games. Thousands of hours spent moving dots around on a screen with zero practical reward versus time invested in growing my own energies and knowledge? --The power structures of the world do not like people who refine themselves. Such people are much more difficult to control.
Although, 'superior' is certainly not a word I'd use to describe myself. (I've got a helluva lot of personal work to do on myself before I'd ever approach such arrogance, and if the work is done right, then self-importance should be bypassed altogether.) It is however interesting that you should pluck such a word out of the air. This suggests a something about how you perceive yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
-FL
Your all-you-can-eat buffet argument is actually quite apt. People's eating habits can be mapped, the limit being based on how much one person can physically consume, so restaurants rarely end up with problems.
Verizon should have played it safe, looking at their resources and the real limits, (a customer using the maximum bandwidth 24/7), and they should have charged appropriately for that service package based on their ability to deliver it. Promising unlimited usage to everybody was unrealistic. 10 or 20 people using the full bandwidth is a spike, but 13000 users is evidence of normal mass behavior which they obviously didn't plan for. --They made promises they couldn't keep and they lost the gamble.
The nature of contract law is that people and companies must be held accountable to the promises they make. Why should Verizon be treated any differently? When other companies fail to meet their obligations, the ideal model is to find some way to sever the deal in a manner which leaves the customer feeling that they were dealt with in good will, either through a refund or similar. Verizon handled itself without grace. They could have been up-front in saying, "Oops. We screwed up by signing a contract which we couldn't fulfill. To make it up to you, we'd like to offer the next two months at the same service level for the price you are currently paying, but after that we have to charge more. This will give you enough time to find another service provider. --Or if you want to cancel immediately, we'll give you back your money for the last two months." --Something like that would have shown good will and would have established new systems to avoid future problems with new clients. Instead they chose to act like dicks in the hope that nobody would sue.
I'm glad to see they lost that gamble as well.
-FL
A. A GPS device.
B. A pocket cutting torch capable of melting steel. (Still sci-fi AFIK)
C. A white LED flashlight. (My nomination for coolest, most elegant tech solution of the decade.)
D. An Asus Eee. (To replace my workhorse HP Jornada 800
with the busted hinge.)
E. A lightsaber.
F. A Trump Deck, (Amber)
G. A Leatherman Mini (Still the very best folding pliers ever made)
H. A SPACE 1999 stun gun (Campy as camp can be, but I was seven at the time, and the bar was forever set for cool space weaponry. Note the handy "Stun/Kill" toggle switch.)
I. A Pentel Brush Pen.
J. Afterbite mosquito bite instant relief.
K. A lock pick gun (You have to have a locksmith license to own one in most states.)
L. A humble pencil. --Possibly the best writing instrument ever invented. Still used today!
M. A candle lantern. (Burns for hours, folds up neat and tidy. Best with the bees wax candles.)
That's all I can think of for now. The Sonic Screwdriver is certainly neat, but with one of those, you can pretty much do away with about half the items on the above list.
Oh, and the reason the Leatherman Mini is the best version of the now ubiquitous folding pliers on the market is that nobody has yet made a pair which when closed is as small, and when open is as large, AND (very important) which has a smooth grip that doesn't bite into your palms when you apply pressure. I find it somewhat astonishing that it was one of the very first models ever to grace the market place, and nobody has come close since. I still regularly use my original pair purchased fifteen years ago. Rugged, useful, small, comfortable to use. --The only thing I'd do to improve upon it is to remove the knife and file, which would make it even smaller and lighter than it currently is.
Japanese twinkie-iPhoney-too-small-keypad bits of fluff seem kind of utterly useless to me.
-FL
What happens to the developing brains of the people who don't end up autistic, but retain some sort of less noticeable brain damage.
Brain damage has been strongly linked to both sociopathic and psychopathic behavior.
You need psychopaths to fuel an evil empire. Good people cannot be trusted in positions of power, if you want to build an evil government. Imagine Cheney needs to hire somebody to oversee some element of his power support structure. Frontline's recent documentary, Cheney's Law had a great example of what happens when you fail to hire a similarly sick personality for a post in your government; you get resistance! (The guy had to be pressured out so that corrupt laws would pass). The more psychos you have available, the easier it is to build the Dark Empire.
-FL
Horrible, toxic, non-renewable phosphorescent chemicals and heavy metals that are only used once, instead of once per page, but which still inevitably head to the land fill where they fail to rot into base organics the way paper does.
It sounds to me like your definition of 'insane' is somebody who describes advertising as 'sinister'. Sorry. Perhaps I should have said something bland like, "Manipulative with reckless disregard for health and welfare." If it smells like a rose and looks like a rose. . . And I can cite a lot more than one example, so please don't insinuate that I am somehow having to search within a shallow pool when you know so little about me.
It's interesting that the one example of control through advertising you cited occurred several decades before TV became commonplace. It's also interesting to read about cultural rituals involving head and body hair throughout recorded history, as there's stranger body modification practices than shaving legs, most of which existed before advertising or TV, or didn't depend on it.
No. Your points are only 'interesting' in that you seem to believe such half-baked reasoning validates your rudeness. The fact that advertising works was the point. Further, TV, which most certainly does put the brain into a highly receptive alpha state is not a matter of conjecture. It's proven fact which, combined with advertising and every other message sent at you by TV, makes humans highly susceptible to psychological manipulation. There's a reason billions of dollars are spent on television advertising and propaganda; it works extremely well. Read your Chomsky.
As for hair and body altering rituals. Yes, those behaviors are part of human nature. I am hardly contesting that. The point is that those behavior patterns can be switched on or off at will by powers which have no interest in public welfare. --Consider all the other human rituals and behavior patterns which TV has played a key role recently in activating and/or suppressing.
-FL
The internet is not television. The internet is a two-way communication technology which allows people like us to share and build and examine ideas as we are doing right now. People engaged in this manner on the internet exhibit heightened activity in numerous parts of the brain. --The more work you put into reading and thinking and using your brain in a dynamic way, the more you get back. TV, on the other hand, is a one-way medium and people's brain activity drops off within the first few seconds of viewing to levels similar to those in coma victims. --The fluorescing light from a TV screen is largely responsible for this effect.
-FL
Just because I've unplugged doesn't mean I don't still need to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. Or are you suggesting that I not use words or concepts if they could not be derived from my current way of living? Do you actually believe you've invalidated the point and that TV is healthy for you?
-FL
Ha ha. Your ignorance makes your joke seem funny to you. Good one.
This is hardly contested science. --As in, nobody contests it. You want to know more about it? Study advertising, psychology and TV's effect on brain chemistry. Just because you didn't see it on the Discovery Channel doesn't mean that it isn't real.
Do you know why women shave their legs? You probably don't, so I'll tell you. Women shave their legs because razor blade companies realized that they were only selling product to half the population, only to men. So they set about trying to convince the population through advertising that body hair on women was somehow dirty and undesirable. They did a very effective job, so now women feel ashamed to have body hair. That's why women shave their legs.
Advertising IS thought control, and it is the simplest kind, driven by greed as opposed to fear. There are other kinds. --One of which is designed to make chumps like you ridicule anybody who points out the man behind the curtain. You need to start learning how this stuff works, or you will find yourself existing in a perpetual state of stupid.
But hey, as long as you're stupid, your jokes will still seem funny to you. Bonus! Who needs reality?
-FL
TV had the potential to do a lot of good, but that ball wasn't just dropped; it was hurled out the nearest window.
The fluorescing screen is instrumental in dropping viewers into a dissociative state akin to hypnosis. This is measurable, and indeed has been measured using good old EEG technology. You've no doubt heard the details at some point in your life with regard to the physiological and psychological changes which take place almost immediately upon settling in for an evening of viewing. Suffice it to say that there is a reason people regularly cannot remember the last commercial advertisement they just viewed thirty seconds ago. --All of that in conjunction wth the audio messages which play over an active television have direct access to the subconscious. No matter how aware one is, the programming happens. No amount of TV viewing is 'safe', because the sinister messages flow at a constant rate and no amount of will power or critical discernment can prevent them from affecting you. --So yes, I do tend to have a somewhat vehement attitude toward having my awareness 'sculpted'. It's best to just steer clear altogether. In any case, with computer screens these days, with cold cathode lighting, and the ability to choose and filter the messages, I see very few valid reasons for having a television or a cable subscription.
And nice, light, conveniently packaged programming is generally provided by those for whom money is god, and that means you'll never get a full or accurate view of reality through regular TV broadcasting. Everybody, and I mean everybody I know who watches TV is sickly and appears to be functioning most of the time as though their brains are full of glue --Whereas the people I have met who have accumulated and wield significant personal power are those who have unplugged. Yes, that's just my experience, but it is a pattern I have seen repeated time and time again. I can usually, after being around somebody for a few minutes tell you whether or not they are regular television viewers. But like I said, that's just me. Perhaps you're different.
-FL
Hear Hear!
I remember the cable company calling me up shortly after I'd moved into a new place. I'd not automatically called them up to turn my co-ax on.
"We notice that you haven't activated your cable yet, sir. We can take care of that right away! What sort of package would you like to have, sir? "
"None. I don't want to watch TV, thanks."
Confused silence. (I really think that the sales guy had never contemplated life without cable before.) Then, "Why not?"
"Because TV sucks and people who watch it are losers. --In the sense that they are losing out on hundreds of hours of life every year, missing out on personal growth, and falling behind in their mental development. Have you noticed how so many people act like adolescents in their thinking patterns until well into adulthood and beyond. I don't want to be a loser."
"Oh."
"Do you watch TV?" (I was feeling perky and pesky.)
"Um, yes."
"You might want to reconsider your life. Have a nice day!" Click.
The amazing thing is that TV really wants to be in your life. I had to bat away offers and pressing arguments from friends, and in the end, the cable company just ended up providing free cable even though I didn't want or ask for it, (and certainly didn't pay for it.) Luckily my life had become so robust and interesting with all those extra hours filled with actual living that it was very easy not to turn the crack-tube back on again. These days I don't even own a television set.
Most poignant memory with regard to TV: Walking home one night and passing a three story apartment complex with virtually every window flickering that creepy blue TV light. It looked like a damned Borg cube, an analogy which, I thought, worked on several levels.
Beware the Zombie Nation.
-FL
Hm.
First of all, the Democrats are not my party. They are the Sowing half of the human harvesting cycle, on which the Republicans appear to be the reapers.
As for your other points. . . The last time I checked in with Rush Limbaugh, he was blustering away using loud, bullying and logically flawed emotional arguments to sway his listeners. Emotional arguments are the lowest form of political persuasion available this side of brute force, worthy of no respect at all. Until people figure that out, they might as well get used to slavery and misery. But I guess that's okay if they think they like it and have no awareness of how others lead happier lives.
I studied quite a bit about the Night of Long Knives. --And I didn't need television's History Channel to do it. The History Channel is just another tool of perception shaping. Before I ditched TV altogether, (the propaganda and mind-control box that it is), what I saw of the History Channel was thinly and perhaps not even intentionally disguised. It makes war look like a fun, well reasoned and albeit a hard but necessary thing. --And it successfully, (in your case anyway), causes people to think that fascism comes in only one flavour. The understanding of how to control a population has come a long, long way since the 1940's.
Also. . . You commented upon health care. Sheesh. --One film I would direct you to is Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. (Yes, the conservatives can't stand him, and despite some of the liberties he has taken in previous films, I'm aware of no similar objections to this latest film. And in any case, he doesn't work up a lather yelling at the camera like Rush. He provides concrete research rather than John Wayne references.) As a Canadian, who enjoys a country with a far higher standard of living than the U.S., I must say that when my girlfriend cut the end off her finger, having it put back on at no cost to her was wonderful, and it happened within an hour of her walking into the hospital.
As a baker in a small business and with a prior history of previous abnormal illness, she wouldn't have been eligible for American health insurance, nor at the age of twenty-one would she have been able to afford the doctor's bill. Yet, amazingly, Canadian society manages to have a health care system which, while it does suffer from a few flaws which can be traced to bad government, it's pretty awesome, and we do it while maintaining a standard of living far higher than that of the U.S., with barely a fraction of the starving and illiterate people south of the border. Heck, the percentage of our population living in prisons is also not the highest in the first world, (unlike that of the U.S.). Indeed, I look at such a stunted system as the American one, and constantly hold myself in amazement that such a cruddy state of affairs can actually have hardened supporters who are not among the elite. --That believing a vibrant, giving and highly valued young woman as my girlfriend is in her community, can live with the benefit of excellent health-care is somehow limiting of her freedoms is the result of such an astounding con job by the American political system that I have a very hard time believing that people can be so easily misled. I see a free and happy girl as compared to a girl who would probably have lost her finger under the U.S. system. How is that freedom? --The people in Communist Russia were told lots of lies by their government as well, but the difference is that without television and lots of mind-numbing creature comforts and high-sugar foods, the people of Russia for the most part didn't eat up the propaganda like the Americans do. --That's an example of those advancements in population control techniques I mentioned earlier.
In any case, you asked if anybody has been inconvenienced by the surveillance problem in the U.S. and I said, "Yes." And your answer to that appears to be general apologist jargon, which I do not buy for some of the reasons I just described.
You're right; Governments can't be trusted.
However, complacency is certainly not my position. But I'm not about to lead a muzzles-blazing charge into. . . well, where, exactly? The Military Industrial Complex isn't located in an office block somewhere. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the complex isn't more a psychological one; an inherent condition of the human race, resulting from the dual prongs of greed and fear. --Except even that I don't believe entirely, since we all have choice. I think the way to combat the system is to rigorously choose against it at every fork in every road. If I choose not to act selfishly and destructively, to call down the lies when I hear them and have the energy available to speak up, then I act to cut off the energy which flows to the Beast. If everybody simultaneously decided not to hurt people or to act selfishly or to keep secrets or to feed away their energy to the wrong people, the whole evil empire would shudder to an immediate halt.
I doubt that can happen all at once, so a little bit at a time is the next best alternative. I think a great way to start would be to figure out a fool proof genetic method to test for psychopathy, and to remove such individuals from all seats of power. It's doable, and it would do a lot to fix this world.
-FL
This email has been filed away somewhere, but so what? I'd happily repeat the above to their faces.
-FL
"We must indeed all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." --Yes, Prime Minister
-FL
Well, I don't know about you, but I've lost people to Afghanistan and the world lives in fear and loathing and ill health as a result of Bush & Dick. I feel a little more than inconvenienced. Every day is a lot darker than it needs to be, and I don't like walking around knowing that with a pen stroke, Bush can put anybody behind barbed wire with zero legal recourse. Surveillance may not directly inconvenience you, but it's arguably the most vital organ in the fascist beast. --And while it was healthy and strong pre 9/11 it certainly wasn't used to stop guys with box cutters from boarding those jet liners. --In fact, I'd argue that it was used to make sure 9-11 went down the way it did. So if 10,000,000 people get atomized in an atomic fireball, it won't be because surveillance failed. It'll be because people aren't saluting quickly enough.
-FL
Amen.
It struck me last night that it works like this; "Sow and Harvest".
--That is, the system builds up a massive, robust economy, (using, of course, continued dirty pool via the alphabet agencies), and then sucks it all into the MIC when the crop is ripe. A Democratic government is sort of like feeding the beef cattle and letting them get some air before shipping them off to the Republican rendering plant.
John F. Kennedy was a spike in the system, so he had to die. Man, everybody in the power/money world hated him. (The linked on-line book was penned by the French secret service under pseudonym. It's an analysis of his presidency and all the forces he was setting into motion and doesn't really get into the actual assassination.)
-FL
-FL
The man put up his own millions, fought to bring computer technology to the third world, and will mail you a free copy of the Ubuntu CD if you ask.
Yeah, talk about shortcomings and areas where it doesn't work, etc., but for crying out loud! It might be wise to treat it in a tone of constructive criticism rather than bitter complaint. A little respect is due here. Heck, a lot of respect is due here!
And sheesh, I'm not even a regular Linux user. (Not until the Gimp does more than 8 bits and builds a better layout and includes CMYK. And changes its creepy name.)
-FL
I don't know if this was how the Slashdot administrators intended the mod system to be used, but that's the way it works for many. --In our world, there will always be crowds and people will always have the option of booing people down who do not deserve to be booed down, and cheering on those who deserve to be silenced. --But that's the nature of human interaction. However, with skill and perseverance, this cannot prevent your message from propagating. It just offers a means for better knowing your target and of sculpting your message so that it can get in under the scales. The mod system thus provides extremely valuable feedback. That's what I've found, anyway. Those who post are performers in a very real sense, and performers need to know their audience.
--Also, to correct a false impression I obviously put forward, while I keep my slashdot filters open to all posting levels, certainly do not read all posts. I do not have the time. But I do skim. Skimming is an essential skill to have in Internet-Land. I have learned how to skim through information to quickly find the areas of value to me, but that only works when all the words are available. Those who use the mod system to hide from information are missing out, but that's their choice and their limitation and I don't let such things bother me. I just keep on posting as I see fit, and I never worry if anybody is actually reading because I know I'll be posting again later. The message isn't so important as the anchoring of a certain frequency of thought. Those who need to connect will, and those who do not want to will not. The vital thing is that the option remains open. --And of course, the vast side-benefit of being able to have your broken thoughts refined through debate.
So, the mod system may indeed be broken from your perspective, but it's not something which is going to change; the internet is all about audience participation. There will be wingdings and gadgets of all sorts on all the countless interfaces of the Web. Rather than be frustrated and thus limited by them, it's better to learn how to understand and surf them to your advantage. They're not going to go out of style anytime soon.
Anyway, it's been a pleasure to share this couple of posts with you! I very much hope you do stick around on Slashdot.
-FL
Here's the Frontline documentary, called, "Cheney's Law"
Also. . . I just saw the South Park episodes which dealt with 9-11 and Al Gore. Whew. Parker and Stone say they attack everybody equally, but that's nonsense. They're like everybody else; they have biases. While they're usually pretty good at cutting up issues to expose logical flaws, they have quite the conservative blind spot on several key items. They have a tendency to fall prey to their own cleverness; they declare opinions without fully researching the material they lampoon. "We're smart and witty, therefore we don't need to study the issue before rendering our opinion." Dude, that's so lame.
I wonder what their position is on wire tapping.
-FL
But something did strike me about this story which I wanted to share. . .
I find it amazing that such a small group of people, 123, could cause so much trouble for so many years. Luckily they were few enough to fall beneath the tide of the collective free-time efforts of the entire good-will internet. Job well done. I hope none of that 123 get hired ever again. --But that's a slim hope in this world. Typically, bombing out in a psychopathic organization is like passing a sort of evil initiation test; it proves you're one of the boys, so to speak. I see lucrative government posts in the future. Somebody should post a list of all of SCO's employees for future reference, (if it hasn't already been done). Keep your eyes out!
-FL
I guess the choice is, do you want to pander to the lowest common denominator or do you want to do something which you believe in? Both routes are valid, and if you can find happiness and fulfillment through creating crud, or if that does not take away from finding happiness in your life, then go for it! All experiences are valid. For my part, though, I avoid visiting or buying stuff from ugly sites.
--I figure, if a creator is resonating on the level of ugly, huckster design, then it probably means s/he has no respect for me or for the products being sold, and this translates into products/services which are probably also going to be dollar store junk. No thanks. Salsa lessons from a guy who creates a public image which has no grace? Huh? Isn't dance is supposed to be all about grace? There's a rational disconnect there for me. If he was passionate about his craft, then shouldn't that passion and desire for grace infect every other portion of his life?
You couldn't pay me enough to crudify my soul and surrender my values and become cynical, and guess what? Nobody has to, because sticking to high standards earns me a good income. Cynicism is not the only way to success. In fact, I would argue that it's a misleading way, since true success depends largely on how easy it is to love yourself at the end of the day.
I can't remember where I heard this little axiom, but it's one that repeats itself to me regularly and which I have found to be true; "People who refuse to settle for less rarely have to."
-FL
Well, I'll concede a point here. . . --I will certainly watch programs on a computer disk, etc, when they are my choice and the timing is up to me. It's a good way to stay in touch with culture and to track down the material which is of interest. But broadcast television I find to be just plain nasty; I've seen countless people plan their lives around broadcast schedules, and from what I've seen, it's rarely a simple matter of just watching the one program a person likes. It usually entails absorbing the crud before and after to kill time. And then it's not so much about the program, but about the calming, zone-out state created which I believe has been demonstrated to have a chemical and addictive component. --The known neurological effects of TV are really quite astonishing. After having removed the old CRT from my life and canceled the cable subscription, I'm always stunned when I enter a person's home where television still rules; the hammering of advertising and programming, (especially with regard to channel flipping), literally leaves my head buzzing, --in a bad way. I really don't think people can consciously put up the barriers necessary to avoid being negatively affected by television.
As for computer games. . . There are again some interesting elements which I pay attention to. --Without having played the games, I eagerly absorb the story ideas from the laest games. The stories we tell each other are the barometer of a society's awareness and psychological state. Stories are fun! But that can be studied in a relatively short amount of time without having to actually directly immerse oneself in the medium. But again, if it's drugs people want, then there's nothing actually wrong with partaking. All experiences are valid. I just prefer, for my part, not to experience having my mind re-written through hours of dissociative hypnosis in front of somebody else's world-view come to life and mixed with all manner of stress chemicals produced by the brain.
It seems to me that there is not really any such thing as 'being able to handle' it, when it comes to TV and video games. All exposure has a measurable effect. I find it best to just stay clear.
As for my attitude with regard to this. . , I really don't intend any sort of 'holier than thou' tone. This story is about MS computer games, a subject which fascinates me. So I'm just commenting on the patterns as I see them in good old public forum. The fact that my attitude happens to be different from the norm, while I can understand why it might annoy people, isn't my problem. I like different ways of looking at things, and I appreciate it when others post new ideas. Same-ness is dull, and in this world, same-ness also usually indicates something to be wary of.
-FL
Silly? I'm just looking at the results of the forces which have been playing upon society and drawing conclusions which, yes, I believe do infer intent, though not probably from the standard sectors people might assume. --But wherever it stems from, the old patterns still work; Bread and circuses, and all that. And even in the event that there is no deliberate intent to dumb people down, the results remain the same.
Because the thing is, I DO enjoy video games. A lot. --As I'm sure I'd enjoy heroin were I to use it, but I choose not to because I don't want my brain to fry out and become mushy. Same with video games. Thousands of hours spent moving dots around on a screen with zero practical reward versus time invested in growing my own energies and knowledge? --The power structures of the world do not like people who refine themselves. Such people are much more difficult to control.
Although, 'superior' is certainly not a word I'd use to describe myself. (I've got a helluva lot of personal work to do on myself before I'd ever approach such arrogance, and if the work is done right, then self-importance should be bypassed altogether.) It is however interesting that you should pluck such a word out of the air. This suggests a something about how you perceive yourself.
-FL