its always a choice between the guy who wants change to go a little faster and the guy who wants change to go a little slower
any other candidates, who represent more fringe positions, are not viable candidates
if no political parties existed (which is impossible: its politics, people associate) or if there were 3, or 4 or 5 major parties (which would naturally devolve to 2 truly powerful parties anyway, along the main ideological axis), there would still only be 2 valid candidates along the only ideological axis that really matters
if there were 3, and 2 had similar views, they would simply cannibalize each others support and the other guy would win, regardless of your voting method, political parties, etc
your views are just sort of a wallowing in pessimism and helplessness
there are of course a million dimensions of ideology. there's gun toting right wingers... who grow pot on their rural farms. there's gay people... who are mostly right wing in thinking (the log cabin republicans). there's very religious people... who are utterly socialist in their thinking about taking care of the community, by the community. etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum. for every issue, there is a dimension of opinions. and there's a million issues. and you could mix up make up the most seemingly contradictory impossible ideology of various opinions on various issues, and you'll probably find at least someone out there who believes that with a serious straight face
but there's not a million dimensions THAT MATTER. there's only one that matters
there is one dimension which hangs over all ideological dimensions, and is, in effect, the master dimension. we don't talk about left and right wing because we are simpletons and reductionists, we talk about left and right wing because this is an entirely real and completely dominant ideological pivot, a genuinely valuable metric to use when debating politics:
rate of change
those on the far left want change too rapidly. faster than society can adapt to and absorb. resulting in societal overheating, friction, and eventual societal break down and anarchy. those on the far right don't want change at all, or even backwards movement. which results in stasis, stultification, and impoverishment due to feeble backwardness and ignorance
so what is the most valid rate of change? society determines that, at least in a democracy, with competing parties constantly seeking out the most support from the most people by seeking the most moderate rate of change in the center possible, while straddling and waffling to keep their radical fringes reasonably happy as well. democracy is self-correcting and self-seeking on the sweet spot of rate of change for its population. you see that in the current healthcare debate
democracy works, it really does. it doesn't work from the perspective of "this is my ideology and i want everyone to agree with me", which is the usual retarded criticism of democracy from fringe idiots
but democracy DOES work from the point of view of: "this is the bell curve of ideologies out there. find me the sweet spot and make that the value system of the government in charge"
and when a government most accurately reflects the will of the people, you have met really the only metric possible for determining validity of a government. stability, legitimacy: it enables peace, tranquility, education, progress, economic growth, and everything else you value in good governance and a happy stable rich and productive society
but of course, loud, ignorant ideologues from the fringe will never see the value in such weird concepts. social stability? pffft. to them, the government is evil, corrupt, fascist, communist, corporatocracy, idiocracy, etc... zzz
the american left and right wing is far to the left
what makes his perspective any less valid than yours?
or rather, with what arrogance do you suppose your ideological perspective is a valid perspective?
the truth is, ideology is a bell curve in any country, and within the usa, which is a democracy, the right and the left compete over the middle of this bell curve for support. this keeps the left and right wing in the usa from becoming too radical, because if they do drift too far right or left, they would lose support, and therefore power. we saw this with the election of barack obama because the republicans had become too beholden of ideological purists form the far right. and we see the continuing soul searching of the republican party now between ideological purists (who represent republican defeat, but they don't know it, because their appeal is on the fringe of the bell curve) and pragmatists who wish to moderate the republican party to regain power
in other words: dmeocracy works. it moderates and stabilizes left and right wing forces
of course, someone from outside the country (or on the fringe of the bell curve within that country) would see everyone to be vastly left wing or vastly right wing... but who cares? what validity does that person have to criticize? the validity of right and left wing is objectively and coherently defined as what lies to the left and right of the middle of the ideological bell curve of the country in question. all other perspectives are simply invalid and pointless, because they do not represent the actual middle ground of the will of the people
the ONLY valid ideological point of view is that of the middle of the bell curve of a population. what makes this point of view of paramount validity is that this is the point of view that determines maximum political stability for that population. since in a democracy, parties are constantly scrambling to maximize their influence, their platforms are constantly being tweaked to seek out this moderate ideology as best as possible
in other words, democracy works, despite invalid snark from the fringes of the bell curve and from outside the country, and you should be happy that this process is healthy in the usa as demonstrated by the last presidential election
you do NOT want the siberian ice dildo treatment, especially in the ear. its been tried and it works:
Trotsky helped lead the 1917 Russian Revolution, but split with Josef Stalin and fled to Mexico in 1937, accusing Stalin of betraying the revolution. Stalin is widely believed to have arranged Trotsky's Aug. 20, 1940, murder, in which a man sneaked up behind Trotsky and sank the icepick into his skull.
religious thought is a valid discipline. it answers questions like "why should i get out bed in the morning" "what should i do with my life" etc. questions of intent, purpose, desire. questions that science has nothing to do with, and visa versa
the existence of vast reams of drek that calls itself religion or science and is neither: there are no perfect authorities on anything in this world. you must use your mind, and verify what someone professes to you. in fact, the moment some tells you their judgment is infallible and their authority unquestionable, on either science or religion, is the exact moment you should never trust them and believe everything they say is a lie. we all need healthy bullshit meters to survive this world
what if we didn't see a 20m asteroid? how about a 100m asteroid? this 7m one makes us think about those possibilities as a completely valid concern
fear mongering is a big problem in this world. but the antidote to fear mongering is NOT complete imperviousness to fear. that's just as idiotic as fearmongering. what you need is balance between panty twisting hysteria and unresponsive inertia
fear is a healthy emotion. it keeps you alive. its a valid motivation, when combined with intelligence
so the proper response to this event is to invest in more monitoring. what is motivating that response? fear. genuine, intelligent, prudent fear
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
the game you are playing is being the upstanding moral person. which is a good game, the most important game
but the game i am talking about is winning influence over people: politics
politics never was, is or ever will be about doing the right thing, but about doing the thing that wins the most influence. doing the right thing and winning influence are goals that often overlap in tactics, but not always
so you are correct, within the narrow confines of the goal you have in mind. but if you examine the nature of the game actually being played however by these cretins, you will notice being silent and above the fray wins you no influence
in politics, you have to get down and dirty and mess it up with the opposition to your agenda, no matter how dirty they play. not because you want to, but because you have to. ignoring them merely wins them more influence. directly confronting their lies and smears meanwhile is the only way to retain your influence and to grow it while under attack
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery. to point lies, propaganda, and demagoguery back at the crap flingers is to merely use their own tactics against them
i am not aware of michelle obama engaging in smears and vindictive hysterical FUD against people she dislikes. but of course, that doesn't stop the likes of beck and limbaugh from pointing smears and propaganda at people they dislike for ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the accusations they throw at people
that someone should point the same bullshit at them: exactly where is the hypocritical rule written that people who fling mud can't have mud flung at them?
you think can continue civilization and the sending of people into outer space with the vandals and goths sacking your major cities?
it is a sort of ignorance that thinks the poor simply vanish into the ether if you don't address their problems. it is also pretty ignorant not to understand why some of those poor are your next heisenbergs and your next goddards
it is classism you stink of, and you are not a credit to anything you think are. you're part of the problem, damage to route around. wash off your classism and grow a fucking conscience
who try to build perpetual motion machines. this doesn't mean they should be seriously considered or considered part of the definition of what science is
the same observation applies to certain "religious" folk
any "how" in the bible is to be taken figuratively not literally. of course there are some who take it literally. these are fools, not people you should point at as valid representatitives of a religion. of course they posit themselves as that, of course there will be fools who follow them. just like there are "scientists" who investigate the paranormal, and consider themselves to be valid scientists, and people believe them. do such quacks deserve to be valid representatives of science in your mind? if no, then you can't put forth religious minded fools to be valid representatives of religion either
i delineated the difference between science and religion successfully. i then said there exist fools who don't understand that delineation. don't point at those same fools as a disproof of my point. my point remains sound, the existence of those fools does not disprove my point
the existence of idiots in this world proves nothing. if i defined the socratic method, and then a fool said the socratic method was a method for playing blackjack, does the existence of this fool disprove, slander, invalidate or in any other way say anything useful about the socratic method? no, it merely proves there exist people in this world who are ignorant, and who bear no value for coherently defining what certain concepts actually mean
science can never answer why as a simple consequence of what science is
religion can never answer how as a simple consequence of what religion is
as soon as you get those two strands of thought separated in your mind, you notice that science and religion never meet, and there is no conflict even possible
therefore, anyone who sees any conflict between science and religion simply doesn't understand the definition of science and/or religion
for the remaining 5% of serious athletes and bodybuilders, it is stupid. however those 5% of workout monsters stopped thinking about BMI years ago and are probably well versed in the knowledge of dietitians and sports physiologists. to criticize the BMI from that point of view is to simply not understand your audience: the average joe, who isn't interested in exercise, and needs to be. so why shit on a valuable tool for getting him interested?
BMI is not meant to be the end-all be-all metric. it is meant to be a quick rule of thumb for the majority who are only vaguely interested or educated in the details of physiology. the BMI is a gateway to more interest and more concern for your health, and therefore it is extremely useful
so you should welcome and respect the value of the BMI for the average joe as a doorway to more interest and more knowledge about their well-being. you shouldn't shit on it because it isn't comprehensive and exacting
you see this a lot in people who have specialized information but are blinded by a preening ego. such as computer professionals who scoff at the low security knowledge of the average joe. look: the average joe is the average joe is the average joe. instead of shitting on him, throw him some easy tips he can use to become more knowledgeable and interested in what he should be more knowledgeable and interested in out of concern for his well-being
stop turning your nose up at the BMI. the only thing you are helping is your ego. embrace the BMI, and evangelize it to passively interested folks, for their sake. of course its bullshit for a serious athlete. as if a serious athlete doesn't know that already. as if anyone needed you to remind them that the BMI is only a rough blunt instrument. as if average joes need you to turn them off from this very useful quick rule of thumb
Combustion of ETFE occurs in the same way as a number of other fluoropolymers, in terms of releasing hydrofluoric acid (HF). HF is extremely corrosive, and so appropriate caution must be exercised.
awesome: nothing like the smell of hot HF to really get your day started
what alien alternative universe do you live in where artists ever made art for cash? they do it for love. and, after making their art, what strange alternative world do you live in where artists were guaranteed income for making their art? in the pre-internet age, the 1980s, 1000 years ago, 1000 years from now: the vast majority of artists were, are, and forever will be, poor. only the hypertalented AND the lucky, a handful out of thousands, ever will experience great riches form art. this will never change, and the previous distribution model you are defending never promised any different
furthermore, unless you were a huge act, distributors wrote the contracts so they reaped the majority of profits. all those one hit wonders from the 1980s, after the free limos and airplane rides the distributor provided in exchange for signing away everything except pennies, were starving again a few years after their hits. you aren't defending a model that rewards artists, you are defending a model that rewards distributors. you are drinking some strong koolaid if you believe that model exists for the benefit of artists
meanwhile, in a world where artists give their works away for free, they make their living, as modest or rich as it may be, from ancillary sources of revenue. so even the tiniest acts, that distributors would ignore, still make a tiny income. even if this represents far less cash overall flowing around, direct artist-consumer links represent more cash for the artists, because in the previous model, distributors were siphoning off the majority of the cash. unless the artist was a huge sustained hit, then they could muscle in directly into the distributor's business model
concerts DO make money, and lots of it. when all of the bullshit legal setups are removed where the distributor isn't involved, there's even more cash involved
"Any art in future will be voluntary"
any art in the past, the present and the future always was and always will be voluntary
fact: art creates fame
fact: fame can be capitalized on in a million ways
do you deny any of those two facts? if you don't then you have no argument against me
just because your imagination is limited and you can't think beyond dead, entrenched business models is no valid argument against a superior distribution model that cuts out the middle man who adds no value
this charge always amused me. the model i am portraying is the same model television and radio have been using for decades: content free to consumers, artists supported by ads, ancillary revenue. a model cooked up in the kitchen of extreme capitalism. why is that model communism or freeloading oh great genius?
in a model where artists and consumers interact directly, the most democratic, egalitarian and efficient model for determining quality is in effect. fame results. fame is capitalized upon. tiny bits of fame results. tiny bits of fame is capitalized in tiny ways. a true flowering of culture in a market free of artificial constraints. a market with constraints, a market where distributors are injected into the flow of culture via artificial legalistic means backed up by the government... hmmm... what does that sound like to you?
in the distributor model of control, the distributor decides quality on based on capiricious reasons, and ignores the small fish that aren't worth their time. inefficient, monopolistic
if you will recall in your exalted wisdom of what capitalism is, monopolistic practices, artificial manipulation of the market, is the enemy of capitalism, not its friend
your criticism of my words stems from ignorance of the concepts. you don't even know what capitalism fucking is. you just know how to hurl epithets, without even knowing what the ideas in play mean
people create art. people always will create art. people will create art even if art is outlawed and the artist's family is set on fire: creating art is just part of our souls, what it means to be human. its never going away
where commerce comes into that fact is without meaning as to whether or not art is created. additionally, commerce DOES come into art, one way or another, and always will, also regardless of the legal/ distribution model: people will always be able to capitalize on fame, and fame is always the result of someone's art that is well-received
the ancillary stream model is how artists will make money. because its the ONLY VALID (not legally valid, but valid as in realistic and workable) way an artist can make money in a world where digital content is free. and it IS free, and will remain free, despite any UNENFORCEABLE law you can dream of. so just deal with that fact
"My advice to you would be to go ahead and try your ancillary revenue stream model, and see how well it works. I hope it works, but I don't think it will work as well as you think it will."
actually, i think the ancillary model means i most probably will be broke
but i am not arguing against my self, i am merely representing a truth of art: most artists are broke, were broke, and will forever more be broke. are you of some sort of delusion that the distribution model before the internet supported a great flourishing of arts and enabled millions of minor talents to support themselves? no, it only made distributors rich. art is something that only a few very talented and lucky will ever become dramatically rich at. and this is true whatever the hell the distribution model is
in fact, with an internet distribution model, consumers decide directly who deserves ancillary streams, such that minor talents will receive some financial benefit, however small, hat previously was impossible when distributors only paid attention to large revenue streams that were worth their time. simply because its artist-directly-linked-to-consumer. consumers deciding for themselves who deserves what, without an artificial filter placed in between where the small fry were always squeezed out. you tell me what happened to one hit wonders form the eighties. they got pennies, the distributors made millions. only the really huge acts were able to muscle in on the distributors cash bonanza. the rest were given bullshit contracts
the itnernet model is a democratic, egalitarian and capitalistically sound model than distributors artificially inserting themselves and their random judgments into the process. via legal contracts. which any artist will tell you, successful or not, is random, capricious, and nothing but a source of suffering. distributors decide what "quality" is, not consumers, which is fucking bullshit
the death of the distributor is only a good thing, financially and quality wise, for the artists, and will result in a great flowering of culture, not a die off
you somehow have it all backwards about why people create art and what they expect from the process. they do it out of love, and any riches are only an extra benefit. the artist does better in a distribution model that can potentially reward even the most minor acts, the consumer does better off free access to a richness of media, and distributor DIES THE FUCK OFF (obviously, not quietly)
die dinosaurs, just shut the fuck up and die already. you've been rendered extinct. you're parasites, you always were, but your necessary evil is no longer necessary. the internet did it. its called technological progress
ancillary streams: advertising, toy line tie ins, movie script deals, public speaking, personalized content, endorsements, live concerts, cinema house, paperback copies...
making money off of art is not going away and will never go away. fame can always be capitalized upon. the change is that instead of content being what is bought and sold, content is free advertising for the artist
let me ask you something: why do consumers need to adapt? why aren't creators and distributors adapting to consumers?
you go ahead and try to herd those cats. but my advice to you is that the new model is that consumers get digital content for free, and all moneys to be made off that content is via ancillary streams
don't like that new model? fine. go ahead and fight it if you wish, but you have just as much chance to prevail as a struggle with the rising and setting of the sun
the world changes. not everyone benefits. deal with it. the consumer is king, and he/ she decides, and you follow what they say, end of story. and what the consumer has decided is that the entire edifice of laws, infrastructure and conglomerates that existed off of the pre-internet media distribution model has been rendered null and void. you are extinct
now fuck off and die already. your death throes are annoying, dinosaur. it does not reflect well on you when you have been destroyed and you don't see it or fail to accept it
they beam their content FOR FREE onto the airwaves
they make money off of advertising
likewise, in the future, artists will connect to consumers directly, by giving away their media FOR FREE. then they get their income in ancillary streams: concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, advertising, promotion, specialized content, speakign engagements, toy product line tie ins, movie adapation deals, etc
NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED
and it is a COMPLETE fallacy that you need cash up front to make art. plenty toil in povery, plenty always will. they do it OUT OF LOVE FOR THE ART. and we the consumer will continue to pick a few out of obscurity and reward them with fame and riches. NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED
before the internet, you were a necessary evil. someone had to distribute the media, and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service. that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... then
you have been replace, by the internet
authors, musicians, directors: they distribute their media for free. it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue: ancillary streams like advertising, promotion, concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, specialized content, speaking engagements, movie adaptation deals, etc.
you are no longer necessary, and the laws that protect you are defunct. the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of being
direct artist-consumer links, that is the internet. books, video, music, anything of value that is consumed digitally: its all free. revenue sources are all ancillary streams. ONLY FOR THE ARTIST. NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED, SO NO REVENUE FOR YOU
YOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT. DEAL WITH IT. FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY
Slashdot Mirror
its always a choice between the guy who wants change to go a little faster and the guy who wants change to go a little slower
any other candidates, who represent more fringe positions, are not viable candidates
if no political parties existed (which is impossible: its politics, people associate) or if there were 3, or 4 or 5 major parties (which would naturally devolve to 2 truly powerful parties anyway, along the main ideological axis), there would still only be 2 valid candidates along the only ideological axis that really matters
if there were 3, and 2 had similar views, they would simply cannibalize each others support and the other guy would win, regardless of your voting method, political parties, etc
your views are just sort of a wallowing in pessimism and helplessness
there are of course a million dimensions of ideology. there's gun toting right wingers... who grow pot on their rural farms. there's gay people... who are mostly right wing in thinking (the log cabin republicans). there's very religious people... who are utterly socialist in their thinking about taking care of the community, by the community. etc., etc., etc, ad nauseum. for every issue, there is a dimension of opinions. and there's a million issues. and you could mix up make up the most seemingly contradictory impossible ideology of various opinions on various issues, and you'll probably find at least someone out there who believes that with a serious straight face
but there's not a million dimensions THAT MATTER. there's only one that matters
there is one dimension which hangs over all ideological dimensions, and is, in effect, the master dimension. we don't talk about left and right wing because we are simpletons and reductionists, we talk about left and right wing because this is an entirely real and completely dominant ideological pivot, a genuinely valuable metric to use when debating politics:
rate of change
those on the far left want change too rapidly. faster than society can adapt to and absorb. resulting in societal overheating, friction, and eventual societal break down and anarchy. those on the far right don't want change at all, or even backwards movement. which results in stasis, stultification, and impoverishment due to feeble backwardness and ignorance
so what is the most valid rate of change? society determines that, at least in a democracy, with competing parties constantly seeking out the most support from the most people by seeking the most moderate rate of change in the center possible, while straddling and waffling to keep their radical fringes reasonably happy as well. democracy is self-correcting and self-seeking on the sweet spot of rate of change for its population. you see that in the current healthcare debate
democracy works, it really does. it doesn't work from the perspective of "this is my ideology and i want everyone to agree with me", which is the usual retarded criticism of democracy from fringe idiots
but democracy DOES work from the point of view of: "this is the bell curve of ideologies out there. find me the sweet spot and make that the value system of the government in charge"
and when a government most accurately reflects the will of the people, you have met really the only metric possible for determining validity of a government. stability, legitimacy: it enables peace, tranquility, education, progress, economic growth, and everything else you value in good governance and a happy stable rich and productive society
but of course, loud, ignorant ideologues from the fringe will never see the value in such weird concepts. social stability? pffft. to them, the government is evil, corrupt, fascist, communist, corporatocracy, idiocracy, etc... zzz
the american left and right wing is far to the left
what makes his perspective any less valid than yours?
or rather, with what arrogance do you suppose your ideological perspective is a valid perspective?
the truth is, ideology is a bell curve in any country, and within the usa, which is a democracy, the right and the left compete over the middle of this bell curve for support. this keeps the left and right wing in the usa from becoming too radical, because if they do drift too far right or left, they would lose support, and therefore power. we saw this with the election of barack obama because the republicans had become too beholden of ideological purists form the far right. and we see the continuing soul searching of the republican party now between ideological purists (who represent republican defeat, but they don't know it, because their appeal is on the fringe of the bell curve) and pragmatists who wish to moderate the republican party to regain power
in other words: dmeocracy works. it moderates and stabilizes left and right wing forces
of course, someone from outside the country (or on the fringe of the bell curve within that country) would see everyone to be vastly left wing or vastly right wing... but who cares? what validity does that person have to criticize? the validity of right and left wing is objectively and coherently defined as what lies to the left and right of the middle of the ideological bell curve of the country in question. all other perspectives are simply invalid and pointless, because they do not represent the actual middle ground of the will of the people
the ONLY valid ideological point of view is that of the middle of the bell curve of a population. what makes this point of view of paramount validity is that this is the point of view that determines maximum political stability for that population. since in a democracy, parties are constantly scrambling to maximize their influence, their platforms are constantly being tweaked to seek out this moderate ideology as best as possible
in other words, democracy works, despite invalid snark from the fringes of the bell curve and from outside the country, and you should be happy that this process is healthy in the usa as demonstrated by the last presidential election
you do NOT want the siberian ice dildo treatment, especially in the ear. its been tried and it works:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8543908/
that the world is not full of fools and liars?
religious thought is a valid discipline. it answers questions like "why should i get out bed in the morning" "what should i do with my life" etc. questions of intent, purpose, desire. questions that science has nothing to do with, and visa versa
the existence of vast reams of drek that calls itself religion or science and is neither: there are no perfect authorities on anything in this world. you must use your mind, and verify what someone professes to you. in fact, the moment some tells you their judgment is infallible and their authority unquestionable, on either science or religion, is the exact moment you should never trust them and believe everything they say is a lie. we all need healthy bullshit meters to survive this world
what if we didn't see a 20m asteroid? how about a 100m asteroid? this 7m one makes us think about those possibilities as a completely valid concern
fear mongering is a big problem in this world. but the antidote to fear mongering is NOT complete imperviousness to fear. that's just as idiotic as fearmongering. what you need is balance between panty twisting hysteria and unresponsive inertia
fear is a healthy emotion. it keeps you alive. its a valid motivation, when combined with intelligence
so the proper response to this event is to invest in more monitoring. what is motivating that response? fear. genuine, intelligent, prudent fear
his goal is to get attention, whether positive or negative. in fact, getting negative attention from his ideological opponents is probably more dear to him than getting positive attention from his admirers
you have to understand the man and the nature of his business: he's a professional troll. his goal is to create and generate emotional responses, whether positive or negative, its all the same to him. this is his business, and he's good at it. proof being, sites that mock and satire him: its proof of success
in fact, i'd bet he actually doesn't mind the site, it doesn't really bother him personally, but he shrewdly calculated that feigning outrage as a reaction would win him more response. i mean look at this giant shitstorm generated on slashdot over this ego-pumping pointlessness. we're all talking about glenn beck. beck, beck, beck, blah blah blah: he wins, he has our attention, he's the subject of our speech and occupies our thought. that's his goal
the man is a professional demagogue. this is what he does, and he does it well: he generates heat, pointless emotion, mindless easy outrage in service of a cause. of course, its all lies and smears, but what does that matter? truth is not the issue, influence is. and in politics the truth means something, but influence means even more
the game you are playing is being the upstanding moral person. which is a good game, the most important game
but the game i am talking about is winning influence over people: politics
politics never was, is or ever will be about doing the right thing, but about doing the thing that wins the most influence. doing the right thing and winning influence are goals that often overlap in tactics, but not always
so you are correct, within the narrow confines of the goal you have in mind. but if you examine the nature of the game actually being played however by these cretins, you will notice being silent and above the fray wins you no influence
in politics, you have to get down and dirty and mess it up with the opposition to your agenda, no matter how dirty they play. not because you want to, but because you have to. ignoring them merely wins them more influence. directly confronting their lies and smears meanwhile is the only way to retain your influence and to grow it while under attack
beck/ limbaugh/ fox traffic in lies, propaganda and demagoguery. to point lies, propaganda, and demagoguery back at the crap flingers is to merely use their own tactics against them
i am not aware of michelle obama engaging in smears and vindictive hysterical FUD against people she dislikes. but of course, that doesn't stop the likes of beck and limbaugh from pointing smears and propaganda at people they dislike for ideological reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the accusations they throw at people
that someone should point the same bullshit at them: exactly where is the hypocritical rule written that people who fling mud can't have mud flung at them?
that someone cared enough to go through all of the effort, its kind of an honor
tell beck why the results of his arrogance is now something he has in common with barbra streisand. he'll love the comparison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
ever hear of the french revolution?
you think can continue civilization and the sending of people into outer space with the vandals and goths sacking your major cities?
it is a sort of ignorance that thinks the poor simply vanish into the ether if you don't address their problems. it is also pretty ignorant not to understand why some of those poor are your next heisenbergs and your next goddards
it is classism you stink of, and you are not a credit to anything you think are. you're part of the problem, damage to route around. wash off your classism and grow a fucking conscience
who try to build perpetual motion machines. this doesn't mean they should be seriously considered or considered part of the definition of what science is
the same observation applies to certain "religious" folk
any "how" in the bible is to be taken figuratively not literally. of course there are some who take it literally. these are fools, not people you should point at as valid representatitives of a religion. of course they posit themselves as that, of course there will be fools who follow them. just like there are "scientists" who investigate the paranormal, and consider themselves to be valid scientists, and people believe them. do such quacks deserve to be valid representatives of science in your mind? if no, then you can't put forth religious minded fools to be valid representatives of religion either
i delineated the difference between science and religion successfully. i then said there exist fools who don't understand that delineation. don't point at those same fools as a disproof of my point. my point remains sound, the existence of those fools does not disprove my point
the existence of idiots in this world proves nothing. if i defined the socratic method, and then a fool said the socratic method was a method for playing blackjack, does the existence of this fool disprove, slander, invalidate or in any other way say anything useful about the socratic method? no, it merely proves there exist people in this world who are ignorant, and who bear no value for coherently defining what certain concepts actually mean
religion answers why
science can never answer why as a simple consequence of what science is
religion can never answer how as a simple consequence of what religion is
as soon as you get those two strands of thought separated in your mind, you notice that science and religion never meet, and there is no conflict even possible
therefore, anyone who sees any conflict between science and religion simply doesn't understand the definition of science and/or religion
for the remaining 5% of serious athletes and bodybuilders, it is stupid. however those 5% of workout monsters stopped thinking about BMI years ago and are probably well versed in the knowledge of dietitians and sports physiologists. to criticize the BMI from that point of view is to simply not understand your audience: the average joe, who isn't interested in exercise, and needs to be. so why shit on a valuable tool for getting him interested?
BMI is not meant to be the end-all be-all metric. it is meant to be a quick rule of thumb for the majority who are only vaguely interested or educated in the details of physiology. the BMI is a gateway to more interest and more concern for your health, and therefore it is extremely useful
so you should welcome and respect the value of the BMI for the average joe as a doorway to more interest and more knowledge about their well-being. you shouldn't shit on it because it isn't comprehensive and exacting
you see this a lot in people who have specialized information but are blinded by a preening ego. such as computer professionals who scoff at the low security knowledge of the average joe. look: the average joe is the average joe is the average joe. instead of shitting on him, throw him some easy tips he can use to become more knowledgeable and interested in what he should be more knowledgeable and interested in out of concern for his well-being
stop turning your nose up at the BMI. the only thing you are helping is your ego. embrace the BMI, and evangelize it to passively interested folks, for their sake. of course its bullshit for a serious athlete. as if a serious athlete doesn't know that already. as if anyone needed you to remind them that the BMI is only a rough blunt instrument. as if average joes need you to turn them off from this very useful quick rule of thumb
"it shrinks in close proximity of severe heat, like fires, so it'll retreat itself away from a flame, so it doesn't light up in a fire"
and when it burns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETFE
awesome: nothing like the smell of hot HF to really get your day started
you really think the end of the distribution model of the era of lps and cassette tapes is the end all be all model of art and commerce?
it really is the end of art in your mind? you really can't imagine how money can still be made? fucking hysterical drama queen
the movie industry was certain television would kill them... then the vcr... then the internet... every threat was panty twisting armageddeon
and the movie industry is still around, making more money every year
please, grow a brain and a fucking pair of testicles
life goes the fuck on
"everyone has to live by your rules"
i'm not describing rules
i'm describing reality
i'm not enforcing anything on anyone
what i am describing is simply what is happening, what is
do you understand darling?
do you see what is happening in front of you?
i hope you've enjoyed shooting the messenger
xoxoxoxoxoxox
what alien alternative universe do you live in where artists ever made art for cash? they do it for love. and, after making their art, what strange alternative world do you live in where artists were guaranteed income for making their art? in the pre-internet age, the 1980s, 1000 years ago, 1000 years from now: the vast majority of artists were, are, and forever will be, poor. only the hypertalented AND the lucky, a handful out of thousands, ever will experience great riches form art. this will never change, and the previous distribution model you are defending never promised any different
furthermore, unless you were a huge act, distributors wrote the contracts so they reaped the majority of profits. all those one hit wonders from the 1980s, after the free limos and airplane rides the distributor provided in exchange for signing away everything except pennies, were starving again a few years after their hits. you aren't defending a model that rewards artists, you are defending a model that rewards distributors. you are drinking some strong koolaid if you believe that model exists for the benefit of artists
meanwhile, in a world where artists give their works away for free, they make their living, as modest or rich as it may be, from ancillary sources of revenue. so even the tiniest acts, that distributors would ignore, still make a tiny income. even if this represents far less cash overall flowing around, direct artist-consumer links represent more cash for the artists, because in the previous model, distributors were siphoning off the majority of the cash. unless the artist was a huge sustained hit, then they could muscle in directly into the distributor's business model
concerts DO make money, and lots of it. when all of the bullshit legal setups are removed where the distributor isn't involved, there's even more cash involved
"Any art in future will be voluntary"
any art in the past, the present and the future always was and always will be voluntary
fact: art creates fame
fact: fame can be capitalized on in a million ways
do you deny any of those two facts? if you don't then you have no argument against me
just because your imagination is limited and you can't think beyond dead, entrenched business models is no valid argument against a superior distribution model that cuts out the middle man who adds no value
this charge always amused me. the model i am portraying is the same model television and radio have been using for decades: content free to consumers, artists supported by ads, ancillary revenue. a model cooked up in the kitchen of extreme capitalism. why is that model communism or freeloading oh great genius?
in a model where artists and consumers interact directly, the most democratic, egalitarian and efficient model for determining quality is in effect. fame results. fame is capitalized upon. tiny bits of fame results. tiny bits of fame is capitalized in tiny ways. a true flowering of culture in a market free of artificial constraints. a market with constraints, a market where distributors are injected into the flow of culture via artificial legalistic means backed up by the government... hmmm... what does that sound like to you?
in the distributor model of control, the distributor decides quality on based on capiricious reasons, and ignores the small fish that aren't worth their time. inefficient, monopolistic
if you will recall in your exalted wisdom of what capitalism is, monopolistic practices, artificial manipulation of the market, is the enemy of capitalism, not its friend
your criticism of my words stems from ignorance of the concepts. you don't even know what capitalism fucking is. you just know how to hurl epithets, without even knowing what the ideas in play mean
try education next time. then post
people create art. people always will create art. people will create art even if art is outlawed and the artist's family is set on fire: creating art is just part of our souls, what it means to be human. its never going away
where commerce comes into that fact is without meaning as to whether or not art is created. additionally, commerce DOES come into art, one way or another, and always will, also regardless of the legal/ distribution model: people will always be able to capitalize on fame, and fame is always the result of someone's art that is well-received
the ancillary stream model is how artists will make money. because its the ONLY VALID (not legally valid, but valid as in realistic and workable) way an artist can make money in a world where digital content is free. and it IS free, and will remain free, despite any UNENFORCEABLE law you can dream of. so just deal with that fact
"My advice to you would be to go ahead and try your ancillary revenue stream model, and see how well it works. I hope it works, but I don't think it will work as well as you think it will."
actually, i think the ancillary model means i most probably will be broke
but i am not arguing against my self, i am merely representing a truth of art: most artists are broke, were broke, and will forever more be broke. are you of some sort of delusion that the distribution model before the internet supported a great flourishing of arts and enabled millions of minor talents to support themselves? no, it only made distributors rich. art is something that only a few very talented and lucky will ever become dramatically rich at. and this is true whatever the hell the distribution model is
in fact, with an internet distribution model, consumers decide directly who deserves ancillary streams, such that minor talents will receive some financial benefit, however small, hat previously was impossible when distributors only paid attention to large revenue streams that were worth their time. simply because its artist-directly-linked-to-consumer. consumers deciding for themselves who deserves what, without an artificial filter placed in between where the small fry were always squeezed out. you tell me what happened to one hit wonders form the eighties. they got pennies, the distributors made millions. only the really huge acts were able to muscle in on the distributors cash bonanza. the rest were given bullshit contracts
the itnernet model is a democratic, egalitarian and capitalistically sound model than distributors artificially inserting themselves and their random judgments into the process. via legal contracts. which any artist will tell you, successful or not, is random, capricious, and nothing but a source of suffering. distributors decide what "quality" is, not consumers, which is fucking bullshit
the death of the distributor is only a good thing, financially and quality wise, for the artists, and will result in a great flowering of culture, not a die off
you somehow have it all backwards about why people create art and what they expect from the process. they do it out of love, and any riches are only an extra benefit. the artist does better in a distribution model that can potentially reward even the most minor acts, the consumer does better off free access to a richness of media, and distributor DIES THE FUCK OFF (obviously, not quietly)
die dinosaurs, just shut the fuck up and die already. you've been rendered extinct. you're parasites, you always were, but your necessary evil is no longer necessary. the internet did it. its called technological progress
ancillary streams: advertising, toy line tie ins, movie script deals, public speaking, personalized content, endorsements, live concerts, cinema house, paperback copies...
making money off of art is not going away and will never go away. fame can always be capitalized upon. the change is that instead of content being what is bought and sold, content is free advertising for the artist
let me ask you something: why do consumers need to adapt? why aren't creators and distributors adapting to consumers?
you go ahead and try to herd those cats. but my advice to you is that the new model is that consumers get digital content for free, and all moneys to be made off that content is via ancillary streams
don't like that new model? fine. go ahead and fight it if you wish, but you have just as much chance to prevail as a struggle with the rising and setting of the sun
the world changes. not everyone benefits. deal with it. the consumer is king, and he/ she decides, and you follow what they say, end of story. and what the consumer has decided is that the entire edifice of laws, infrastructure and conglomerates that existed off of the pre-internet media distribution model has been rendered null and void. you are extinct
now fuck off and die already. your death throes are annoying, dinosaur. it does not reflect well on you when you have been destroyed and you don't see it or fail to accept it
they beam their content FOR FREE onto the airwaves
they make money off of advertising
likewise, in the future, artists will connect to consumers directly, by giving away their media FOR FREE. then they get their income in ancillary streams: concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, advertising, promotion, specialized content, speakign engagements, toy product line tie ins, movie adapation deals, etc
NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED
and it is a COMPLETE fallacy that you need cash up front to make art. plenty toil in povery, plenty always will. they do it OUT OF LOVE FOR THE ART. and we the consumer will continue to pick a few out of obscurity and reward them with fame and riches. NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED
before the internet, you were a necessary evil. someone had to distribute the media, and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service. that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... then
you have been replace, by the internet
authors, musicians, directors: they distribute their media for free. it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue: ancillary streams like advertising, promotion, concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, specialized content, speaking engagements, movie adaptation deals, etc.
you are no longer necessary, and the laws that protect you are defunct. the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of being
direct artist-consumer links, that is the internet. books, video, music, anything of value that is consumed digitally: its all free. revenue sources are all ancillary streams. ONLY FOR THE ARTIST. NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED, SO NO REVENUE FOR YOU
YOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT. DEAL WITH IT. FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY