Wrong. The market can't create competition out of impossible circumstances. If a company has an absolute advantage through unmatchable economy of scale, natural resouces or some other intrinsic element deregulation is going to make the situation worse.
After the war? We are not currently engaged in any "war". If by war, you mean a mess of government rhetoric and ineffectual action along the lines of the "war on drugs" then forget it. You might as well let them shackle you now.
I would highly suggest using mp3 for maximum portability. One thing about mp3 compression which has always impressed me is that it sounds fairly good at low bitrates and can sound flawless at very high bitrates. Many codecs sound significantly better than mp3 at low bitrates, but most of them still produce artifacts at the highest possible bitrates simple because of the aggressive assumptions they make in order to be able to achieve those low bit rates. The margin of error on a mp3 file encoded with a good encoder at 256kbps is much smaller than all but the best sound systems are capable of distinguishing.
I highly reccomend ripping with cdparanoia and lame, using the --r3mix settings for maximum quality. The --r3mix setting produces mp3 files which average 150-190kbps, using 112 or 128 kbps in the simplest sections and using up to 320kbps in the most complex sections. If you try lame with the --r3mix option I believe you will find that it produces files which are at least equivalent in quality at a given file size to ogg vorbis, and lame NEVER seems to introduce any artifacts, which is something I can't yet say for ogg vorbis.
I would be willing to pay for usage at the rate which would allow for price to equal average total cost plus normal economic profit.
Of note this is probably NOT $30 cdn for 10 Gb, but rather much much less. These monopolist companies complain that they aren't earning a profit when they have a tremendous gross, and they eat up their profit with luxuries. That's the result of a lack of competition. I'm not willing to pay out of pocket for illegitimate sunk costs.
If we get efficient companies that charge by the meg at such a point that price is equal to marginal cost (including economic profit) I would pay that. The problem right now is inefficiency.
You touch on the idea of the social contract, but you miss the point I'm making: in the natural world, no such contract exists. When you say that someone has "rights" you are making a value judgement, and applying it universally (fairness is a local value judgement and says nothing universal). Are the laws and rights synonymous? If not where does your justification for rights come from? There is no foolproof moral system, and your statement about "the right thing to do existing whether people choose to recognize it or not" seems to me to indicate that you are probably somewhat bigoted in your morality. It's fine if you agree with the pope or kant as far as the morality you use to determine your own personal actions, but you shouldn't extend that to everyone. I am not a moral relativist but I don't believe that any one moral system can answer the question "what is the right thing to do" all of the time.
If you look at the ACTUAL values this country espouses (which have been terribly subverted by the idea of currency as personal worth) you can see that the might makes right paradigm is really unavoidable. There's a lot of talk about "rights" but what it comes down to is exercises of "might" in the economic sense. The few things which we provide to people who don't have the economic "might" to take them are all obviously provided because they would bring about externalities to the empowered portion of the population. Health care is an example, in order to stop the spread of nasty communicable diseases we have to cure those disgusting impoverished people. Homeless shelters are another, we have them because we don't like to look at the homeless, and we want to keep them away from tourist attractions, and keep them from spreading those nasty diseases. Drug rehab programs exist to prevent addicted users from stealing from or mugging the empowered (since police can't take away that nasty feeling of violation). All across the world the might makes right paradigm shows true despite the claims of "rights". the important difference is that fairness is an empathetic concept, and rights are based upon rational logic. The problem here is that logic doesn't go from is to ought, and those influenced by the aristocratic ideology assume that humans have "rights" as the basis for their postulations. There's no justification for the claim that humans have rights though, you can't get to that in any logical way from the nature of life and the world. Any argument based on the proposition that humans have certain basic rights is going to be unsound. You can get to "that action is unfair" from a couple of simple propositions, and it will be valid and sound.
My complaint about the circular argument of many objectivists was just that, not a refutation of all objectivist ideas. You can make an economic argument for some of the objectivist ideas, but those havn't been shown to produce an outcome any better, and in fact as it has been stated, the idea of a totally free market is sort of silly, especially considering that a free market is empowered to take advantage of consumers when there is disparity of law. Totally free markets are always going to be perform sub optimally, what is required is not a free market but freedom to compete. Sounds the same, but very different. Adam Smith was not referring to the typical market when he talked about the invisible hand, but rather a market of theoretical perfect competition.
As far as the people who make the money being able to keep it and choose how they spend it, I have a slight disagreement with that. Life's bounty should be distributed based upon the merit and work of the individual, but few people can claim that their merit was the source of their wealth. Hard work and intelligence by themselves are only somewhat likely to get you ahead in life, and I don't believe in the dispersement of funds based on luck (and nepotism as an extention thereof). The day that luck is no longer a factor in determining wealth I will be first in line to vote for a reduction of taxes for the very wealthy. My main problem with extreme wealth besides the elements of luck and nepotism, is that it tends to subjugate the political system by allowing the advancement of agendas which lack popular support (a very un-democratic notion). I can't yet demonstrate logically that a society based on different precepts would be any better, however, so I respect the fact that the system we have is at least somewhat operational.
As a side note, please leave the pithy but fundamentally wrong and irrelevant quotes by famous people aside, and argue on the merit of your own logic and knowledge. I also don't appreciate having my assertions insulted when you don't properly justify your refutations and argue with fallacies. I understand nobody's perfect:) I certainly don't claim to be, but that doesn't mean you have a license to be rude, particularly in a condescending manner when you havn't proven yourself superior in any way, and it's completely unwarranted.
No hard feelings, everything with the exception of the logical impossibility of "rights" is just my personal opinion and you're free to disagree and there's no real way to determine who's correct (probably neither). If you can come up with a valid and sound argument for the existence of universal rights, I'd be happy to listen but be prepared to have it refuted. Rights are a value judgement.
I'd suggest you read john rawls' "a theory of justice". It's an excellent book and could broaden your horizens somewhat.
Oops, forgot to mention that the countries with a higher GNP are as measured PER CAPITA, so please don't come out of the gate with a stupid flame on my prior post.
The concept of intrinsic rights is unfortunately just an academic idea. Life has no respect for rights. Your only right is what you have the power cause. If you get eaten by a tiger, or bitten by a coral snake, or sucked under by an eddy while taking a bath, so sorry, right to life, uh huh. Thus the only old pithy maxim, might makes right. It's 100% true. The government does lots of things which are violations of your "rights" but because they have the might, the act becomes "right" to use the tired play on words.
Now, it's not FAIR for me to just walk up to you and shoot you in the face, and so the government tries to prevent it (though really our system of justice operates ex post facto) so what happens is you end up dead.
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit. It's been latched on to by objectivists to prove an argument, but what really has happened is they've created a big petitio principi.
Goes something like this:
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy" why? "because freedom is a right" why? "because we live in a capitalist democracy"
As societal entities we can of course come together and dictate what we believe is fair and unfair and pass regulations based on that. This in fact is exactly what the US government does. If you dont agree with your elected representative, you can either vote for someone else and live with the decisions that person makes or kill them, your choice.
I get frustrated that the voices of ignorant media puppets count to the same amount as me, and I get doubly frustrated that you can't even count on your elected representative to do what he or she espoused during a campaign. Nothing I can do about it really, but choke on my morals or swallow them and take advantage of people to increase my personal wealth and prestige.
Isla Vista (I.V) is one of the most notorious college towns out there. Between the 3 or 4 deaths in a suburb of 10 thousand in the last 2 years due to inebriated stupidity, drugged kids driving cars over people, the complete lack of sidewalks, and the near ubiquity of venereal diseases (It's nicknamed H.I.V), then you have to contend with the outrageous rents in Santa Barbara (be prepared to share a room or live in a slum if you want to pay less than $550 a month). Every weekend people wheel kegs out on to the lawns of Del Playa Road and you end up with a bunch of hazed students passed lying passed out all over the place while some white trash guy is either trying to molest, rape or ghb his way into some stupid girl's pants. UCSB isn't too bad but I'd like to see IV burn to the ground.
Machinegestalt
Re:When was the last time you work for a poor man?
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
Okay, to answer your statements in no particular order
When I say redistribution of wealth is not stealing, that can be understood thus:
To provide the optimal opportunity for a safe, healthy life where success is easily achievable certain institutions need to be enacted. Because a high levy on the poor would be counter productive to the goals of the institutions being created, and thus those able to bear a slightly higher burden, do. This of course assumes that you view the government as a collective of the people, working for the good of ALL the people.
If you view the government as only existing to act as a police force, then it is stealing, and there's no way to justify it.
Obviously I believe in the former, and in most cases if you ask people which they're prefer, it's the former as well. Maybe someday you can go off and form the state of Bob and get everyone else who wants the state as a police force to go with you.
In regards to the comment "the freest countries in the world are the richest." That statement opens up an economic can of worms that's really quite non trivial. It depends on if we are talking just GDP or if you take other things in to account. Government is not the only factor here. Let me break down for you the taxes paid in the non-us high GDP/population countries
According to worldatlas.com:
1. Luxembourg: 25% FLAT tax, plus 10.72% social security taxes, levied on all citizens. 2. Switzerland (was the USA in 2000, before the recession): The tax system is somewhat complicated for switzerland, but can be summed up "The average rate of income tax is 35% and the more you earn the more you pay!" 3. Japan: variable base tax (seems anywhere from 9-20%) and 16% social security taxes. 4. Liechtenstein: about 16% income tax and 4% social security taxes 5. Norway: variable base tax from 13% to 28% and social security of around 10% plus some other taxes, and a VAR tax of 23%
The US is on the low end of the scale as far as the taxes here and yet it's not even top 5 (not without artificially inflating it's economy anyhow). The US also has lower social security pay through than pretty much all of these countries, and has more natural resources than all of them. Also, of the worlds "freest" economies, Switzerland is the only one in the top 5 as far as GNP. There is only a very mild correlation between freedom and economic strength, whichever way you decide you want to define freedom.
First, Lets look at your statment about a dog shitting on a carpet. I'm going to take your position on social services for humans and extend it to dogs (thats seems fair to me), and say that you consider food and attention rewards. By that logic, when the dog shits on the carpet, you stop feeding and paying attention to it. What you get when you do that, sir, is a starving dog that will steal from you at any opportunity and bite you if you try and protect what is "yours". That dog needs guidance, not
How about the homeless person going to school to get a job? First, that person has to be able to get a job to pay for housing and school (which is a herculean task in and of itself being homeless, smelly, dirty and unkempt as he is) almost certainly for minimum wage (which will require that person to work around 40 hours a week to pay rent, bills and tuition). And I don't know abuot you but most people have a hard time taking a full course load when they're working full time, so lets extend our homeless friend's total college time to 8 years (it took my mother fourteen for hers, taking one or two classes a semster while raising me and working 40+ hours a week so I think years is reasonable, considering its 7.5 units a semester). Then, finally he can get a job paying a whopping 30 or 40 grand a year! Oh joy! And while working that job he can go back to school to get his masters (if his employer doesn't mind not being able to squeeze him for the 50-60 hours a week a lot of employers try to get out of salary employees) and hopefully after another 3 to 4 years, be able to pull in 60 to 80 grand, for a grand total of say 12 years. It's doable (if they can get a job in the first place), but I'll go out on a limb and say that probably 50% of the regular population isn't capable of working that hard for twelve years without a nervous breakdown, let alone the homeless population.
As for your 5 things required for success, I'd argue that those are 5 things required for survival with reasonable living conditions. For capitalist style "success" a 6th condition, luck is required.
As for your "dollars giving people jobs," that is a gross extention of consumerism. For about 30 thousand years before the modern concept of "jobs", people lived, ate, and survived without spending that much more time procuring the basic needs than we do now (even though with modern technology each worker can produce about 10x of the output of someone from a pre-fuedal agrarian era). What this means is that those in the working class producing 10x and only recieving between 1/4th value and 1/5th of the value of their production, and as the overall production gets higher that ratio is going to get worse. The business "owner" who gets the other 3/4ths to 4/5ths is entitled to it primarily because he was the one who had the finances to outlay for capital. It's a fairly large simplification but I'll say that the economy if for the most part a zero sum game. Wealth does not come into existance from nowhere (though maybe to you it seems as though it does, since you don't see the poor malaysian children making those shoes you go jogging in, and ironically enough maylasia was ranked just a few years ago as one of the world's top ten freest economies) and the increasing wealth of western nations is coming at the expense of third world countries (did you know that by comparison, that purchasing and feeding black slaves on our american plantations was/is MORE EXPENSIVE than the hiring of third world workers?). Extreme wealth is always accompanied by extreme exploitation, just because you don't see it does that make it right? The cold hard fact is, they aren't even working towards a better life, unless you consider a pair of levis and some coca cola "a better life" as the wages paid by factories are only slightly higher than those provided by an agrarian lifestyle, and LOWER than beggars in the tourist cities! You wonder why begging is so popular? One handout from a tourist is over a weeks pay of hard labor in a nike factory... The reason those governments can't do anything is because the country is POOR, and rather than providing opportunity for advancement, we use them (think about it, how much does someone in the united states make doing the same work?)! I wonder what would happen if the entire world standardized on the US dollar at the same time, then adopted the american minimum wage... what would all those companies that make goods that are only affordable because they are produced in foreign countries do? Probably go out of business.
As for you deserving to keep what you have, making between 70 and 90 grand isn't really that much and honestly I agree that the 37% tax bracked shouldn't extend that low... However the vast majority of people making at or over 200k/year are doing it by either directly exploiting someone, or being closely involved with someone who exploits.
Also, you have to remember that in the context of "my money gives people jobs" that those peoples DOLLARS buy your goods! The exact same simpleminded economic argument for trickledown can be reversed... It's all spin though. It can be likened to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" e.g "what came first, my money or the people whose work creates my money?" and the simple answer is that at some point the people who create your money came miraculously into existance (i.e. slavery).
Also, let me ask you... What do you think would happen, if by some freak of nature and society, EVERYONE got a full college education, including a masters degree? Who'd work the shit jobs? Kind of pokes some holes in your idea that a job and an education are all you need to be successful.
And when I said "get all you can without breaking the law" I meant just that. DON'T break laws... So I don't see where you get "Who the hell said anything about breaking laws?"... What I was trying to get across is there is a definate ethic of "whatever you can do to get ahead" in the capitalist mindset, and it's usually accompanied by "without breaking any laws" though sometimes it's accompanied by "without getting caught."
Most americans have (and are correct in) the perception that the rich are more able to afford additional taxes.
What I want you to walk away understanding is this. You are only capable of doing what you do (no matter what it is) because of the legacy left to you by generations of mankinds insight and invention, which you get royalty free. Since you draw such immense benefit from the critical mass of human achievement and prosperity, it's proper that you give back to your fellow man as you are able. Taking from someone without giving back is known as stealing in many circumstances, those who would keep all they own are the actual looters(randians included). Social security has been shown to be needed because the vast majority do not willingly give for the benefit of mankind.
I have to applaud bill gates for his practices by the way... As much as he is villified here, beyond limited trusts for his children he has bequeathed the great bulk of his wealth to charity in his will, which shows he is concious of how it was aquired.
You know, writing this has made me think... I should open some sort of B2B operation instead of going B2C. I could gouge freely, have a generous employee profit sharing program, and be a kind of corporate Robin Hood!
Machine Gestalt
Re:It's a God given right to keep your property
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
-- warning, rant ahead --
Um, I'm sorry but you just got yourself in a bit of it there. When you say the government should get its hand out of your wallet then proceed to say that the cost of government should be footed by other good capitalists just attempting to make a buck like yourself, but doing it across national "borders". Either stfu and accept a total lack of government support and protection and see how well you do without taxes (good luck pal, your attitude would get you face down in a gutter) or be thankful that there are police, an army and lots of politicians accept your kickbacks and protect your way of life. If you have to worry about 40% income taxes, you're already living better than 99% of the rest of the world, for christs sake what do you want, a golden bust of your ass in every room of your house? You realize there are people in THIS COUNTRY who starve every day, children even (so good luck using that lack of motivation bs across the board) while you eat your steaks and have your maid clean your house for you. Why? because you are LUCKY first and foremost, and MAYBE because you're smart or talented but that's not a requirement at all.
And as for the reason Rome fell, it was because of corruption, steady incursions of german and turkish/mongol raiding parties, and a string of bad leaders. Rome wasn't in decline under hadrian, but by the time of diocletian it was in disarray. As for your comment about the burden of the rich, you should know that a large part of rome's prosperity was based on conquest and when the empire stopped growing it quickly started into decadence... Saying that rome fell because they over taxed the rich is like saying george bush is president because he won texas.
You need to travel a bit and experience the world from a perspective which allows you to understand the situations of people all over the world and even in your own country, rather than staying in your biltmore or waldorf astoria. There have been uncountable numbers of people smarter, and with more drive than you, that because of socioeconomic conditions, weren't able to prosper. When you can drive through your thick skull the fact that by leveling the playing field somewhat, these people are able to prosper and BENEFIT the economy and provide OPPORTUNITY through their ideas and insight. I'll make the wild claim that an average afgani (someone you probably don't like because their views are different than you and they're not good capitalists like you) would be just as successful as you had your parents adopted him/her instead of having you...
I really hope you take a good hard look at your views about justice and what you think you're entitled to... Are you entitled to extravagent opulence at the cost of the lives of your fellow humans, at the cost of global suffering? Do you want to live in a world where the only moral right is get whatever you can without breaking the law? Are you selfish? Greedy?
That we live in a welfare-capitalist society is as much for your good as for the good of the poor. The levels of oppression to which pure laissez faire creates (read up on the work conditions of the industrial revolution) would put any country that practices it to the extreme in which you believe in it, in line for a revolution very similar to the one in 1917, in russia. Mild change from above to stave off radical change from below.
What it comes down to is that you'll probably never be able to see things from the perspective from which I talk, and it's really a shame... As much as I disagree with marx, seems his ideas of economic determinism at least hold true for you, sir.
Machine Gestalt
Re:It's a God given right to keep your property
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Quite simple, sherlock.
Those taxes are there to protect the "rights" of the property owner. Don't use randian jargon to sound intellectual... If you're going to get into this argument it requires that you go back to the whole social contract issue.
By calling taxes "looting" and redistribution of wealth "stealing" you ignore the fact that the government created the environment where the "good capitalist" could flourish and develop his/her large amount of wealth. Had the governments of the world maintained total laissez faire, I wouldn't be surprised if a marxist style revolution of the proliterait had occured. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the government, accept taxes, and try to use the system to your benefit to the best of your ability and thank the powers that be for the system in place which protects your wealth and ability to earn wealth for only a moderate percentage of your PROFITS, or you live in a world where only draconian measures on your part (beating or murdering to protect your property, and stranger even, "intellectual property") are needed.
It cracks me up how randians are so janus-like. They love the copywrites, protection and largess of government, and deplore the taxes which provide just that! And those randians who talk about the poor getting off their butts ignorant... I doubt they've experienced the weight of bein born into crushing poverty.
Let them make royalties on each blank CD that I buy... I'll just pirate MORE music, and make it available to download for free. If they're going to make tons of money on the assumption that everyone who is buying blank CDs are using them to pirate recording industry music, might as well get our moneys' worth! rip, download, hoard, share... I promise you the meager few dollars they've made on me from cd media isn't anything compared to the proceeds they're never going to see from the 4000 albums that I decided to download instead of buy, and I used to run a MP3 FTP server that did a combined up/down traffic of about 19 gigs a day... from my apartment in california I stab at thee;)
Your best form of activism is to steal artist's music, distribute it for free over the internet, then go to their concerts where they actually get a respectable portion of the proceeds instead of one half one percent cuts that most artists get on albums. Also remember to support the artists by spreading word of mouth, giving friends mp3s, and if you're of the fanboy persuasion, making websites about the artist.
It's like the old prison saying... "If you can't beat em, stab them in the back when nobody's looking"
Lets see here. That same attitude was taken during the irish potato famine... The english wanted to let the irish to their own devices since they assumed that the famine was caused by the stupidity of the irish and that only through death and starvation would the irish rise become "self sufficient."
It's been shown throughout history that the poor are almost always the hardest working, most dedicated people. They're ignorant in many cases because to persue education to a high degree would be at the expense of working. If you see your parents/parent working 60 hours a week to feed you and put a roof over your head and you're still wearing old hand me down/thrift store clothing and eating cheap food, and what you really want is to be more comfortable and have a better life, you're going to choose work over school every time.
In today's world where people with bachellors degrees are saying "can I take your order" like never before, and in many cases a masters degree is almost required to make good money, education provides no huge draw to the poor people who have uneducated parents. You wonder why the poor are hostile when they work for a pittance, are looked down upon almost universally because "they aren't good consumers."
The moral here is that a great deal of external factors are in congress to keep the poor, well, poor. Lack of a good education is one of those things, but the system is stacked heavily against education by its very nature. While we're working towards a better society, there is still massive inequality, and only minimal socialist legislation and the power of public opinion enabled by the pervasive nature of modern information systems hold the capitalist behaviors Marx described in "Das Kapital" in check.
For every person who rises from poverty to wealth there are hundreds who are equally talented and equally intelligent who were forced into a life of labor by the system we've created, and never had the opportunity to get an education. There are also many who get an education, but never make the contacts needed to gain adequate starting capital for whatever ideas they concocted.
To wrap up, to villify the poor is stupid and groundless. How would you like it if you were a serf in 18th century Russia? Lots of opportunity there, huh buddy! Lets see those brains make you something besides a serf. That sitution, while distant from today, does have some minor parralels in 21st century life and is still very real in the 3rd world... Only by protecting the poor and encouraging it to flourish can we truly blame those that go nowhere.
I hope you take a long hard look at your beliefs and see that they are groundless and self serving.
This is what happens when you get your eyes crossed trying to preview
Anyhow, to wrap up...
Because of the internecine nature of modern warfare, globalization's mechanism will be the absorption of culture (or so I suspect) and the end of the dominance of western culture will come when it is absorbed and subverted into a broader global culture (as we are seeing now). I truly believe that we've reached a plateau where nations don't really destroy each other anymore, but rather swallow each other whole as capable or slowly chip away if not (of course this only applies to first world nations). The War of the new millenium is a war of cultures (which eclipse beliefs) and not a war of people.
Just look at the whole terrorist debacle. This obviously wasn't a traditional act of war in that they want no land, aren't seeking money, and they aren't trying to conquer us per se, but rather the terrorists look at it as retaliation for the growing western influence upon the middle east.
Sorry for rambling so badly and flubbing on the post, AND for being off topic:) I just thought this would be an interesting place to interject.
I would be willing to postulate that the length existence of individual civilizations is inversely proportional to man's ability quickly traverse space.
This may seem counter intuitive at first, but if you think about it, the downfall of civilizations comes not from within (internal sources merely produce decadence) but from without. With more rapid traversal of space, cultures are brought into conflict and the end result is destruction, or the subsuming of one culture into another. It would almost be accurate to say that man's increased ability to quickly transport matter and information from place to place is having the effect of speeding up time (in a figurative sense).
Two thousand years ago, no matter how effective the government and how enlightened the rule, a land mass the size of the united states would be unable to view itself as a single nation state, and a cohesive peoples (though rome was certainly an impressive empire!). Only with the advent of roads, effective shipbuilding and other forms of rapid transportation did the concept of a nation develop.
Fast forward to 2002... The world sits precariously on the edge of globalism, brought about by
I can't believe there isn't more awareness of swedish minimal and techno on slashdot. The top men of the swedish scene are, in sort of an order:
Adam Bayer Cari Lekebusch / Mr. James Barth Thomas Krome Alexi Delano Joell Mull Marco Carola Jahsper Dahlback LENK
These guys have a sublime ability to take thrashing beats and pull them apart into a cohesive pattern, then shift that pattern into something different, and shift it back to maintain a symmetry and dancibility. Some of these guys have been known to use FOUR turntables at once (this is uncommon though), though two and three are about equally common. Cari Lekebush is also the supreme master of original compositions though most of them are good and highly original to a degree.
Check out the labels:
http://www.drumcode.se/ http://www.svek.com/ h ttp://www.discogs.com/label/Code_Red because no url exists for this label
You won't be sorry I promise! This stuff is infectious and the swedish scene is truly the flag bearer for innovations in minimal and techno.
I have a huge collection of this stuff in MP3, as that's the only way for the average person to get it... Most releases are on vinyl only. Well worth the trouble though and you may be able to find some on the P2P scene. I used to run a server with pretty much all the stuff from drumcode/code red and some other stuff, to get it out there. Unfortunately Verizon didn't like the fact that I was starting to push almost 20 gigs a day of combined up and down traffic, and decided to terminate my contract and send me a rather hefty bill:)
There is another which has similar effects, called 4-methylaminorex (dl-cis-2-amino-4-methyl-5-phenyl-2-oxazoline) which effects most specifically the the norepinephrine and acetylcholine receptors in the brain, with comparitively minimal/nonexistant effect at the dopamine receptors unlike most standard stimulants.
Unfortunately this chemical has a rather long active duration when taken by oral administration (which, besides it's potential for abuse, is probably the main reason this chemical has not seen commercial use), however it VERY effective at reducing the effects of sleep deprivation without the anxiety and psychotic effects usually attributed to methamphetamines and other stimulants which are highly active on the dopamine system.
As for the previously mentioned Uberman sleep schedule, I can see it being effective at producing mental altertness with a minimum of sleep, however I would suspect that it would have an effect on the recuperative capabilities of your body in addition to reducing the immune system. As a weightlifter I've found that additional sleep beyond the eight hours I usually require is very helpful in speeding recovery.
Machine Gestalt
That salon article was tainted journalism
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a huge microsoft fan, but that salon article was just one big ad hominem with very little concrete to say against the xbox save "this is microsoft's first console," which is really irrelevant. Does anyone remember what happened with nintendo's first console?
What really peeved me was that the author had good things to say about games he has never played because they were nintendo titles, while he put down titles just because they were the first crop of titles for the xbox and weren't all 100% ground breaking AAA titles... No console has ever launched with a complete assortment of hits. Usually there's one if you're lucky.
I can understand peoples' desire to speculate, but this article wasn't speculation it was favoratism and name calling.
Actually, most of Jackie Chan's movies seen in American cinemas are of Hong Kong origin. As I recall, Rush Hour was his first american made movie (I remember hearing him gripe about american studios and their insurance restrictions preventing him from doing his own stunts). He may have made more American movies since the Rush Hour franchise, but I havn't seen a Jackie Chan movie in a couple of years so I wouldn't know.
Please be careful when you say that jackie chan's work in Hong Kong overshadow his Hollywood work, since it's possible you're confusing them.
Nathan
---
If we have not succeeded, it is because we have failed - Dan Quayle
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The market can't create competition out of impossible circumstances. If a company has an absolute advantage through unmatchable economy of scale, natural resouces or some other intrinsic element deregulation is going to make the situation worse.
After the war? We are not currently engaged in any "war". If by war, you mean a mess of government rhetoric and ineffectual action along the lines of the "war on drugs" then forget it. You might as well let them shackle you now.
I would highly suggest using mp3 for maximum portability. One thing about mp3 compression which has always impressed me is that it sounds fairly good at low bitrates and can sound flawless at very high bitrates. Many codecs sound significantly better than mp3 at low bitrates, but most of them still produce artifacts at the highest possible bitrates simple because of the aggressive assumptions they make in order to be able to achieve those low bit rates. The margin of error on a mp3 file encoded with a good encoder at 256kbps is much smaller than all but the best sound systems are capable of distinguishing.
I highly reccomend ripping with cdparanoia and lame, using the --r3mix settings for maximum quality. The --r3mix setting produces mp3 files which average 150-190kbps, using 112 or 128 kbps in the simplest sections and using up to 320kbps in the most complex sections. If you try lame with the --r3mix option I believe you will find that it produces files which are at least equivalent in quality at a given file size to ogg vorbis, and lame NEVER seems to introduce any artifacts, which is something I can't yet say for ogg vorbis.
I would be willing to pay for usage at the rate which would allow for price to equal average total cost plus normal economic profit.
Of note this is probably NOT $30 cdn for 10 Gb, but rather much much less. These monopolist companies complain that they aren't earning a profit when they have a tremendous gross, and they eat up their profit with luxuries. That's the result of a lack of competition. I'm not willing to pay out of pocket for illegitimate sunk costs.
If we get efficient companies that charge by the meg at such a point that price is equal to marginal cost (including economic profit) I would pay that. The problem right now is inefficiency.
You touch on the idea of the social contract, but you miss the point I'm making: in the natural world, no such contract exists. When you say that someone has "rights" you are making a value judgement, and applying it universally (fairness is a local value judgement and says nothing universal). Are the laws and rights synonymous? If not where does your justification for rights come from? There is no foolproof moral system, and your statement about "the right thing to do existing whether people choose to recognize it or not" seems to me to indicate that you are probably somewhat bigoted in your morality. It's fine if you agree with the pope or kant as far as the morality you use to determine your own personal actions, but you shouldn't extend that to everyone. I am not a moral relativist but I don't believe that any one moral system can answer the question "what is the right thing to do" all of the time.
:) I certainly don't claim to be, but that doesn't mean you have a license to be rude, particularly in a condescending manner when you havn't proven yourself superior in any way, and it's completely unwarranted.
If you look at the ACTUAL values this country espouses (which have been terribly subverted by the idea of currency as personal worth) you can see that the might makes right paradigm is really unavoidable. There's a lot of talk about "rights" but what it comes down to is exercises of "might" in the economic sense. The few things which we provide to people who don't have the economic "might" to take them are all obviously provided because they would bring about externalities to the empowered portion of the population. Health care is an example, in order to stop the spread of nasty communicable diseases we have to cure those disgusting impoverished people. Homeless shelters are another, we have them because we don't like to look at the homeless, and we want to keep them away from tourist attractions, and keep them from spreading those nasty diseases. Drug rehab programs exist to prevent addicted users from stealing from or mugging the empowered (since police can't take away that nasty feeling of violation). All across the world the might makes right paradigm shows true despite the claims of "rights". the important difference is that fairness is an empathetic concept, and rights are based upon rational logic. The problem here is that logic doesn't go from is to ought, and those influenced by the aristocratic ideology assume that humans have "rights" as the basis for their postulations. There's no justification for the claim that humans have rights though, you can't get to that in any logical way from the nature of life and the world. Any argument based on the proposition that humans have certain basic rights is going to be unsound. You can get to "that action is unfair" from a couple of simple propositions, and it will be valid and sound.
My complaint about the circular argument of many objectivists was just that, not a refutation of all objectivist ideas. You can make an economic argument for some of the objectivist ideas, but those havn't been shown to produce an outcome any better, and in fact as it has been stated, the idea of a totally free market is sort of silly, especially considering that a free market is empowered to take advantage of consumers when there is disparity of law. Totally free markets are always going to be perform sub optimally, what is required is not a free market but freedom to compete. Sounds the same, but very different. Adam Smith was not referring to the typical market when he talked about the invisible hand, but rather a market of theoretical perfect competition.
As far as the people who make the money being able to keep it and choose how they spend it, I have a slight disagreement with that. Life's bounty should be distributed based upon the merit and work of the individual, but few people can claim that their merit was the source of their wealth. Hard work and intelligence by themselves are only somewhat likely to get you ahead in life, and I don't believe in the dispersement of funds based on luck (and nepotism as an extention thereof). The day that luck is no longer a factor in determining wealth I will be first in line to vote for a reduction of taxes for the very wealthy. My main problem with extreme wealth besides the elements of luck and nepotism, is that it tends to subjugate the political system by allowing the advancement of agendas which lack popular support (a very un-democratic notion). I can't yet demonstrate logically that a society based on different precepts would be any better, however, so I respect the fact that the system we have is at least somewhat operational.
As a side note, please leave the pithy but fundamentally wrong and irrelevant quotes by famous people aside, and argue on the merit of your own logic and knowledge. I also don't appreciate having my assertions insulted when you don't properly justify your refutations and argue with fallacies. I understand nobody's perfect
No hard feelings, everything with the exception of the logical impossibility of "rights" is just my personal opinion and you're free to disagree and there's no real way to determine who's correct (probably neither). If you can come up with a valid and sound argument for the existence of universal rights, I'd be happy to listen but be prepared to have it refuted. Rights are a value judgement.
I'd suggest you read john rawls' "a theory of justice". It's an excellent book and could broaden your horizens somewhat.
Yeah! That's right! If I wanted to talk to someone I'd drive to see them!
Er wait, if god wanted you to get there fast he'd have given us wings!
In my day sonny, we had to walk fifteen miles in the snow, uphill, both ways, just to order a delivery pizza!
Oops, forgot to mention that the countries with a higher GNP are as measured PER CAPITA, so please don't come out of the gate with a stupid flame on my prior post.
Is that why socialist nations exist with a higher gross national product than the united states?
The concept of intrinsic rights is unfortunately just an academic idea. Life has no respect for rights. Your only right is what you have the power cause. If you get eaten by a tiger, or bitten by a coral snake, or sucked under by an eddy while taking a bath, so sorry, right to life, uh huh. Thus the only old pithy maxim, might makes right. It's 100% true. The government does lots of things which are violations of your "rights" but because they have the might, the act becomes "right" to use the tired play on words.
Now, it's not FAIR for me to just walk up to you and shoot you in the face, and so the government tries to prevent it (though really our system of justice operates ex post facto) so what happens is you end up dead.
Is it fair to be punished for something you're not responsible for? Is it fair to reward someone for something they're not responsible for? Thats exactly what happens when you deny education to a child born to a poor family.
This whole philosophical idea of intrinsic sacrosanct rights is such bullshit. It's been latched on to by objectivists to prove an argument, but what really has happened is they've created a big petitio principi.
Goes something like this:
"we have the right to a capitalist democracy"
why?
"because freedom is a right"
why?
"because we live in a capitalist democracy"
As societal entities we can of course come together and dictate what we believe is fair and unfair and pass regulations based on that. This in fact is exactly what the US government does. If you dont agree with your elected representative, you can either vote for someone else and live with the decisions that person makes or kill them, your choice.
I get frustrated that the voices of ignorant media puppets count to the same amount as me, and I get doubly frustrated that you can't even count on your elected representative to do what he or she espoused during a campaign. Nothing I can do about it really, but choke on my morals or swallow them and take advantage of people to increase my personal wealth and prestige.
Isla Vista (I.V) is one of the most notorious college towns out there. Between the 3 or 4 deaths in a suburb of 10 thousand in the last 2 years due to inebriated stupidity, drugged kids driving cars over people, the complete lack of sidewalks, and the near ubiquity of venereal diseases (It's nicknamed H.I.V), then you have to contend with the outrageous rents in Santa Barbara (be prepared to share a room or live in a slum if you want to pay less than $550 a month). Every weekend people wheel kegs out on to the lawns of Del Playa Road and you end up with a bunch of hazed students passed lying passed out all over the place while some white trash guy is either trying to molest, rape or ghb his way into some stupid girl's pants. UCSB isn't too bad but I'd like to see IV burn to the ground.
Machinegestalt
Okay, to answer your statements in no particular order
When I say redistribution of wealth is not stealing, that can be understood thus:
To provide the optimal opportunity for a safe, healthy life where success is easily achievable certain institutions need to be enacted. Because a high levy on the poor would be counter productive to the goals of the institutions being created, and thus those able to bear a slightly higher burden, do. This of course assumes that you view the government as a collective of the people, working for the good of ALL the people.
If you view the government as only existing to act as a police force, then it is stealing, and there's no way to justify it.
Obviously I believe in the former, and in most cases if you ask people which they're prefer, it's the former as well. Maybe someday you can go off and form the state of Bob and get everyone else who wants the state as a police force to go with you.
In regards to the comment "the freest countries in the world are the richest." That statement opens up an economic can of worms that's really quite non trivial. It depends on if we are talking just GDP or if you take other things in to account. Government is not the only factor here. Let me break down for you the taxes paid in the non-us high GDP/population countries
According to worldatlas.com:
1. Luxembourg: 25% FLAT tax, plus 10.72% social security taxes, levied on all citizens.
2. Switzerland (was the USA in 2000, before the recession): The tax system is somewhat complicated for switzerland, but can be summed up "The average rate of income tax is 35% and the more you earn the more you pay!"
3. Japan: variable base tax (seems anywhere from 9-20%) and 16% social security taxes.
4. Liechtenstein: about 16% income tax and 4% social security taxes
5. Norway: variable base tax from 13% to 28% and social security of around 10% plus some other taxes, and a VAR tax of 23%
The US is on the low end of the scale as far as the taxes here and yet it's not even top 5 (not without artificially inflating it's economy anyhow). The US also has lower social security pay through than pretty much all of these countries, and has more natural resources than all of them. Also, of the worlds "freest" economies, Switzerland is the only one in the top 5 as far as GNP. There is only a very mild correlation between freedom and economic strength, whichever way you decide you want to define freedom.
First, Lets look at your statment about a dog shitting on a carpet. I'm going to take your position on social services for humans and extend it to dogs (thats seems fair to me), and say that you consider food and attention rewards. By that logic, when the dog shits on the carpet, you stop feeding and paying attention to it. What you get when you do that, sir, is a starving dog that will steal from you at any opportunity and bite you if you try and protect what is "yours". That dog needs guidance, not
How about the homeless person going to school to get a job? First, that person has to be able to get a job to pay for housing and school (which is a herculean task in and of itself being homeless, smelly, dirty and unkempt as he is) almost certainly for minimum wage (which will require that person to work around 40 hours a week to pay rent, bills and tuition). And I don't know abuot you but most people have a hard time taking a full course load when they're working full time, so lets extend our homeless friend's total college time to 8 years (it took my mother fourteen for hers, taking one or two classes a semster while raising me and working 40+ hours a week so I think years is reasonable, considering its 7.5 units a semester). Then, finally he can get a job paying a whopping 30 or 40 grand a year! Oh joy! And while working that job he can go back to school to get his masters (if his employer doesn't mind not being able to squeeze him for the 50-60 hours a week a lot of employers try to get out of salary employees) and hopefully after another 3 to 4 years, be able to pull in 60 to 80 grand, for a grand total of say 12 years. It's doable (if they can get a job in the first place), but I'll go out on a limb and say that probably 50% of the regular population isn't capable of working that hard for twelve years without a nervous breakdown, let alone the homeless population.
As for your 5 things required for success, I'd argue that those are 5 things required for survival with reasonable living conditions. For capitalist style "success" a 6th condition, luck is required.
As for your "dollars giving people jobs," that is a gross extention of consumerism. For about 30 thousand years before the modern concept of "jobs", people lived, ate, and survived without spending that much more time procuring the basic needs than we do now (even though with modern technology each worker can produce about 10x of the output of someone from a pre-fuedal agrarian era). What this means is that those in the working class producing 10x and only recieving between 1/4th value and 1/5th of the value of their production, and as the overall production gets higher that ratio is going to get worse. The business "owner" who gets the other 3/4ths to 4/5ths is entitled to it primarily because he was the one who had the finances to outlay for capital. It's a fairly large simplification but I'll say that the economy if for the most part a zero sum game. Wealth does not come into existance from nowhere (though maybe to you it seems as though it does, since you don't see the poor malaysian children making those shoes you go jogging in, and ironically enough maylasia was ranked just a few years ago as one of the world's top ten freest economies) and the increasing wealth of western nations is coming at the expense of third world countries (did you know that by comparison, that purchasing and feeding black slaves on our american plantations was/is MORE EXPENSIVE than the hiring of third world workers?). Extreme wealth is always accompanied by extreme exploitation, just because you don't see it does that make it right? The cold hard fact is, they aren't even working towards a better life, unless you consider a pair of levis and some coca cola "a better life" as the wages paid by factories are only slightly higher than those provided by an agrarian lifestyle, and LOWER than beggars in the tourist cities! You wonder why begging is so popular? One handout from a tourist is over a weeks pay of hard labor in a nike factory... The reason those governments can't do anything is because the country is POOR, and rather than providing opportunity for advancement, we use them (think about it, how much does someone in the united states make doing the same work?)! I wonder what would happen if the entire world standardized on the US dollar at the same time, then adopted the american minimum wage... what would all those companies that make goods that are only affordable because they are produced in foreign countries do? Probably go out of business.
As for you deserving to keep what you have, making between 70 and 90 grand isn't really that much and honestly I agree that the 37% tax bracked shouldn't extend that low... However the vast majority of people making at or over 200k/year are doing it by either directly exploiting someone, or being closely involved with someone who exploits.
Also, you have to remember that in the context of "my money gives people jobs" that those peoples DOLLARS buy your goods! The exact same simpleminded economic argument for trickledown can be reversed... It's all spin though. It can be likened to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" e.g "what came first, my money or the people whose work creates my money?" and the simple answer is that at some point the people who create your money came miraculously into existance (i.e. slavery).
Also, let me ask you... What do you think would happen, if by some freak of nature and society, EVERYONE got a full college education, including a masters degree? Who'd work the shit jobs? Kind of pokes some holes in your idea that a job and an education are all you need to be successful.
And when I said "get all you can without breaking the law" I meant just that. DON'T break laws... So I don't see where you get "Who the hell said anything about breaking laws?"... What I was trying to get across is there is a definate ethic of "whatever you can do to get ahead" in the capitalist mindset, and it's usually accompanied by "without breaking any laws" though sometimes it's accompanied by "without getting caught."
Most americans have (and are correct in) the perception that the rich are more able to afford additional taxes.
What I want you to walk away understanding is this. You are only capable of doing what you do (no matter what it is) because of the legacy left to you by generations of mankinds insight and invention, which you get royalty free. Since you draw such immense benefit from the critical mass of human achievement and prosperity, it's proper that you give back to your fellow man as you are able. Taking from someone without giving back is known as stealing in many circumstances, those who would keep all they own are the actual looters(randians included). Social security has been shown to be needed because the vast majority do not willingly give for the benefit of mankind.
I have to applaud bill gates for his practices by the way... As much as he is villified here, beyond limited trusts for his children he has bequeathed the great bulk of his wealth to charity in his will, which shows he is concious of how it was aquired.
You know, writing this has made me think... I should open some sort of B2B operation instead of going B2C. I could gouge freely, have a generous employee profit sharing program, and be a kind of corporate Robin Hood!
Machine Gestalt
-- warning, rant ahead --
Um, I'm sorry but you just got yourself in a bit of it there. When you say the government should get its hand out of your wallet then proceed to say that the cost of government should be footed by other good capitalists just attempting to make a buck like yourself, but doing it across national "borders". Either stfu and accept a total lack of government support and protection and see how well you do without taxes (good luck pal, your attitude would get you face down in a gutter) or be thankful that there are police, an army and lots of politicians accept your kickbacks and protect your way of life. If you have to worry about 40% income taxes, you're already living better than 99% of the rest of the world, for christs sake what do you want, a golden bust of your ass in every room of your house? You realize there are people in THIS COUNTRY who starve every day, children even (so good luck using that lack of motivation bs across the board) while you eat your steaks and have your maid clean your house for you. Why? because you are LUCKY first and foremost, and MAYBE because you're smart or talented but that's not a requirement at all.
And as for the reason Rome fell, it was because of corruption, steady incursions of german and turkish/mongol raiding parties, and a string of bad leaders. Rome wasn't in decline under hadrian, but by the time of diocletian it was in disarray. As for your comment about the burden of the rich, you should know that a large part of rome's prosperity was based on conquest and when the empire stopped growing it quickly started into decadence... Saying that rome fell because they over taxed the rich is like saying george bush is president because he won texas.
You need to travel a bit and experience the world from a perspective which allows you to understand the situations of people all over the world and even in your own country, rather than staying in your biltmore or waldorf astoria. There have been uncountable numbers of people smarter, and with more drive than you, that because of socioeconomic conditions, weren't able to prosper. When you can drive through your thick skull the fact that by leveling the playing field somewhat, these people are able to prosper and BENEFIT the economy and provide OPPORTUNITY through their ideas and insight. I'll make the wild claim that an average afgani (someone you probably don't like because their views are different than you and they're not good capitalists like you) would be just as successful as you had your parents adopted him/her instead of having you...
I really hope you take a good hard look at your views about justice and what you think you're entitled to... Are you entitled to extravagent opulence at the cost of the lives of your fellow humans, at the cost of global suffering? Do you want to live in a world where the only moral right is get whatever you can without breaking the law? Are you selfish? Greedy?
That we live in a welfare-capitalist society is as much for your good as for the good of the poor. The levels of oppression to which pure laissez faire creates (read up on the work conditions of the industrial revolution) would put any country that practices it to the extreme in which you believe in it, in line for a revolution very similar to the one in 1917, in russia. Mild change from above to stave off radical change from below.
What it comes down to is that you'll probably never be able to see things from the perspective from which I talk, and it's really a shame... As much as I disagree with marx, seems his ideas of economic determinism at least hold true for you, sir.
Machine Gestalt
Quite simple, sherlock.
Those taxes are there to protect the "rights" of the property owner. Don't use randian jargon to sound intellectual... If you're going to get into this argument it requires that you go back to the whole social contract issue.
By calling taxes "looting" and redistribution of wealth "stealing" you ignore the fact that the government created the environment where the "good capitalist" could flourish and develop his/her large amount of wealth. Had the governments of the world maintained total laissez faire, I wouldn't be surprised if a marxist style revolution of the proliterait had occured. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the government, accept taxes, and try to use the system to your benefit to the best of your ability and thank the powers that be for the system in place which protects your wealth and ability to earn wealth for only a moderate percentage of your PROFITS, or you live in a world where only draconian measures on your part (beating or murdering to protect your property, and stranger even, "intellectual property") are needed.
It cracks me up how randians are so janus-like. They love the copywrites, protection and largess of government, and deplore the taxes which provide just that! And those randians who talk about the poor getting off their butts ignorant... I doubt they've experienced the weight of bein born into crushing poverty.
Machine Gestalt
Let them make royalties on each blank CD that I buy... I'll just pirate MORE music, and make it available to download for free. If they're going to make tons of money on the assumption that everyone who is buying blank CDs are using them to pirate recording industry music, might as well get our moneys' worth! rip, download, hoard, share... I promise you the meager few dollars they've made on me from cd media isn't anything compared to the proceeds they're never going to see from the 4000 albums that I decided to download instead of buy, and I used to run a MP3 FTP server that did a combined up/down traffic of about 19 gigs a day... from my apartment in california I stab at thee ;)
Your best form of activism is to steal artist's music, distribute it for free over the internet, then go to their concerts where they actually get a respectable portion of the proceeds instead of one half one percent cuts that most artists get on albums. Also remember to support the artists by spreading word of mouth, giving friends mp3s, and if you're of the fanboy persuasion, making websites about the artist.
It's like the old prison saying... "If you can't beat em, stab them in the back when nobody's looking"
Machine Gestalt
Lets see here. That same attitude was taken during the irish potato famine... The english wanted to let the irish to their own devices since they assumed that the famine was caused by the stupidity of the irish and that only through death and starvation would the irish rise become "self sufficient."
It's been shown throughout history that the poor are almost always the hardest working, most dedicated people. They're ignorant in many cases because to persue education to a high degree would be at the expense of working. If you see your parents/parent working 60 hours a week to feed you and put a roof over your head and you're still wearing old hand me down/thrift store clothing and eating cheap food, and what you really want is to be more comfortable and have a better life, you're going to choose work over school every time.
In today's world where people with bachellors degrees are saying "can I take your order" like never before, and in many cases a masters degree is almost required to make good money, education provides no huge draw to the poor people who have uneducated parents. You wonder why the poor are hostile when they work for a pittance, are looked down upon almost universally because "they aren't good consumers."
The moral here is that a great deal of external factors are in congress to keep the poor, well, poor. Lack of a good education is one of those things, but the system is stacked heavily against education by its very nature. While we're working towards a better society, there is still massive inequality, and only minimal socialist legislation and the power of public opinion enabled by the pervasive nature of modern information systems hold the capitalist behaviors Marx described in "Das Kapital" in check.
For every person who rises from poverty to wealth there are hundreds who are equally talented and equally intelligent who were forced into a life of labor by the system we've created, and never had the opportunity to get an education. There are also many who get an education, but never make the contacts needed to gain adequate starting capital for whatever ideas they concocted.
To wrap up, to villify the poor is stupid and groundless. How would you like it if you were a serf in 18th century Russia? Lots of opportunity there, huh buddy! Lets see those brains make you something besides a serf. That sitution, while distant from today, does have some minor parralels in 21st century life and is still very real in the 3rd world... Only by protecting the poor and encouraging it to flourish can we truly blame those that go nowhere.
I hope you take a long hard look at your beliefs and see that they are groundless and self serving.
Machine Gestalt
This is what happens when you get your eyes crossed trying to preview
:) I just thought this would be an interesting place to interject.
Anyhow, to wrap up...
Because of the internecine nature of modern warfare, globalization's mechanism will be the absorption of culture (or so I suspect) and the end of the dominance of western culture will come when it is absorbed and subverted into a broader global culture (as we are seeing now). I truly believe that we've reached a plateau where nations don't really destroy each other anymore, but rather swallow each other whole as capable or slowly chip away if not (of course this only applies to first world nations). The War of the new millenium is a war of cultures (which eclipse beliefs) and not a war of people.
Just look at the whole terrorist debacle. This obviously wasn't a traditional act of war in that they want no land, aren't seeking money, and they aren't trying to conquer us per se, but rather the terrorists look at it as retaliation for the growing western influence upon the middle east.
Sorry for rambling so badly and flubbing on the post, AND for being off topic
MachineGestalt
I would be willing to postulate that the length existence of individual civilizations is inversely proportional to man's ability quickly traverse space. This may seem counter intuitive at first, but if you think about it, the downfall of civilizations comes not from within (internal sources merely produce decadence) but from without. With more rapid traversal of space, cultures are brought into conflict and the end result is destruction, or the subsuming of one culture into another. It would almost be accurate to say that man's increased ability to quickly transport matter and information from place to place is having the effect of speeding up time (in a figurative sense). Two thousand years ago, no matter how effective the government and how enlightened the rule, a land mass the size of the united states would be unable to view itself as a single nation state, and a cohesive peoples (though rome was certainly an impressive empire!). Only with the advent of roads, effective shipbuilding and other forms of rapid transportation did the concept of a nation develop. Fast forward to 2002... The world sits precariously on the edge of globalism, brought about by
I can't believe there isn't more awareness of swedish minimal and techno on slashdot. The top men of the swedish scene are, in sort of an order:
h ttp://www.discogs.com/label/Code_Red because no url exists for this label
:)
Adam Bayer
Cari Lekebusch / Mr. James Barth
Thomas Krome
Alexi Delano
Joell Mull
Marco Carola
Jahsper Dahlback
LENK
These guys have a sublime ability to take thrashing beats and pull them apart into a cohesive pattern, then shift that pattern into something different, and shift it back to maintain a symmetry and dancibility. Some of these guys have been known to use FOUR turntables at once (this is uncommon though), though two and three are about equally common. Cari Lekebush is also the supreme master of original compositions though most of them are good and highly original to a degree.
Check out the labels:
http://www.drumcode.se/
http://www.svek.com/
You won't be sorry I promise! This stuff is infectious and the swedish scene is truly the flag bearer for innovations in minimal and techno.
I have a huge collection of this stuff in MP3, as that's the only way for the average person to get it... Most releases are on vinyl only. Well worth the trouble though and you may be able to find some on the P2P scene. I used to run a server with pretty much all the stuff from drumcode/code red and some other stuff, to get it out there. Unfortunately Verizon didn't like the fact that I was starting to push almost 20 gigs a day of combined up and down traffic, and decided to terminate my contract and send me a rather hefty bill
Good luck with your search,
MachineGestalt
There is another which has similar effects, called 4-methylaminorex (dl-cis-2-amino-4-methyl-5-phenyl-2-oxazoline) which effects most specifically the the norepinephrine and acetylcholine receptors in the brain, with comparitively minimal/nonexistant effect at the dopamine receptors unlike most standard stimulants.
Unfortunately this chemical has a rather long active duration when taken by oral administration (which, besides it's potential for abuse, is probably the main reason this chemical has not seen commercial use), however it VERY effective at reducing the effects of sleep deprivation without the anxiety and psychotic effects usually attributed to methamphetamines and other stimulants which are highly active on the dopamine system.
As for the previously mentioned Uberman sleep schedule, I can see it being effective at producing mental altertness with a minimum of sleep, however I would suspect that it would have an effect on the recuperative capabilities of your body in addition to reducing the immune system. As a weightlifter I've found that additional sleep beyond the eight hours I usually require is very helpful in speeding recovery.
Machine Gestalt
I'm not a huge microsoft fan, but that salon article was just one big ad hominem with very little concrete to say against the xbox save "this is microsoft's first console," which is really irrelevant. Does anyone remember what happened with nintendo's first console?
What really peeved me was that the author had good things to say about games he has never played because they were nintendo titles, while he put down titles just because they were the first crop of titles for the xbox and weren't all 100% ground breaking AAA titles... No console has ever launched with a complete assortment of hits. Usually there's one if you're lucky.
I can understand peoples' desire to speculate, but this article wasn't speculation it was favoratism and name calling.
Ex Nihilo
Actually, most of Jackie Chan's movies seen in American cinemas are of Hong Kong origin. As I recall, Rush Hour was his first american made movie (I remember hearing him gripe about american studios and their insurance restrictions preventing him from doing his own stunts). He may have made more American movies since the Rush Hour franchise, but I havn't seen a Jackie Chan movie in a couple of years so I wouldn't know.
Please be careful when you say that jackie chan's work in Hong Kong overshadow his Hollywood work, since it's possible you're confusing them.
Nathan
---
If we have not succeeded, it is because we have failed - Dan Quayle