Okay, when someone is elected as our leader doesn't that mean that we as a people have come together and a majority has decided that that person is the best one to lead us. Out of the near 300 million people we have, he is the best. He is better than me or you, or anyone else. He is perfection, in that perfection is whatever's best.
Then why do they always suck? Why are they always corrupt? Why do they always lie? It sounds like we're the victims of our own design. It sounds like we need to seriously rework the process. But maybe we elect evil people, because we are evil people. We're corrupt and we lie, and we're greedy. Where a virtuous leader would bring virtue, we subconsciously react to that idea, finding a, sort of, fetishistic comfort in our world of sin. And so to project our sins, in time and space, we elect sinful people.
I'll stick with the former theory though. Institutions, though abstract, created by us, can be empirically shown to cause a corporeal effect of worsening our actions. (fuck, I butchered the end of that, but I think you get my point, it's late, whatever). Perhaps it could be as simple as having critical theory and media studies in school for children. Rather than having the education system designed to reinforce the current system, design it to give kids the capacity for critical thought on what they see on tv and in other mass media. And, whatever they choose, wether for the current system or not, would be, less deniably, a good choice nonetheless.
When Hillary Clinton did that, it was just part of the modern media circus, where everything's contextualised to be part of a sort of auto-recuperation to the benefit of capitalists who run the media. It's completely beyond meaning. It's like Michael Moore for example: oh he's such a radical and naive leftist! But he will accomplish nothing. His show and movies merely have generated more revenue for the capitalists and conveniently offered overdetermined events as reasons for a, perhaps, sort of populist repositioning as completely insipid entertainment which made some equally insipid people say "we should do something!" and that's it, they just went back to watching CNN et al, because they go hand in hand, beyond the mere fact that Moore requires their documents, which is maybe telling or analogous, but not determinant, ha. His supposedly left message is contextualized beyond it's mere content, as all things in the mass media are, as just another form of capitalist subjugation. And all the wannabe-Benoit university students and retired yuppies buy all his books and they think they know something about how power oppresses. And what will happen? The Democrats will get elected instead of the Republicans. And what will be different? Nothing, except laws will be different on some non-problems like abortion, because the same capitalists still hold all the power.
Incorrect, uh, beyond your mere grammatical error(s), too.
According to Marx, and most "communist" theorists, the welfare of the "collective"(which I quote because it's an unprecedented term that you used) is not more important that the basic rights of individuals at all. They no doubt draw the fundamental rights differently, but not nearly in a radical way: merely reading the concept of property differently. They would say that their reading is more pragmatic, the capitalists would say there's is. Read both: doesn't look like you have read the communist theory, but still seem quite confident with being against it. I would suggest The Marx-Engels Reader published by Norton, edited by R.C. Tucker. After that and if you would like to learn a perspective from more modern theorists, I would suggest Reading Capital by Louis Althusser and, of course, picking up the full volumes of Capital(by Marx and Engels, of course), which the Tucker anthology doesn't include. Of course, Marxist influenced thought through the years to now is interminably prolific. Perhaps, though, of required mention is much of Frankfurt School: from Habermas and Marcuse, to the sort of "post"-Frankfurt of Guy Debord and the Situationist International, and, most-contemporarily, Douglas Kellner, who's book Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity I would suggest. Perhaps, if you're brave, or not, whatever, you could read Barthes, and also the nominal "Tel Quel" theorists, including Derrida and Foucault, which Barthes was a major influence of. And here I'll suggest Baudrillard, who I would argue as being important for, what can be seen as, going beyond Marxism in a time when this is an important consideration. If you want to read him, get your hands on the two overviews offered by Mike Gane, Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory, and Baudrillard's Beastiary, from those, or, perhaps more effectively, with those, you can move into Baudrillard's writings.
True communism is actually the complete lack of state. Hence the name: the people live in a socially bound community. Stalinism may have confused this, because Stalin completely sidetracked the socialist project in what was essentially greed, and the movement towards communism in Russia regressed. Just because countries have been labelled communistic and were totalitarian, doesn't mean the concept of communism is actually dictatorial. As you may say, please look up communism in a dictionary, or better, an encyclopedia. Perhaps to illustrate, note that philosophies like Libertarian Socialism are communistic, but it would espouse that the socialist project should not use any state in its means towards communism.
"Liberty" is pretty much a goal of any political or economic philosophy, so it is completely meaningless. Communism promises liberty for the people in the form of total productive control and de-objectification/de-alienation, capitalism promises liberty for the people in the form of being able to claim what you work on or capitalize on, democracy promises liberty for the people in being able to choose the policies of the state, theocracy promises liberty for the people(the believers) in the form of transcendence, anarchy promises liberty for the people in the form of complete freedom within your own utility, etc.
There are no rights. You have the right to do something if you have the power to do something. Society is a struggle for power: all evocations of the concept of "rights" are just exercises in this play of power. The world is anarchy: instiutions, governments, these are subsets of the massive geometry of power. If one of these subsets enchains you, rendering you powerless, and forces you to labour under threat of death, you have to right to work, or the right to die, nothing else. The Enlightenment evocations of "rights" are naive, and were quickly recuperated by those who hold power. Their persisting state is on the level of simulation now, with power been acted out most diabolically: completely transparently in relation.
So, this is just an algorithm that checks the essay against a theoretical model of a "pefect essay". The concept is ironic, perhaps. For grades, students of literature, of the language, are pushed to conform to this algorithm, not to create something ingenius, striking, or artistic.
This just confirms that the American public school system is nearly entirely about social education--grades your level of conformity to the social algorithm in general--rather than academic education, which would certainly purely try to grade your ability to create in relation to knowledge. And, to say that this move to computer grading is a move towards the hyper-conformity of students, I suppose, would be overdetermining it. The setup has long since been about conformity. Bush can say "no student will be left behind" because those who do not have the capacities who would have otherwise been "left behind", don't need to have the capacities anymore, as long as they socialize acceptably. And the number of iconoclasts are far fewer than the number of those who are below average intelligence. That's the reason they are able to virtualize marking, because it makes no difference anymore; the teachers are already "computerized", the criteria, and content, all reproductions. The reason to bring in computers is purely economical.
There is scarcely a liberal American media. There is scarcely any liberal media in the world. Mass liberal media is limited to samizdat-style and indie pubs and pirate radio and sometimes the internet(which is largely avoided for the auto-masserosion aspects of it). And liberal signs from Marxist to situational to anarchistic are under the constant recuperation by capitalistic and other enterprises, and the left is generally misunderstood, even by most people who say they are "left".
Many think pubs like the NY Times or news stations like CNN are left, for whatever reasons. That's not true at all. Left media does not use advertising and is generally non-profit, and certainly not part of a capitalistic corporation, of which all mainstream American media outlets are. Left media will take part in serious academic discourse of Marxism and anarchism, which mainstream outlets will not touch except to use related terms to deface others.
The "left" commonly understood or portrayed in the mainstream is of usually consumeristic populations, and of a weak socialist democratic capitalism. And the "radical" or "far" form portrayed is of a oppressive Stalinism, stemming from the myth(not as in not true or real, but as on the level of mythic reference, the phrase "of mythic proportions" could illustrate this) of the "Soviet" Union. The first article you link illustrates this almost perfectly. The real left resists consumerism almost as a rule. It resists abstract labour, and so the common conception of "capitalism". It however does not necessarily resist laissez-faire economics, which the left portrayed in the mainstream almost always seems to. It gladly criticizes so-called "Green" operations and many other groups, like gun-control advocacy groups and so forth.
My point is, if you think "left" means the consumptious weak socialism, shitty feminism and culture recuperation, or, further, simulation, the mainstream media passes of as liberal, you must look past the signs and try to reconcile with the many theorists and artists of actual left thought which, like their "right" "others", are highly intelligent and have much to offer anyone who's willing to try to understand them.
It is not shortsighted at all, and how there could be such a gulf in conciliation for you to call it foolish is amazing. You make me think of Ader's "I'm too sad to tell you" except more frustration and less melancholy. But maybe this is just a bad day, well, yeah it is, but...
Anyway. "Relevant" ads do not "work" for everyone. Such "Ad-blockists" don't believe there is such thing as "relevant" ads. That's why they block them. This is part of why they like the internet, the ability to directly retextualize. In the face of being objectified by the process of consumer capitalism through the dominant form of the web, they retextualize it(the web) in a very direct and empowering way. This is one aspect of how they find pleasure in the internet. There's pleasure in a practice where one is not subordinated.
You claim this is shortsighted. Apparently because it has the eventual effect of destroying the very services they use. You miss the point. I think of the common "it's better to reign in Hell then to be a slave in Heaven", but that doesn't quite capture said point. Users en masse realize the meaninglessness in taking part in a spiral, or, like, ecstasy, of fidelity and information. These technologies they use, search engines, the web in general, are used because of the involvement they have in the social, not a techno/info-evolutionary tool for the wild accumulation of this "information". The "information super-highway", or, more precisely, the techno-fetish is represents, is foreseeably insipid, banal, unreferential. It only comes to life, gains reference, through the social discourse created from the textualization(any, not just the "retextualization" done by the "ad-blockists"). The realization is further, though, and this is why they are not "shortsighted". It's the realization that all the "work" is done by them in creating the discourse, not the technologies themselves. It's the realization that the technologies are not needed over all, that there disappearance, even if it's in consequence of their preferred, ad-blocking use of it, would not mark the end of anything significant. They would move on to whatever else is available as a nexus for social action, and be happy just the same.
Okay, watch this, I call it, active reading. It's of great benefit to reading posts on the internet, which tends to take on the function of spoken word but is usually bound to the more technical nature of the written word, and, so, honest typographical mistakes and other little insignificances(and, admittedly, significant ones as well) are more common. Although you forgot to add "Osama"(or "Usama", whichever) to your first sentence, I can easily see what you meant. This makes communication easier, instead of nitpicking on every little thing. Yes, I do realize that. It was on Osama's brothers and THEIR suspected connections to terrorist organizations.
I merely provided links saying that the FBI wasn't a blamable party in the "big stink" that the guy I replied to referred to(from the Guardian article):
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
I'm not saying all members of the Bin Laden are terrorists. I'm not saying they are not "respected". I'm not even saying "terrorism" is bad! I'm so sorry I said the more ambiguous "the Bin Ladens" instead of of simply "Bin Ladens", sans "the"(that obviously was disrespectful to you, and you taught me a much needed lesson with your proper criticism insulting of me!) and my butchering of "investigate".
There, I spent more than 30 seconds on this post. How about it, is it satisfactory to your obviously refined internet forum taste?
The FBI WANTED to investigate the Bin Ladens before the 9/11 attacks because they suspected a plot. However, Bush and his administration blocked the investigation for unknown reasons. A head FBI official even resigned because he was so frustrated that they couldn't investiage what they say clearly as troublesome activities.
"Do I not pay my taxes[for unlicensed copyrighted music] and get thrown in jail. Or do I vote for the people I feel will affect the taxes[copyright] the most?"
On the issue of unlicensed copyrighted works, for most people, they'll choose neither one of those. They'll choose: do not pay for unlicensed works and do not get thrown in jail, and, if the chance arises and one is not feeling [rightfully] fully disenchanted witht the democratic process, vote for the people they feel will affect copyright the way they want, the most.
I wrote about this yesterday. Piracy is a strategy of the masses. They are aware that the copyright owners they pirate from are(as those against piracy claim) directly decreased in their ability to produce the works that the consumers pirate. If you practice piracy, you're merely hurting the industry that you find entertainment from through your piracy. However, they are also that with the production of the works they want, comes to production of that want from the industry. The advertised joy attainable through purchasing of these products, the hype of the reviews, etc. For the aware consumer as pirate, there is no natural desire to create the specific forms of entertainment that industries supply, just a desire for entertainment itself. There is a mass realization of relativism, that if the industry they get entertainment from faded, or faded away altogether, from piracy or not, the desire for that entertainment would equally fade with little or no incongruency for the consumer as desiring machine(err, Deleuze and Guatarri?). With no video games, they'll just go outside and skateboard, or play basketball, or stay in and play chess, or scrabble. They'll have just as much fun, with or without the industry they currently consume. Without the music of the major labels, they'll just listen to the music that's available for free, or at live venues and enjoy it all the same. So, piracy is a strategy in reaction to a desire that was produced for them, a desire they never asked for. A strategy creating a reversal or roles, where industry intends to capitalize on consumers as objects for profit, the consumers capitalize on the industry forms as objects for entertainment, pleasure and social nexuses. A strategy to save their time, their labour, with the knowledge that all is relativistic.
You support actual human craft and you respect it's worth beyond mere exchange value. It's more than just having a shirt that fits perfect, it's about having a shirt that's made for you, it's about entering a direct, mutually beneficial social contract with another human being. Whereas the shit you buy from most stores is just result of abstract labour; it's just a shitty product, wether it fits well or not. It's hard to respect it, that's why many just throw stuff like that away, or never wear it again, nearly regardless of the price. Investing in an actual, symbolic, non-alienating social where money is created for you by considering and working for acutal, socializable people, and not just for a disconnected specification and quota.
Those against piracy seem to clench onto the idea that if games are pirated, then there availability is decreased because there's less incentive for companies to produce games. And, at a certain level of piracy there would be no games made. Consumers as pirates are aware of this, but they're also aware of more.
They're aware that with the production of the games comes also the production of the desire for the games. The hype surrounding them. They know if all of sudden there were no games, their lives would not be directly affected negatively in any important way. "Oh, no new games? I guess I'll just go outside and play shoot some hoops." There is no natural desire to create grand, expensive, consumeristic forms of entertainment. There is merely a natural desire for entertainment itself. Without the production of games people are without desire for the games, and so will merely do something else for entertainment, and be no less happy. Piracy is a strategy of the masses. An unsaid(unrecognized?) strategy to save the product of their work created with the knowledge that all is relativistic.
Since when are there guarantees? There are no guarantees people. All the banal systems you craft, family, wealth, security, can and will disappear like the phantoms they are. You can wake up with some flesh eating disease and that's it, you're fucked. Don't expect to live forever. Be nice to people and try to do something interesting in your life instead of obsessing over comfort and credit. Then maybe when you realize everything has fucked up and it's over, you won't feel so bad and have to complain that your simulated life's gone to shit.
My comrade uses it for a combo router and webserver. And that's the only person I know who runs a server, or uses anything other than those D-Link or Linksys things as a router.
His first point is good, admit it. People are alienated from one another, even more so than in 1942.
It was over 110,000 Americans citizens that were illegally incarcerated just because of their ethnicity, and no one stood up for them. People had firearms, and it was certainly easier to get them then, yet no one tried to stop a government using force and violence to unconstitutionally imprison it's people without trial.
The problem is not that people don't have the means to stop a government infringing on their rights(50 million citizens with rifles or 50 million citizens with no guns can both as easily topple the US government; it's not like any firearms you could own can stop jets from dropping bombs on you, and the 2nd amendment says nothing of gas masks that you can use for the inevitable gassing that an oppressive of government would use to subdue you), it's that people do not care enough about others to want to do so.
China already has missle technology capable of launching various payloads* from the mainland to Taiwan: so what missles are you referring to exactly that they are "developing" of which they don't yet have? It says on that page that China can also launch missiles that can hit mainland United States.
Then roll with it man. I've read that there's no priveleged reading, and I've also read an essay on Writing and Difference which concluded that Derrida sucks... which is guess hahoccjaskh@#@! Submit your words; let them be taken. Let them act beyond your control.
More to the point, Mary-Kate and Ashley are about 48 days away from reaching legal age.
Line starts behind me guys:)
Oh, guys! This is going to rock. One time I was flipping through channels to get to my news(oh, that Iraq situation! When will our boys ever finish up their and make it back for the celebrations? I'm fair and balanced, I'm not so righteous as to claim to know what to think of the reasons for the war, but let's support our boys and the cleaning up of Iraq! Fair and balanced!) and sports(oh, watching hockey is so much fun, yeah! Go Phillies! Canada sucks!) and I stumbled upon their show, and, guys, they are so hot! I can't wait until whoever runs Penthouse gets them to do a shoot...together! Totally lesbian! Lesbians are so hot, because, like, it's ALL women, and no gross men! AH, man, men are so gross! It'll be great! It'll make jacking off so much less strenuous because of the arousal it will give us! I'M first in line!
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, when someone is elected as our leader doesn't that mean that we as a people have come together and a majority has decided that that person is the best one to lead us. Out of the near 300 million people we have, he is the best. He is better than me or you, or anyone else. He is perfection, in that perfection is whatever's best.
Then why do they always suck? Why are they always corrupt? Why do they always lie? It sounds like we're the victims of our own design. It sounds like we need to seriously rework the process. But maybe we elect evil people, because we are evil people. We're corrupt and we lie, and we're greedy. Where a virtuous leader would bring virtue, we subconsciously react to that idea, finding a, sort of, fetishistic comfort in our world of sin. And so to project our sins, in time and space, we elect sinful people.
I'll stick with the former theory though. Institutions, though abstract, created by us, can be empirically shown to cause a corporeal effect of worsening our actions. (fuck, I butchered the end of that, but I think you get my point, it's late, whatever). Perhaps it could be as simple as having critical theory and media studies in school for children. Rather than having the education system designed to reinforce the current system, design it to give kids the capacity for critical thought on what they see on tv and in other mass media. And, whatever they choose, wether for the current system or not, would be, less deniably, a good choice nonetheless.
Swell, sgoodnight
You mean, no one wants to think. Full-stop.
When Hillary Clinton did that, it was just part of the modern media circus, where everything's contextualised to be part of a sort of auto-recuperation to the benefit of capitalists who run the media. It's completely beyond meaning. It's like Michael Moore for example: oh he's such a radical and naive leftist! But he will accomplish nothing. His show and movies merely have generated more revenue for the capitalists and conveniently offered overdetermined events as reasons for a, perhaps, sort of populist repositioning as completely insipid entertainment which made some equally insipid people say "we should do something!" and that's it, they just went back to watching CNN et al, because they go hand in hand, beyond the mere fact that Moore requires their documents, which is maybe telling or analogous, but not determinant, ha. His supposedly left message is contextualized beyond it's mere content, as all things in the mass media are, as just another form of capitalist subjugation. And all the wannabe-Benoit university students and retired yuppies buy all his books and they think they know something about how power oppresses. And what will happen? The Democrats will get elected instead of the Republicans. And what will be different? Nothing, except laws will be different on some non-problems like abortion, because the same capitalists still hold all the power.
Incorrect, uh, beyond your mere grammatical error(s), too.
According to Marx, and most "communist" theorists, the welfare of the "collective"(which I quote because it's an unprecedented term that you used) is not more important that the basic rights of individuals at all. They no doubt draw the fundamental rights differently, but not nearly in a radical way: merely reading the concept of property differently. They would say that their reading is more pragmatic, the capitalists would say there's is. Read both: doesn't look like you have read the communist theory, but still seem quite confident with being against it. I would suggest The Marx-Engels Reader published by Norton, edited by R.C. Tucker. After that and if you would like to learn a perspective from more modern theorists, I would suggest Reading Capital by Louis Althusser and, of course, picking up the full volumes of Capital(by Marx and Engels, of course), which the Tucker anthology doesn't include. Of course, Marxist influenced thought through the years to now is interminably prolific. Perhaps, though, of required mention is much of Frankfurt School: from Habermas and Marcuse, to the sort of "post"-Frankfurt of Guy Debord and the Situationist International, and, most-contemporarily, Douglas Kellner, who's book Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity I would suggest. Perhaps, if you're brave, or not, whatever, you could read Barthes, and also the nominal "Tel Quel" theorists, including Derrida and Foucault, which Barthes was a major influence of. And here I'll suggest Baudrillard, who I would argue as being important for, what can be seen as, going beyond Marxism in a time when this is an important consideration. If you want to read him, get your hands on the two overviews offered by Mike Gane, Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory, and Baudrillard's Beastiary, from those, or, perhaps more effectively, with those, you can move into Baudrillard's writings.
True communism is actually the complete lack of state. Hence the name: the people live in a socially bound community. Stalinism may have confused this, because Stalin completely sidetracked the socialist project in what was essentially greed, and the movement towards communism in Russia regressed. Just because countries have been labelled communistic and were totalitarian, doesn't mean the concept of communism is actually dictatorial. As you may say, please look up communism in a dictionary, or better, an encyclopedia. Perhaps to illustrate, note that philosophies like Libertarian Socialism are communistic, but it would espouse that the socialist project should not use any state in its means towards communism.
"Liberty" is pretty much a goal of any political or economic philosophy, so it is completely meaningless. Communism promises liberty for the people in the form of total productive control and de-objectification/de-alienation, capitalism promises liberty for the people in the form of being able to claim what you work on or capitalize on, democracy promises liberty for the people in being able to choose the policies of the state, theocracy promises liberty for the people(the believers) in the form of transcendence, anarchy promises liberty for the people in the form of complete freedom within your own utility, etc.
There are no rights. You have the right to do something if you have the power to do something. Society is a struggle for power: all evocations of the concept of "rights" are just exercises in this play of power. The world is anarchy: instiutions, governments, these are subsets of the massive geometry of power. If one of these subsets enchains you, rendering you powerless, and forces you to labour under threat of death, you have to right to work, or the right to die, nothing else. The Enlightenment evocations of "rights" are naive, and were quickly recuperated by those who hold power. Their persisting state is on the level of simulation now, with power been acted out most diabolically: completely transparently in relation.
So, this is just an algorithm that checks the essay against a theoretical model of a "pefect essay". The concept is ironic, perhaps. For grades, students of literature, of the language, are pushed to conform to this algorithm, not to create something ingenius, striking, or artistic.
This just confirms that the American public school system is nearly entirely about social education--grades your level of conformity to the social algorithm in general--rather than academic education, which would certainly purely try to grade your ability to create in relation to knowledge. And, to say that this move to computer grading is a move towards the hyper-conformity of students, I suppose, would be overdetermining it. The setup has long since been about conformity. Bush can say "no student will be left behind" because those who do not have the capacities who would have otherwise been "left behind", don't need to have the capacities anymore, as long as they socialize acceptably. And the number of iconoclasts are far fewer than the number of those who are below average intelligence. That's the reason they are able to virtualize marking, because it makes no difference anymore; the teachers are already "computerized", the criteria, and content, all reproductions. The reason to bring in computers is purely economical.
I hope everyone realizes the irony in (ab)using situational theory to produce desire. But I guess there's no real irony anymore...
There is scarcely a liberal American media. There is scarcely any liberal media in the world. Mass liberal media is limited to samizdat-style and indie pubs and pirate radio and sometimes the internet(which is largely avoided for the auto-masserosion aspects of it). And liberal signs from Marxist to situational to anarchistic are under the constant recuperation by capitalistic and other enterprises, and the left is generally misunderstood, even by most people who say they are "left".
Many think pubs like the NY Times or news stations like CNN are left, for whatever reasons. That's not true at all. Left media does not use advertising and is generally non-profit, and certainly not part of a capitalistic corporation, of which all mainstream American media outlets are. Left media will take part in serious academic discourse of Marxism and anarchism, which mainstream outlets will not touch except to use related terms to deface others.
The "left" commonly understood or portrayed in the mainstream is of usually consumeristic populations, and of a weak socialist democratic capitalism. And the "radical" or "far" form portrayed is of a oppressive Stalinism, stemming from the myth(not as in not true or real, but as on the level of mythic reference, the phrase "of mythic proportions" could illustrate this) of the "Soviet" Union. The first article you link illustrates this almost perfectly. The real left resists consumerism almost as a rule. It resists abstract labour, and so the common conception of "capitalism". It however does not necessarily resist laissez-faire economics, which the left portrayed in the mainstream almost always seems to. It gladly criticizes so-called "Green" operations and many other groups, like gun-control advocacy groups and so forth.
My point is, if you think "left" means the consumptious weak socialism, shitty feminism and culture recuperation, or, further, simulation, the mainstream media passes of as liberal, you must look past the signs and try to reconcile with the many theorists and artists of actual left thought which, like their "right" "others", are highly intelligent and have much to offer anyone who's willing to try to understand them.
It is not shortsighted at all, and how there could be such a gulf in conciliation for you to call it foolish is amazing. You make me think of Ader's "I'm too sad to tell you" except more frustration and less melancholy. But maybe this is just a bad day, well, yeah it is, but...
Anyway. "Relevant" ads do not "work" for everyone. Such "Ad-blockists" don't believe there is such thing as "relevant" ads. That's why they block them. This is part of why they like the internet, the ability to directly retextualize. In the face of being objectified by the process of consumer capitalism through the dominant form of the web, they retextualize it(the web) in a very direct and empowering way. This is one aspect of how they find pleasure in the internet. There's pleasure in a practice where one is not subordinated.
You claim this is shortsighted. Apparently because it has the eventual effect of destroying the very services they use. You miss the point. I think of the common "it's better to reign in Hell then to be a slave in Heaven", but that doesn't quite capture said point. Users en masse realize the meaninglessness in taking part in a spiral, or, like, ecstasy, of fidelity and information. These technologies they use, search engines, the web in general, are used because of the involvement they have in the social, not a techno/info-evolutionary tool for the wild accumulation of this "information". The "information super-highway", or, more precisely, the techno-fetish is represents, is foreseeably insipid, banal, unreferential. It only comes to life, gains reference, through the social discourse created from the textualization(any, not just the
"retextualization" done by the "ad-blockists"). The realization is further, though, and this is why they are not "shortsighted". It's the realization that all the "work" is done by them in creating the discourse, not the technologies themselves. It's the realization that the technologies are not needed over all, that there disappearance, even if it's in consequence of their preferred, ad-blocking use of it, would not mark the end of anything significant. They would move on to whatever else is available as a nexus for social action, and be happy just the same.
You don't block out iFrames inherently. You merely block out iFrames that are served from particular hosts that you blacklist.
To kill most yahoo ads go:
d vertising.**
*a*.yimg.*
and
*us.*1.yimg.*
To get rid of more ads, these are good along with the ones you listed:
*fastclick.*
*adbureau.*
*eyeblaster-bs.*
*a
*spinbox.*
*zdmcirc.*
*exchangead.
*bluestreak.*
CSound http://www.csound.net/
ZynAddSubFX http://zynaddsubfx.sourceforge.net/
FluidSynth http://www.fluidsynth.org/
Rosegarden http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
Okay, watch this, I call it, active reading. It's of great benefit to reading posts on the internet, which tends to take on the function of spoken word but is usually bound to the more technical nature of the written word, and, so, honest typographical mistakes and other little insignificances(and, admittedly, significant ones as well) are more common. Although you forgot to add "Osama"(or "Usama", whichever) to your first sentence, I can easily see what you meant. This makes communication easier, instead of nitpicking on every little thing. Yes, I do realize that. It was on Osama's brothers and THEIR suspected connections to terrorist organizations.
I merely provided links saying that the FBI wasn't a blamable party in the "big stink" that the guy I replied to referred to(from the Guardian article):
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
I'm not saying all members of the Bin Laden are terrorists. I'm not saying they are not "respected". I'm not even saying "terrorism" is bad! I'm so sorry I said the more ambiguous "the Bin Ladens" instead of of simply "Bin Ladens", sans "the"(that obviously was disrespectful to you, and you taught me a much needed lesson with your proper criticism insulting of me!) and my butchering of "investigate".
There, I spent more than 30 seconds on this post. How about it, is it satisfactory to your obviously refined internet forum taste?
The FBI WANTED to investigate the Bin Ladens before the 9/11 attacks because they suspected a plot. However, Bush and his administration blocked the investigation for unknown reasons. A head FBI official even resigned because he was so frustrated that they couldn't investiage what they say clearly as troublesome activities.
w =0
4 293682,00.html
r ticleshow?art_id=1030259305
b ush/index.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&ro
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/a
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/
Don't blame the FBI for not investigating, blame the justice department and the higher ups.
Yeah, enrich our lives.
"Do I not pay my taxes[for unlicensed copyrighted music] and get thrown in jail. Or do I vote for the people I feel will affect the taxes[copyright] the most?"
On the issue of unlicensed copyrighted works, for most people, they'll choose neither one of those. They'll choose: do not pay for unlicensed works and do not get thrown in jail, and, if the chance arises and one is not feeling [rightfully] fully disenchanted witht the democratic process, vote for the people they feel will affect copyright the way they want, the most.
I wrote about this yesterday. Piracy is a strategy of the masses. They are aware that the copyright owners they pirate from are(as those against piracy claim) directly decreased in their ability to produce the works that the consumers pirate. If you practice piracy, you're merely hurting the industry that you find entertainment from through your piracy. However, they are also that with the production of the works they want, comes to production of that want from the industry. The advertised joy attainable through purchasing of these products, the hype of the reviews, etc. For the aware consumer as pirate, there is no natural desire to create the specific forms of entertainment that industries supply, just a desire for entertainment itself. There is a mass realization of relativism, that if the industry they get entertainment from faded, or faded away altogether, from piracy or not, the desire for that entertainment would equally fade with little or no incongruency for the consumer as desiring machine(err, Deleuze and Guatarri?). With no video games, they'll just go outside and skateboard, or play basketball, or stay in and play chess, or scrabble. They'll have just as much fun, with or without the industry they currently consume. Without the music of the major labels, they'll just listen to the music that's available for free, or at live venues and enjoy it all the same. So, piracy is a strategy in reaction to a desire that was produced for them, a desire they never asked for. A strategy creating a reversal or roles, where industry intends to capitalize on consumers as objects for profit, the consumers capitalize on the industry forms as objects for entertainment, pleasure and social nexuses. A strategy to save their time, their labour, with the knowledge that all is relativistic.
I love you man.
You support actual human craft and you respect it's worth beyond mere exchange value. It's more than just having a shirt that fits perfect, it's about having a shirt that's made for you, it's about entering a direct, mutually beneficial social contract with another human being. Whereas the shit you buy from most stores is just result of abstract labour; it's just a shitty product, wether it fits well or not. It's hard to respect it, that's why many just throw stuff like that away, or never wear it again, nearly regardless of the price. Investing in an actual, symbolic, non-alienating social where money is created for you by considering and working for acutal, socializable people, and not just for a disconnected specification and quota.
Those against piracy seem to clench onto the idea that if games are pirated, then there availability is decreased because there's less incentive for companies to produce games. And, at a certain level of piracy there would be no games made. Consumers as pirates are aware of this, but they're also aware of more.
They're aware that with the production of the games comes also the production of the desire for the games. The hype surrounding them. They know if all of sudden there were no games, their lives would not be directly affected negatively in any important way. "Oh, no new games? I guess I'll just go outside and play shoot some hoops." There is no natural desire to create grand, expensive, consumeristic forms of entertainment. There is merely a natural desire for entertainment itself. Without the production of games people are without desire for the games, and so will merely do something else for entertainment, and be no less happy. Piracy is a strategy of the masses. An unsaid(unrecognized?) strategy to save the product of their work created with the knowledge that all is relativistic.
Since when are there guarantees? There are no guarantees people. All the banal systems you craft, family, wealth, security, can and will disappear like the phantoms they are. You can wake up with some flesh eating disease and that's it, you're fucked. Don't expect to live forever. Be nice to people and try to do something interesting in your life instead of obsessing over comfort and credit. Then maybe when you realize everything has fucked up and it's over, you won't feel so bad and have to complain that your simulated life's gone to shit.
My comrade uses it for a combo router and webserver. And that's the only person I know who runs a server, or uses anything other than those D-Link or Linksys things as a router.
His first point is good, admit it. People are alienated from one another, even more so than in 1942.
It was over 110,000 Americans citizens that were illegally incarcerated just because of their ethnicity, and no one stood up for them. People had firearms, and it was certainly easier to get them then, yet no one tried to stop a government using force and violence to unconstitutionally imprison it's people without trial.
The problem is not that people don't have the means to stop a government infringing on their rights(50 million citizens with rifles or 50 million citizens with no guns can both as easily topple the US government; it's not like any firearms you could own can stop jets from dropping bombs on you, and the 2nd amendment says nothing of gas masks that you can use for the inevitable gassing that an oppressive of government would use to subdue you), it's that people do not care enough about others to want to do so.
China already has missle technology capable of launching various payloads* from the mainland to Taiwan: so what missles are you referring to exactly that they are "developing" of which they don't yet have? It says on that page that China can also launch missiles that can hit mainland United States.
Another link that may be of interest to you:
http://www.rense.com/general38/cong.htm
Then roll with it man. I've read that there's no priveleged reading, and I've also read an essay on Writing and Difference which concluded that Derrida sucks... which is guess hahoccjaskh@#@! Submit your words; let them be taken. Let them act beyond your control.
More to the point, Mary-Kate and Ashley are about 48 days away from reaching legal age.
Line starts behind me guys:)
Oh, guys! This is going to rock. One time I was flipping through channels to get to my news(oh, that Iraq situation! When will our boys ever finish up their and make it back for the celebrations? I'm fair and balanced, I'm not so righteous as to claim to know what to think of the reasons for the war, but let's support our boys and the cleaning up of Iraq! Fair and balanced!) and sports(oh, watching hockey is so much fun, yeah! Go Phillies! Canada sucks!) and I stumbled upon their show, and, guys, they are so hot! I can't wait until whoever runs Penthouse gets them to do a shoot...together! Totally lesbian! Lesbians are so hot, because, like, it's ALL women, and no gross men! AH, man, men are so gross! It'll be great! It'll make jacking off so much less strenuous because of the arousal it will give us! I'M first in line!