What people commonly call water is not just a pure chemical of H20. It's a mixture of it and substances dissolved (and otherwise "in") it. One may say "distilled water" or "pure water" to mean pure H2O. Though, you are of course right that, technically, that water itself doesn't contain elements other than hyrdrogen or oxygen. However, referring to the grandparent here, mentioning "ice" and "water" as seperate substances in relation to carbon coming "from" things obviously gives away the fact that the word "water" is being used non-technically.
Commodotising ideas into consumer products for the mass market does just that: initiates them into the mass. The mass purely consumes. This won't help the actual influence of any ideas they're trying to put forth, it will have a negative effect if any. It's as quicksand.
Of course, they probably do know this, and it's just an attempt to get money for something or someone(s), somwhere. One must admit, that wouldn't be out of line with the actions of "religious" groups in the past.
Funny, ahem, how a reply/masturbation for the grandparent from one of the weak "i'm not a slashbot!"[yes, you are-a.w.]-types(username: ovit, I believe) said something akin to: "yeah! you're one of the few people here who actually understands copyrights!". Whilst, actually, the grandparent seems to be so misinformed that he apparantly thinks any copying of copyrighted works is copyright infringement, and, so, not a right.
But that seems to be the trend in simulation here. The insecure grasp unto and consume the sign of "I am no slashbot!" and then they believe that there is somehow some sort of auto-justification. Because, to them, it's only the appearance of thought that counts, not actually thinking.
Nothing. No, it didn't. No, I'm not. Yeah, sure, I mean, I already started, didn't I? Is that so hard to infer?
I'm certain that it would be exactly like it's "cracked up to be": shit.
If you think tv is entertaining you could definitely get out some more. Your idea of entertainment is sitting numb in front a sign-consumption box? Wow. I want to hang out with you. That sounds like a lot fun.
What emotional bound is it that you have with reality TV that makes you so jaded? Did you recieve your life's greatest pleasure from the symptomatic life that you "experienced" through your preverse non-voyeurism? Are you THAT upset that I've brought to light the fact to you that not everyone is satisfied with stimulation by banal obscenity?
I like how you created a projected other as me. That was a nice touch. It really displays the depth and force of the argument you have against me when you have to reify your mental other as me to argue against.
+ screened and groomed "contestants" + directing + makeup + content controlled + advertisements + etc.
Reality for not just stupid people. Reality for vapid, stupid people.
I'm pretty sure, I mean, at least I think, the last time I was in reality there wasn't a director there telling me "yeah, that's good, do that." Nor a makeup artist touching me up for the "personal" aside.
Of course he wouldn't object. People have some bizarre idea that RMS is like "out to get!" all those that don't follow Free Software guidelines! He's not. And he has nothing against people selling Free Software for money anyway: he explicitly states that. He started an interesting project, he likes it, he believes other people should follow it, he writes about why they should, and that's about as far as it goes. Do people hear "RMS is crazy!" and they just believe it? People should find someone else to project an "other" for them to deride onto, or maybe just relax in general.
I would question if those people that you refer to exist even. Those who do lament Microsoft's domination and wish that free software would be the dominant would keep a very keen eye on what would increase profusion of free software: that gives them exactly what they want! Certainly you're not so cynical as to claim that people are dumb enough to discard those very obvious problems and solutions. The ones that do "scoff" are the ones who don't care what the vast majority of users use. They have their Free Software, and if other people want to "move up" to it, they can too: they're willing to share. But only share what they have, not what others want them to have. Sounds like a morally justified position to me.
I have Apache running on mine. I'm definitely a "joe user"; I use Windows and everything. I just use it so I can have some of my files available to other "joe users" and myself, a "joe user". It was easy to do, just ran the setup file, it did everything for me. Almost any "joe user" can do that: they were obviously expecting some serious "joe users". I saw "security tips" on the Apache page so I went to that and did what they said, and that was that. "Joe user".
Then move over to whatever new OS that's in the works of the latest and greatest hackers. And as programming techniques and technology(and even hardware) get better and better over time, it'll be easier and easier to make brand new OSes for excellent use. You can continually be off the mainstream, and for good reason, of course.
It's okay to read mainstream American or otherwise Atlanticist news. But don't read just it. That's how you fall victim to the propaganda. Read some news from other countries. Try reading some from India or Germany. The stuff's not poison people. And just because it says things that contradict what you hear on CNN and the BBC doesn't mean you should stop reading it just to keep your cognitive dissonance low. It was former CBS president Richard Savant who said:
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
I'm going to reply to that other "Labor Theory of Value" post of your's you linked to.
The statue that the man built behind his house is not necessarily the result of "labor". It could have been (and sounds like, of course it is just made up) artisan craft. However, you treat it for it's mere use-(or something detached that you think is use-)value, it's true value is in the symbolic. To claim that all "work" is wage labor is completely neglectful of the symbolic. You seem to have reversed the socio-historic of wage labor. Whereas originally those who worked as wage laborers were the alienated, you treat those who are NOT wage laborers as the alienated: "Nobody wants your straw statue", "deal with it."
My "condition"? What are you talking about? Do I know you? If not: you can of course infer the world of me from some posts I made on Slashdot!
Okay. Even if I didn't want to be alive now: you lay down this "what are you doing to improve your conditions?" That's a classic thing to say to depressives by people who think that because "oh, i'm happy, la la la! so i must know what's right!" that they're some sort of psychologist. And, it has, quite throroughly been, shown to be a completely ineffective method for "helping" depressives. "Helping" avec quotes because quite honestly, "a loaded gun won't set you free, but an unloaded one will."
Anyway dude. It's nice to see you're looking out for people: that's commendable. But you can't take Slashdot seriously, it's just a language game. And if you want to help depressives in the future, don't just tell them "get some self respect!" It doesn't work.
Lame. No one cares about your "work hard, yeah!!!" production and no one cares about the weak ass socialist mirror of production you argue against either. It's all bullshit. Smith this, Marx that: fuck it. Tip: don't buy into the American dream lie and marry a bitch and have a bunch of snotty nosed little piece of shit brats and you won't have to worry a day about fucking outsourcing or minimum wage. What kind of twisted fuck brings kids into this world anyway. All a bunch of child/sign fetishist, "ya'll".
It would hardly undue it. Just like relatively doesn't undo Newtonian mechanics; it just shows that it doesn't apply to everything: it limits it's scope.
I'm not a physicist so, I can't really help you. But one little search finds this:
Okay. I don't doubt that it can have a use value. Really what I'm saying is:
1) It's priced based on it's sign-exchange value...
2)...because many(most?) people are mainly(totally?) interested in it as a sign.
It's like guys who buy Hummers and never leave the metro area. They didn't buy utility. They bought a sign of utility, or of something else(perhaps wealth?) But that's all that matters to them. That's definitely shallowness. When the sign of something is more important than the something.
Or, it's as those pants that people wear nowadays(a lot of the iPod owners like to have these pants too). You know, the ones with the pre-fading or pre-made tears. It's just another "hip" thing. It's some sort of obscure sign of "use", or "life", or perhaps the "Salvation Army look". "Look at the fading in my pants! I must have owned these for a long time! And I'm too hip to care that my pants are torn! Yeah!" And I've seen the prices for (some) of those pants. $40-$100. What, could possibly be the reason for buying(not owning) those pants for yourself apart from for obtaining it's sign value? Like I could imagine some completely unlikely fringe reasons(someone said they'd kill if you didn't get them, or something else bizarre). Anyway, you must agree, most people buy those pants for their "hipness". So, as a deliberation on the possibility of people buying the iPod as a sign: what's the stretch from buying pants at 100 times their use-exchange value just to obtain it's sign-exchange value to buying an iPod for it's sign-exchange value(with whatever amount of disregard for it's markup in relation to use, definitely not 100x, if any). I wouldn't say any stretch at all.
"So people are "shallow" for paying a little extra for the product that is the simplest to use, gives them everything they want and all with a touch of style?"
When you say that, it seems as if you completely miss my point. I think I clarified a bit more, but I'll put in a bit more here.
Okay, if they paid for something that gives them the utility they want at a price reasonable for them: great. That's not the subject of my "rant"; and I did not call someone who would do that shallow. There's a difference between buying something for utility and buying something as a sign. I'm critical, in this case, only, on the latter, of course.
Satriani's good at the guitar. That's his thing. I can't really comment on that too much. I don't much about that. Pere Ubu is good with music itself. That's a thing I'm in to. And I will comment of that.
Maybe, Satriani, overall, has more artistic quality than Pere Ubu. But his art would certainly lie in the actually technicals of playing the guitar. I'm not really familiar with that. No, troll.
As the post above me has pointed out: how do you know?
You seem to have automatically disregarded zero-point energy systems as "pseudo-science". That goes completely against the scientific spirit. Keep an open mind. You don't believe big oil could keep something like it secret? That's naive. They have more money than you can dream of. Yes, don't automatically assume there's a conspiracy just because there's a couple webpages made by some engineer who put some schematics up. But don't assume there can't be as well.
I guess it shouldn't be any diffferent: makes them money, gets them what they want, etc. But it's still a strange thing, and I don't care for it. And beleive me, what I don't care for goes far beyond just iPod advertising and iPod sign-exchange. And to note: I see non-(telling people that your product is [hip|cool|bling|needed|willgetyoulaid])-based ads all the time. Example: most classifieds. They describe the item and list a price. It's still an ad. It doesn't involve any sign-fetishism though.
I'm not saying that it cannot be truly valuable to anyone. You seem to have use for it, that's good for you. I will give you, or anyone, "a break", for sure for sure. You need not reply if you feel authentic, I can't judge you from here. If you have no regard for the "signs" I describe, then you're obviously on the good side of my rant. And all of us are inauthentic to some extent of course: I, myself, don't feel like some sort symbolically-exuding philosopher-poet in that aspect, far from it, this is just kind of an area of interest for me, tis all.
I've heard some Satch(at least, I have Live in San Fran buried somewhere, I think I've heard more), but he's hardly a true artist is the musical sense. He's more a guitar acrobat. Perhaps he makes an art out of his acrobatics(or some music-acobatic hybrid), but I wouldn't say he makes much of an art out the music itself. There's a world of difference in relation to the art of the actual music between someone like Mr. Satriani and, say, Pere Ubu. I would stress the difference between musicianship and musicality. And I've never heard the Darkness, actually.
That's cause the iPod is just a sign for the average person to consume. They have it and for them it signifies: "Hey, look I'm hip." Even the songs they put on, just more signs. "Oh yeah, the Darkness, they rock. They're like Zeppelin."
The iPod, like most things, is not priced based on it's use or exchange value, just it's sign exchange value.
Look at the ads for the iPod. They're just a bunch of silhouettes of girls and guys with hip hair cuts holding their iPods over a background of nouveau-retro-colored designs. "Look how 'cool' our ad is! Don't you want to be cool?", is what it says. It's not a list of specs or prices. Or look at their ad-type deals with Value Village and its retro, "flower power" image. "It's cool to shop at Value Village. It's, like, retro, and lo-fi!" Just another sign. Watch the yuppies when someone says "nice shirt" to them, they're quick to jump in, "I got it at Value Village! It was used!" "Used" isn't good because it allows more practical pricing(if you look at Value Village pricing, it's still ridiculously high -- and you don't have to buy any clothes actually, except for perhaps socks and underwears, you can make by fine just with what you can get for free or find or what you already have), it's good because it's "cool": it has a high sign exchange value.
Jobs displays his shallow yuppiness flagrantly when he says people don't "get it" about the Apple "hipness". Maybe some don't. But some do, but they also "get" a little more: that's it's just meaningless signs and false worth. So the ones who may not "get it", are not missing anything: what they don't "get" is absolutely nosense, and that's alright.
From the context in which he was posting, and how I read it, it seems to me he was giving justification to the existence of this program. Whereas a great deal of people seem to think the program is somehow illegal or otherwise reprehensible he was giving reason why the program is completely fine(and it is, IMO).
Slashdot Mirror
What people commonly call water is not just a pure chemical of H20. It's a mixture of it and substances dissolved (and otherwise "in") it. One may say "distilled water" or "pure water" to mean pure H2O. Though, you are of course right that, technically, that water itself doesn't contain elements other than hyrdrogen or oxygen. However, referring to the grandparent here, mentioning "ice" and "water" as seperate substances in relation to carbon coming "from" things obviously gives away the fact that the word "water" is being used non-technically.
Commodotising ideas into consumer products for the mass market does just that: initiates them into the mass. The mass purely consumes. This won't help the actual influence of any ideas they're trying to put forth, it will have a negative effect if any. It's as quicksand.
Of course, they probably do know this, and it's just an attempt to get money for something or someone(s), somwhere. One must admit, that wouldn't be out of line with the actions of "religious" groups in the past.
Yes.
Funny, ahem, how a reply/masturbation for the grandparent from one of the weak "i'm not a slashbot!"[yes, you are-a.w.]-types(username: ovit, I believe) said something akin to: "yeah! you're one of the few people here who actually understands copyrights!". Whilst, actually, the grandparent seems to be so misinformed that he apparantly thinks any copying of copyrighted works is copyright infringement, and, so, not a right.
But that seems to be the trend in simulation here. The insecure grasp unto and consume the sign of "I am no slashbot!" and then they believe that there is somehow some sort of auto-justification. Because, to them, it's only the appearance of thought that counts, not actually thinking.
Nothing. No, it didn't. No, I'm not. Yeah, sure, I mean, I already started, didn't I? Is that so hard to infer?
I'm certain that it would be exactly like it's "cracked up to be": shit.
If you think tv is entertaining you could definitely get out some more. Your idea of entertainment is sitting numb in front a sign-consumption box? Wow. I want to hang out with you. That sounds like a lot fun.
What emotional bound is it that you have with reality TV that makes you so jaded? Did you recieve your life's greatest pleasure from the symptomatic life that you "experienced" through your preverse non-voyeurism? Are you THAT upset that I've brought to light the fact to you that not everyone is satisfied with stimulation by banal obscenity?
I like how you created a projected other as me. That was a nice touch. It really displays the depth and force of the argument you have against me when you have to reify your mental other as me to argue against.
+ screened and groomed "contestants" + directing + makeup + content controlled + advertisements + etc.
Reality for not just stupid people. Reality for vapid, stupid people.
I'm pretty sure, I mean, at least I think, the last time I was in reality there wasn't a director there telling me "yeah, that's good, do that." Nor a makeup artist touching me up for the "personal" aside.
Of course he wouldn't object. People have some bizarre idea that RMS is like "out to get!" all those that don't follow Free Software guidelines! He's not. And he has nothing against people selling Free Software for money anyway: he explicitly states that. He started an interesting project, he likes it, he believes other people should follow it, he writes about why they should, and that's about as far as it goes. Do people hear "RMS is crazy!" and they just believe it? People should find someone else to project an "other" for them to deride onto, or maybe just relax in general.
I would question if those people that you refer to exist even. Those who do lament Microsoft's domination and wish that free software would be the dominant would keep a very keen eye on what would increase profusion of free software: that gives them exactly what they want! Certainly you're not so cynical as to claim that people are dumb enough to discard those very obvious problems and solutions. The ones that do "scoff" are the ones who don't care what the vast majority of users use. They have their Free Software, and if other people want to "move up" to it, they can too: they're willing to share. But only share what they have, not what others want them to have. Sounds like a morally justified position to me.
People have sex with donkeys and the dead. I'm sure you can find someone who would have sex with you.
I have Apache running on mine. I'm definitely a "joe user"; I use Windows and everything. I just use it so I can have some of my files available to other "joe users" and myself, a "joe user". It was easy to do, just ran the setup file, it did everything for me. Almost any "joe user" can do that: they were obviously expecting some serious "joe users". I saw "security tips" on the Apache page so I went to that and did what they said, and that was that. "Joe user".
Then move over to whatever new OS that's in the works of the latest and greatest hackers. And as programming techniques and technology(and even hardware) get better and better over time, it'll be easier and easier to make brand new OSes for excellent use. You can continually be off the mainstream, and for good reason, of course.
He was one letter off. Look at your post: "english"? Last time I checked, that 'e' should be an "E". It's just so "irritating" of you.
Shit, his name is actually Richard Salant. With an 'l', actually it could be Salent. Blah!
It's okay to read mainstream American or otherwise Atlanticist news. But don't read just it. That's how you fall victim to the propaganda. Read some news from other countries. Try reading some from India or Germany. The stuff's not poison people. And just because it says things that contradict what you hear on CNN and the BBC doesn't mean you should stop reading it just to keep your cognitive dissonance low. It was former CBS president Richard Savant who said:
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
I don't have a microwave oven. :(
I'm going to reply to that other "Labor Theory of Value" post of your's you linked to.
The statue that the man built behind his house is not necessarily the result of "labor". It could have been (and sounds like, of course it is just made up) artisan craft. However, you treat it for it's mere use-(or something detached that you think is use-)value, it's true value is in the symbolic. To claim that all "work" is wage labor is completely neglectful of the symbolic. You seem to have reversed the socio-historic of wage labor. Whereas originally those who worked as wage laborers were the alienated, you treat those who are NOT wage laborers as the alienated: "Nobody wants your straw statue", "deal with it."
My "condition"? What are you talking about? Do I know you? If not: you can of course infer the world of me from some posts I made on Slashdot!
Okay. Even if I didn't want to be alive now: you lay down this "what are you doing to improve your conditions?" That's a classic thing to say to depressives by people who think that because "oh, i'm happy, la la la! so i must know what's right!" that they're some sort of psychologist. And, it has, quite throroughly been, shown to be a completely ineffective method for "helping" depressives. "Helping" avec quotes because quite honestly, "a loaded gun won't set you free, but an unloaded one will."
Anyway dude. It's nice to see you're looking out for people: that's commendable. But you can't take Slashdot seriously, it's just a language game. And if you want to help depressives in the future, don't just tell them "get some self respect!" It doesn't work.
Lame. No one cares about your "work hard, yeah!!!" production and no one cares about the weak ass socialist mirror of production you argue against either. It's all bullshit. Smith this, Marx that: fuck it. Tip: don't buy into the American dream lie and marry a bitch and have a bunch of snotty nosed little piece of shit brats and you won't have to worry a day about fucking outsourcing or minimum wage. What kind of twisted fuck brings kids into this world anyway. All a bunch of child/sign fetishist, "ya'll".
It would hardly undue it. Just like relatively doesn't undo Newtonian mechanics; it just shows that it doesn't apply to everything: it limits it's scope.
e t% 209%20Feb%201993/indexold.html
I'm not a physicist so, I can't really help you. But one little search finds this:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secr
I don't know, try it. That guy seems educated. He's got a MS and PhD in nuclear engineering.
1) It's priced based on it's sign-exchange value...
2) ...because many(most?) people are mainly(totally?) interested in it as a sign.
It's like guys who buy Hummers and never leave the metro area. They didn't buy utility. They bought a sign of utility, or of something else(perhaps wealth?) But that's all that matters to them. That's definitely shallowness. When the sign of something is more important than the something.
Or, it's as those pants that people wear nowadays(a lot of the iPod owners like to have these pants too). You know, the ones with the pre-fading or pre-made tears. It's just another "hip" thing. It's some sort of obscure sign of "use", or "life", or perhaps the "Salvation Army look". "Look at the fading in my pants! I must have owned these for a long time! And I'm too hip to care that my pants are torn! Yeah!" And I've seen the prices for (some) of those pants. $40-$100. What, could possibly be the reason for buying(not owning) those pants for yourself apart from for obtaining it's sign value? Like I could imagine some completely unlikely fringe reasons(someone said they'd kill if you didn't get them, or something else bizarre). Anyway, you must agree, most people buy those pants for their "hipness". So, as a deliberation on the possibility of people buying the iPod as a sign: what's the stretch from buying pants at 100 times their use-exchange value just to obtain it's sign-exchange value to buying an iPod for it's sign-exchange value(with whatever amount of disregard for it's markup in relation to use, definitely not 100x, if any). I wouldn't say any stretch at all.
"So people are "shallow" for paying a little extra for the product that is the simplest to use, gives them everything they want and all with a touch of style?"
When you say that, it seems as if you completely miss my point. I think I clarified a bit more, but I'll put in a bit more here.
Okay, if they paid for something that gives them the utility they want at a price reasonable for them: great. That's not the subject of my "rant"; and I did not call someone who would do that shallow. There's a difference between buying something for utility and buying something as a sign. I'm critical, in this case, only, on the latter, of course.
No, no, no.
Satriani's good at the guitar. That's his thing. I can't really comment on that too much. I don't much about that. Pere Ubu is good with music itself. That's a thing I'm in to. And I will comment of that.
Maybe, Satriani, overall, has more artistic quality than Pere Ubu. But his art would certainly lie in the actually technicals of playing the guitar. I'm not really familiar with that. No, troll.
As the post above me has pointed out: how do you know?
You seem to have automatically disregarded zero-point energy systems as "pseudo-science". That goes completely against the scientific spirit. Keep an open mind. You don't believe big oil could keep something like it secret? That's naive. They have more money than you can dream of. Yes, don't automatically assume there's a conspiracy just because there's a couple webpages made by some engineer who put some schematics up. But don't assume there can't be as well.
I guess it shouldn't be any diffferent: makes them money, gets them what they want, etc. But it's still a strange thing, and I don't care for it. And beleive me, what I don't care for goes far beyond just iPod advertising and iPod sign-exchange. And to note: I see non-(telling people that your product is [hip|cool|bling|needed|willgetyoulaid])-based ads all the time. Example: most classifieds. They describe the item and list a price. It's still an ad. It doesn't involve any sign-fetishism though.
I'm not saying that it cannot be truly valuable to anyone. You seem to have use for it, that's good for you. I will give you, or anyone, "a break", for sure for sure. You need not reply if you feel authentic, I can't judge you from here. If you have no regard for the "signs" I describe, then you're obviously on the good side of my rant. And all of us are inauthentic to some extent of course: I, myself, don't feel like some sort symbolically-exuding philosopher-poet in that aspect, far from it, this is just kind of an area of interest for me, tis all.
I've heard some Satch(at least, I have Live in San Fran buried somewhere, I think I've heard more), but he's hardly a true artist is the musical sense. He's more a guitar acrobat. Perhaps he makes an art out of his acrobatics(or some music-acobatic hybrid), but I wouldn't say he makes much of an art out the music itself. There's a world of difference in relation to the art of the actual music between someone like Mr. Satriani and, say, Pere Ubu. I would stress the difference between musicianship and musicality. And I've never heard the Darkness, actually.
That's cause the iPod is just a sign for the average person to consume. They have it and for them it signifies: "Hey, look I'm hip." Even the songs they put on, just more signs. "Oh yeah, the Darkness, they rock. They're like Zeppelin."
The iPod, like most things, is not priced based on it's use or exchange value, just it's sign exchange value.
Look at the ads for the iPod. They're just a bunch of silhouettes of girls and guys with hip hair cuts holding their iPods over a background of nouveau-retro-colored designs. "Look how 'cool' our ad is! Don't you want to be cool?", is what it says. It's not a list of specs or prices. Or look at their ad-type deals with Value Village and its retro, "flower power" image. "It's cool to shop at Value Village. It's, like, retro, and lo-fi!" Just another sign. Watch the yuppies when someone says "nice shirt" to them, they're quick to jump in, "I got it at Value Village! It was used!" "Used" isn't good because it allows more practical pricing(if you look at Value Village pricing, it's still ridiculously high -- and you don't have to buy any clothes actually, except for perhaps socks and underwears, you can make by fine just with what you can get for free or find or what you already have), it's good because it's "cool": it has a high sign exchange value.
Jobs displays his shallow yuppiness flagrantly when he says people don't "get it" about the Apple "hipness". Maybe some don't. But some do, but they also "get" a little more: that's it's just meaningless signs and false worth. So the ones who may not "get it", are not missing anything: what they don't "get" is absolutely nosense, and that's alright.
From the context in which he was posting, and how I read it, it seems to me he was giving justification to the existence of this program. Whereas a great deal of people seem to think the program is somehow illegal or otherwise reprehensible he was giving reason why the program is completely fine(and it is, IMO).