Anarchism is not capitalism. Anyone who says so missed the massive state institutions required to keep capitalism running from day-to-day. Remove those institutions, and capitalism simply fades from existence as the vast majority of people decide they don't want to work their arses off for a lazy, rich minority, and their greater numbers makes enforcing the property of that lazy, rich minority impossible.
t's a nice idea, and actually works very well in small groups where all members can police each other, but breaks down on any type of larger scale.
More correct to say, it has historically broken down at different scales in different times and places, and has never successfully been implemented on a national scale.
Technology has changed the size and structure of informal, voluntary communities and made them stronger and more productive. Based on that observation alone, I don't think you can definitively say there are ideas for society that are universally bad or universally good - ideas depend on their implementation and their suitability for the (changing) situation.
Rubbish. People aren't accounting respect - because it is impossible to quantify.
What this describes is "mutual aid" - the idea that helping others helps you in the long run. It isn't a capitalist idea for sure, it isn't a Marxist idea either. It might be described as a communist idea but its more correctly placed as an anarchist idea.
Forget whatever you have heard from a 13 year old dressed in black; the core of anarchism is organization and cooperation without coercion or leadership. The idea of 'organized anarchy' might sound oxymoronic to most people, but that is only because your mental definition of anarchism is far from what (adult) anarchists believe.
Because free will (something economists, psychopaths, and mysnathropic teens don't really acknowledge because they don't like the consequences) and environment are by far stronger influences.
Invoking "human nature" in this way is immature, anti-intellectual, and highly authoritarian. Congratulations on being an arsehole.
More that I've been out of the consumer loop a while; I lived frugally and worked less for a couple of years so choosing which greedy corporation to buy electronics and media from.
Having a bit more money is a burden in many ways; so many of the things I end up spending it on are from corporations so overtly nasty they make me feel dirty associating with them.
I admit, I did buy a minidisc player in the late nineties (I was young an naive). I reckon Sony owe me anyway, so perhaps I should go and pirate some stuff now to make up for it.
With 4 gigs, you have to pirate. At £1 per song from Amazon (on average), and 4 meg per mp3 (conservatively) - that adds up to £1000 to fill up the device.
"Insurance" sounds too innocent. I would say its a government subsidy for commerce. I am pretty sure Sony don't intend to pay for the draconian system of 'rules' they want enforced.
After this and his other comment, I have decided to not buy anything Sony from now on. A healthy, vibrant culture comes from having low barriers of entry to public discourse, not from having a monopoly on the public discourse held by the rich. Why can't these elitist motherfuckers just die already?
I am not a slacker, I simply am mature enough not to be constantly measuring myself against others. You fail at guessing about people. You also fail at all politics. See the programme "Fuck You Buddy" by Adam Curtis for why your view on human nature (influenced largely by a paranoid schizophrenic) is completely idiotic.
Read the original post "biomass consumes energy while it grows. Then when it burns it releases that energy again." - 100% efficiency is applied. Science wins again, random ACs fail again.
Petulant? Absolute? I'm sorry you feel that way about the laws of thermodynamics, but they won't change because you've stamped your foot and yelled.
The idea that biomass is more efficient than photovoltaic cells and solar farms for power is laughable. The fact remains this is an energy carrier and not a wonderfully efficient one at that. Further more, its an energy carrier that competes with land for food. Cue a Malthusian catastrophe.
Lose? Why? I am a high achiever, by my own standards (which matter) and by other peoples (which don't). You seem to think that only envy and pettiness can elevate mankind, and that is what makes you pathetic.
You are the kind of person whose self-proclaimed objection to idealism, is actually a rather stupid form of ideology in itself. Moral reductionism is something most people dump after their teenage years.
Hitler had chemical weapons, and never used them (because he knew Britain had them too). Stalin had nuclear weapons, all through the Korean war, and never used them. You just shot down your own argument, genius.
Anyone who brings 'human nature' into a political argument is a drooling retard. Just because YOU are an ultra-competitive asshole, don't project your weakness onto everyone else.
Claiming that some magical technology that defies the laws of physics can save capitalism from its voracious appetite for growth? Insightful, apparently.
Calling bullshit on an economic perpetual motion machine? Troll!
Biomass does not generate energy. It consumes energy. The Sun produces the chemical energy in plants and the products you get from planets.
Oil is also, ultimately, a form of solar energy - but accumulated over millions of years. When it runs out, biomass will not be able to replace it at all.
Plants don't come from nowhere. They suck up chemical energy from the environment and electromagnetic radiation from the sun, both of which could be put to far better use than making more Buzz Lightyear dolls.
Biomass technologies are just a process, and cannot be used as a source of mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy (which is essentially what complex plastic represent; the ones we have at the moment are the result of energy applied by the Earth itself for millions of years). Just like the touted 'hydrogen economy' - it just shifts the problem to someone else.
These biomass technologies will, unless they are only used in energy-intensive artificial environments, displace food production and starve people. So yeah, we can have plastics without crude oil - but they will be like soylent green; made of people!
Correct. Iplayer was a warning shot for UK ISPs - they need to stop promising bandwidth they cannot deliver. People will, ultimately, find ways to use it.
You are thinking too rationally. The UK is run on newspapers playing on peoples emotions in order to boost their flagging sales. A database would not help abused children much at all - but the government want a database and the media has given them a pretext. Logic doesn't enter into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anarchism is not capitalism. Anyone who says so missed the massive state institutions required to keep capitalism running from day-to-day. Remove those institutions, and capitalism simply fades from existence as the vast majority of people decide they don't want to work their arses off for a lazy, rich minority, and their greater numbers makes enforcing the property of that lazy, rich minority impossible.
More correct to say, it has historically broken down at different scales in different times and places, and has never successfully been implemented on a national scale.
Technology has changed the size and structure of informal, voluntary communities and made them stronger and more productive. Based on that observation alone, I don't think you can definitively say there are ideas for society that are universally bad or universally good - ideas depend on their implementation and their suitability for the (changing) situation.
Rubbish. People aren't accounting respect - because it is impossible to quantify.
What this describes is "mutual aid" - the idea that helping others helps you in the long run. It isn't a capitalist idea for sure, it isn't a Marxist idea either. It might be described as a communist idea but its more correctly placed as an anarchist idea.
Forget whatever you have heard from a 13 year old dressed in black; the core of anarchism is organization and cooperation without coercion or leadership. The idea of 'organized anarchy' might sound oxymoronic to most people, but that is only because your mental definition of anarchism is far from what (adult) anarchists believe.
Because free will (something economists, psychopaths, and mysnathropic teens don't really acknowledge because they don't like the consequences) and environment are by far stronger influences.
Invoking "human nature" in this way is immature, anti-intellectual, and highly authoritarian. Congratulations on being an arsehole.
I like that metaphor. Especially because of the ultimate fate of such overtly greedy monarchies has been well documented throughout history :)
More that I've been out of the consumer loop a while; I lived frugally and worked less for a couple of years so choosing which greedy corporation to buy electronics and media from.
Having a bit more money is a burden in many ways; so many of the things I end up spending it on are from corporations so overtly nasty they make me feel dirty associating with them.
I admit, I did buy a minidisc player in the late nineties (I was young an naive). I reckon Sony owe me anyway, so perhaps I should go and pirate some stuff now to make up for it.
With 4 gigs, you have to pirate. At £1 per song from Amazon (on average), and 4 meg per mp3 (conservatively) - that adds up to £1000 to fill up the device.
"Insurance" sounds too innocent. I would say its a government subsidy for commerce. I am pretty sure Sony don't intend to pay for the draconian system of 'rules' they want enforced.
After this and his other comment, I have decided to not buy anything Sony from now on. A healthy, vibrant culture comes from having low barriers of entry to public discourse, not from having a monopoly on the public discourse held by the rich. Why can't these elitist motherfuckers just die already?
I am not a slacker, I simply am mature enough not to be constantly measuring myself against others. You fail at guessing about people. You also fail at all politics. See the programme "Fuck You Buddy" by Adam Curtis for why your view on human nature (influenced largely by a paranoid schizophrenic) is completely idiotic.
Read the original post "biomass consumes energy while it grows. Then when it burns it releases that energy again." - 100% efficiency is applied. Science wins again, random ACs fail again.
Petulant? Absolute? I'm sorry you feel that way about the laws of thermodynamics, but they won't change because you've stamped your foot and yelled.
The idea that biomass is more efficient than photovoltaic cells and solar farms for power is laughable. The fact remains this is an energy carrier and not a wonderfully efficient one at that. Further more, its an energy carrier that competes with land for food. Cue a Malthusian catastrophe.
Human nature has never played a role in politics, and I dare you to prove me wrong without degenerating into Nazism. What a twat you are.
Lose? Why? I am a high achiever, by my own standards (which matter) and by other peoples (which don't). You seem to think that only envy and pettiness can elevate mankind, and that is what makes you pathetic.
You are the kind of person whose self-proclaimed objection to idealism, is actually a rather stupid form of ideology in itself. Moral reductionism is something most people dump after their teenage years.
Hitler had chemical weapons, and never used them (because he knew Britain had them too). Stalin had nuclear weapons, all through the Korean war, and never used them. You just shot down your own argument, genius.
Anyone who brings 'human nature' into a political argument is a drooling retard. Just because YOU are an ultra-competitive asshole, don't project your weakness onto everyone else.
100% efficiency is not perfectly sound science. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Claiming that some magical technology that defies the laws of physics can save capitalism from its voracious appetite for growth? Insightful, apparently.
Calling bullshit on an economic perpetual motion machine? Troll!
Biomass does not generate energy. It consumes energy. The Sun produces the chemical energy in plants and the products you get from planets.
Oil is also, ultimately, a form of solar energy - but accumulated over millions of years. When it runs out, biomass will not be able to replace it at all.
Insightful my arse. Moderators fail physics too.
Plants don't come from nowhere. They suck up chemical energy from the environment and electromagnetic radiation from the sun, both of which could be put to far better use than making more Buzz Lightyear dolls.
Biomass technologies are just a process, and cannot be used as a source of mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy (which is essentially what complex plastic represent; the ones we have at the moment are the result of energy applied by the Earth itself for millions of years). Just like the touted 'hydrogen economy' - it just shifts the problem to someone else.
These biomass technologies will, unless they are only used in energy-intensive artificial environments, displace food production and starve people. So yeah, we can have plastics without crude oil - but they will be like soylent green; made of people!
Correct. Iplayer was a warning shot for UK ISPs - they need to stop promising bandwidth they cannot deliver. People will, ultimately, find ways to use it.
It was to me, but then again I am British and we invented sarcasm.
You are thinking too rationally. The UK is run on newspapers playing on peoples emotions in order to boost their flagging sales. A database would not help abused children much at all - but the government want a database and the media has given them a pretext. Logic doesn't enter into it.
LOL Anecdote! My girlfriends computer couldn't uses its sound or graphics card under XP, both worked out of the box with Jaunty. Next anecdote please!