America is probably the only place in the world where large numbers of people really appreciate advertisements and gleefully consume their content. Hell some people I know watch tv for the advertisements, the program in which the ads are inserted is just incidental, they want to watch the ads. I myself cannot stand advertising, and nothing has swayed me from this stance in the last 30 years. I, unfortunately, remember when I saw the first ads on the web-a part of me died and a I shed a tear in commemoration. But I do believe there is something deeper going on in Americas infatuation with advertisement. There is a certain kind of shamelessness ( think of the phrase: shameless self-promotion) that everyone feels on some level when, in order to sell a product or service, they are actually selling themselves. So on a grander level I believe our fetish for advertising is part and parcel of a mass social shaming ritual where each of us much show ourselves equally willing to sell ourselves. Actually I suspect that that is the real meaning of "All men are created equal". The ritual of american advertisement and advertisement consumption, the ritual of mutual self-shaming renders us all equal, which paradoxically absolves us of the shame by virtue that everyone does it. If everyone is willing to steep to such a level, noone is better than anyone else.
I hope one that my descendants may finally realize what money was actually good for. After thousands of years of misusing currency in order to justify radically unequal allocation and distribution of resources, it might finally dawn on us that currency is a social tech that makes society possible, it enables us generalize and abstract away from all differences and distinctions allowing infinite combinatorics, rendering each and everything thing, person and place interchangeable and substitutable. One day we may grasp that revenue generation is actually a precondition for the social world, but that won't happen until we stop using currency/money as a way to measure the worth of others and get over the notion that there is any relationship of value between supply and demand. Every single thing we know about currency/money is pure form ideology. There has never been anything remotely scientific about economics, since it's inception, yet because all of economics is mathematical in nature (it's all numbers man) it plays on our superstition concerning that nature of the relationship between numerics and truth(fuck you Plato, seriously fuck you). God forbid someone were to ever empirically prove even one of the assumptions which are the foundation of the pseudo-science/religion called economics, like for instance the "law of supply and demand" which everyone knows to be true, being an ideological truism inseparable from our capitalistic identities, yet which utterly fails to account for any real world value phenomena, (every single instance you might be able to conjure up in your head about the law of supply and demand falls apart on closer inspection). "Economics" is the regulation of social arbitrage, nothing more and nothing less, it is what makes the world go 'round, but it has nothing to do with the reason some have superabundance and others are impoverished, or how much of any given resource, product or service is available/accessible. Wenn es nur darum gehen kann, kann es deshalb nicht darum gehen-bad translation, if something can only ever be about something(else), then that something cannot be what it(the other) is about. Again. If everything is about money, then money is not the cause of anything. It is the universal blame,guilt,accusatory object, cause etc. Semantically money is indistiguishable from God in scholastic argumentation. As a repository for inifinite deferement money gathers all the guilt and shame on itself and it can only function this way if everything is about money. Behind every monetary transaction there are values at work that have nothing to do with money at all, therein lies our real justification for the choices we make, and we all cower behind money seeking clothing to cover our nude bodies(shame/ashamed) and self-justify the choices/decisions we make.
If we could just recognize what currency is actually good for and decouple it from survival, life would be so, so, so much better. And in such a world I really wouldn't mind advertisements, because advertising then wouldn't be about selling ourselves.
It is very difficult to 'shoot something into the sun'. You first need to get it out of the Earth's gravity, and then you need to decelerate it by 20 km/sec. This is, frankly, impossible. You might be able to put a small payload to the sun if you used a very big rocket, and did a Venus fly-by. This way you could dispose of a few kilograms at a cost of a few hundred billion dollars.
ok i'll bite, not being physicist I am curious what decelerating something by 20km/sec has to do with shooting something to the sun.
(first off I have no idea to whom or what you are responding, your post is not a marked as a response to someone else post, so I am not taking the side of whoever you were saying that to)
Rail gun tech has existed, since I was a child, capable of delivering a payload at escape velocities(40+ years ago-we know how, we just haven't done it). With a mile long track, I see no reason why we couldn't take all of our nuclear waste and fire it at the sun. Now I know this may sound ludicrous but there must be some reason why people have been talking about doing that since before I was born. I am genuinely curious as to why this is impossible or ungoldy expensive. Even given the outrageous military contracting cost, I can't imagine that we couldn't build such a rail gun for under a half a billion dollars. Beyond the costs of transporting the spent nuclear waste to the site, packing it something which would make it basically impossible for the contents to dump out in case of accident, I really don't see the massive expense. Sure firing the rail gun takes lots of power, but we run nuclear rectors on ships, so big deal. And because I am not a physicist I really don'tt understand what is so complicated here, if a payload leaves our gravity field at the right angle, the speed necessary to escape, is more than enough to assure smooth sailing straight into the damned sun.
Please enlighten me as to why this is "impossible".
thanks in advance
Way to drink the cool-aid. Greece is in a full blown depression for going on 5 years now. And Greece wasn't exactly rolling in the dough before the crisis. 300,000 people have lost electricity because some genius tied property taxes to electrical service, get behind in property taxes and boom loose your electricity. The US has never been in as bad shape as Greece is currently, our "Great Depression" barely even scratches what's happening now in Greece. Veroufakis was correct in comparing Greece's current state to that of the Weimar Republic in the 1920's Germany, the situation which led to the rise of the Nazi's and remember the Nazi party, Golden Dawn, came in 3rd place in the last election.
Austerity is the single dumbest economic idea in the history of neo-classical economics. Of course people have bought into it because we have been preaching "balanced budgets=good governance" for the last 40 years and it is simply beyond retarded. No state in the history of mankind has ever regularly had balanced budgets, much less budget surpluses which is mandated by the Troika loan conditions (%4.5 surplus per year). %90 of the so-called bailout for Greece went straight to creditors in Germany and France, the Greeks saw nothing of it, meanwhile with %50 unemployment, cuts in social services, no universal healthcare etc. the Greeks have been royally fucked.
The best American comparison would be Detroit. One city manager signs a loan contract for the city, which included a really cool provision: If Detroits credit rating were to be downgraded the entire sum of interest on the $450 million dollar loan had to be paid immediately. Thus bankrupt Detroit. Contrary to popular opinion, most Detroiters who have worked hard all of their lives were not sipping champagne and eating caviar. The notion that the entire population of a city, or god forbid an entire country should be faced with spiking suicide rates (%50 rise in Greece since 2008) because some idiot gambled with Hedge Fund managers to drum up speculative money for things which were never democratically decided is simply insane. Or that they should be forced to privatize everything public and lose their pensions
I lived in Germany for 15 years and they are so full of shit on this that they should be ashamed of themselves. %80 of germans bank with public banking institutions(sparkassen). Their private banking industry is tiny compared to most countries in the world and most germans have 0 credit/debt, ie. no loans, no credit cards etc. This is of course changing now as the EU forces Germany to privatize their financial sector, but Germany is only able to point it's finger at anyone else because they did not have a private financial system raping the population with cheap credit, like Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc. How in the flying F is the Greek state supposed to make good on all the shit debt, when prior to the crisis the average Greek had personal private debt equivalent to -%75 savings. Austerity means cutting jobs, cutting pay, cutting pensions, cutting services and this when everyone is already drowning in debt. Quit drinking the cool aid.
"19. Comcast shall for a period of five years following the effective date of the parent company merger neither oppose, directly or indirectly, nor fund opposition to, any municipal broadband development plan in California, nor any CASF or CTF application within its service territory that otherwise meets the requirements of CASF or CTF."
- Whoa! Trust me, Comcast was NOT expecting this at all. Here's one more, as an example:
"8. Comcast shall offer Time Warner’s Carrier Ethernet Last Mile Access product to interested CLECs throughout the combined service territories of the merging companies for a period of five years from the effective date of the parent company at the same prices, terms and conditions as offered by Time Warner prior to the merger."
What #8 means, was confusing to me, at first, as it appears they are saying Comcast has to let current TW customers continue to use, or take advantage of, something they already have. But that's not the case, at all. "CLECs" is CPUC shorthand for Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. And the ruling by the CPUC covers all customers, now, or in the future of the combined entity, here in California. What they're talking about here, simply, is opening up Last Mile Access.
Personally, I see this as a much larger "step, but step only, in the right direction, but the ruling today is definitely a total shocker. It could nix the merger, in California, only, or... it could light a fire under the asses of the FCC, or, the "codified" long-shot: it could bring real competition to Internet access, here in California, pronto.
The CPUC is basing their entire decision on Common Carrier law (Setion 706, as opposed to Title II), and, unlike the projected FCC decision (coming around the 26th of the month) the CPUC's decision has all kinds of "teeth" as opposed to the FCC's "Title II, with forbearance" approach. It could very interesting, very soon.
Here's the link to the PDF of the Decision: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Publis...
> the shutdown of Google News in Spain may be greater on smaller, less-well known news publishers than on name-brand news sites
Which seems to be the goal of most new legislation: protect the big established players, kill the small upcoming competition.
On what planet do you live? Obviously not the earth because Google is small relative to no other existing companies in the world.
To be honest we simply have not yet found the "right" answer to the problems posed the by the new internet technologies, whether that be in regards to news content, publishing, music or video distribution. The fact remains Google does not do news, they do not employee reporters, they do no investigative reporting, they do absolutely nothing that adds any value to the actual work done by newspapers, magazines, and reporters at large. All they really do is function as a parasite on the revenue streams of companies/public institutions that do actual reporting working. Now I will grant you that the current revenue model for the news/reporting industry is broken. Which is why America, but not just us, have hemorrhaged upwards of %60 of all reporter and editor jobs in the last 15 years. And I do agree that the hones is more on those agencies/companies to develop a better revenue model than it is on relative newcomers like Google. However what we collectively fail to grasp is that if we as a community fail to fund reporting and investigative journalism there simply will not be sufficient amounts being produced to offer us even a remote prayer of some kind of functioning democracy- without a vibrant free press there can under no circumstances be anything which calls itself such. We can argue whether that is already the case, however allowing the press to die, which has and is happening, is simply not an option.
I believe that we collectively need to come up with a system to compensate producers of content. There have been a variety of attempts in this direction carried out by many different societies around the world, we need to study what has been tried and develop best practices and then implement such. In the mean time mega-corporations like Google could and should carry some of this burden until we figure out how to implement such. There is great value in what Google does do. Facilitating access is valuable. But it is not as valuable as the production of that which people want access to, yet our so-called "free market" has rendered the value of production to being an afterthought and rewarded those who facilitate access to said produced material with nearly infinite capital supplies. Logically this problem is identical whether we are talking about Uber, Amazon, Spotify, or Google. And until we collectively come up with a fair response to this predicament we will continue to wipe out the very basis of value-add. One could argue that this is simply the self-annihilation of capitalism as an economic model, and one could argue that this is a positive development, yet what it actually means is the annihilation of the kinds of employment and labor upon which our class-based economies depend and the source of every valuable cultural achievement which we take any pride in.
Hate to break it to you bud, but the onous is on you to prove the opposite. The fact that you can't doesn't obviate your obligation to do so. See, when you argue against diversity, you are arguing for apartheid, whether you intend such or not-that's called recent history, and it's global in scale. Your ilk, the ones who believe in some kind of inherent value in apartheid, have been rather discredited by most of the last 75 years of history-around the world. You are the ones who have been trained to mouth words, you almost sound reasonable, if not for the context.
Are you done cryin your little eyes out privileged boy? Mighty fine racist sense there you got, but no it's not you-it's them "uppidy" N!5534's, how dare they forget their place, certainly not somewhere with such sweet gigs like Google.
Saying that you are against something because it violates principles of the free market is identical to the interview with the deathrow inmate who claimed Satan/God made me do it
Give me a fuckin break -name me one aspect, just one, when it comes to the automobile industry, which in anyway, ever, constituted a "free market"
You know if your opposition to something is based on Principles that have no basis in any reality that anyone can discern, then your opposition is actually based on something entirely unrelated. This is what kills me about some large number of Republicans and their intellectual avant-garde, the libertarians. There is nothing wrong with principled opposition. Sometimes it is absolutely invauable. But the so-called Principles of the "free market" and "free trade" are pure ideological bullshit. They always have been and always will be. Hell, none other than Karl Marx hosted a regular column in the New York Times back in the 1850's writing about the bullshit sold in the name of free markets/free trade. Now given that 8-9 generations of Americans have continuously bought hook line and seeker into this bullshit it is no surprise that the "conservatives" are most beholden to this bullshit. The intellectual dishonesty of %95 of elected politicans and %100 of current generations of Republicans makes me sick
Cry me a fucking river Fiat-Chrysler. Big bad government telling you what to do. I was not against the bailout of the car companies- the reason being with national unemployment at the time nominally over %10(and in reality closer to %20), the last thing we needed was to create another 1-2 million unemployed. But the auto bailout rewarded the exact same scum which had already bankrupted the auto industry, it also provided an oppurtunity to turn the screws on the beholden employees and utterly screw them even more. It was a rotten deal all around. The only thing more rotten than that was the status quo when all this went down. The big american auto companies had regressed every single year for a generation prior to this unfolding. Hell you couldn't buy an American car in the late 90's/early 2000's that could compete in terms of fuel efficiency with cars made by those same companies 20 years ealier. If those companies had kept advancing fuel economy starting back in the late 70's till today, none of their current models would even have a market. But no, they catered to the lowest common denominator=My Dick is bigger than yours. The original Robocop had it right-Detroit having been completely privatized by coporate takeover, the wealthy drove around in cars which carried the name SUX2000 which probably got the same mpg as the shit they produce today.
*But lest ye think I am a partisan Demcorats are the better Republicans (TM), at least when it comes to presidents. Republican presidents tend to be more restrained than their Democrat counterparts. Hell Clinton would have already have privatized social security if it wasn't for a certain blow job and cum-stained dress belonging to a young woman which ended up derailing his domestic agenda. Obama has done a a small number of trully good things and set a much better tone in our society than his predecessor, but on the issues which really count (injustices/day rating) he make Baby Bush look quite harmless. By my count there are less than 10 representatives/senators who don't buy into this bullshit and not one president during my lifetime. In 1992 I voted for Mikhail Gorbachov, fuck a bunch of NAFTA deja-vu TPP
Terrorism is a function of occupation. Every terrorist organization developed in the embryo of occupying forces: occupying forces being any forces not recognized at least by some large minority as being foreign=illegitimate.
Case 1: Al Quaeda. Born out of the ashes of the Afghanistani Muhajadeen, which was born out of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Case 2: IRA. Born out of the ashes of Brittish Occupation of Northern Island. Some %20-30 of local population historically having seeing Brittish as Foreign forces.
Case: ETA. Born out of Franco's fascist State, occupation of Basque country.
Case 4: Timothy Mcveigh. Born out of sovereign rights ideology. Sees Federal anything as occupying force.
Case 5: RAF. Saw post-WWII German Government and corporate leaders as part of a hidden/secret conspiracy in the continuation of Hitlers fascism.
Case 6: FARC. Never saw central government as legitimate, used ethnic and socio-economic differences to pit indigneous locals aginst governing class.
Ironically America has joined the ranks of terrorist organizations. America now claims the Earth as its jurisidiction and seeks to impose its will on all people everywhere. For some reason Americans see illegitimate people all over the world and are hunting them down. Apparently the world was occupied by foreign forces, who we deem illegitimate.