yeah.
i think it's becoming clearer and clearer that this is the time for the left to finally abandon the democrats for good. they have nothing to build on. and the basis of the opposition that they seem to want to build - support for obamacare, attacks against russia - is really appalling.
i think it's time to really put the knife in, and turn - to get really violent in the criticism. to walk away and let them die in the street....
it's time to move on in building a third party. they're done.
Friday, January 6, 2017
dec 14, 2013
it's curious how this manages to whitewash the reality that santa claus is not actually based on "st. nicholas" but is a merging of pagan mythology with colonialism. in the reformation era northern european legends, the "gifts" that "santa" brings are made by "elves" that happen to be black and under the colonial domination of the european nation that receives the gifts. the santa claus story, itself, is a rationalization of white supremacist ideology. it follows that santa is indeed as white as adolf hitler was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY
it's curious how this manages to whitewash the reality that santa claus is not actually based on "st. nicholas" but is a merging of pagan mythology with colonialism. in the reformation era northern european legends, the "gifts" that "santa" brings are made by "elves" that happen to be black and under the colonial domination of the european nation that receives the gifts. the santa claus story, itself, is a rationalization of white supremacist ideology. it follows that santa is indeed as white as adolf hitler was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkGA_rgHRY
"US intelligence officials told the Washington Post and NBC
that the classified document, said to be over 50 pages long, says
intercepted communications revealed Russian intelligence officials
celebrating Trump’s win."
that's exactly the same trick they used to avoid their responsibility to provide evidence linking 9/11 to al qaeda.
i can link you to articles where netanyahu celebrates trump's win. does that prove they were in on it, too?
but, listen: they throw specious arguments like this out there because they know that this is how most humans form thoughts. this is more than enough for most people; it's actually more effective than logic.
that's exactly the same trick they used to avoid their responsibility to provide evidence linking 9/11 to al qaeda.
i can link you to articles where netanyahu celebrates trump's win. does that prove they were in on it, too?
but, listen: they throw specious arguments like this out there because they know that this is how most humans form thoughts. this is more than enough for most people; it's actually more effective than logic.
joe, listen...
i'm going to presume that you've never taken a physics course before, have you? didn't think so.
when you take a physics course, you don't quietly sit there and accept the authority of the professor. that's not how science works, joe.
rather, the professor takes it upon his or herself to demonstrate the argument using a series of mathematical deductions. and, at every step of the way the professor - if it is a good professor - will invite you to challenge and question the results being developed.
further, a physics course will have something called a lab component where the student will actually do the experiments. this is fundamental, because science does not operate on authority but on the ability of the scientist to discover results on their own.
his comments actually give a lot away about what he thinks, and it's not very flattering to his intelligence.
i'm going to presume that you've never taken a physics course before, have you? didn't think so.
when you take a physics course, you don't quietly sit there and accept the authority of the professor. that's not how science works, joe.
rather, the professor takes it upon his or herself to demonstrate the argument using a series of mathematical deductions. and, at every step of the way the professor - if it is a good professor - will invite you to challenge and question the results being developed.
further, a physics course will have something called a lab component where the student will actually do the experiments. this is fundamental, because science does not operate on authority but on the ability of the scientist to discover results on their own.
his comments actually give a lot away about what he thinks, and it's not very flattering to his intelligence.
see, when i look at this "evidence", i'm left to conclude that it couldn't possibly be the russians, because they wouldn't make errors like this. the cyrillic thing is especially obvious.
if it was the russians, they would have covered their tracks far better than this.
rather, what this "evidence" tells me is that somebody set the situation up to blame it on the russians - and didn't try very hard, either. probably because they knew they were creating a media mirage, and weren't intending it to stand up to scrutiny. we're supposed to obey.
so, who are the real suspects if you rule out the russians? who could do this the way it's been done?
outside of the cia, the only really serious possibility is mossad. and, would the cia cover for mossad? this is a stretch. it's obscure, in my opinion, but not impossible. i think it's obvious that netanyahu would prefer the republicans over the democrats.
the null hypothesis has to remain that it was cia. that's occam's razor. that's the simplest, most obvious explanation. you can gather evidence for or against this, from there.
but, if this is what you're presenting? i would take it as evidence that somebody wants you to think it's the russians, rather than that it's actually the russians. and that would all but rule the russians out.
this is why they want you to obey authority.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
if it was the russians, they would have covered their tracks far better than this.
rather, what this "evidence" tells me is that somebody set the situation up to blame it on the russians - and didn't try very hard, either. probably because they knew they were creating a media mirage, and weren't intending it to stand up to scrutiny. we're supposed to obey.
so, who are the real suspects if you rule out the russians? who could do this the way it's been done?
outside of the cia, the only really serious possibility is mossad. and, would the cia cover for mossad? this is a stretch. it's obscure, in my opinion, but not impossible. i think it's obvious that netanyahu would prefer the republicans over the democrats.
the null hypothesis has to remain that it was cia. that's occam's razor. that's the simplest, most obvious explanation. you can gather evidence for or against this, from there.
but, if this is what you're presenting? i would take it as evidence that somebody wants you to think it's the russians, rather than that it's actually the russians. and that would all but rule the russians out.
this is why they want you to obey authority.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
i'm not going to accept an argument from authority. and i'm not going to take your word for it.
do you have evidence? will you present it? if so, i will analyze it.
otherwise, i'd request that you shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time - until you're willing to provide some hard facts for me to look over and make a choice for myself.
of course, i know better. even if they had the evidence, they wouldn't release it - because they don't want people to approach the situation this way. they want people to listen and obey.
do you have evidence? will you present it? if so, i will analyze it.
otherwise, i'd request that you shut the fuck up and stop wasting my time - until you're willing to provide some hard facts for me to look over and make a choice for myself.
of course, i know better. even if they had the evidence, they wouldn't release it - because they don't want people to approach the situation this way. they want people to listen and obey.
this is their story, though. and they're sticking to it. however flimsy it is.
i'll tell you what: i'll believe what you say on russia when you release your dossier proving bin laden took those towers down. you told us that dossier was coming, any day now, over fifteen years ago. you launched multiple wars based on the contents of that dossier. but you never released it.
you just told us it was "clear" who was behind the attacks.
i agree that it's clear, actually.
i just don't agree with your claim of responsibility.
i'll tell you what: i'll believe what you say on russia when you release your dossier proving bin laden took those towers down. you told us that dossier was coming, any day now, over fifteen years ago. you launched multiple wars based on the contents of that dossier. but you never released it.
you just told us it was "clear" who was behind the attacks.
i agree that it's clear, actually.
i just don't agree with your claim of responsibility.
“could it be any more clear that Russia was behind what happened in the election?” they asked.
that is a classic gloss-over tactic.
"clearly," says the talking head "this false statement is true."
when pressed for details, there invariably aren't any. that is why the term "clearly" was invoked.
mathematicians are experts at this tactic.
"clearly, the axiom of choice is correct."
(psst. pro-tip. they're blaming the russians for what they did themselves.)
that is a classic gloss-over tactic.
"clearly," says the talking head "this false statement is true."
when pressed for details, there invariably aren't any. that is why the term "clearly" was invoked.
mathematicians are experts at this tactic.
"clearly, the axiom of choice is correct."
(psst. pro-tip. they're blaming the russians for what they did themselves.)
Thursday, January 5, 2017
april 28, 2014
ffs....
http://www.cnet.com/news/bitcoin-mining-malware-reportedly-discovered-at-google-play/
now, every cpu is a possible drone to generate currency from. not only do we have people wasting resources on nothing of any value, we have computers doing the same thing.
i'm not really surprised, although i'll say that i looked at this as a harmless ponzi scheme up to this point, rather than anything legitimately threatening to the real economy. this is providing for a different perspective...
could we just get the point that the problem is exchange value itself and abolish currency already?
a: i think there's this huge problem in the world.
b: really? what's that?
a: well, money is just made out of thin air, like it's some kind of meaningless abstraction, or something.
b: isn't it a meaningless abstraction, though?
a: never mind that.
b: well, what's your solution?
a: i think we should make money out of processor cycles.
b: isn't that out of thin air?
a: never mind that.
a: when it's just made out of thin air like this, it lets banks create these imaginary bubbles that they can get rich off of.
b: but aren't they going to do the equivalent thing, regardless?
a: what do you mean? what is equivalent to making pretend money, stealing it and then charging for it?
b: well, isn't that just a function of their unlimited power? if you were to modify the system and leave them with comparative levels of power, wouldn't they figure something else out? isn't the problem the lack of accountability, rather than the (more or less entirely arbitrary) way the money is created?
a: you surely don't suggest that we should regulate bankers, do you? what are you, some kind of commie nazi globalist fascist?
b: do you even realize that you're completely contradicting yourself?
a: never mind that.
b: have you considered just abolishing money?
a: pft. how do you suppose i exploit people without currency? dumb communists...
ffs....
http://www.cnet.com/news/bitcoin-mining-malware-reportedly-discovered-at-google-play/
now, every cpu is a possible drone to generate currency from. not only do we have people wasting resources on nothing of any value, we have computers doing the same thing.
i'm not really surprised, although i'll say that i looked at this as a harmless ponzi scheme up to this point, rather than anything legitimately threatening to the real economy. this is providing for a different perspective...
could we just get the point that the problem is exchange value itself and abolish currency already?
a: i think there's this huge problem in the world.
b: really? what's that?
a: well, money is just made out of thin air, like it's some kind of meaningless abstraction, or something.
b: isn't it a meaningless abstraction, though?
a: never mind that.
b: well, what's your solution?
a: i think we should make money out of processor cycles.
b: isn't that out of thin air?
a: never mind that.
a: when it's just made out of thin air like this, it lets banks create these imaginary bubbles that they can get rich off of.
b: but aren't they going to do the equivalent thing, regardless?
a: what do you mean? what is equivalent to making pretend money, stealing it and then charging for it?
b: well, isn't that just a function of their unlimited power? if you were to modify the system and leave them with comparative levels of power, wouldn't they figure something else out? isn't the problem the lack of accountability, rather than the (more or less entirely arbitrary) way the money is created?
a: you surely don't suggest that we should regulate bankers, do you? what are you, some kind of commie nazi globalist fascist?
b: do you even realize that you're completely contradicting yourself?
a: never mind that.
b: have you considered just abolishing money?
a: pft. how do you suppose i exploit people without currency? dumb communists...
who are they appealing to? the left doesn't want it. the right doesn't want it.
it's a compromise that nobody wants.
they should be focusing on a replacement. it will be an issue in the next cycle. and, they will get annihilated if they campaign on a return to the existing status quo - which nobody wants.
call their bluff. and raise. steeply.
it's a compromise that nobody wants.
they should be focusing on a replacement. it will be an issue in the next cycle. and, they will get annihilated if they campaign on a return to the existing status quo - which nobody wants.
call their bluff. and raise. steeply.
i'm just going to say this once, and then i'll be quiet on the topic: a long, protracted fight to save obamacare will do serious long-term damage to the democrats.
i, for one, will not take their side on this. i'm not going to be coerced into defending the heritage institute's free market health care plan. i agree that it's a bad system and that it should be replaced; my point of disagreement is in what they should replace it with.
they should cut their losses and move on as quickly as possible.
every article produced about the democrats defending obamacare is another nail in their coffin.
i, for one, will not take their side on this. i'm not going to be coerced into defending the heritage institute's free market health care plan. i agree that it's a bad system and that it should be replaced; my point of disagreement is in what they should replace it with.
they should cut their losses and move on as quickly as possible.
every article produced about the democrats defending obamacare is another nail in their coffin.
but, let's be clear here: the reason obamacare sucks is not in spite of the market but because of it. that's what obamacare is: a free market healthcare system. and, that's why it sucks: because it's a free market healthcare system. threats from republicans to "create a free market heath care system" are actually incoherent - the whole point of obamacare was to use competition over the market to drive down premiums. but, a competitive market will never drive down premiums. that's a preposterous premise, based on the religion of free markets. and the failure of obamacare is nothing more or less complicated than a classic market failure.
there's only two possible approaches, here. you can acknowledge the market failure and move to a single payer system, or you can rebrand obamacare as donaldcare and pretend it's a different system. what they're going to do is the latter.
and, democrats should get out of the way and let them do it, then fight them over it to get to the right answer.
there's only two possible approaches, here. you can acknowledge the market failure and move to a single payer system, or you can rebrand obamacare as donaldcare and pretend it's a different system. what they're going to do is the latter.
and, democrats should get out of the way and let them do it, then fight them over it to get to the right answer.
there isn't currently an illegal market in fetal body parts, because the system is regulated.
but, if you pull funding for planned parenthood then abortions will go underground and one will develop, because it will no longer be regulated. the price will go up, as well, making the trade more lucrative. and, that's when organized crime gets involved.
can you imagine going to an abortion clinic run by the mafia? that's what's going to happen...
are they actually going to do this, though? sort of.
in canada, we call this process "downloading". the states will step in. or, at least the progressive ones will.
it's at least a real threat. you should take it more seriously.
but, if you pull funding for planned parenthood then abortions will go underground and one will develop, because it will no longer be regulated. the price will go up, as well, making the trade more lucrative. and, that's when organized crime gets involved.
can you imagine going to an abortion clinic run by the mafia? that's what's going to happen...
are they actually going to do this, though? sort of.
in canada, we call this process "downloading". the states will step in. or, at least the progressive ones will.
it's at least a real threat. you should take it more seriously.
after reading the grapes of wrath, and in sorting through my writing, i'm realizing that steinbeck's writing style kind of rubbed off on me a bit.
that's not something i've ever noticed before. well, i guess it was so long ago, right? i'm primarily aware of the overwhelming effect of pynchon on my writing style, and i'm not shy about referencing orwell or kafka. but steinbeck? that's a mirror i wasn't expecting.
that's not something i've ever noticed before. well, i guess it was so long ago, right? i'm primarily aware of the overwhelming effect of pynchon on my writing style, and i'm not shy about referencing orwell or kafka. but steinbeck? that's a mirror i wasn't expecting.
i'm just trying to get across the point that i'm not in the "disappointed by obama" pile. i never supported him. i actively fought against him in the primary, and i never came around to him in the general. i did not see him as a lesser evil in 2008. and i still can't find any policy differences between romney and obama....
i think that what we got from obama is pretty much what i expected we would get from him back in '08. if anything, he was maybe a little less fiscally conservative than i expected.
i think that what we got from obama is pretty much what i expected we would get from him back in '08. if anything, he was maybe a little less fiscally conservative than i expected.
i've been over this before, but the only democratic candidate in my lifetime that i've ever felt comfortable voting for was john kerry. he's the only candidate that i'd call an actual "liberal". i think i probably would have voted against trump - and i'm not just saying that, i think i would have. for months, i claimed i couldn't vote for her. it took me until the very end of the cycle before i felt the urgency to. and i'm still not 100% certain that i could have, but i think i would have forced myself to. i would not have voted for obama, and i would not have voted for gore, either - they were both too right-wing to be acceptable.
also, fwiw: the primary reason that i supported clinton over obama in 2008 [yes. i did.] was that obama campaigned against single-payer, whereas hrc was presumed to be in favour of it. i'll find posts from the period, eventually. i was explicit about this. and, i've been consistent in my opposition to obamacare for the whole 8+ years.
i've been explicit about this in the past: i think the democrats should call them on their bluff and encourage them to repeal. at some point, they're going to have to call obama out on this.
if i was a democratic representative, i would actually vote in favour of the repeal and immediately get to work in building support for single payer to replace it. if enough democrats stand up and call the republicans on their bluff, the republicans will be forced to retreat on it, because the whole point was to avoid single payer.
if i was a democratic representative, i would actually vote in favour of the repeal and immediately get to work in building support for single payer to replace it. if enough democrats stand up and call the republicans on their bluff, the republicans will be forced to retreat on it, because the whole point was to avoid single payer.
obamacare was a great victory for the right, and a terrible defeat for the left.
obama handed the republicans the issue.
he caved on every single point.
the opposition and the media presented the issue the way it did for a reason, and look: it worked. but, the task for the republicans, now, is to squirm out of it, and tweak the system to consolidate their victory.
meanwhile, the task for the left is to understand the situation and continue to agitate for single payer.
repeal makes no sense. it's not happening.
obama handed the republicans the issue.
he caved on every single point.
the opposition and the media presented the issue the way it did for a reason, and look: it worked. but, the task for the republicans, now, is to squirm out of it, and tweak the system to consolidate their victory.
meanwhile, the task for the left is to understand the situation and continue to agitate for single payer.
repeal makes no sense. it's not happening.
just to be clear: i would be in favour of repealing obamacare, too.
.....and replacing it with single payer.
but, the purpose of obamacare was to destroy the movement for single payer.
the repeal makes no sense. not from the republicans. it might make sense for democrats to repeal it, but it's exactly what the republicans want.
put another way: obamacare may very well be the single greatest victory of the american right since the end of communism.
in repealing it, they'd be handing the issue back to the democrats and blowing a hole in their feet. because let me tell you this much: democrats will not fall for the mandate a second time. next time, it's single-payer or bust.
.....and replacing it with single payer.
but, the purpose of obamacare was to destroy the movement for single payer.
the repeal makes no sense. not from the republicans. it might make sense for democrats to repeal it, but it's exactly what the republicans want.
put another way: obamacare may very well be the single greatest victory of the american right since the end of communism.
in repealing it, they'd be handing the issue back to the democrats and blowing a hole in their feet. because let me tell you this much: democrats will not fall for the mandate a second time. next time, it's single-payer or bust.
i'm actually glad that it's rand paul that's voting against the repeal, because it's his constituents that will be hit the worst.
but, listen: i don't think that rand paul is breaking ranks. i think this is orchestrated.
once again, let us all recall that obamacare was the republican party's preferred health care plan. they don't want to get rid of it. they wrote it. it's their baby. they've just trapped themselves in a corner.
they're only going to need a second defector. who's taking bets on this? they got one guy to cite the deficit, now they need to find a "compassionate conservative" worried about people losing insurance. i don't think it will be mccain. orrin hatch, maybe?
but, listen: i don't think that rand paul is breaking ranks. i think this is orchestrated.
once again, let us all recall that obamacare was the republican party's preferred health care plan. they don't want to get rid of it. they wrote it. it's their baby. they've just trapped themselves in a corner.
they're only going to need a second defector. who's taking bets on this? they got one guy to cite the deficit, now they need to find a "compassionate conservative" worried about people losing insurance. i don't think it will be mccain. orrin hatch, maybe?
should i finally get a smart phone?
i've never had one. well, i've never needed one. especially not at the costs they run at...
this is the kind of store i've been waiting for:
http://wirelesswarehouse.ca/specials/
the prices are still too high, though. i decided a long time ago that i would wait until they came down to under $50. that's what i'm willing to pay for a smart phone: $50. canadian. max. well, plus tax.
i'll have to do some research, still, but i know that what i want is an unlocked android phone. and, i'm not planning on buying service with it - no contracts, no pay-as-you-go, nothing. i'm going to rely on public wifi and use voip....
i'll revisit in the spring. next compost run; it's on the way. it could really finally happen, though - i've got some cash put aside. but i'm thinking i'll probably need to wait until next year for the prices to come down that much more.
for me, it's become a matter of principle: i won't pay more than $50 for it.
i've never had one. well, i've never needed one. especially not at the costs they run at...
this is the kind of store i've been waiting for:
http://wirelesswarehouse.ca/specials/
the prices are still too high, though. i decided a long time ago that i would wait until they came down to under $50. that's what i'm willing to pay for a smart phone: $50. canadian. max. well, plus tax.
i'll have to do some research, still, but i know that what i want is an unlocked android phone. and, i'm not planning on buying service with it - no contracts, no pay-as-you-go, nothing. i'm going to rely on public wifi and use voip....
i'll revisit in the spring. next compost run; it's on the way. it could really finally happen, though - i've got some cash put aside. but i'm thinking i'll probably need to wait until next year for the prices to come down that much more.
for me, it's become a matter of principle: i won't pay more than $50 for it.
April 26, 2014
we're entering an era where remarkably fast computers are basically worthless. there's capitalism going and making no sense again. the kind of stuff you could pick up on the curb (awaiting garbage pickup) could run a space station as a screensaver, but it's last year's model so who wants it?
somebody does.
how much is a brand new ibm with a dual core processor, 200 gb of space and 4 gb of ram worth to you? this is pushing the brink of 32-bit technology. couldn't upgrade it further, without jumping to 64.
how about $50? well, it's only 32 bits, after all! that's soooooo 2000s.......
you'll see 'em on the curb if you look for 'em, no doubt. along with perfectly working televisions that have gone out of fashion due to some kind of geometric obsolescence.
what i'm getting at, though, is that there's a real social revolution underlying this, as the technology works it's way out and into the hands of creative people that can do something unusual and perhaps unexpected with it.
wait for it.
we're entering an era where remarkably fast computers are basically worthless. there's capitalism going and making no sense again. the kind of stuff you could pick up on the curb (awaiting garbage pickup) could run a space station as a screensaver, but it's last year's model so who wants it?
somebody does.
how much is a brand new ibm with a dual core processor, 200 gb of space and 4 gb of ram worth to you? this is pushing the brink of 32-bit technology. couldn't upgrade it further, without jumping to 64.
how about $50? well, it's only 32 bits, after all! that's soooooo 2000s.......
you'll see 'em on the curb if you look for 'em, no doubt. along with perfectly working televisions that have gone out of fashion due to some kind of geometric obsolescence.
what i'm getting at, though, is that there's a real social revolution underlying this, as the technology works it's way out and into the hands of creative people that can do something unusual and perhaps unexpected with it.
wait for it.
april 23, 2014
sort of head-scratching. there will always be morons, but the russians can't honestly be so cynical that they think westerners will take their propaganda in uncritically or otherwise entirely ignore western media. conversely, he's actually been doing a good job of softening the western rhetoric. if i was the kremlin, i'd let him be. he's actually giving them quite a bit of credibility.
there's three caveats to this.
1) an escalation is being planned, and they want him out of the region before it happens.
2) there's some thought that they may be able to convince him to change sides, as well.
3) things aren't quite as they seem.
i couldn't imagine his life is in danger.
jessica
specifically, i think it's important for the russians to realize that nobody with critical thinking skills is going to be surprised by any kind of smoking gun regarding russian troops in the region. it is blatantly obvious that there are special forces operating in the region. no amount of propaganda is going to reverse this obvious truth. nor were these images necessary to demonstrate as much. you're not hiding anything. we already know.
jessica
+deathtokoalas nor would confirmation of such an obvious truth change anybody's opinion on the situation, if our opinion is meaningful in the first place. nobody in the west sees russia as an uncorrupted good guy. at best, russia is a lesser evil with a huge array of substantial corruption problems.
jessica
+deathtokoalas westerners that will intellectually argue in favour of russia's position will rarely be taking an actively pro-russian position, and more often taking an actively anti-american position. the propaganda has some value in seeding that resentment. yet, conflating that with legitimately pro-russian opinions is a gigantic error.
jessica
+deathtokoalas there's consequently really nothing to lose by letting the footage out, and much to lose by holding the journalist.
gk
Are you calling Vice a pro-Russian propaganda? That's just..funny.
jessica
+gk no, that's not what i'm suggesting.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i am, however, suggesting that perhaps what vice was looking for was not a proper reflection of what was occurring on the ground, and that the act of merely sending back images of what was actually happening was helping to counteract the narrative from washington. he may have been sent as a pro-american propagandist, but he wasn't able to find evidence to back up that perspective; instead, he often sent back evidence that countered it.
it may not have upheld the russian narrative, either. but that's a non-starter to begin with.
i mean, he was sent to send back images of russian troops invading the region and terrorizing the population. instead, we're getting pictures of ukrainian soldiers being disarmed by civilians. he can try and talk around that, but it's precisely the opposite of what he was sent there to send back.
jessica
+deathtokoalas that being said, i must once again point out that it is blatantly obvious that russian forces are orchestrating the situation, and evidence demonstrating it (if it does exist, and he has captured some of it) would be akin to evidence demonstrating that water is wet. the idea that a substantial number of ukrainians would spontaneously organize to join russia out of fear of ukrainian nazis is itself rather comical.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i point this out in relation to american propaganda all the time: if you want people to believe it, make it credible. these cartoon narratives don't really sway people, they just foster cynicism.
rr0b0
wow finally there's someone with a weighted opinion here
holyteejful
I agree with your opinion that he is actually really unbiased and has just been digging for the truth. Sad that the Russians see him as interfering, clearly not provoking anything, just asking questions-- being a reporter and all; you're right when you say that he has actually been way more lenient towards Russia than, say, FOX news LOL... I sincerely hope he is not in any danger, they are probably just trying to intimidate him and throw some false agendas at him to mislead him.
jessica
+holyteejful i'm not suggesting he showed up without a bias, but his perception does seem to have softened over time as the evidence unraveled in front of him. he may not have been able to confirm his bias. importantly, he doesn't seem to have allowed his bias to prevent him from sending back images that contradicted it. evidence-based reasoning is hard to find in the modern press.
...and that might have actually pissed his boss off.
holyteejful
+deathtokoalas After watching all the "dispatches" evidence does point to heavy "covert" Russian operations and that the surges of violence is propagated by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum ... That makes it so much easier for undercover "Spetznaz" (call them what you will)to do their job; I almost guarantee they pose as regular people, Ukrainian soldiers AND "regular" Russian troops as well. Nothing he has reported has really contradicted the rhetoric being spewed by Washington, although I am not much of an avid listener to the mainstream media myself.. He is probably one of the few reporters from the USA who speaks Slavic, so Vice sent him over there (or he volunteered). I personally think that he has been doing a good job. I have watched several other Vice reports and his boss, Shane Smith, seems like a fairly overall truly liberal guy with a sense of ethics that wouldn't allow strong bias on the part of being Pro-American everything. I mean, most mainstream media has almost nothing negative to say about Israel, but Vice has a report from the Palestinian perspective that is almost anti-Israel. I always love to hear both sides of every story to get the full context; I feel it is very important for making informed decisions in future conversations and possibly for elections.... also not sure if anyone knows, but Simon, the reporter,was released from detention in Slovyansk today after being held for a couple of days.
jessica
i guess you're not aware that the funding for vice's recent delve into news reporting has been coming from no less a source than rupert murdoch, himself.
jessica
nice to hear he's safe.
sort of head-scratching. there will always be morons, but the russians can't honestly be so cynical that they think westerners will take their propaganda in uncritically or otherwise entirely ignore western media. conversely, he's actually been doing a good job of softening the western rhetoric. if i was the kremlin, i'd let him be. he's actually giving them quite a bit of credibility.
there's three caveats to this.
1) an escalation is being planned, and they want him out of the region before it happens.
2) there's some thought that they may be able to convince him to change sides, as well.
3) things aren't quite as they seem.
i couldn't imagine his life is in danger.
jessica
specifically, i think it's important for the russians to realize that nobody with critical thinking skills is going to be surprised by any kind of smoking gun regarding russian troops in the region. it is blatantly obvious that there are special forces operating in the region. no amount of propaganda is going to reverse this obvious truth. nor were these images necessary to demonstrate as much. you're not hiding anything. we already know.
jessica
+deathtokoalas nor would confirmation of such an obvious truth change anybody's opinion on the situation, if our opinion is meaningful in the first place. nobody in the west sees russia as an uncorrupted good guy. at best, russia is a lesser evil with a huge array of substantial corruption problems.
jessica
+deathtokoalas westerners that will intellectually argue in favour of russia's position will rarely be taking an actively pro-russian position, and more often taking an actively anti-american position. the propaganda has some value in seeding that resentment. yet, conflating that with legitimately pro-russian opinions is a gigantic error.
jessica
+deathtokoalas there's consequently really nothing to lose by letting the footage out, and much to lose by holding the journalist.
gk
Are you calling Vice a pro-Russian propaganda? That's just..funny.
jessica
+gk no, that's not what i'm suggesting.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i am, however, suggesting that perhaps what vice was looking for was not a proper reflection of what was occurring on the ground, and that the act of merely sending back images of what was actually happening was helping to counteract the narrative from washington. he may have been sent as a pro-american propagandist, but he wasn't able to find evidence to back up that perspective; instead, he often sent back evidence that countered it.
it may not have upheld the russian narrative, either. but that's a non-starter to begin with.
i mean, he was sent to send back images of russian troops invading the region and terrorizing the population. instead, we're getting pictures of ukrainian soldiers being disarmed by civilians. he can try and talk around that, but it's precisely the opposite of what he was sent there to send back.
jessica
+deathtokoalas that being said, i must once again point out that it is blatantly obvious that russian forces are orchestrating the situation, and evidence demonstrating it (if it does exist, and he has captured some of it) would be akin to evidence demonstrating that water is wet. the idea that a substantial number of ukrainians would spontaneously organize to join russia out of fear of ukrainian nazis is itself rather comical.
jessica
+deathtokoalas i point this out in relation to american propaganda all the time: if you want people to believe it, make it credible. these cartoon narratives don't really sway people, they just foster cynicism.
rr0b0
wow finally there's someone with a weighted opinion here
holyteejful
I agree with your opinion that he is actually really unbiased and has just been digging for the truth. Sad that the Russians see him as interfering, clearly not provoking anything, just asking questions-- being a reporter and all; you're right when you say that he has actually been way more lenient towards Russia than, say, FOX news LOL... I sincerely hope he is not in any danger, they are probably just trying to intimidate him and throw some false agendas at him to mislead him.
jessica
+holyteejful i'm not suggesting he showed up without a bias, but his perception does seem to have softened over time as the evidence unraveled in front of him. he may not have been able to confirm his bias. importantly, he doesn't seem to have allowed his bias to prevent him from sending back images that contradicted it. evidence-based reasoning is hard to find in the modern press.
...and that might have actually pissed his boss off.
holyteejful
+deathtokoalas After watching all the "dispatches" evidence does point to heavy "covert" Russian operations and that the surges of violence is propagated by extremists on both sides of the political spectrum ... That makes it so much easier for undercover "Spetznaz" (call them what you will)to do their job; I almost guarantee they pose as regular people, Ukrainian soldiers AND "regular" Russian troops as well. Nothing he has reported has really contradicted the rhetoric being spewed by Washington, although I am not much of an avid listener to the mainstream media myself.. He is probably one of the few reporters from the USA who speaks Slavic, so Vice sent him over there (or he volunteered). I personally think that he has been doing a good job. I have watched several other Vice reports and his boss, Shane Smith, seems like a fairly overall truly liberal guy with a sense of ethics that wouldn't allow strong bias on the part of being Pro-American everything. I mean, most mainstream media has almost nothing negative to say about Israel, but Vice has a report from the Palestinian perspective that is almost anti-Israel. I always love to hear both sides of every story to get the full context; I feel it is very important for making informed decisions in future conversations and possibly for elections.... also not sure if anyone knows, but Simon, the reporter,was released from detention in Slovyansk today after being held for a couple of days.
jessica
i guess you're not aware that the funding for vice's recent delve into news reporting has been coming from no less a source than rupert murdoch, himself.
jessica
nice to hear he's safe.
April 23, 2014
it's funny.
i've basically arrived where i have in life by convincing myself of the single axiom that existence is meaningless, and this makes conventionally interacting in society entirely worthless. centering your life around anything related to property, status or wealth is just throwing your life away to utilitarian/capitalist excesses. yet, even this is not rational: if the aim is maximizing pleasure in the short amount of time we have to do it, doing loads of drugs makes more sense than working in an office. rejecting hedonistic capitalism within the context of this futility of breathing leaves only the individual's whimsical fancies as remotely meaningful goals (i skipped some steps there). art for art's sake (or knowledge for knowledge's sake) is consequently the only worthwhile pursuit (any other existence would and should rationally end up with a quick suicide, as it would be the fastest way to lessen the amount of existential torture brought on equally by slavery and boredom), and capitalist society is merely an obstacle to avoid.
if mortality could be abolished (and i'm ok with existing in software), the entire calculus would change. this ought to present the individual with a hobson's choice to pursue immortality at all costs, as the worst thing that could happen would be to die trying to abolish death. unless failure is certain, of course, in which case why waste the time? unfortunately, i'm convinced that this isn't feasible in my lifetime. death remains the only concrete reality worth planning around.
so, faced with the certainty of all of this meaninglessness, the only thing that can actually motivate me to get out of bed and pursue these goals is the certainty that i have a finite amount of time to complete them in, bringing me back around again to where i began.
yet, you say...
"yeah, well, i'm 30% of the way into paying off a high interest loan to get a piece of paper to allow me to pay property taxes, and that requires me to spend 75% of my time living for somebody else (and maybe more if i'm married). so, you lose at life."
it's actually not so bad for me if people actually continue to think that. i mean, there's two ways forward from where we are: full communism or state-driven social darwinism (popularly, if somewhat incorrectly, referred to as 'fascism'). we've been leaning towards the latter for decades. and, if that's the unalterable future, i can't benefit from winning the argument.
i can snicker about it on my facebook page, though.
it's funny.
i've basically arrived where i have in life by convincing myself of the single axiom that existence is meaningless, and this makes conventionally interacting in society entirely worthless. centering your life around anything related to property, status or wealth is just throwing your life away to utilitarian/capitalist excesses. yet, even this is not rational: if the aim is maximizing pleasure in the short amount of time we have to do it, doing loads of drugs makes more sense than working in an office. rejecting hedonistic capitalism within the context of this futility of breathing leaves only the individual's whimsical fancies as remotely meaningful goals (i skipped some steps there). art for art's sake (or knowledge for knowledge's sake) is consequently the only worthwhile pursuit (any other existence would and should rationally end up with a quick suicide, as it would be the fastest way to lessen the amount of existential torture brought on equally by slavery and boredom), and capitalist society is merely an obstacle to avoid.
if mortality could be abolished (and i'm ok with existing in software), the entire calculus would change. this ought to present the individual with a hobson's choice to pursue immortality at all costs, as the worst thing that could happen would be to die trying to abolish death. unless failure is certain, of course, in which case why waste the time? unfortunately, i'm convinced that this isn't feasible in my lifetime. death remains the only concrete reality worth planning around.
so, faced with the certainty of all of this meaninglessness, the only thing that can actually motivate me to get out of bed and pursue these goals is the certainty that i have a finite amount of time to complete them in, bringing me back around again to where i began.
yet, you say...
"yeah, well, i'm 30% of the way into paying off a high interest loan to get a piece of paper to allow me to pay property taxes, and that requires me to spend 75% of my time living for somebody else (and maybe more if i'm married). so, you lose at life."
it's actually not so bad for me if people actually continue to think that. i mean, there's two ways forward from where we are: full communism or state-driven social darwinism (popularly, if somewhat incorrectly, referred to as 'fascism'). we've been leaning towards the latter for decades. and, if that's the unalterable future, i can't benefit from winning the argument.
i can snicker about it on my facebook page, though.
April 23, 2014
from western governments, criticisms about "freedom of the press" are almost always veiled attempts to restrict press freedom for sources they do not like, which is often community or government based media.
this idea of calling private media "free" is itself very much a type of newspeak. private media is not freer than community media in any way. it's often the other way around! what private media is is corporate media, and hence driven by profit. that doesn't make it less controlled; again, that can and often does imply greater control and more censorship.
who has a bigger reach in america: pbs or fox news? yet, in canada and britain it's more subtle. it's clearly more complex than whether it's owned by government or by cartels.
in the end, if you're a journalist on the front lines it doesn't matter if the ceo is threatening to fire you or if the government is threatening to silence you. it doesn't matter if you're reading a script by the ministry or the oil/weapons cartel.
so, freedom of the press is and always has meant freedom for corporations to suppress the press.
and it's always been up to people to organize around the press.
from western governments, criticisms about "freedom of the press" are almost always veiled attempts to restrict press freedom for sources they do not like, which is often community or government based media.
this idea of calling private media "free" is itself very much a type of newspeak. private media is not freer than community media in any way. it's often the other way around! what private media is is corporate media, and hence driven by profit. that doesn't make it less controlled; again, that can and often does imply greater control and more censorship.
who has a bigger reach in america: pbs or fox news? yet, in canada and britain it's more subtle. it's clearly more complex than whether it's owned by government or by cartels.
in the end, if you're a journalist on the front lines it doesn't matter if the ceo is threatening to fire you or if the government is threatening to silence you. it doesn't matter if you're reading a script by the ministry or the oil/weapons cartel.
so, freedom of the press is and always has meant freedom for corporations to suppress the press.
and it's always been up to people to organize around the press.
april 18, 2014
it's always startling to me just how badly scientists have a grasp on public policy and economics. i think it's easy to trace it to this self-perception of themselves as bearing this kind of burden of being the world's real thinkers, although people looking in on the outside realize how laughable that perception of themselves really is. yet, if you're operating under this bizarre perception (enforced by a lot of things: plato, asimov, star trek, hollywood) that government's role is to carry out the dreams of the intelligentsia...
maybe a little marx might help? there's so many methodological flaws, i can see the push back. but, it could pull their head out of the clouds.
the united states didn't spend trillions in iraq to build a better society. they spent trillions in iraq because it was profitable. they wouldn't spend a dime on bettering the planet...
....and, so the crux of this debate needs to change drastically. we live in a society where governments are controlled by banks. public policy is collective action that maximizes profits for shareholders and investors. if you want them to listen, you need to speak their language.
that's probably not going to happen. yet, as i've mentioned a few times before, it probably won't be particularly hard to get a construction firm to pick up a trillion dollar project building floodwalls across the eastern seaboard.
yeah, well, join the revolution then. that's how shit works...
in the economic reality we live in, flashing around estimates that suggest a higher financial cost of not acting is actually an argument for not acting.
if it's expensive for the state, somebody in the private sector profits. that's why the private sector controls the state...
austerity is just cutting out state investments that have demonstrated low returns and have poor forecasts.
the function of the state has always been and remains to transfer tax money into private hands.
so, adaptation is big business and we'll see movement on that. prevention doesn't present any revenue streams, so we won't.
it's always startling to me just how badly scientists have a grasp on public policy and economics. i think it's easy to trace it to this self-perception of themselves as bearing this kind of burden of being the world's real thinkers, although people looking in on the outside realize how laughable that perception of themselves really is. yet, if you're operating under this bizarre perception (enforced by a lot of things: plato, asimov, star trek, hollywood) that government's role is to carry out the dreams of the intelligentsia...
maybe a little marx might help? there's so many methodological flaws, i can see the push back. but, it could pull their head out of the clouds.
the united states didn't spend trillions in iraq to build a better society. they spent trillions in iraq because it was profitable. they wouldn't spend a dime on bettering the planet...
....and, so the crux of this debate needs to change drastically. we live in a society where governments are controlled by banks. public policy is collective action that maximizes profits for shareholders and investors. if you want them to listen, you need to speak their language.
that's probably not going to happen. yet, as i've mentioned a few times before, it probably won't be particularly hard to get a construction firm to pick up a trillion dollar project building floodwalls across the eastern seaboard.
yeah, well, join the revolution then. that's how shit works...
in the economic reality we live in, flashing around estimates that suggest a higher financial cost of not acting is actually an argument for not acting.
if it's expensive for the state, somebody in the private sector profits. that's why the private sector controls the state...
austerity is just cutting out state investments that have demonstrated low returns and have poor forecasts.
the function of the state has always been and remains to transfer tax money into private hands.
so, adaptation is big business and we'll see movement on that. prevention doesn't present any revenue streams, so we won't.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
so, i don't know if my mail dude was trying to do me a favour or trying
to piss me off and i'm consequently torn as to how to react. the package
got here, but through a difficult route - and unsigned, when i was
supposed to sign. that works out to my benefit, but it's more future
packages i'm concerned about.
right now, i'm almost afraid to open it.
i'm going to probably walk down to the post office and ask them if they can automatically hold items to this address. there's no way anybody can contact me down here without prior consent, which is on purpose and not going to change. i'd rather they hold items there to begin with, and just send me an email to get me to pick it up. it removes a set of hands from the chain.
so, here's the story...
first, the crux of this is that i've made myself difficult to contact on purpose for many years - as long as i've lived on my own, basically. people coming to my old apartment would complain i was unlisted and they had to use their cell, but this was no accident. what a lot of them didn't realize was that i wasn't just unlisted; the buzzer actually wasn't set up. there was literally no way for anybody to contact me from the intercom.
and who uses the intercom? jehovah's witnesses. rogers. vacuum cleaner salespeople. mary kay. politicians. kids with fundraisers. people i don't want to talk to...
there's no intercom here. yet, when i moved down here, i took the doorbell out. it's for the same reasons: i do not want random people to be able to bother me.
you can agree with me by emulating me. it might get rid of some of the door-to-door type if more people adopted this method.
pretty much the one casualty of this is the mail dude, who drops off packages from time to time. yet, it's generally far too infrequently for it to justify being annoyed by children and religious idiots. i'm perfectly happy with going down to the post office and getting it myself. as mentioned, that prevents the unnecessary risk stemming from the mail dude handling it.
however, i happened to encounter him on my front step a few weeks ago and he wasn't very happy with my attitude. he asked if there was another bell to ring, because mine didn't work - i had to tell him i don't want it to work. so, he asked me for a phone number. right, like i want to give a random stranger my phone number (and i actually don't have one, anyways). i told him i'd rather he just leave the slip in the box. he was both confused and upset...
see, the mail people in canada are coming up against some possible extreme layoffs. looking at the government's plan, it almost seems like a scheme to make the mailboxes smaller and force more expensive courier options; what they're doing isn't going to eliminate carriers, it's just going to make the process more expensive. private carriers win, everybody else loses. no surprises, here - it's been the trajectory of government for decades.
however, i happen to be the type of ("real") anarchist that is opposed to frivolous work, and i'm not sure how anybody could argue that delivering mail is less frivolous than working a cash register. it's a job i don't think should exist; it squanders resources i think could be better applied elsewhere. if i can walk to the post office, why can't everybody else? so, i wouldn't be particularly upset about layoffs, and am not particularly empathetic to this guy's reaction to my request to leave it in the box.
the key question: did he pick up that i didn't care about his job?
i had a package arrive this morning that required a signature. strangely, it ended up down the street, left without a signature. i only know this because of the kindness of the neighbour who brought it to me, and was able to contact me by knocking on my landlord's door.
on first glance, it seems obvious that the mail dude is being an ass, here.
however, given that he knew i don't answer the door, he may have thought he was saving me a trip.
i actually don't appreciate that. but i'd rather talk it through than write him up. well, unless he's looking for severance, i guess. but i can't reasonably make any of these assumptions.
so, i think the best thing to do is determine if i can get the post office to hold items and email me for pickup when they come in.
the device is apparently undamaged. and, in truth, with the way it was packaged, it would have been hard to damage it.
oddly, the canada post tracking site continues to state that the item is "out for delivery". i'm going to let this run through the system and see what happens. if it works properly, i should get a refund. and maybe i deserve one. i'll give it a few days....
right now, i'm almost afraid to open it.
i'm going to probably walk down to the post office and ask them if they can automatically hold items to this address. there's no way anybody can contact me down here without prior consent, which is on purpose and not going to change. i'd rather they hold items there to begin with, and just send me an email to get me to pick it up. it removes a set of hands from the chain.
so, here's the story...
first, the crux of this is that i've made myself difficult to contact on purpose for many years - as long as i've lived on my own, basically. people coming to my old apartment would complain i was unlisted and they had to use their cell, but this was no accident. what a lot of them didn't realize was that i wasn't just unlisted; the buzzer actually wasn't set up. there was literally no way for anybody to contact me from the intercom.
and who uses the intercom? jehovah's witnesses. rogers. vacuum cleaner salespeople. mary kay. politicians. kids with fundraisers. people i don't want to talk to...
there's no intercom here. yet, when i moved down here, i took the doorbell out. it's for the same reasons: i do not want random people to be able to bother me.
you can agree with me by emulating me. it might get rid of some of the door-to-door type if more people adopted this method.
pretty much the one casualty of this is the mail dude, who drops off packages from time to time. yet, it's generally far too infrequently for it to justify being annoyed by children and religious idiots. i'm perfectly happy with going down to the post office and getting it myself. as mentioned, that prevents the unnecessary risk stemming from the mail dude handling it.
however, i happened to encounter him on my front step a few weeks ago and he wasn't very happy with my attitude. he asked if there was another bell to ring, because mine didn't work - i had to tell him i don't want it to work. so, he asked me for a phone number. right, like i want to give a random stranger my phone number (and i actually don't have one, anyways). i told him i'd rather he just leave the slip in the box. he was both confused and upset...
see, the mail people in canada are coming up against some possible extreme layoffs. looking at the government's plan, it almost seems like a scheme to make the mailboxes smaller and force more expensive courier options; what they're doing isn't going to eliminate carriers, it's just going to make the process more expensive. private carriers win, everybody else loses. no surprises, here - it's been the trajectory of government for decades.
however, i happen to be the type of ("real") anarchist that is opposed to frivolous work, and i'm not sure how anybody could argue that delivering mail is less frivolous than working a cash register. it's a job i don't think should exist; it squanders resources i think could be better applied elsewhere. if i can walk to the post office, why can't everybody else? so, i wouldn't be particularly upset about layoffs, and am not particularly empathetic to this guy's reaction to my request to leave it in the box.
the key question: did he pick up that i didn't care about his job?
i had a package arrive this morning that required a signature. strangely, it ended up down the street, left without a signature. i only know this because of the kindness of the neighbour who brought it to me, and was able to contact me by knocking on my landlord's door.
on first glance, it seems obvious that the mail dude is being an ass, here.
however, given that he knew i don't answer the door, he may have thought he was saving me a trip.
i actually don't appreciate that. but i'd rather talk it through than write him up. well, unless he's looking for severance, i guess. but i can't reasonably make any of these assumptions.
so, i think the best thing to do is determine if i can get the post office to hold items and email me for pickup when they come in.
the device is apparently undamaged. and, in truth, with the way it was packaged, it would have been hard to damage it.
oddly, the canada post tracking site continues to state that the item is "out for delivery". i'm going to let this run through the system and see what happens. if it works properly, i should get a refund. and maybe i deserve one. i'll give it a few days....
i just want to clarify, though, that if this is a psy-op then the
underlying appeal to white racism is a means, rather than an end. what
they want is unity. the point is to provide a disincentive against being
a trump detractor; the groupthink implies that opposition to trump is
equivalent to support for torture. that's meant to keep people in line.
the fact that this is specious is actually an asset, because humans are
broadly specious creatures.
if you can provide me with evidence otherwise, i'll adjust. but the first question you need to answer is why they decided to livestream the act of torturing somebody. that's obviously an act meant to have a media response. and, while i won't disagree that criminals are stupid, this doesn't fall into that category. you have to explain why they wanted a media reaction.
the simplest and most obvious explanation is that it's an intelligence operation, and that they want a media reaction in order to construct the narrative that good, white, trump supporters are under threat of being beaten by mobs of no-goodnik immigrants. and, i propose that this is what we need to present for hypothesis testing.
of course, i'm not supposed to think for myself. i'm not supposed to use critical thinking skills. i'm not suppose to present a hypothesis for testing. according to their theories, i shouldn't exist; i'm supposed to just listen and obey.
the simplest and most obvious explanation is that it's an intelligence operation, and that they want a media reaction in order to construct the narrative that good, white, trump supporters are under threat of being beaten by mobs of no-goodnik immigrants. and, i propose that this is what we need to present for hypothesis testing.
of course, i'm not supposed to think for myself. i'm not supposed to use critical thinking skills. i'm not suppose to present a hypothesis for testing. according to their theories, i shouldn't exist; i'm supposed to just listen and obey.
this is a psy-op. and people will believe it, because it's what they want to believe.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/facebook-live-stream-video-man-attacked-chicago-trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/facebook-live-stream-video-man-attacked-chicago-trump
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
April 16, 2014
the most important thing i learned from....decades....in school is the following:
if you're going to go to school with the purpose of doing something competitive with it (be that in employment or in academia), you have no option but to pick something you love to do. things may have been different in the past when the field was narrower, but nowadays living in north america means you're competing against two thirds of the planet for just about anything, and if you're not loving it then somebody else is going to mop the floor with you.
you might have a greater pure aptitude in the topic and in general. you might have higher test scores. you might be a harder worker, even. yet, if you're doing it for labour then the blunt reality is that you have no chance against the thousands of other people that do it for *fun*.
it's actually sort of an anarchist's ideal: the only kind of vocation any of us have any real chance in any more is what we'd love to be doing, anyways. the problem is that so few of us were raised with that mindset. we were told to do something we don't love because it is marketable (only to be outcompeted by somebody that loves it), or even to do something we loathe because it's profitable (only to run into the same problem). while that's happening, we're wasting developing skills doing things we enjoy, and getting behind those that figured this out.
if there are changes to immigration, or drastic improvements in living standard elsewhere, maybe it will once again make sense to tell your young, operatic nephew they'd be better off as a dentist. but, as it is, there's no deficit of kids that knew they wanted to be dentists when they were three years old and have spent their whole lives preparing, and the reality is that your nephew doesn't stand a fucking chance against them - he's really better off exploring his vocal chords.
i think that's a mass shift in social mindset that we need to have.
the most important thing i learned from....decades....in school is the following:
if you're going to go to school with the purpose of doing something competitive with it (be that in employment or in academia), you have no option but to pick something you love to do. things may have been different in the past when the field was narrower, but nowadays living in north america means you're competing against two thirds of the planet for just about anything, and if you're not loving it then somebody else is going to mop the floor with you.
you might have a greater pure aptitude in the topic and in general. you might have higher test scores. you might be a harder worker, even. yet, if you're doing it for labour then the blunt reality is that you have no chance against the thousands of other people that do it for *fun*.
it's actually sort of an anarchist's ideal: the only kind of vocation any of us have any real chance in any more is what we'd love to be doing, anyways. the problem is that so few of us were raised with that mindset. we were told to do something we don't love because it is marketable (only to be outcompeted by somebody that loves it), or even to do something we loathe because it's profitable (only to run into the same problem). while that's happening, we're wasting developing skills doing things we enjoy, and getting behind those that figured this out.
if there are changes to immigration, or drastic improvements in living standard elsewhere, maybe it will once again make sense to tell your young, operatic nephew they'd be better off as a dentist. but, as it is, there's no deficit of kids that knew they wanted to be dentists when they were three years old and have spent their whole lives preparing, and the reality is that your nephew doesn't stand a fucking chance against them - he's really better off exploring his vocal chords.
i think that's a mass shift in social mindset that we need to have.
april 15, 2014
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
i have a lot of opposition to your concept of personal freedom. capitalism is a shitty way for people the world over to live because it abolishes personal freedom - both at the worker/slave level and at the consumer/bot level. a replacement order should be one where personal freedom is truly maximized. in fact, that was the whole point of the socialist program - we needed socialism precisely because industrial capitalism made liberalism impossible. but, i get your point. it just applies more to the co-modified capitalist ideal of "personal freedom" than it does to actual freedom.
besides that, i like your analogy. unfortunately, there isn't much to add to the debate. the thinking is long done. it's a question of action.
basically, oscar wilde said everything worth saying here:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/
1) civilization requires slaves. even engels admitted that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing was the best compromise available relative to nineteenth century technology. we need slaves, but if we make the slaves and the bosses the same thing then the slaves will hopefully be mistreated the least. that's communism, and it's not surprising that it hasn't worked (for all marx' talk of contradictions in capitalism, his solution was merely another one).
2) it's not the nineteenth century anymore. we can actually start building a lot of this stuff. we don't even have to talk about automating luxuries at this point. how about automating food? might it be the best way to solve the food crises we're facing, anyways?
3) we've consequently functionally eliminated the barrier to liberalism that marx and engels pointed out. if we can replace socialized production with automation, we can get on with building a free society.
but there's two reasons why this is going to require something as drastic as nuclear war or secretly starting a colony on another planet or something:
1) scarcity in food production is a weapon in the hands of the ruling class. they demand that breeding be roughly linearly proportional to productivity and the food be rewarded as compensation for forced labour. so, we get scarcity continually enforced as austerity, instead. they start off with this axiom with all the force they have, and they know they cannot maintain the existing system should the lie be exposed as what it is.
2) hierarchical socialism, which would cease to exist.
solution? eventually, the technology to abolish the contradiction between liberalism and industrialization will be cheap and easy enough to produce that it cannot be suppressed. it's all in the mode of production. it's all driven by technology. that's something marx was right about.
until then, the anti-capitalist (anarchism is the only real anti-capitalism) needs to adopt a strategy of avoidance. this is a highly personal thing. what does the individual despise about capitalism? how would the individual live on the other side of it? is there a way to scheme a path to an approximation of this existence? can small, shifting spaces be claimed temporarily so that it's migratory inhabitants can move from bubble to bubble? there's no way to overturn this, to reform it or to revolt against it. it's not a social choice, but a function of the technology. resistance is truly futile, until the technology is innovated upon. so, innovation is possible, but avoidance is the only real means of breaking free.
mass avoidance could raise awareness and temporarily bring the system down, but it can't change it. so long as the technology remains the same, what we call capitalism will recreate itself - because it is a function of the technology. avoidance as a revolutionary strategy could only bring us back to the dark ages, or further back. there's a primitivist strain of anarchism that understands and promotes this.
but if you're opposed to that, you're stuck waiting for the technology that can truly democratize production.
april 11, 2014
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
the way you actually ought to think of language is not as something inherent to self-determining peoples, or some other equally silly liberal nonsense, but as a kind of mark of ownership. you'll see states use it like this. it's basically the russian argument in this mess. they're claiming that the russian speakers are their property and they have right to protect it.
there's been a lot of talk of all kinds of nwo silliness, like inserting computer chips in people to take ownership of them. but, it's really largely unnecessary - it's just an evolution of the nation-state. why bother inserting a chip when they can teach a language and religion to children? it can't really be cheaper, and it's probably more likely to spur resistance. the id chip already exists, and it's your so-called "culture" - your language, your religion, your customs. these already turn people obedient and pliable. it's been how the state has used language and religion for centuries...
so, i can't help but snicker when i hear it from christians, especially, who don't seem to have the slightest clue that they're actually opposing what really amounts to a change in technology from one means of state control to another.
i'm going to say this one last time: julian assange has been living in an embassy for nearly five years, with essentially no unmonitored contact outside of it. i don't know whether he believes what he says or not. but, i don't think his analysis is very valuable.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
what i suspect is that the cia played him as a patsy, and that he probably seriously thinks he had contact with a real whistleblower. let's take that step back and do the thought experiment...
if the cia (or the fsb, even) were going to feed information to assange, how would they do it? would they present themselves as cia (or fsb)? there are certain scenarios where either of them would impersonate the other, but not in this circumstance. if the cia (or fsb....) wanted to feed assange information, they would present it to him as coming from a disgruntled whistleblower. that is consequently what assange would think.
the point is not that assange is lying. the point is that nobody would ever tell him what's happening, and that the chances that he has any idea what's going on are consequently extremely remote.
there is of course also the possibility that he's come to love big brother, after all - no doubt as a consequence of some suggestive prodding. i find his choice of interviewer a little concerning.
but, he doesn't know who fed him the files or what they were trying to accomplish. and, you should not be tricked into thinking that he does.
Mar 27, 2014
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
you want to know why we can't have another cold war? because i can't find any decent recordings of rachmaninov. no, i don't want to listen to some asian child prodigy that can hit the notes but has no emotional investment because she lacks the maturity. i don't want to compete over who can do it better, either.
the best version i've heard of the second piano concerto (by far) is by the soviet orchestra, which i found as an import from france (you can keep your freedom fries) in a second hand store several years ago. it's nowhere to be found online. and, it's not hard to guess why. instead, we have versions by west germans, koreans, jews from chicago...WESTERN VERSIONS....
none of them compare to the soviet version.
what is important in life is not which set of bankers controls which oil rig. what is important is the ability to listen to high quality renditions of universally recognized russian classics. likewise, russians have an inalienable right to access american renditions of american jazz.
we have bitches brew, too. dmitri play trumpet through superior delay system. better quality big muff for vladimir's guitar.
it's not the same, dammit.
we need to put this into perspective before we revert back to that fucking bullshit all over again.
===
i agree with those arguing that she's butchering this. i've always interacted with the piece as a blaring romp, written by an emotionally insecure male that is releasing all of his anger and frustration. she's playing it in a soft and sensuous manner that invites a sultry lounge singer.
the notes are flawless, but there's just no rage or sadness or frustration in it.
i mean, maybe she's trying to sex it up. fine.
...but this really needs to be played by 40 year old virgins (ok, i'm exaggerating) to get the maximum feel out of it.
tl
+deathtokoalas your understanding of the composer's work is clearly limited if you think anything he wrote is devoid of lust or passion. also, wang's artistic conviction and integrity are what make her performance so remarkable. interpreting a piece in a way that deviates from the norm (or, in this case, your personal preference) is not indicative of poor musicianship.
jessica
+tl did i not point out that she played the piece flawlessly? but if you understand where the piece is coming from, and all the self-doubt and insecurity attached to it, you'll realize she's completely missing the point.
i mean, if i want to listen to shmaltzy, upper class nonsense i'll go listen to mozart or shostakovich or something. what makes rachmaninov special is the social anxiety in the writing. you take that away, and it's just another delve into aristocratic masturbation. there's plenty of that for those that want it, without needing to ruin that which stands away from it.
i kind of held back a little bit initially, but does she look to you like somebody that has ever experienced the kind of shit rachmaninov went through? young, beautiful, rich. she'd need a brain transplant to get her mind around this. it would be remarkable if she did understand this emotionally, that is as something more than notes on a page - which she does clearly understand quite well.
vj
eugh...welcome to music, blessed art it is, where each comes with their own interpretation.
jessica
+vj this is scored music, not jazz. personal contributions should be kept to an absolute minimum. the performer is a worthless intermediary between my ears and the composer's mind - a necessary evil. i don't care what she thinks.
vj
Scored music is still subject to interpretation (not talking about improvisation). Any two people will feel to play the same piece differently
jessica
+vj completely wrong liberal bullshit. if i want to listen to yuja wang, i'll listen to one of her compositions. i'm here to listen to rachmaninov. the moment she brings her individuality into the process is the moment she completely fucks up. you need to get your head out of this relativistic gallow before it comes down. there are correct and incorrect ways to play a piece.
i don't want to continue this into perpetuity, so i'm just going to be clear about the non-relativistic reality of things before i close off further comments.
there are two ways to perform a scored piece of music:
1) the way it was written
2) incorrectly
this slutty performance is not capturing the piece the way it was written. it's a "modern interpretation" that replaces the tortured soul of the piece with vapid and gratuitous sexuality. therefore, it's wrong. there's no further worthwhile debate on the point, unless you want to resort to the idiocy of "it's just your opinion".
it's not. and that decadent attitude is destroying our culture and our civilization.
out.
==
this is worse, he sounds bored through half of it. yeesh...
i have a version by the soviet symphony orchestra that owns everything i've seen online so far, but my discs are packed. i can't even find info online. fucking cold war, getting in the way of what really matters...
Concertos n°2 and n°3 (USSR Symphony Orchestra, feat. conductor: Gennady Provatorov, piano: Victor Eresko).
find that one if you want to hear somebody just bash this out.
xs
+deathtokoalas Or simply enjoy one of the best versions ever, by Earl Wild... but then again, we all like things differently.
jessica
+xs earl wild does not sound like a very russian name.
perhaps, you'd like to suggest a wonderful slavic folk version of 'the entertainer' while you're at it? grigorii does gershwin? on balalaika?
fucking hipsters.
==
no grit. and, look at 3:23: he's catching his breath? maybe his suit is too tight, and it's restricting his breathing. then he prances through the rest of it like it's some kind of gentle ballet...
this should be beaten down with every ounce of emotional and physical force that can be gathered, as though the police have shown up to steal your last ounce of vodka at 4:53 am and there's nothing you can do about it....
===
this is better, it seems to get the point better, but the playing is a little blurry (it sounds like he's using the sustain pedal to blur some of the notes he can't hit in the same way that electric guitarists use a distortion pedal), and the mix is pretty piano-heavy.
busted? lol...
====
ok, this sounds like a solid version. it's likely not coincidental that it's russian, but it does look like the whole concerto is up here.
so i was able to find a proper russian version on youtube, after all.
====
the orchestra sounds good, but she's just not hitting the piano hard enough.
eg
Does she need to pound the keys to mke the music? Maybe for you to hear the music.
jessica
+eg. this particular piece needs to be pounded, yes. bourgeois westerners that want to focus on masturbatory techniques have consistently failed to understand that for close to a hundred years. the russians grasp it properly...
go find a russian recording to hear it bashed out the way it's supposed to be, then come back.
russian name
+deathtokoalas amazing comeback statement-- kudos
vh
I hear nothing wrong with it. The notes are clear enough, and she plays with finesse - which is very hard to do on this piece, esp. the last movement.
jessica
+vh see, that's the problem - the finesse. this isn't a technical, subtle piece. it's a banger, meant to be played with all the bourgeois sophistication of "tutti frutti".
===
actually, rachmaninov and angst go well together. under 15, and it's just notes on a screen. but a little older than that is probably the ideal age to get this right.
she's hitting the keys with sufficient force. that's the big thing. and it's a russian thing, consistently. her western counterparts want to over-intellectualize and turn it into some dainty prance, rather than the noisy protopunk classic that it is.
i'm mildly relieved. i suppose that if we end up on the other side of some curtain, we can still rely on the former soviet states (and satellites) to play the russian classics for us properly, without having to endure westerners butchering them.
mar 27, 2014
i couldn't condemn the russians for moving into poland or the baltics to dismantle that offensive weapons system before it comes up. the world might not really understand, but that falls under the rubric of self-defense in my estimation. it could actually prevent a catastrophe.
nato has a mutual defense clause, though. so, any invasion would have to be engineered to appear to be a local revolution, so as to not invoke the clause. crimea may be something of a model. it was so fast and smooth that it seemed to be a contingency plan. so, that's something to keep an eye out for.
one of the reasons the neo-con propaganda in iraq was effective was that the idea of preemptive war is indeed justifiable as self-defense. the problem was that the rhetoric didn't meet the reality. saddam wasn't building weapons. he wasn't a threat to anybody. russia, on the other hand, is coming up against the possible necessity to truly move preemptively. the united states is building weapons, and is a threat to the existence of russia.
that being said, i'm having a hard time taking the reports of an imminent russian invasion of eastern ukraine seriously. i'm just having a hard time imagining it, after so many years of russian complicity.
but i was speaking before about a pandora's box. the base in crimea is so strategically imperative that it is tempting to think of it exceptionally. eastern ukraine? not at all. there's some factories, but factories can be built elsewhere. if they move into ukraine, it will dispel all questions as to whether this box has opened, and it will signal russia's intent to shift strategies and aggressively move deep into europe.
...and it *is* america's fault. all of this militarization has created a situation where seeming russian acts of aggression are entirely rational, as they are rooted not in aggression but in defense.
americans do understand this, even if they don't immediately realize it. it's the same logic as the cuban missile crisis. again, people don't know about turkey, so for the sake of the example let's forget about it. how many americans would argue that kennedy should have just shrugged off missiles in cuba? how many would condemn preemptive action against cuba? so, how can they expect putin to just ignore this provocation?
i'm not trying to draw attention to the double standard. that much is obvious. i'm pointing out that if the americans don't change their policy, they are going to be held responsible by history for provoking the russians into a major conflict. at this point, abandoning the missile shield may be the only way to prevent that conflict.
but that will be determined by the severity of russia's next move.
i couldn't condemn the russians for moving into poland or the baltics to dismantle that offensive weapons system before it comes up. the world might not really understand, but that falls under the rubric of self-defense in my estimation. it could actually prevent a catastrophe.
nato has a mutual defense clause, though. so, any invasion would have to be engineered to appear to be a local revolution, so as to not invoke the clause. crimea may be something of a model. it was so fast and smooth that it seemed to be a contingency plan. so, that's something to keep an eye out for.
one of the reasons the neo-con propaganda in iraq was effective was that the idea of preemptive war is indeed justifiable as self-defense. the problem was that the rhetoric didn't meet the reality. saddam wasn't building weapons. he wasn't a threat to anybody. russia, on the other hand, is coming up against the possible necessity to truly move preemptively. the united states is building weapons, and is a threat to the existence of russia.
that being said, i'm having a hard time taking the reports of an imminent russian invasion of eastern ukraine seriously. i'm just having a hard time imagining it, after so many years of russian complicity.
but i was speaking before about a pandora's box. the base in crimea is so strategically imperative that it is tempting to think of it exceptionally. eastern ukraine? not at all. there's some factories, but factories can be built elsewhere. if they move into ukraine, it will dispel all questions as to whether this box has opened, and it will signal russia's intent to shift strategies and aggressively move deep into europe.
...and it *is* america's fault. all of this militarization has created a situation where seeming russian acts of aggression are entirely rational, as they are rooted not in aggression but in defense.
americans do understand this, even if they don't immediately realize it. it's the same logic as the cuban missile crisis. again, people don't know about turkey, so for the sake of the example let's forget about it. how many americans would argue that kennedy should have just shrugged off missiles in cuba? how many would condemn preemptive action against cuba? so, how can they expect putin to just ignore this provocation?
i'm not trying to draw attention to the double standard. that much is obvious. i'm pointing out that if the americans don't change their policy, they are going to be held responsible by history for provoking the russians into a major conflict. at this point, abandoning the missile shield may be the only way to prevent that conflict.
but that will be determined by the severity of russia's next move.
you know, i legitimately wish i understood why it is that self-identifying right-wingers (not conservatives per se, but right-wingers) seem to be attracted to what it is that i have to say, given that we have absolutely no commonality on policy at all. but, maybe i'm answering my own question: maybe these people are not actually interested in politics, but merely interested in the theatre around it. the fact that i'm an unabashed communist seems to be less important to these people than my liberal use of cursing. it's like they're angry about everything and nothing at the same time, and willing to identify with anything at all that rejects the status quo.
this is potentially as much of an opportunity as it is a threat. i have a small sample size, and my biases are obvious. but, it seems to me that you can get these people to rally around just about anything, so long as you use the right tone - that they aren't interested in job losses, or racism, or any other specific thing so much as they just enjoy getting worked up about something.
it's hard to square, otherwise. there is literally no overlap. but, i seem to attract them in ways i don't actually even want to.
this is potentially as much of an opportunity as it is a threat. i have a small sample size, and my biases are obvious. but, it seems to me that you can get these people to rally around just about anything, so long as you use the right tone - that they aren't interested in job losses, or racism, or any other specific thing so much as they just enjoy getting worked up about something.
it's hard to square, otherwise. there is literally no overlap. but, i seem to attract them in ways i don't actually even want to.
Monday, March 17, 2014
i've stated before that i have the mind of a 70 year-old woman in the body of a 12 year-old girl. but i was sort of joking.
it's not that strange for people to skip their childhood. childhood is really a social construction in the first place. the truth is it's the parents that won't let go of the innocence; in reality, most of the world is working at ten and reproducing at fifteen. keeping young people juvenile throughout their teens and even into their twenties requires huge amounts of biological and psychological suppression. rather than saying "i skipped childhood", the better idea might be "i escaped the christian cult's attempt to stunt my development to uphold their warped perceptions of purity".
but, i don't expect white liberals to lose their fantasy reality any time soon.
so, skipping childhood is common and normal; it's the idea of childhood that is perverted. but, skipping adulthood is really bizarre.
i mean skipping adulthood as a phase of life, rather than having any cultural affinity with people twice my age. the entire set of goals just seemed pointless to me. property? what for? vehicles? i'd prefer something more ecological. job? status? you know you're going to die, right? what's the point? partner? i prefer my independence and i need to spend most of my time alone, anyways - it's impossible for me to maintain a relationship with the need for that much alone time. children? i'd rather be paraded through downtown by my entrails than become a slave to my offspring, thank you.
it was the goals of retirement that appealed to me directly from childhood: time to read, a space to grow a garden and maybe a pet (at this point, though, i think pets are as much enslavement as children).
i mean, we have some pretty bizarre ideas of what an adult is in our society. the definition of an adult in our society is identical to that of a slave. then, we associate adulthood with freedom. 'cause freedom and slavery are the same thing, here.
but to just skip the entire phase of existence - the dominant phase, the defining phase - is something i'm having a hard time understanding in myself, even as it is crystal clear to me that it is true.
it's not that strange for people to skip their childhood. childhood is really a social construction in the first place. the truth is it's the parents that won't let go of the innocence; in reality, most of the world is working at ten and reproducing at fifteen. keeping young people juvenile throughout their teens and even into their twenties requires huge amounts of biological and psychological suppression. rather than saying "i skipped childhood", the better idea might be "i escaped the christian cult's attempt to stunt my development to uphold their warped perceptions of purity".
but, i don't expect white liberals to lose their fantasy reality any time soon.
so, skipping childhood is common and normal; it's the idea of childhood that is perverted. but, skipping adulthood is really bizarre.
i mean skipping adulthood as a phase of life, rather than having any cultural affinity with people twice my age. the entire set of goals just seemed pointless to me. property? what for? vehicles? i'd prefer something more ecological. job? status? you know you're going to die, right? what's the point? partner? i prefer my independence and i need to spend most of my time alone, anyways - it's impossible for me to maintain a relationship with the need for that much alone time. children? i'd rather be paraded through downtown by my entrails than become a slave to my offspring, thank you.
it was the goals of retirement that appealed to me directly from childhood: time to read, a space to grow a garden and maybe a pet (at this point, though, i think pets are as much enslavement as children).
i mean, we have some pretty bizarre ideas of what an adult is in our society. the definition of an adult in our society is identical to that of a slave. then, we associate adulthood with freedom. 'cause freedom and slavery are the same thing, here.
but to just skip the entire phase of existence - the dominant phase, the defining phase - is something i'm having a hard time understanding in myself, even as it is crystal clear to me that it is true.
i seem to have dropped the alter-reality, initially. it's there, now.
http://rssmix.com/u/8219500/rss.xml
http://rssmix.com/u/8219500/rss.xml
ok. so, i think he's pretty much crystal clear, here.
the company is being pr-savvy, given current public opinion, in tying the decision to invest in electric vehicles in michigan to the decision to not build the new plant in mexico. then, they're taking advantage of the news cycle to cash in on what is essentially free advertising.
they're getting the opportunity to speak in prime time slots on every news network in the country, and the opportunity to spin a policy as pro-american when they do. you can't dream of that kind of marketing exposure.
so, this is a smart pr move for ford.
but, i think it's pretty clear that these were independent decisions - and i think he's clear, here, on what is driving them: low demand for small fuel efficiency vehicles, and the reality that american (and canadian) workers are still superior when it comes to more complicated types of engineering.
if there's a positive in the announcement, it is in the idea that ford may be projecting more market demand for electric vehicles in the "small car" category. that production was never going to be in mexico, anyways....or at least not in the medium term.
the company is being pr-savvy, given current public opinion, in tying the decision to invest in electric vehicles in michigan to the decision to not build the new plant in mexico. then, they're taking advantage of the news cycle to cash in on what is essentially free advertising.
they're getting the opportunity to speak in prime time slots on every news network in the country, and the opportunity to spin a policy as pro-american when they do. you can't dream of that kind of marketing exposure.
so, this is a smart pr move for ford.
but, i think it's pretty clear that these were independent decisions - and i think he's clear, here, on what is driving them: low demand for small fuel efficiency vehicles, and the reality that american (and canadian) workers are still superior when it comes to more complicated types of engineering.
if there's a positive in the announcement, it is in the idea that ford may be projecting more market demand for electric vehicles in the "small car" category. that production was never going to be in mexico, anyways....or at least not in the medium term.
so, what he's saying is that they're planning on building less fuel efficient vehicles and more gas guzzlers, due to market demand.
great.
"but, jobs!"
ugh.
listen: if your life goal is to work in a car factory in order to procreate, then i consider you fucking pathetic.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/ford-ceo-main-reason-for-canceling-mexico-plant-was-market-demand-not-trump.html
that said, trump could potentially take more credit for this than the detractors are suggesting, if you factor in the premise that it's based on the projection that the market will be for less fuel efficiency due to lower gas prices as a consequence of policies to keep gas prices low.
but, as was the case with the call centres coming back due to increasing american xenophobia, this is not something i'd personally want to take credit for or something that trump should be proud of - although i'm sure he is, because the idea of a changing climate is just all a chinese plot, anyways.
more broadly speaking, it's a great example of the right's tendency to sacrifice everything on the altar of "job creation". it's regressive, in the long run.
great.
"but, jobs!"
ugh.
listen: if your life goal is to work in a car factory in order to procreate, then i consider you fucking pathetic.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/ford-ceo-main-reason-for-canceling-mexico-plant-was-market-demand-not-trump.html
that said, trump could potentially take more credit for this than the detractors are suggesting, if you factor in the premise that it's based on the projection that the market will be for less fuel efficiency due to lower gas prices as a consequence of policies to keep gas prices low.
but, as was the case with the call centres coming back due to increasing american xenophobia, this is not something i'd personally want to take credit for or something that trump should be proud of - although i'm sure he is, because the idea of a changing climate is just all a chinese plot, anyways.
more broadly speaking, it's a great example of the right's tendency to sacrifice everything on the altar of "job creation". it's regressive, in the long run.
i know that this is contrary to what a lot of "experts" will tell you, but you just have to look at desired outcomes to understand the difference. it's not a left-right thing, either.....well, i guess it is on the authoritarian axis, but that places the colloquial liberal on the right of the axis.
what do you want? do you want an ordered society, where people are deferential to authority and call it in to solve every single problem for them? then, listen to the "experts". that's what their advice is designed to create. but, realize that it makes you intellectually and emotionally dependent on a system of hierarchy that places you at the very bottom of it.
on the other hand, if you want a society of independent-minded, free-thinking people that don't need or want authority and desire to take matters into their own hands, then you should follow my advice.
what do you want? do you want an ordered society, where people are deferential to authority and call it in to solve every single problem for them? then, listen to the "experts". that's what their advice is designed to create. but, realize that it makes you intellectually and emotionally dependent on a system of hierarchy that places you at the very bottom of it.
on the other hand, if you want a society of independent-minded, free-thinking people that don't need or want authority and desire to take matters into their own hands, then you should follow my advice.
i'm kind of an expert in dealing with bullies.
you need to throw it back in their face. you can't just match them, either, you have to escalate at every opportunity. and, you can't give them a chance, because they'll abuse it. you can't show any empathy - they'll just take it as weakness.
you'll find the odd masochist jock that isn't smart enough to develop a sense of self-worth and enjoys being berated because s/he sees the exchange as some kind of competition to win. these are the worst, but you have to win the competition. you might not particularly care for their respect, but getting it is the only way that they'll leave you alone.
for the rest of them, you have to aim to embarrass them and intimidate them into shutting the fuck up. you want to say the meanest, harshest things you can imagine. you want to go for the jugular and the crotch at the same time. and, you want them to walk out of the exchange so dazed and confused and shattered and broken that they'll never even look you in the eye again.
i don't like this. but i'm a realist. and it's reality.
you need to throw it back in their face. you can't just match them, either, you have to escalate at every opportunity. and, you can't give them a chance, because they'll abuse it. you can't show any empathy - they'll just take it as weakness.
you'll find the odd masochist jock that isn't smart enough to develop a sense of self-worth and enjoys being berated because s/he sees the exchange as some kind of competition to win. these are the worst, but you have to win the competition. you might not particularly care for their respect, but getting it is the only way that they'll leave you alone.
for the rest of them, you have to aim to embarrass them and intimidate them into shutting the fuck up. you want to say the meanest, harshest things you can imagine. you want to go for the jugular and the crotch at the same time. and, you want them to walk out of the exchange so dazed and confused and shattered and broken that they'll never even look you in the eye again.
i don't like this. but i'm a realist. and it's reality.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
a priori, i would guess that the congressional ethics committee is probably staffed by oil industry lobbyists and that it takes in a lot of money to churn out very little of value, when it isn't producing fraudulent reports to clear corrupt politicians in exchange for cash under the table.
self-regulation at work.
self-regulation at work.
i've long rejected the pessimist v optimist binary, and tend to enjoy making fun of people when they bring it up.
the way i see it is that pessimists and optimists both engage in magical thinking, and that the real binary is between magical thinking and realism.
and, i'm a realist.
i'm sorry if that makes you sad. but, you know. kill yourself, then.
the way i see it is that pessimists and optimists both engage in magical thinking, and that the real binary is between magical thinking and realism.
and, i'm a realist.
i'm sorry if that makes you sad. but, you know. kill yourself, then.
yeah.
when you see "national liberation army" in southeast asia, it's almost always maoist. and if it's maoist, it's a front for the prc.
the chinese back maoist terrorist groups in most of the countries in the region, including the heavily american colonized philippines (i know this is shifting..) and even in india. the fighting picking up after the election is likely not a coincidence.
this is the real story: what's happening in the south. that's where the shipping lanes area. it's where the oil comes from. korea is strategically important, but functionally useless - it's a distraction.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-army-high-alert-after-fierce-clashes-northern-myanmar-1592551
when you see "national liberation army" in southeast asia, it's almost always maoist. and if it's maoist, it's a front for the prc.
the chinese back maoist terrorist groups in most of the countries in the region, including the heavily american colonized philippines (i know this is shifting..) and even in india. the fighting picking up after the election is likely not a coincidence.
this is the real story: what's happening in the south. that's where the shipping lanes area. it's where the oil comes from. korea is strategically important, but functionally useless - it's a distraction.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chinese-army-high-alert-after-fierce-clashes-northern-myanmar-1592551
also, fwiw...
china doesn't really have a reason to attack japan or korea or taiwan, other than for defensive reasons. and, the expansion to the southeast is likewise purely defensive.
while the island chains to the south should have long term security concerns, the only country that should be seriously concerned about real chinese aggression is myanmar. if the chinese are going to go in anywhere, that's where they're going to go in. it would solve almost all of their problems....
china doesn't really have a reason to attack japan or korea or taiwan, other than for defensive reasons. and, the expansion to the southeast is likewise purely defensive.
while the island chains to the south should have long term security concerns, the only country that should be seriously concerned about real chinese aggression is myanmar. if the chinese are going to go in anywhere, that's where they're going to go in. it would solve almost all of their problems....
i did not say that the chinese will win, in the end. what i said is that they are smart and calculated, whereas america is arrogant and stupid. it may be easy to draw a false conclusion from that, but i would actually argue rather strenuously that the empirical evidence of historical fact is that brains are not necessarily an advantage over brawn. that is teleological. yes: civilization always wins in the end, but the barbarians actually usually can be converted only after they have seized power by force.
china should, and probably largely does, see the russians as the mongols - so let us not get lost in false equivalencies. the british/americans are a relatively new threat to the chinese. in the end, they may have to be conquered from the inside out.
china should, and probably largely does, see the russians as the mongols - so let us not get lost in false equivalencies. the british/americans are a relatively new threat to the chinese. in the end, they may have to be conquered from the inside out.
i just want to make something clear, because this is another thing that people get binary on.
i am neither pro-american, nor pro-russian, nor pro-chinese, nor pro-nato, nor pro-assad, nor pro-iran or even explicitly pro-canadian. but i am not explicitly anti-american, or anti-russian, or anti-chinese, or anti-israeli, or anti-arab or anti anything else, either.
i am explicitly anti-statist and anti-nationalist and anti-religious and anti-insularist, which means i am pro-people and pro-science and pro-secularism. and i suppose that opens me up to criticisms of being pro-western in some capacity, but only if you hold to the racist position that the other cultures on the planet are ignorant of science and incapable of progress. i would not seek to hold the arabs of the world to islamism any more than i would seek to hold europeans to christianity: i encourage them to move forwards. and, our shared history in greek philosophy rejects the premise that this is colonialism. likewise for eastern cultures, and even for indigenous ones.
i also want to point out that i would not correct you if you were to call me a globalist, even as i argue for an alternate concept of globalization that consolidates local economies and reduces global trade to necessities, if for no other reason than to reduce emissions. i was always alter, and never anti; the latter was always a strawman created by the media, and it's very sad to see how the projection eventually became a reality.
so, don't expect me to align with existing media narratives or pick sides in global conflicts. i'm not going to.
how about this for an analysis: the russians are weak, the americans are stupid and the chinese are capable and intelligent and calculated. these are not ethnic characteristics, but characteristics of the state. and, all of the states are evil. and, they're not obscure perceptions, either - even if i'm not interested in holding back punches at any target.
i am neither pro-american, nor pro-russian, nor pro-chinese, nor pro-nato, nor pro-assad, nor pro-iran or even explicitly pro-canadian. but i am not explicitly anti-american, or anti-russian, or anti-chinese, or anti-israeli, or anti-arab or anti anything else, either.
i am explicitly anti-statist and anti-nationalist and anti-religious and anti-insularist, which means i am pro-people and pro-science and pro-secularism. and i suppose that opens me up to criticisms of being pro-western in some capacity, but only if you hold to the racist position that the other cultures on the planet are ignorant of science and incapable of progress. i would not seek to hold the arabs of the world to islamism any more than i would seek to hold europeans to christianity: i encourage them to move forwards. and, our shared history in greek philosophy rejects the premise that this is colonialism. likewise for eastern cultures, and even for indigenous ones.
i also want to point out that i would not correct you if you were to call me a globalist, even as i argue for an alternate concept of globalization that consolidates local economies and reduces global trade to necessities, if for no other reason than to reduce emissions. i was always alter, and never anti; the latter was always a strawman created by the media, and it's very sad to see how the projection eventually became a reality.
so, don't expect me to align with existing media narratives or pick sides in global conflicts. i'm not going to.
how about this for an analysis: the russians are weak, the americans are stupid and the chinese are capable and intelligent and calculated. these are not ethnic characteristics, but characteristics of the state. and, all of the states are evil. and, they're not obscure perceptions, either - even if i'm not interested in holding back punches at any target.
Monday, January 2, 2017
"China has been taking out massive amounts of money & wealth from the U.S. in totally one-sided trade, but won't help with North Korea. Nice!"
the cluelessness is really overwhelming. but, as i mentioned months ago, the masses connect to this for the precise reason that it's a repetition of the propaganda that is designed for them - because he gets his information from the same sources.
it's less that he's stupid and more that he's brainwashed.
the guy is truly the bleater in chief.
baaaaaaa. baaaaaaaaa.
all he knows is what fox news told him.
what's the truth, here?
1) north korea is not an independent actor, and it's leadership does not make autonomous decisions. it is entirely dependent on everything from the chinese.
2) so, when the koreans grit their teeth like this, it is not because the chinese "won't help". it's a chinese tactic. the chinese are telling them to do this.
3) on the chess board, korea is a stalemate. there is no way forwards. nuclear weapons do not alter the character of the situation. that river is off limits from the chinese perspective. it was off limits 50 years ago, and it was off limits 500 years ago and it will be off limits 500 years from now. so, there is nothing that the americans can do without launching a war against the chinese.
when the north koreans pull it out and start swinging it around like this, it is always and only to create a distraction from other regional issues. right now, it seems like the chinese are trying to create a distraction in korea so that they can continue expanding, unmolested, in the south china sea.
the reason the americans always fall for it is that the potential for a threat is too great to ignore, even if it isn't actually real. this is an aspect of the stalemate: the americans can neither ignore the situation, nor can they ever resolve it.
if trump were going to carry through with the shift in policy that others have hoped he would carry through with, the solution would be to break the stalemate by withdrawing - to call the chinese bluff. he won't do this, though - because he's been brainwashed by hannity like all the other fucking sheep have been and is just as clueless as the rest of the idiots are.
the cluelessness is really overwhelming. but, as i mentioned months ago, the masses connect to this for the precise reason that it's a repetition of the propaganda that is designed for them - because he gets his information from the same sources.
it's less that he's stupid and more that he's brainwashed.
the guy is truly the bleater in chief.
baaaaaaa. baaaaaaaaa.
all he knows is what fox news told him.
what's the truth, here?
1) north korea is not an independent actor, and it's leadership does not make autonomous decisions. it is entirely dependent on everything from the chinese.
2) so, when the koreans grit their teeth like this, it is not because the chinese "won't help". it's a chinese tactic. the chinese are telling them to do this.
3) on the chess board, korea is a stalemate. there is no way forwards. nuclear weapons do not alter the character of the situation. that river is off limits from the chinese perspective. it was off limits 50 years ago, and it was off limits 500 years ago and it will be off limits 500 years from now. so, there is nothing that the americans can do without launching a war against the chinese.
when the north koreans pull it out and start swinging it around like this, it is always and only to create a distraction from other regional issues. right now, it seems like the chinese are trying to create a distraction in korea so that they can continue expanding, unmolested, in the south china sea.
the reason the americans always fall for it is that the potential for a threat is too great to ignore, even if it isn't actually real. this is an aspect of the stalemate: the americans can neither ignore the situation, nor can they ever resolve it.
if trump were going to carry through with the shift in policy that others have hoped he would carry through with, the solution would be to break the stalemate by withdrawing - to call the chinese bluff. he won't do this, though - because he's been brainwashed by hannity like all the other fucking sheep have been and is just as clueless as the rest of the idiots are.
if you're really a liberal, you're going to argue that political correctness is not important to you. and i will probably agree with you if you make that argument: this is wrong, but it's not important.
if you're ranting and railing against it, you're a racist. and i will not agree with you at all, if you make this argument: this is wrong, and it's very important.
if you're ranting and railing against it, you're a racist. and i will not agree with you at all, if you make this argument: this is wrong, and it's very important.
this is consolidated: youtube, bandcamp, blogspot. i've shut down the
delicious link dump, as it's superfluous after the move to blogspot and
it was pushing ads in the feed (gross). i'm on the brink of closing
down soundcloud, i just need to clear it out first. it's full of spam,
because you have to pay to turn the comments off. facebook uses a
proprietary feed algorithm, so they've been excluded by choice (that's just another reason to not use facebook).
i would also like to add disqus, but they don't support this, either.
i'm going to keep an eye out for a comment system that allows for rss
and i'll no doubt use it exclusively if it presents itself. in the mean time, this is as much as i can put together in one place.
http://www.rssmix.com/u/8219212/rss.xml
http://www.rssmix.com/u/8219212/rss.xml
what i'm wondering in the short-run is if i can convert one of these 250 gb drives into a pagefile. it would not be as fast, of course. but, it might potentially let me run a sampler.
this is entirely theoretical, right now: i haven't *actually* had an issue with a sampler that i can't resolve with the existing set-up. it's just that i see where the push factor is, and what's going to eventually force me to upgrade, one day. i'm going to eventually need more ram and have no choice...
this is entirely theoretical, right now: i haven't *actually* had an issue with a sampler that i can't resolve with the existing set-up. it's just that i see where the push factor is, and what's going to eventually force me to upgrade, one day. i'm going to eventually need more ram and have no choice...
as mentioned elsewhere, the only wall i've had to scale or think i will ever need to scale is in ram. the newer vst sample plugin libraries want 16+ gb of ram, and i'd need to get to 64-bit to do it. that's a potential driver nightmare. it's likely workable, i just don't want to do it until i have to.
i'd have to reimage, to start with. it took a long time to build that image, and i don't want to even think about it. but, i'd certainly use 64-bit xp, fwiw. there's no benefit in upgrading; i just keep the machine offline.
i'd have to reimage, to start with. it took a long time to build that image, and i don't want to even think about it. but, i'd certainly use 64-bit xp, fwiw. there's no benefit in upgrading; i just keep the machine offline.
there are currently 3 250 gb hdds in there. i bought it with four. it's split into a lot of partitions, including a 50 gb C: drive. one of the drives is solely for music, and that won't change. what i'm going to do is combine a lot of the smaller partitions together into a larger "discography" partition that will utilize the entire 2 TB drive. this will include things like wavs for burning cds and isos for burning dvds and blu-rays, as well as all of my source material, organized in iso files. so, it's all data storage.
as i move things to the new drive, it will open up space on the old drives. so, the remaining partitions (the virtual machine partition, the temp partition, the install script partition) will be able to grow. extra temp space will be useful, but it's otherwise not going to be much of a change.
as i move things to the new drive, it will open up space on the old drives. so, the remaining partitions (the virtual machine partition, the temp partition, the install script partition) will be able to grow. extra temp space will be useful, but it's otherwise not going to be much of a change.
actually, you know what? this is a moot point.
i'm not replacing my system partition; that is, my C: drive will remain on an older drive.
the new drive will neither launch the os, nor launch programs, nor do anything else that would be faster over ssd. it will simply store data.
i really just needed a lot more space.
i'm not replacing my system partition; that is, my C: drive will remain on an older drive.
the new drive will neither launch the os, nor launch programs, nor do anything else that would be faster over ssd. it will simply store data.
i really just needed a lot more space.
so, why is my machine such a fast boot and yours so slow?
well, it's 32-bit. my hardware specs are pretty much maxed for 32-bit. but if you're running 64-bit then yours might be better. if you have an old machine, you know it. it's probably not why.
the reason is probably that i keep my software footprint to a bare minimum. i run regular scripts to clear out caches. nothing loads on start-up - not even backup services. and, the machine has xp on it.
i'm not disputing the premise. but, if i got a 25% increase in speed from an ssd, that would take my start-up time from ten seconds to 7.5 seconds. it would take my cubase launch time from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
it hardly seems like it's worth the price, and the associated risk of using volatile storage on a system with very, very high data transfer rates.
what i needed was a lot of safe, permanent storage space. integrity. longevity. size. speed was not in the list of things that are of concern to me.
well, it's 32-bit. my hardware specs are pretty much maxed for 32-bit. but if you're running 64-bit then yours might be better. if you have an old machine, you know it. it's probably not why.
the reason is probably that i keep my software footprint to a bare minimum. i run regular scripts to clear out caches. nothing loads on start-up - not even backup services. and, the machine has xp on it.
i'm not disputing the premise. but, if i got a 25% increase in speed from an ssd, that would take my start-up time from ten seconds to 7.5 seconds. it would take my cubase launch time from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
it hardly seems like it's worth the price, and the associated risk of using volatile storage on a system with very, very high data transfer rates.
what i needed was a lot of safe, permanent storage space. integrity. longevity. size. speed was not in the list of things that are of concern to me.
fwiw, my machine boots in seconds, anyways. it's about a ten second boot-up. you read through reviews of ssds and it's things like:
outlook launches in less than 30 seconds
dude. i don't run outlook, but it would be launching in less than 30 seconds on my machine, trust me. cubase takes about 20 seconds to launch.
if your machine takes more than 30 seconds to launch fucking outlook, you need more than a solid state drive. you need ram. you need a faster cpu. and you probably need a fucking reinstall of your os, too.
thirty seconds to launch outlook. jesus. what is it, 1998?
outlook launches in less than 30 seconds
dude. i don't run outlook, but it would be launching in less than 30 seconds on my machine, trust me. cubase takes about 20 seconds to launch.
if your machine takes more than 30 seconds to launch fucking outlook, you need more than a solid state drive. you need ram. you need a faster cpu. and you probably need a fucking reinstall of your os, too.
thirty seconds to launch outlook. jesus. what is it, 1998?
Sunday, January 1, 2017
that article isn't opening for me. this one goes through the issues better - although the exaggeration around speed is comical. and, they talk about fragmentation as though it's the 1990s and they've never heard of a defrag.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404258,00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404258,00.asp
this is completely backwards. the most important issues when you're buying a drive are:
1) data integrity.
2) longevity.
3) size.
4) price.
while ssds might be faster on paper, you will never experience the difference.
i've thought about this, and i'll simply never warm to volatile data storage. it's a contradiction in terms. and i consequently don't expect ssds to win, in the end.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/battle-between-ssd-hdd-over-141508916.html
1) data integrity.
2) longevity.
3) size.
4) price.
while ssds might be faster on paper, you will never experience the difference.
i've thought about this, and i'll simply never warm to volatile data storage. it's a contradiction in terms. and i consequently don't expect ssds to win, in the end.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/battle-between-ssd-hdd-over-141508916.html
i think the answer is to stop using facebook.
i haven't used it much in years, myself.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/30/facebook-temporary-ban-kevin-sessums-trump-supporters
i haven't used it much in years, myself.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/30/facebook-temporary-ban-kevin-sessums-trump-supporters
also, i've been clear on this point in multiple spaces over a long period of time and don't wish to go over it again: i do not support a two-state agreement. rather, i've argued strenuously (and the evidence is right in front of you) that the so-called "peace process" is just an excuse to allow israel to continue it's colonization and genocide in palestine, with tacit and sometimes open approval by the united states, itself a colonial and genocidal state.
i do not support nationalist or exclusionary states in any context, and i think that the premise that israel has a right to build such a society is outrageous, racist and deserving of contempt in the harshest and strongest language possible. the palestinians rarely articulate their vision of the region using the kind of language that israel routinely does, but when they do it should be responded to accordingly.
in the end, there is only one possible outcome in the region: a single, secular state that abolishes special privilege based on language or ethnicity or religion. in such a state, palestinians must have the same rights as jews. and if that means that the state will not be jewish, then that is too fucking bad.
i do not support nationalist or exclusionary states in any context, and i think that the premise that israel has a right to build such a society is outrageous, racist and deserving of contempt in the harshest and strongest language possible. the palestinians rarely articulate their vision of the region using the kind of language that israel routinely does, but when they do it should be responded to accordingly.
in the end, there is only one possible outcome in the region: a single, secular state that abolishes special privilege based on language or ethnicity or religion. in such a state, palestinians must have the same rights as jews. and if that means that the state will not be jewish, then that is too fucking bad.
i think i've made the point well enough. people think in binary, and they jump to conclusions.
when i tell you i'm an anarchist, i mean it. i know that this is rare; i'm painfully aware of how rare it is. but, i'm legit. and i'm sorry if that disappoints you, but, you know, fuck you, then.
i don't like liberals very much. i've never identified as one. i've made that clear at every step of the way. but, i find conservatives to be contemptible and enraging. i merely dislike liberals; i actively despise conservatives. i find that they rarely have any redeemable qualities at all.
i essentially never find myself in a situation where i look at a conservative and say "ok, we disagree on this pile of things, but we agree on this, so let's put aside our differences and focus on our agreements.". i really disagree with them categorically, on pretty much every basis you can imagine. when i do find a level of commonality with a conservative, it's almost always on rights issues - and almost always the case that the person in front of me is not a conservative at all.
so, i'm never going to buy into a synthesis, on a personal basis. i'm an agitator. i'm the thesis. i'm the visionary, trying to rip society apart at it's seams. i'm what pushes progress forward through time. and, conservatism is the force that pushes back against me.
it's absolute. really. if there was common ground, i'd take it; there isn't any.
when i tell you i'm an anarchist, i mean it. i know that this is rare; i'm painfully aware of how rare it is. but, i'm legit. and i'm sorry if that disappoints you, but, you know, fuck you, then.
i don't like liberals very much. i've never identified as one. i've made that clear at every step of the way. but, i find conservatives to be contemptible and enraging. i merely dislike liberals; i actively despise conservatives. i find that they rarely have any redeemable qualities at all.
i essentially never find myself in a situation where i look at a conservative and say "ok, we disagree on this pile of things, but we agree on this, so let's put aside our differences and focus on our agreements.". i really disagree with them categorically, on pretty much every basis you can imagine. when i do find a level of commonality with a conservative, it's almost always on rights issues - and almost always the case that the person in front of me is not a conservative at all.
so, i'm never going to buy into a synthesis, on a personal basis. i'm an agitator. i'm the thesis. i'm the visionary, trying to rip society apart at it's seams. i'm what pushes progress forward through time. and, conservatism is the force that pushes back against me.
it's absolute. really. if there was common ground, i'd take it; there isn't any.
the boots were something that i needed anyways; i also picked myself up a new 2 TB hard drive for the recording machine this afternoon as my christmas/b-day gift to myself, with a combination of money sent to me and money saved from a quiet december.
i bought the recording pc in 2006 with four 250 gb hard drives. three of them are still spinning. the fourth melted into itself in march, 2014 (i couldn't have saved it...rather, i should be happy that it didn't take the whole machine down, or start an apartment fire).
the immediate purpose of the new drive is going to be to store the entire discography, including period discs with vlogs. i'm going to be working on this in the new year, so i did need this, now - i've waited long enough. but, as i work this through, i'm also going to be converting the drives into permanent storage. there's still not any way to get 100 or 200 gb on a disc; these 250 gb drives will ultimately be ideal storage solutions.
so, what that means is that i've now begun what will likely be a lengthy process of swapping out drives. in the end, all four of those 250 gb drives should be replaced by 2 TB drives.
it's a dual core 3.6. yes, it's ten years old. and, i actually *have* had a few reasons to think about upgrading to 64-bit, specifically issues around RAM. but, i still see no reason at all why i'd want a faster processor than that, and don't see why i ever will. i was aware that the technology was hitting a plateau around ten years ago, and that it was going to take fundamental shift to break through it; that machine could very well last another 20 or 30 years, so i'm comfortable in committing to a long term plan around upgrading it.
i bought the recording pc in 2006 with four 250 gb hard drives. three of them are still spinning. the fourth melted into itself in march, 2014 (i couldn't have saved it...rather, i should be happy that it didn't take the whole machine down, or start an apartment fire).
the immediate purpose of the new drive is going to be to store the entire discography, including period discs with vlogs. i'm going to be working on this in the new year, so i did need this, now - i've waited long enough. but, as i work this through, i'm also going to be converting the drives into permanent storage. there's still not any way to get 100 or 200 gb on a disc; these 250 gb drives will ultimately be ideal storage solutions.
so, what that means is that i've now begun what will likely be a lengthy process of swapping out drives. in the end, all four of those 250 gb drives should be replaced by 2 TB drives.
it's a dual core 3.6. yes, it's ten years old. and, i actually *have* had a few reasons to think about upgrading to 64-bit, specifically issues around RAM. but, i still see no reason at all why i'd want a faster processor than that, and don't see why i ever will. i was aware that the technology was hitting a plateau around ten years ago, and that it was going to take fundamental shift to break through it; that machine could very well last another 20 or 30 years, so i'm comfortable in committing to a long term plan around upgrading it.
the fundamental theorem of communism is not that capitalism and socialism are in conflict, and that socialism must destroy capitalism. rather, the fundamental theorem of communism is that capitalism will inevitably evolve into communism - and there is nothing capitalists can do to stop it.
once again: i am not a historical materialist. i don't believe in historical inevitability, and one must believe in it as it is an article of faith. but, i do believe that marx had deep insight in understanding that capitalism will eventually require fewer and fewer workers, and therefore be unable to sustain itself.
all your talk about "entrepreneurialism" is just an upper class bubble. it's a fictional reality, based on economic bubbles and only-exists-on-paper delusions and fantasies.
reality is that the real economy continues to contract, that capitalism remains in decline, that it's still on a collision course with collapse and that it will wipe out your make believe bourgeois world when the crash finally comes.
and good riddance.
once again: i am not a historical materialist. i don't believe in historical inevitability, and one must believe in it as it is an article of faith. but, i do believe that marx had deep insight in understanding that capitalism will eventually require fewer and fewer workers, and therefore be unable to sustain itself.
all your talk about "entrepreneurialism" is just an upper class bubble. it's a fictional reality, based on economic bubbles and only-exists-on-paper delusions and fantasies.
reality is that the real economy continues to contract, that capitalism remains in decline, that it's still on a collision course with collapse and that it will wipe out your make believe bourgeois world when the crash finally comes.
and good riddance.
clueless article.
the left is not about workers' movements. that is a means to an end. the left is about ownership of production. and, technology is leading us directly into communism.
communism is not a society run by a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a society operated around full automation. and, marx was always very clear: the revolution can only ever occur in the MODE of production.
we're in truth closer than we've ever been. a crisis of a specific sort could quickly change the rules forever.
i'm on strike while i wait it out. there's no other way forward: the system will collapse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/george-poulakidas/left-platform-capitalism_b_13895652.html
the left is not about workers' movements. that is a means to an end. the left is about ownership of production. and, technology is leading us directly into communism.
communism is not a society run by a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a society operated around full automation. and, marx was always very clear: the revolution can only ever occur in the MODE of production.
we're in truth closer than we've ever been. a crisis of a specific sort could quickly change the rules forever.
i'm on strike while i wait it out. there's no other way forward: the system will collapse.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/george-poulakidas/left-platform-capitalism_b_13895652.html
i finally got some winter boots today for the first time in years. it doesn't seem to snow half as much here as it does in ottawa, so i haven't needed them, really. but we got a good dump a few weeks ago, which reminded me i should have something in case i *do* need them. i've had to trudge through snow drifts in running shoes in the past, and it....it destroys your shoes. you get boots to save your shoes.
but, the reason i'm posting is to update on a running gag i've had in place for years. i got a good deal, yet again, by buying kid's boots on sale. how small are my feet?
a children's size 6 - made for roughly 6 year olds - was actually just a little bit too big. i got them instead of the 5.5's, which were a closer fit, in case i wanted to double or triple up on socks....
if they were shoes, i would have got 5.5's. so, i can for real buy shoes made for 5 or 6 year olds. i just did. and i'm about 5' 9" - relatively tall, actually.
i've continually pointed to a few biological gender markers like this. i don't think gender is genetic, i think it's a social construct. so, i reject the idea that being trans is a genetic condition (which is the actual scientific consensus, outside of religious circles on the left and right). but, if you pay close attention to trans people, you *will* notice these kinds of things that make you wonder if the rejection of a monolithic social construct around gender does *sometimes*, or *often*, have coincidental biological causes. for me, the things i've noticed most prominently are a lack of body hair in certain regions (i've never grown a hair on my chest, ever) and hand and feet sizes that are pretty unambiguously not-male.
hormones don't change your shoe size, of course. but 36 year-old grown ass men don't fit into shoes made for 6 year-olds very often, either. that's an entirely biological observation, and one that almost never applies to dudes.
i'm not suggesting we should go around measuring kids' feet and assigning them gender roles based on it. i'm just a little hesitant to declare my absurdly small feet to be coincidental to my gender identity and would point geneticists to markers like this if they want to find something. that's more evidence, to me, of a biological cross-wiring than any desire to wear a specific kind of clothing.
i actually hope i never have to wear them. but i'm glad i have the option.
but, the reason i'm posting is to update on a running gag i've had in place for years. i got a good deal, yet again, by buying kid's boots on sale. how small are my feet?
a children's size 6 - made for roughly 6 year olds - was actually just a little bit too big. i got them instead of the 5.5's, which were a closer fit, in case i wanted to double or triple up on socks....
if they were shoes, i would have got 5.5's. so, i can for real buy shoes made for 5 or 6 year olds. i just did. and i'm about 5' 9" - relatively tall, actually.
i've continually pointed to a few biological gender markers like this. i don't think gender is genetic, i think it's a social construct. so, i reject the idea that being trans is a genetic condition (which is the actual scientific consensus, outside of religious circles on the left and right). but, if you pay close attention to trans people, you *will* notice these kinds of things that make you wonder if the rejection of a monolithic social construct around gender does *sometimes*, or *often*, have coincidental biological causes. for me, the things i've noticed most prominently are a lack of body hair in certain regions (i've never grown a hair on my chest, ever) and hand and feet sizes that are pretty unambiguously not-male.
hormones don't change your shoe size, of course. but 36 year-old grown ass men don't fit into shoes made for 6 year-olds very often, either. that's an entirely biological observation, and one that almost never applies to dudes.
i'm not suggesting we should go around measuring kids' feet and assigning them gender roles based on it. i'm just a little hesitant to declare my absurdly small feet to be coincidental to my gender identity and would point geneticists to markers like this if they want to find something. that's more evidence, to me, of a biological cross-wiring than any desire to wear a specific kind of clothing.
i actually hope i never have to wear them. but i'm glad i have the option.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
i'm not the prime minister, and wouldn't project the idea that we have much in common or would come to the same conclusion on this. but, the resolution was actually pretty timid given the realities on the ground. and, the thing i'm revolted by is ms. raitt's brash politicization of an important global issue and use of dog whistle anti-arab racism in her comments that muslims are incapable of building a democracy (it's not true. it's racist.).
canada has always been better than that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/28/lisa-raitt-justin-trudeau-israel_n_13874936.html
canada has always been better than that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/28/lisa-raitt-justin-trudeau-israel_n_13874936.html
he'll figure it out eventually, of course. but, perhaps not before he gives america something it wants in exchange for goodwill. so, watch that space. it's going to define just how stupid the man really is, and whether russia's own deep state has had enough of him or not - because this is far too obvious to fall for, and consequently should not be forgiven.
how's that for soft power?
ahahahahaha
i haven't seen smiley dmitry in a while.
how's that for soft power?
ahahahahaha
i haven't seen smiley dmitry in a while.
i am not retreating from my previous analysis: the deep state fucked up hard, and trump is going to be a disaster. but i will acknowledge that sending putin trump may have actually been the only way to get him to pull back from syria, which is something the americans desperately need, right now.
don't be fooled by the narrative that trump is working for russia. that's the psy-op. at first, i thought they were trying to take trump down (having served his purpose of keeping clinton out of power, trump is now useless to the deep state), and in the end, they still might. but it's becoming clearer that the actual goal is to get into putin's pants and manipulate him into doing what they want.
you don't order the russians around. that doesn't work. you need to get buddy-buddy with them.
and, it's transparent, as everything the cia does always is. so, this conflict you're seeing develop where senior russians are pushing back and yelling at putin not to fall for it is a real thing. but, he is falling for it. just like he fell for the distraction in ukraine (until he didn't).
don't be fooled by the narrative that trump is working for russia. that's the psy-op. at first, i thought they were trying to take trump down (having served his purpose of keeping clinton out of power, trump is now useless to the deep state), and in the end, they still might. but it's becoming clearer that the actual goal is to get into putin's pants and manipulate him into doing what they want.
you don't order the russians around. that doesn't work. you need to get buddy-buddy with them.
and, it's transparent, as everything the cia does always is. so, this conflict you're seeing develop where senior russians are pushing back and yelling at putin not to fall for it is a real thing. but, he is falling for it. just like he fell for the distraction in ukraine (until he didn't).
if i wasn't clear...
look at this language carefully.
"I always knew he was very smart!"
it's the kind of language you hear from a used cars salesman, after he's sold you a car he knows is going to need thousands of dollars worth of work - or perhaps an art dealer, after she's sold you that abstract representation of a sneeze that's been sitting on the wall for thirty years.
what trump means to say is twofold.
1) he's succesfully grabbed putin by the pussy.
2)....because poor vlad is just not that bright.
look at this language carefully.
"I always knew he was very smart!"
it's the kind of language you hear from a used cars salesman, after he's sold you a car he knows is going to need thousands of dollars worth of work - or perhaps an art dealer, after she's sold you that abstract representation of a sneeze that's been sitting on the wall for thirty years.
what trump means to say is twofold.
1) he's succesfully grabbed putin by the pussy.
2)....because poor vlad is just not that bright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)