Potheads remember eternity: Political state forgets itself

Through the celebrating the everlasting life:

Potheads remember eternity:
Political state forgets itself on this account;

Potheads do God's endless praise duty:
Political state is lazy on this account;

Potheads can think worldly affairs in a perfect systematic equilibrium:
Political state is inefficient on this account;

Sober judgment is forgetful;
Sober judgment is lazy;
Sober judgment is inefficient.

Moreover, we already knew as much across discrimination and emancipation as to consider not to prefer the semantic at auction rather than as inalienably governed.

It was the system of slave-making as was disrespectful, lacking integrity, and being untruthful, not the slave.

Anew, since civil rights, they discuss their human condition; with eyes, afresh, for what was previously, to them, blind; not alone in truth, integrity, and respect, celebrating, in their inalienable protection, values of the human spirit besides than as can be laid claim to by semantic expression typifying their worth.

What lies ahead in discussions of memory, effort, and wherewithal, must surely be a mystery and a spoiler alert but only for those who are not already learning. 

This Year's Budget: A Slapstick Canon Ball Run Without Anything to Secure Safety or Fairness

Austerity proves evil can't hide behind the grotesque poetic justice sought to justify its being proposed. Language is not short of words. The world is not short of cash. They're playing a counting game with a point scoring system that doesn't check the reward of evil.  Fundamental imperatives and priorities are in the spotlight as differences in interpretation concern a valued perspective deriving from sovereign, republican, and reporting duties. What difference this years budget makes remains to be seen.

Controlling hymn sheets while preaching to a choir who already know the tune and the piper paid; a slapstick canon ball run, testing the faith of the choir preached to: is there theft in the intellect stakes? Point at the poor! Is there fraud in the economy? Point at the poor! Is there cheating going on? Point at the poor! Pointing at everyone each in turn, covering all bases so as to have no naysayers or detracters, as who might not but on their knees find their first step to argue back, eventually the finger comes around to point also at themselves, and pointing at retards is no way to paper over the cracks!

Warning signs and alarm bells were ignored in favour of singing austerity's praises, and losses were cut for the faith of a generation. But, they were only praising patent evil to guard against rocking a boat of what were by then already sunk costs. When faced with the shame of information age conditions of transparency, the entire human race were considered in be in some sort of receivership. And, this, only to avoid their impending and inevitable moral bankruptcy. Taking their distraction at face value, they lauded themselves with mutual self-appreciation, not knowing they were praising evil.

If to examine the rationale for the imperative of a mood of control, it seems impossible to escape its self-defeating futility. Rather than release secrets, instead by sharing every access to information, while lacking any fundament to protect privacy, they decided they were gonna follow newly mobilised capital with mobilising the species' labour markets and hope that emigration would cover it up. Cover-up through mass mobilisation: if you move the money around no one might ever count it as missing! If the classroom is placed in a carnival act and spun around in a circle, then no one will notice the bullshit on the blackboard is incredulously disbelievable!

Behold the age of mobility of the species, where World War trips over racism's last hurrah for a 100,000 years of isolation of the races of diverse ethnic backgrounds...And, this new mobility is used adding to adventure, displacement, as a cover-up of market failure. And, not having a game-plan, besides, for facing the music when sharing information transparently: in a cost-benefit analysis of mobility upon a sphere, emigration is seen as an adequate cover-up, also, of market failure. Patent evil from the same sources -  like they either knew it was consciousness preferring of these things or they didn't? What's helped is finance and banking, what's hurt is equality and fairness. Repeating the same mistakes of World War II, our approach to the information age as to the technological era, is shockingly lacking awareness and appreciation, a far cry from the consciousness of the era which ought accompany such widgetry, to herald its benefits.

Space and time being no object -in an information age- is seen as scope to provide no systematic limit of returns to scale for global dominance on a sphere of ignorance. And, any old time warp to drachonia will justify austerity's legislative complacency, associating law with a convenient ignorance of its power as a money spinner, as license, to exploit resources and populations.

A slapstick canon ball run carnival of production, papering over the cracks by having capitalism point instead at all the retards on welfare. I can't see you capitalism, you're covering your eyes! Where is all the fraud, theft and cheating? Ah sure just point at the poor! Language is short of words! I was going to use the word fairness but it was taken. I was going to use the word equality but it was taken. Language must be short of words that we just don't know how to apply 'patronisation' to 'spoon feeding' and find out what patent bullshit we're being fed!

Ransomware - W.H.O could do such a thing?

That disease would attack a moral position of a human behaviour in sexual reproduction -considerable as an underclass of stances or positions, to argue its purpose or function- and humankind not be vigilante, to be watchful upon nature so as that any equivalence of any scruple of her own design might not be misrepresented; images of cops are used in a revealing and telling scruple, as ought seem, surely, as needs must gather, and to answer to a call of nature, as which call asks to be viewed seriously, and appropriately, as unto nothing more than a divine joke, being, albeit, as a grotesquely unfunny and inconvenient one, as that which brings the phenomenon of ransomware to our attention as internet users.

Economists must be pursing their lips to discuss the purpose of money anew, now that ransomware can catch people wanking and ask for a fee to be paid for the pleasure of being watched while doing so. Is there no better purpose for the existence of money, than for us to assume that this must, surely, be what god, originally, intended it for; or else, that we might in its light immediately wish sooner to go back to its drawing board with a new idea. Or, are they just practicing for the bigger stakes in a protectionism letting us know how things work in those such higher places - and, as we might already know, perhaps?

I personally don't have an idea why money is meaningful, besides than to stave off destroying the world tomorrow, and, again, off, until the next day, when that comes...but that, perpetually, capitalism would seem to have no better founding for its point-scoring game -as seems without a counting system, overall, to be able to manage just fine. And, without needing a better reason to count things, as valued; yet, by half, by rote, and by system, not either providing for the needs of the people, and so deciding to starve them  instead.

If there's a moral to this story -that the system exists- that parameter as by which this such state of affairs can be allowed to manifest is surely sooner in the frame, and for wider interests of justice, than that ever a perp might be caught, someday, and so lead to the assumption that the public might be convinced that its such issue were taken care of. But, this, yet, ever-allowing for worse things, seeming on a slippery slope, and, getting more of a nuisance, each time, as it changes form.

Per word per minute assessing both paragraphs above for equal measure, and time-well-spent doing another man's labour: for it must, surely, seem obvious that I have been recruited, as commissioned, to review this phenomenon, by the makers of it, directly. And, this must mean that I have some important new role or position, as doing nothing else, in the universe, besides directing the voices in my head to separate the imaginary cops, as exist, besides, in their fiction, from this such a thing, as can be distanced from none of their deceptions, besides, as which none are being mistaken for. if that doesn't make any sense, then what did they want, exactly - evidence of a cum-stained rag?

Clearly, reading from this situation, a counter-threat virus ought develop into the 'lawyers' strain of the same game, and then their 'associates', and their 'associates further'; until they each might argue back and forth for liability exclusion and indemnity, or whatever tends to be good for this such sort of situation:- as i'm quite sure that none of those were involving with my desires to begin with, as might have had ruled, or governed, anything which i might have had had shame, repression, or guilt, for, so as to tap into, and, as a gap in any market niche, which any other person might exploit or benefit from, whether prospectively or otherwise; and, considering the progress and development of all humankind, in respect of which consideration,...

....we each now know: PayPal is not the only means, online, of electronic transfer of money; badges, crosses, and shields (amongst other pins and meddles besides) exist for representing cops; and law could not be gifted with a better online presence...no matter whether television-fiction-cops aren't -either- real, but that television ratings of people -fearing the terror of their freedom being threatened on a nightly basis, five-times-an-evening, reciting Mirandas, and learning how to conscienate 'address' and 'name' in relation to intonation and inflection, which rota they might compare its such slacking demand in the nouveau regime's medium. They cannot -but- be thankful for the mention, and, in such a benevolent advertising atmosphere, nonetheless. Not like television would claim their hands were entirely clean of any involvement in making television's presence of cops themselves, anyway - so why ought cops even be in the frame for a convincing denial of either of any such issue?

If they wanted to clean up crime on television they would have taken cop shows off the schedule, for one thing. But, nobody seems to be able to play cop like that, in the schedule-making-department, and to see its proposition as anything of a prospect of vote-grabbing -or winning popular ascent- for the rules already deciding, and for the physical realm of the surface of planet earth, and its governance. If they wanted to get rid of wanking they might have had invented sex-robots. besides, it would seem. But, then they aren't hinting at that being the route that the industry of online porn might -just in any hurry- be going down. Just showing everyone -at least once- by the drop-down-list of menu items, in the list of national sovereign titles, their such moral-code-enforcing police force logo; and relating other possible online credit systems seems to be much of the purpose served:- besides than as to be pleased by a business plan as which lauds its prospect, to its board, announceable, as merely within the lower-than-a-handful of percentage points of uptake in its revenue
possibilities, to return anything on its investment...

...somebody thinks that human behaviour can be moderated with viruses.

Hollywood would like to know -from Congress- whether this would be such a thing as would be a lawful response to copyright infringement - to attack it with, purposely. Are they implicitly asking if that such somebody mentioned above knows if there would be a 'director', maybe, or a 'plot', perhaps, to this such movie - or is someone knowingly playing God with our value systems, and, while yet also getting rich, and while unsupportable, politically, except to implicate the world -and their mother- as having had been involved with, or agreed to, something, along the way of its progress and development, but also to have had installed in their exit strategy a means to explaining their scruple as also having had plausibly invented AIDS?

W.H.O, could do such a thing!

Guide to Being Productive as a Hactivist on Facebook

Make 'agent provocateur' jokes.

If anyone recognises you, claim identity theft, and shout, stop thief!

Between Facebooking: Watching porn.

Feed the ass that law is -carrots- and then see who spots the lack of apples fed to horses.

False-flag conflict-and-tension-stirring need not pass the book, as its already moving.

Initiate class-imitative learning in consumer rational behaviour, so as both sides can interpret but only one another, and thus blame anything but market commerce for one another's humanity (or lack thereof) toward each other.

Engage needless witchhunts teaching moral panic how to react in the event of any science besides than the jobs-for-the-boys, big-budget-sciences, as have already politicians in the pocket for legal backings to fool the masses with.

Complain about the morality of children viewing porn, but don't even look at the science of adults viewing it beforehand.

Make some copyright laws, making some poor peons think about their sofas. Like its some insider joke. Nobody can count all of the money with a counting machine, even, as pervasive, as the internet. What of the pennies that get lost down the back of the couch for example. You see- copyright might be on to something. Roll down a shore?

Leave probabilities and protectionism to the pros. Or was it don't this? Which is more likely a taxation policy? Which is more likely to be Christian? What pressure to relate with the scope to interpret either?

When the poor complain of the inadequacy of exacting an emotive response, to emotional bondage, through emotional blackmail:- wipe their ass with sandpaper, and then ask them to pay up for the DIY costs incuring. But never tell them to whom need be any question -because they are poor- and everyone knows poor people's emotive capacity is biological distinct from rich people's - or was that their taste in music?

In just war, depicted through piety and violence in 'jus ad bellum', as 'warlikeness' only and not 'warfulness', describing war's horrors is always the best card pruddishness has, as a substitute, to avoid discussions of carnal knowledge.

The back of the herd are assuming of those who find time to read ancient things - who's quickest out in front, then - but the choo choo as ran away hasn't but only a fireman to hire to ring the bell and all is well - that's no hurry justified, now, is it - i don't even see any burning of the books, let alone justifications of them, let alone proof of expertise requiring to notice them.

If 'bread on the table' is too far-fetched a value to justify copyright by, then tell them its because the burgers are missing from the buns -that we don't recognise its politics as being as conspicuously lacking -as it is- as cross referenceable -but for mutual exploitation agreements.

Automate a shadow web so as to play everyone's and anyone's imagination versus themselves - thus ensuring all profits can win the race to the printing press and patent office given sufficient spying software.

Only superman can win this game of avoidance of promotional waves of technological propesnity to consume information on a technological sphere nominally determined by faux determinacy - you must watch - the television you are missing besides depends upon it.

The thief mentioned above wasn't the man holding the axe here.

If you don't compete others will - think about it...fundamentally, after discrimination contemplations -at length- bearing models of emancipation of the masses.

Map grammar to AI and stop complaining the gods don't have a voice. design one, and know to whom praise can be made.

Spying on a newsreaders to do list is not fortunetelling or prophecy but that the magic wand of the crystal ball is sooner revealing to the alchemist, who's work is not yet complete, and they won't tell you this. its therefore not their gold outright yet, is it? you can always go back and work for them after your laboratory experiments have shown promise without compromising the alchemist's dream.

Deep throat wants to do Anglo - does he even have a rod for that sort of thing?

NASA is not the governments control room, nor is the military. News rooms are where the information processes, and yet the half of it they don't tell us cannot be beyond their curiosity to, either. no wonder they think themselves so important. they probably are.

Dick and fanny went to the farm that day to see if cock and pussy were there. is this story bordering on innuendo yet?

To build a terminator robot, step one: lynx cans are artificial glands.

If you can't tell green and white issues have taken over from black and white issues, then what was so clear to you in the first place?

By comedians not laughing seeming funnier, what emotive expression was the joke onto to begin?

To a propagandist, everything tastes like chicken. to a realist, every person contains corn - but then that tells you something about the joke mentioned above too. don't ask don't tell; anyone who disagrees is either a liar or a fool; and to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Law is not logical these days, as having a gun to your head, even figuratively, never was, but in the show business of live studio performance, where the audience are at home and your family could possibly be your worry, concern, and distraction in oblivion.

State secrets train the audience to witch-hunt, when do we get to see the witches of science and art instead of merely government trained spies?

Maintain intermittently a second coming, or an alien invasion as prophecy, if only for the sakes of variation while AI remains elusive but on the horizon, and God was never not there, if anyone bothered looking.

Making friends with celebrity is one way of maintaining show business throughout the renaissance of the information age. it surely is propping up something of mutual interest.

If Auschwitz were on a motherboard of a grand counting machine that would be the earth, it would be preparing for the day when wanking is made illegal and internet porn records are the papers required to get on the train.

When the Messianic complex gets more messy, its really gets simple. don't forget there's a pilot in the model for a reason. god knows all things and at all times.

The philosophical differences of ethics of revelation in spheres of espionage must be less boring than either instance as item as issue. Can't its study also go on in secret, but to publicise at will?

If its only a toy gun, then why not also only do it on a toy plane?

Given sufficient reading of diverse fields of empirically observable phenomena, its not hard to work out that we are behind schedule, evolving, culturally, to emancipate ourselves; that is, if god has any plan at all, and law need bend to it, to maintain its sovereign claims.

If we don't apply class rights, we cannot complain of class warfare being an elusive thing to bring peace to.

The Fundaments of Geometry Maintain at Proportion

The fundaments of geometry maintain at proportion; however, proportions yet maintain themselves within limits - so as to make for a workable industry in nature, which shows perspectives for its features as standpoints for schooled thought, from which then to argue their cause of best-praise-suiting, for the worship of their beliefs, that humankind might argue to repesent their cause.

 

The size of the universe limits: Where gravity limits, weight best suits those proportions as are lesser in the design of structure than certain limits, and materials limit themselves under such weight constrictions so as to show upper limits in each such material as possible. Arches and buttresses in building cathedrals cannot be too large; bridges cannot be too large; skyscrapers can only with certain technologies be so tall; and, ships can only be so large before materials and their buoyancy limit their size.

The size of human agency limits: Where manipulability of agency of designer limits (before the silicon revolution),  precision best suits the greater proportion clockwork as fingers limit the size of manipulability of parts, as Galileo noted in the opening of his Dialogue (long before the modern day witch-hunts of hackers in the realm of micro-computers and the internet).  

Using the analogy of escape velocity to guide us, we can see that there are conceptual limitations going on which demand that an object if designed well ought to withstand its function, and within obvious design constraints concerning endurability and weight. But it hasn't always been rocket science deciding these such concepts are best chosen for in limiting archicture. What are the various limitations which, questions, which when striven toward their answers, have driven forward the design of more earthly things? Archways: if it’s going to stay up as a bridge; if it’s going to stay up as a buttress; if it’s going to stay up as an arch. Towers: if it’s going to stay up as a skyscraper. Buoyant craft: ‘Least weight’ and ‘greatest endurance’ describe logistical limitations as must be worked with in designing aeronautic and space crafts, respecting choice materials as are available to invent and design with. ‘Gravity designed in the universe’ - would seem the conclusive limitation, but where new materials are discovered this limitation would seem to be but contingent upon a necessary relationship lurking besides.

Physical bias - the perspective of storms on spheres and universal ratios

Gravity builds certain sized spheres and certain sized storms or weather systems on those spheres. If as a result of a gravitational force field certain sized objects emerge, then those such objects are expressions of something fundamental to gravity. The size and mass of types of stars are limited; you might not have more storms on a sphere than as are normally observable, and not more in a season than as would normally be observable, but that exceptions would arise. Why then do the norms exist? What’s so special about a sphere of given size that it ought only carry so many storms, at one time, and per season? What ratios arise that this be an expression of the mixture of forces which are responsible for all things in the universe as anthropically observable?

Corporeal bias - The perspective of the ingenuity of nature and universal ratios


Nature uses certain types of materials and certain types of tissues emerge from the swamp evolved. Ants carry leaves a hundred times their own weight. What makes ants legs and jaws so strong?

 

Sure geometry maintains at proportion but nature and spheres are always intriguing in their such limitations to make such that it would seem to interest even after all necessity and congtingency would be argued for the pure and applied science as a mathematics, that the area still yet be a subject for much political swaying sides to stake in those such proportions, however falsely, but that it would seem open to discussion, or worse taken by presumption to be a stronghold of such political bias that proportions exist at all.

A square is a square is a square: whether as a postage stamp, a football field, or as the four corners of the globe. That a fourth square at the four solstice and equinox points of the earth's orbit might seem roughly to exist, doesn’t mean that the resolve of any dispute at  any of each other proportion is unto any another God, and ruler of geometry, besides that is sought its praise in His faith. What makes those ant legs so strong in nature?

Realmic bias - The perspective of a higher Realm and proportion, toward which all things evolve within their limits

The higher proportion is that toward which evolution strives to spur us on. The higher Realm is also that toward which evolution strives to spur us on. Higher stronger faster traits of character of competitors in natures hunting grounds make for more durable species in natural selection. Higher than the ocean is the beach, higher than the beach the land and air above; and higher than these then awaits space , and no less a challenge than previous realms to be conquered for the little microbial grubs first climbing out of the swamp. 

Divine bias - The perspective of a higher Lord and force, toward which all things evolving give praise endlessly

The higher Lord is that toward which our faith strives to spur us on. The higher force is also that toward which competition strives to spur us on, not to mistake His as its only due rightful praise. The mysteries of competition and evolution are not yet finished discussing that such content of their respective fields that intellect seems bound yet by any resolve. The discussion to politicize the greater proportion would seem to show scope, but perhaps yet in a somewhat presumptuous standing, if at all as outright so assuming it. Spheres and storms, in their physical environments, describe features, as evolution shows reflecting in a Nature, and in such materials as are hers to choose from, when designing life. We are made in the image of a higher God. A higher Realm and higher proportion limit their progress, as things evolve, to give praise to a higher Lord and higher force. That which praises Him better, or praises better His nature , as best representative of those such higher realm ideas, seems to do better in natural selection, albeit as a butterfly yet outlives a dinosaur, despite its fragile, frail physical frame compared to that such brute force and bulk of tyranny.

Of Spheres and their storms, higher Lords and their higher forces, ruling; of Nature and its materials, higher Realms and higher proportions, evolving; proportions limit things in the universe progressing, anthropically, to seem only as they might ever be observable. Despite the many infinities and their limitations in standpoints and perspectives of Physical Corporeal Realmic Divine biases as might discuss their such politic endlessly, The Fundaments of Geometry Maintain at Proportion.

Anything but Real

Do you want me
To find a rock and crawl beneath it?
Or do you want me
To scrape the earth of dirt and eat it?
Or do you want me
To want you?


There’s times you hold me
Responsible for all your sadness,
And then you hold me
To ransom in a state of madness;
When I just need you
To hold me.


When you want, and you need,
When you wish, and you feel,
Never coincide with anything that’s real.
Never coincidental; anything but real.


So you tell me
To find someone to tell I love her,
And you tell me
The last is gone but I’ll recover;
When I just wish that
You’d told me.


If it’s over
All the things I’ve said and done to you,
Or it’s over
Everything I am and could be for you;
Then it feels like
It’s over.

The Dragon - An Unexpected Property Owner

 

I saw the film pictured above (The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey) yesterday and it left me more worried about the power of metaphor in literature than the worth of contract between warring fictional species. This is interesting as it can be missed how funny the joke of a dragon owning property is, especially when the dragon is considerable as a metaphor for all the jealously guarded gold in the world, all in a room doing nothing.

Yet that it is the cause of such misery, retrospectively, and such antagonism, contemporarily, not to mention all that moves for good and evil to restore any balance, the mood of any legal discussion seems condemned, if not to be condemning. Its stance is forced to seem aloof and oblvious to the implications, at one and the same time, of its lack of stance in a real world, a world where gold still has the same useless meaning as it does in the fiction, whether its value is real or not.

If it seems ridiculous that a dragon can have property, and there is even the slightest suggestion that law ought not recognise its property rights, then by implication -considering the metaphor- the legal stance ought be reflected upon for what this implicates in real life economics, and all in the good time of its own progress, of course. A legal stance ought not affirm a place for any economic system -encroaching on the otherwise scientific value of any such element of the periodic table - for a monetary value as something law would openly condone (rather than hesitantly be forced to deal with if at all).

This is all while its monetary value - being an economic fiction - in such a hypothetical scientific context viewed is of a different concern in deciding its stance than is law's. The various realities of others valuing our work done, economically, and profiting from it, the universe making sense, scientifically, and what we can say about these such things, legally, making sense, needn't be stances as are each so wary of one another's main concerns in order to get their own job done.

Legalities needn’t exist in the scientific world dictating what is scientifically possible within bounds of heresy. Science needn’t exist in the legal world dictating what is legally possible within bounds of revolution. Economics needn’t exist in the world of science and law, forever balancing such a relationship, and calling that such balance, if only but figuratively referring to it, limitingly, the price of gold.

[First posted as response to the following article on the irish website for human rights, Cearta.ie: <http://www.cearta.ie/2012/12/the-contract-in-the-hobbit/>]

The State of 21st Century Busking in Ireland

If you fear for your safety - and run - and they're role is made to protect you - you're in the wrong, for fearing for it so in their hands?!!! Tale told, of said incident, on said day, 'the man absconded from the scene'...arresting 'a man on the run'. Tale portrayed on video, however; fear for our lives, in their hands, has us know better an instinct in our natures; "the man feared for his safety in the hands of those sworn to protect it, and his instinct lead him to believe his safety better protected by making distance between himself and the unreasonable threat". Which instincts cannot be argued with, when faced with irreasonability, turning violent, as is sworn to protect and uphold peace. Who's to teach our insincts to suppress? Who's to suppress our desires to learn? What suppression is this?

If a gunman is on the loose, state needs give powers to certain chosen dutiful roles who might protect the public at large by having agreed powers to intervene. If a sing song is going on a bit late or a bit revelrous, tis not manhandling the state might ever dream up to create as the power of the role to curb it, in any circumstance, as it unfolds, while preferring to rely upon the rationality of human nature, and with sing song not being a threat to anyone needing such intervention. Indiscriminant use of violence wears yet the same uniform that looses faith for any or all of them: leading to not being able to discriminate between the uniform for the role of the power to intervene on physical threats, and the same uniform worn for noise pollution, or whatever sin it is against popular appeal requiring taste police to govern its suppression...that when the song says run, you run.

Nature gives us an instinct to take flight when in fear for our physical safety. Why ought we be in fear of our physical safety by those sworn to protect peace? What lack of reasonability of any state of affairs is not trusted to due process? Why blame the individual for this lack of trust - trust is a thing between such persons and roles - a relationship - not a one sided misunderstanding? Rather than any notion of malicious absconsion, a lack of faith exists that due process will win justice; and instinct in the moment doesn't ask of consequences what must seem to look right, as well as protect our physical safety there and then. As much as we should like to argue it, nature isn't going to change our genes - that we might lack such an instinct to take flight, from an unexpected and unreasonably violent situation...of power being in the hands of an aggressor as state. How can it be wrong to see an exit, and not take it? Better wait around for more beatings? Who's baton is this, to control the music as it sees fit, conductor, if you please?

Do you remember this, my holy ghost -these tensions causing- during the wars, just thus? How copyright interests should like to steal 50 years from us to send us back to Nazi germany. But its only going to need some few additions to the grand play to make its dream come true...The billion dollar industry can steal the platform -as is the step- between bedroom music and the stage, from the school of music - and, then, steal its back alley ways too?! But from whom? There is an industry responsible for this - not just a state.

If its interpretation is a question of representation and our chosen form of rule, "The busker didn't have an X-Factor phoneline for txt msg votes, and so was removed for being disorderly!"

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmdZZz3_6tuw%26feature%3Drelated&h=oAQFDpYUS

 

 

If Microsoft didn't exist...

The writers who left us the Old Testament were way ahead of their time. This is a screenplay with drama and special effects requirements that Spielberg or Kubrick could never even aspire to produce.

To dream up those wild anecdotes and strange metaphors, the chancers who wrote the Old Testament must have known all about the Big Bang and Evolution and all that. They just knew the audience in those days would never stay glued to their seats munching popcorn long enough for the earth to cool let alone for life to begin.

The only shame really is that the sequel got more attention at the box office. I mean, if the Darwins and the Einsteins of their day wrote the Old Testament, then The Beatles must have written the New one. They were very popular and all but look what happened to them. Now, Jesus might have been equally as popular, and might have sold more records, if he’d had a four-track, but he wouldn’t have won any prizes.

But you can see why they say that had The Beatles not existed there would be a need to invent them (at least the Americans knew this and so they invented the Monkeys…). But what about all the other characters from the Bible? Not many people these days can relate to that spiel about Adam & Eve and their tragic banishment from paradise by god. Not because it’s not a good story or nothing – Genesis on its own could be re-written as a Hollywood screenplay and it would sell millions. If not for the special effects then for the brief nudity scenes. But to bring it up to date, there would have to be some changes to the script. For a start, with modern property laws and a half-decent solicitor on his case, Adam could easily sneak Eve back into the Garden.

But what if the story wasn’t the evolution of knowledgeable man, shedding his once reptilian form and learning how it all happens down below, what if it was the evolution of information from the confinement of the printed page to the liberation of networked hard drives. The story would be different then, wouldn’t it? It might also regain some of its magic and mystery too.

You can be sure that when Bill Gates slides out of the tree the second time round to tempt Eve, he’ll be armed with more than just an Apple. He won’t even try tempting Adam …not with so much as a Gateway or a Hewlett Packard…. You see, he knows Eve will be there, nagging at Adam,

“Doesn’t he have a 3COM, or an NEC to offer us, for god’s sake?”

“No, but look at the label honey, it’s got Intel inside”

And Eve going, “Look, Adam, unless it’s designed specifically and unconditionally for use with Windows, has broadband global network connectivity, and you can play one player monopoly on it, I’m just not interested.”

Nah, before consultation with the poor unfortunate and innocent young ones, all powerful Bill would have promptly grown limbs, learned how to use a typewriter, got himself legal advice, and then presented Adam with the Microsoft End-User License Agreement, or EULA for short. Do you reckon Bill took Irish at high school?

Ammunition dump for a war of words

With the dawning of the information age and a mass sense of political awareness not foreseen, or perhaps dreaded, by the ruling classes of our past, comes an era where everything that has previously been taken for granted is systematically open for questioning and debate. The extent to which this awareness includes consideration of modern capitalist democracies and their place in our world, not to mention their stronghold on the world’s material wealth, has yet to be seen.

In the centuries hence, the masses have been bred on the doctrine that what is to be accepted as the norm is, without question, the way things should be. Religious and political institutions were founded upon the conservative notion that the ideas that form their basis should not easily be open to change. This notion well suited those in positions of power within these institutions, and their associates and families, to the continuing detriment of the subordinate classes.

In the same way in which the church denied the phenomenon of biological evolution to protect her intellectual assets, the embodiment of political thinking is in danger of missing the boat with regard to the evolution of the market and information culture in general. The Internet, an institution founded upon the ethos of free and easy access to information for all, has little need for such patriarchal protection of her assets. Indeed, alternative visions and supplemental versions of reality do little to threaten its continued existence, nor do they interfere with the informative power it has over us in our daily lives.

Our selfish genes did not think to inform their carriers of their tendency to mutate – we had to guess from the evidence that we had evolved. However, upon brief inspection, the evolution of information makes no attempt at hiding its capacity to transform the light by which we see the world. Information being the gene, and so it follows that technology is the carrier, the PC is a case in point. What began its life as an efficient form of office stationary with a built-in filing cabinet has rapidly mutated into a library, a high street shopping mall, public meeting place, etc., not to mention a virtual death trap for reality escape artists. If it’s potential as a political rallying point should not be underestimated, then neither should its proposed use as a ballot box be ignored.

In order that the individual may internally adjust to the external reality of all that our political ancestors have kindly, but inadvertently, gifted us with, and before we may rightly accept it as being the most productive and adaptive reality there is for all, we must first explore the alternatives. These might include speculations of what our world might be like in the absence, to varying degrees, of ideas that have in the past deliberately inhibited peace, prosperity, and progress for all, including those outside the ruling classes.