Pornography: The secret history of civilization
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: California Poppy Reserve
Next: [photos] Morocco
From: whisky-dave on 29 Apr 2010 08:21 "Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d6da310c-7df5-47c2-960a-f5db89add2e8(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... On Apr 28, 1:55 pm, D.J. <nocont...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > > > Precisely why the corporations want to have full control over information. Ah! Just like the governments and the churches then. > They even want to make public libraries illegal. }That's new one. KIndly provide a reputable cite. I've heard that too, it was about a couple of years ago in the USA. The idea was that libraries were only meant to give bokos out for free for educational purposes. Some authors see this as losing money as the libraries are 'giving' books away for nothing other authors see it as an opportunity to get their books read by people that either can;t afford them or just want then short term. Currently there's teh google free book publication thing being discussed and who would own teh PDFs to orphaned works. > They dictate what can be taught in universities too. }Well, no, that's what we call "a lie". well as a university we advise students to get particular books form their course and the library attempt to keep a number of copies, but not one for every student. > If there are no corporate grants for that subject it won't be taught. }Alas for you; not even close to being true. Most taught classes don;t have grants the university of the department gets grants course units get funded by government in the UK. }Ya see, I taught for 12 years at the University of California -and my }best buddy there was Assistant to the Chancellor during that same }period- so I got to hear all the UC scuttlebutt right from the horse's }mouth. Horses rarely run universities or any further education institutions. }That means that I would have at least *heard* about such a startling }development if it were it true. }And it isn't. What exactly do you expect from a horse ;-P
From: J. Clarke on 29 Apr 2010 08:45 On 4/28/2010 3:46 PM, D.J. wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet<dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> >> If people would use bit-strings as money, you could expect people to >> share money on p2p > > Doesn't matter. Ever since the "silver certificate" and "gold certificate" > was done away with by the Reagan and Bush cartel there is nothing to > connect the printing on paper currency with real-goods. The only value that > any printed currency has today is how much you believe it to have. It has > no foundation in reality anymore. The bits on a bank's hard-drive are just > as valuable as the bits on your computer's hard-drives. They are connected > by law to the exact same amount of real goods. Gold and silver don't have any particular intrinsic value either--they're expensive because they are scarce but the value assigned them is rather arbitrary. The King of Spain didn't understand this when he flooded Europe with gold and silver from the New World--the more he pumped in the less it was worth. > People just haven't figured this out yet. Or more importantly, they don't > want to realize it yet. Because when they do then nobody's "money" will > have any value. Which it already does not have, any value, other than the > cost of the paper and ink that was used to create it. Money is a generic substitute for the IOU. Let's say that Joe is a plumber and Jane is a seamstress. Jane's sink needs fixing but Joe doesn't need any sewing done. So how, absent money, does Jane compensate Joe (and get your minds out of the gutter)? Or going the other way, Jane makes Joe a wedding dress for his daughter but she doesn't need any plumbing done. So how does Joe compensate Jane? In either case, they might write an IOU, so later Joe needs some work done by someone else who needs some sewing done and gives them Jane's IOU in payment, but then you have trouble adjusting for different levels of effort--if Jane's IOU was compensation for two hours of work and Joe needs to compenstate someone for one hour, what does he do, tear Jane's IOU in half? Instead someone came up with the idea of money, which usually hasn't had any intrinsic value (what's a cowrie shell worth?) as a substitute for such a system of worker-backed currencies. Backing it with gold or whatever doesn't accomplish anything except to fluctate the value of gold and make it expensive beyond its actual market worth--if the US dollar today was backed by gold then gold would have to be worth $3000/ounce just to cover the paper money in circulation. And it's just plain not worth that. > Just clap your hands three times and say to yourself, "I believe, I > believe, I believe." For that is the ONLY thing that is giving any money > today any value whatsoever. The only thing that ever gives money value is mutual agreement on its value.
From: David on 29 Apr 2010 09:33 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hrbvsi01629(a)news5.newsguy.com... > On 4/28/2010 3:46 PM, D.J. wrote: > > Money is a generic substitute for the IOU. Let's say that > Joe is a plumber and Jane is a seamstress. Jane's sink > needs fixing but Joe doesn't need any sewing done. So > how, absent money, does Jane compensate Joe (and get your > minds out of the gutter)? Or going the other way, Jane > makes Joe a wedding dress for his daughter but she doesn't > need any plumbing done. So how does Joe compensate Jane? > In either case, they might write an IOU, so later Joe > needs some work done by someone else who needs some sewing > done and gives them Jane's IOU in payment, but then you > have trouble adjusting for different levels of effort--if > Jane's IOU was compensation for two hours of work and Joe > needs to compenstate someone for one hour, what does he > do, tear Jane's IOU in half? > > Instead someone came up with the idea of money, which > usually hasn't had any intrinsic value (what's a cowrie > shell worth?) as a substitute for such a system of > worker-backed currencies. > > Backing it with gold or whatever doesn't accomplish > anything except to fluctate the value of gold and make it > expensive beyond its actual market worth--if the US dollar > today was backed by gold then gold would have to be worth > $3000/ounce just to cover the paper money in circulation. > And it's just plain not worth that. > >> Just clap your hands three times and say to yourself, "I >> believe, I >> believe, I believe." For that is the ONLY thing that is >> giving any money >> today any value whatsoever. > > The only thing that ever gives money value is mutual > agreement on its value. It appears that money is a perfect example of a 'derivative' which is broadly defined as something that derives its worth from the future value of something other than itself. The US government is portraying derivatives as one of the main reasons for the economic collapse. Are they also suggesting money is evil? David David
From: whisky-dave on 29 Apr 2010 09:33 "Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1047b3d2-28ad-46d6-badb-2cc18d86b25b(a)s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Apr 28, 3:14 am, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > It's so elegant to call file sharers thieves. }Um, "file sharers" is just a phrase thieves invented/adopted to }rationalize theft in their own minds. }A "file sharer" -used as you define it- is a thief: plain and simple. No it's not. I'm a member of a file sharing music site that is legal. 100,000+ users here we share music that musicians don;t object to being given out as free. As a muscian or anyone can object to their stuff being on there and then it gets taken down. There's a New Order video I have. Even on the box and tape it states that this can be freely copied provided it is not resold for profit. Some bands actually want their music listened to as a priority over financial gain. My friends bands make CD and give them away at gigs and don;t mind people sharing them or copying them. But they still want to retain owenership and copyright of teh materail. > Really, that is bound to convince people > to respect the 'rights' of corporate nazi > scum. }Shrug. }You can never, ever, "convince" a psychotic/sociopath of anything. }They have entirely self-consistant world-views, in which anything they }say or do is entirely justified. }And it's easy to tell when you've met one: because they use }inappropriate descriptors and/or invent entirely new phrases to }provide that self-justification. Yep, they sure do.
From: sobriquet on 29 Apr 2010 10:03
On 29 apr, 10:31, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >[.. babbling ..] You are a nazi cockroach that belongs in jail along with all the rest of the nazi scum that fail to respect human rights. |