the permanence of 60s counterculture values in the 00s
Sir Blob
ended, that they ended in the late 70s as such. sex, drugs and rock
and roll, for instance, well, the drugs didnt work out, the sex was
linked with death and reproduction.. and rock and roll was going at 25
bucks for every 12 songs.
one of the real tenets of these values was glorifying non consumerism,
in a consumerist way, now, the end of history freaks would retort,
forgetting their non consumerist claims were being made without the
option and fully embedded in the consumerist language. hence the
famous survey of 97 per cent job satisfaction, are u satisfied with
your job, does it mean you dont wanna get sacked or does it mean if
you were a millionaire would you still be working, etc.
so we go throu the 80s and 90s like they were the 50s, but then
computers settle in, and these created enormous spaces of non
consumerism completely unavailable in, say, in the television years of
the 80s, 90s and 50s. lets not forget the link between 60s values and
aristocracy.
so one of the tenets of 60s values was a diametrical opposition to
copyright law, which the noughties proved to be its greatest
widespread attack. sure this decade had the loony right-wing wars,
which one didnt, but 60s opposition never got them out of vietnam,
that was just a rightie myth, it was the financial drain going into
vietnam, that moronic piece of land, that did it. and, sure, the price
of appartments went up like lisa lampanelli with cock, but the 00s saw
the price of free time plummet like hell, cuz if you could cram in
literally, no joke, 500 music albums for the price of one 90s album,
well you were kind of sorted.
any sane conclusion should label the noughties as the full extent and
realization of the ideas of the 60s and 70s, which couldnt be made in
those decades because of technological manipulation.
any failure to realise what a great decade the noughties has been
should either be attributed to nostalgia as a disease or the recurrent
power of two previous decades of mass media and its coercive efforts
to maintain power. this, of course is different depending on your
country, in the uk its still the 90s, for even utterly moronic basic
tv costs 300 dollars a year.
very difficult to notice, thou, cuz war or estate industries held
their strength in right wing manners, perhaps it was the combination
of the two.
the noughties saw how so-called capitalism is a joke, for if it really
had 'competitive values' as its ideology, it would allow the internet
industry to take over the music and cinema label industry. capitalism
is just socialism.
now, the tens could be met by a progressive decline in freedoms as a
police state is put in force and a worldwide content blackout looms.
you might argue there'll be ways of going underground, in individual
cases, but that's utter cock, we all know the importance lies in what
the masses do.
a torrent, for example, won't go fast unless the masses are doing it.
and a torrent is, no doubt, a non consumerist object. if the isp
connection still costs money its cuz of copyright and lack of
competition stilting the price up of something that can be made far
cheaper and to state the forgottably obvious, if they could, internet
buyers would buy it far cheaper, but they obviously cant. so the
failure of a value isnt because the value fails but because other
values force its impossibility.
we could say the noughties inherit the vulgar and high modernisms but
without the tragedy.
so i think the twenties or thirties will wax lucid on what a great
decade the noughties was, but itll just be a simulacrum in the mass
media, sold as a consumerist object to make us lose confidence in the
decade it's spoken in and to instill shyness into our silly insecure
little souls.
the music blogs of this decade, or a google full of rapidshare albums,
who can sanely argue there was any even remote precedent in previous
decades. who has argued mininova was more important than oxford, they
will, in time, and out of time...
John Stafford
Rewrite that.
Day Brown
> Rewrite that.
Sure. Its impossible to protect copywrights on the Internet.
Classic Greece never had a patent office, yet was the most innovative
culture in all history. Creative minds now work on Linux, and do it
online in the kind of peer to peer culture the Hippies hoped for.
Carter signed off on contracts for the CIA to develop spread spectrum,
phased array antennas and computer waveform analysis. It didnt come
online til Raygun took over, but when it did, the Soviet jammers didnt
work anymore, and they lost control over the flow of information. As a
result, Solidarity told everyone where the next rally would be, and soon
enuf, the Berlin wall came down.
Now, control by the corporate media is being broken by the Internet.
Nobody here defends the drugwar anymore, but you wont hear that on Fox
News. I'm going to have a medical marijuana test case this week, and
whether I win or loose, it'll be posted whether the local media says a
word or not. You can look for a transcript of my pretrial hearing on
Monday 1/11/10 - which may also rattle cages.
snake that swallowed your gold ring
let's rob the rich and grab all the loot. the rich guys are all
jewish anyway. down with the capitalists!!!
Sir Blob
i dont have to
the internet industry will be persecuted by the copyright industry, so
in the worst case scenario one country after another will drop until
world wide blackout happens.
people have a lot of confidence in I2P or VPN but that has to prove
itself on a mass-scale. copyright has its possibilities, in part cuz a
lot of the internet industry proves itself non-consumerist, hence not
powerful, itll be war...
the number of albums is actually 4000 for every 90s price album, which
goes to show how fictitious economic discourse is.
Sir Blob
products should have value perfectly capable of defending themselves
on their own, they shouldnt be subsidised fictitiously capitalistic
and imposed throu coercion and totalitarian attitudes.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> around and about the 80s, everyone was in agreement that the 60s had
> ended, that they ended in the late 70s as such.
Actually, they ended in the late 60s. December 31, 1969, to be exact, at
the stroke of midnight.
RichA
I think the decline in perceived value of music and movies (separating
those moronic teens who blow their parents money spending $1-$1.50 per
single on tune downloads) is due to the decline in quality of music
and movies as a whole over the past 30 years. But, people are greedy,
the more governments take care of them with welfare payments of
various kinds the more they think they deserve everything free, hence
free downloads from sites like the former Mininova.org. This is also
fed by the remnants of the amorality of the 1960's vile, vulgar
counter-culture which endorsed criminality (theft) to get what you
want.
Zerkon
> who can sanely argue there was any even remote precedent in previous
> decades
A Deadhead.
Zerkon
> I'm going to have a medical marijuana test case this week, and whether I
> win or loose, it'll be posted whether the local media says a word or
> not. You can look for a transcript of my pretrial hearing on Monday
> 1/11/10 - which may also rattle cages.
What?!? Yes, share. Good Luck or Just outcome.
Zerkon
> the internet industry will be persecuted by the copyright industry, so
> in the worst case scenario one country after another will drop until
> world wide blackout happens.
I miss minninova also
Zerkon
> products should have value perfectly capable of defending themselves on
> their own, they shouldnt be subsidised fictitiously capitalistic and
> imposed throu coercion and totalitarian attitudes.
Through Linux into your mix.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> I think the decline in perceived value of music and movies (separating
> those moronic teens who blow their parents money spending $1-$1.50 per
> single on tune downloads) is due to the decline in quality of music
> and movies as a whole over the past 30 years.
What "decline in perceived value"? They're desired as much as ever. What
has declined is the PRICE, and this has happened because the market (for
both production and distribution) is starting to get more competitive.
This pushes prices towards marginal cost -- economics 101.
Air is free but try holding your breath for more than a few tens of
seconds and you'll decide that it's nonetheless quite valuable; value
and price are not the same thing.
Sir Blob
you're supposed to believe in free market values and competition, as
stated by your right politics. you cant just switch to a music label
welfare state whenever you please.
globular
> around and about the 80s, everyone was in agreement that the 60s had
> ended, that they ended in the late 70s as such. sex, drugs and rock
> and roll, for instance, well, the drugs didnt work out, the sex was
> linked with death and reproduction.. and rock and roll was going at 25
> bucks for every 12 songs.
The 70s attitude was very anti-60s. There was a 50s revival of
nostalgia and no interest in having the 60s around. The 80s brought
some nostalgia for the 60s in fact.
nick
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're a moron for using iTunes and you're a criminal for downloading
music illegally. So what is the good capitalist consumer supposed to
do? Troop out to the record store and spend 15 dollars for a CD?
The music industry's got no one to blame but themselves for the mess
they got into after decades of making one mistake after another.
David Oberman
<nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>You're a moron for using iTunes and you're a criminal for downloading
>music illegally. So what is the good capitalist consumer supposed to
>do? Troop out to the record store and spend 15 dollars for a CD?
>The music industry's got no one to blame but themselves for the mess
>they got into after decades of making one mistake after another.
CD sales dropped & dropped at about the time that MTV played more &
more non-music programming. The recording industry declined as the
Real World industry (& all its progeny) flourished.
Coincidence?
David Oberman
wrote:
>The 70s attitude was very anti-60s.
Which is interesting because the college kids who put flowers in their
hair in 1967 were the thirtysomethings who opted to go back to the
Establishment & careers & the stock market.
Life must have bit them in the butt.
nick
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:57:28 +1100, globular <s...@there.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >The 70s attitude was very anti-60s.
>
> Which is interesting because the college kids who put flowers in their
> hair in 1967 were the thirtysomethings who opted to go back to the
> Establishment & careers & the stock market.
>
> Life must have bit them in the butt.
What's that saying? You can't be fire department chief at thirty if
you weren't an anarchist at twenty.
Or something like that.
Shrikeback
> John Stafford wrote:
> > Rewrite that.
>
> Sure. Its impossible to protect copywrights on the Internet.
>
> Classic Greece never had a patent office, yet was the most innovative
> culture in all history.
I'm afraid that your "most innovative" award has been
given without any mechanism for quantification. It
would seem to ignore the hypertrophy of innovation
going on right about now, in electronics, software,
nanotech, pharmaceuticals, and so on. What
exactly is your measure of innovation?
> Creative minds now work on Linux, and do it
> online in the kind of peer to peer culture the Hippies hoped for.
I thought Macs were for creative minds, and Linux
was for geeks with pale skin. Well, that's what
the counter-marketing tells me anyway.
> Carter signed off on contracts for the CIA to develop spread spectrum,
> phased array antennas and computer waveform analysis. It didnt come
> online til Raygun took over, but when it did, the Soviet jammers didnt
> work anymore, and they lost control over the flow of information. As a
> result, Solidarity told everyone where the next rally would be, and soon
> enuf, the Berlin wall came down.
>
> Now, control by the corporate media is being broken by the Internet.
> Nobody here defends the drugwar anymore, but you wont hear that on Fox
> News. I'm going to have a medical marijuana test case this week, and
> whether I win or loose, it'll be posted whether the local media says a
> word or not. You can look for a transcript of my pretrial hearing on
> Monday 1/11/10 - which may also rattle cages.
Actually, it seems even Fox has softened somewhat on drugs.
There are libertarian strains creeping into Fox here and there.
Even O'Reilly doesn't seem to be the fascistic prohibitionist
he used to be.
CNN was on in some commercial business I was loitering
in, and they were talking about the threat of various
prescription drugs in response to the MJ death, which
almost sounded like hype for a newer ever-expanding
war on different drugs.
Shrikeback
What decline in the quality of movies as a whole in the
past 30 years? I've seen a few 30 year-old movies, and
they really weren't that good.
Shrikeback
You're supposed to download tunes by bands who don't
care if you do download them, then you're supposed to
support them by going to their concerts.
Shrikeback
Naw, it's just that fads pass, and of course everyone
gets a little less radical as they mature.
RichA
True.
RichA
Uh huh...
Thanatos
<997e2ca0-7e4e-4483...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Shrikeback <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote:
What if you don't like those bands?
nick
> In article
> <997e2ca0-7e4e-4483-a3fd-832f010e7...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Shrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 5:59 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > > You're a moron for using iTunes and you're a criminal for downloading
> > > music illegally. So what is the good capitalist consumer supposed to
> > > do? Troop out to the record store and spend 15 dollars for a CD?
> > > The music industry's got no one to blame but themselves for the mess
> > > they got into after decades of making one mistake after another.
>
> > You're supposed to download tunes by bands who don't
> > care if you do download them, then you're supposed to
> > support them by going to their concerts.
>
> What if you don't like those bands?
What if you don't like going to concerts?
What if the artist doesn't like giving concerts?
There's always been something glib about "the Grateful Dead model".
nick
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:59:55 -0800 (PST), nick
>
The problem with arguing that MTV should start playing music again is
that you don't need MTV anymore. It's not like the 80s when MTV was
dominant and we'd watch it for hours on end to see the video(s) we
liked.
One of the problems is the music industry is built on all kinds of
fake hipsterism falsehoods. All those fans listening to music they
don't really like but because they've been led to believe that the
kind of music you listen to is a sign of your cultural/street cred and
such. All those countless terrible records and CDs being released to
kids who wanted to flatter their own vanity by listening to those
those terrible records. Listen to bands no one else has heard of in
obscure sub-genres. That was always bound to collapse at some point.
After awhile people are going to say to themselves, so why am I paying
for this crap anyway?
People aren't like that with movies. Some hipster kid is going to be
listening to freak folk or whatever else is going on right this
minute, all these Pitchfork promoted sub-genres and sub-sub-genres and
then when they want to go to the movies they'll go see Avatar or
Sherlock Holmes. The culture of the poser can only carry an industry
so far.
Halmyre
22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, shrik...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Jan 10, 4:42ï¿œam, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
Films released in 1979/1980/1981:
Absence Of Malice
Airplane!
Alien
All That Jazz
An American Werewolf In London
Apocalypse Now
Being There
The Big Red One
Blow Out
The Blues Brothers
Breaker Morant
Breaking Away
Caddyshack
Chariots Of Fire
The China Syndrome
Christ Stopped At Eboli
The Elephant Man
The Empire Strikes Back
Escape From New York
Excalibur
The Evil Dead
The Jerk
Kagemusha
Life Of Brian
The Long Good Friday
The Long Riders
Mad Max
Mad Max 2
Manhattan
Raging Bull
Raiders Of The Lost Ark
The Shining
Southern Comfort
Stalker
Superman II
Thief
Time Bandits
The Tin Drum
Pretty shabby, I must admit.
--
Halmyre
Sir Blob
the studio system found a formula with star wars circa 78, disco came
into being in 77??... rocky horror picture show, or almost famous...
be that as it may, ang lee's pic bout exchanging car keys is set in
the 70s, as is swingtown, and its not the drugs, but the patent
office part of what they addressed
Sir Blob
naw, that model could work for an eternity, but it was thankfully
interrupted. now it doesnt have to do with status. in fact, because
its cheap, its seen poorly, in the same manner women might frown upon
masturbation
>
> People aren't like that with movies. Some hipster kid is going to be
> listening to freak folk or whatever else is going on right this
> minute, all these Pitchfork promoted sub-genres and sub-sub-genres and
> then when they want to go to the movies they'll go see Avatar or
> Sherlock Holmes. The culture of the poser can only carry an industry
> so far.
thats a famous one, however prog rock everywheres, fennesz plus wendy
and lucy also exist
it just matters whats placed in the serious and survival zone and what
they allow for the lets get retarded zone
Sir Blob
its blatantly ex capitalists in full socialist mode. after a century
of laissez faire talk, they've switched to what we suspected it was
all along, state-funded obsolete models of business. the 00s are the
living proof of this because it saw a huge industry internet, in
numbers, not so much in power, rise much to their chagrin
>
> You're supposed to download tunes by bands who don't
> care if you do download them, then you're supposed to
> support them by going to their concerts.
because you say so
Sir Blob
> On Jan 10, 7:52 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 10, 10:40 am, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:57:28 +1100, globular <s...@there.invalid>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >The 70s attitude was very anti-60s.
>
> > > Which is interesting because the college kids who put flowers in their
> > > hair in 1967 were the thirtysomethings who opted to go back to the
> > > Establishment & careers & the stock market.
>
> > > Life must have bit them in the butt.
>
> > What's that saying? You can't be fire department chief at thirty if
> > you weren't an anarchist at twenty.
politics depends on the perceived source of one's income, hence
>
> > Or something like that.
>
> Naw, it's just that fads pass, and of course everyone
> gets a little less radical as they mature.
hence, the state of 30 year olds in 1990 spending so much more money
than 50 year olds in 2010...
making the arguments about sharing/pirating unimaginable 20 years ago,
far more radical
and in between, the twat from high fidelity, john cusack...
Sir Blob
there are hundreds of others of its magnitude, at the moment, but who
knows what they're capable of.
each of them is unequalled stores of video and audio knowledge. every
one of those sites is a thousandfold superior to the entire library
networks of mass media, the non-cybernetic or the classical politics
had us depressed were as good as it gets only 10 years ago, with
napster's deceitful defeat...
in the 18th century, too, the enlightenment happened outside france,
cuz thats where the printing was being done, and
they say when a napster or a mininova goes down a hundred rise in
their place, but there are still ways of blackout in motion, and the
80s and 90s of mtv proves how blackout is perfectly possible.
TBerk
> products should have value perfectly capable of defending themselves
> on their own, they shouldnt be subsidised fictitiously capitalistic
> and imposed throu coercion and totalitarian attitudes.
Flasherly? Is that you?
berk
TBerk
> Films released in 1979/1980/1981:
<snip of list of decent films>
> Pretty shabby, I must admit.
>
> --
> Halmyre
<a-Hem>
berk
Mark Nobles
> On Jan 10, 1:16ÔøΩpm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <997e2ca0-7e4e-4483-a3fd-832f010e7...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ÔøΩShrikeback <shrikeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 10, 5:59ÔøΩam, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > > > You're a moron for using iTunes and you're a criminal for downloading
> > > > music illegally. ÔøΩSo what is the good capitalist consumer supposed to
> > > > do? ÔøΩTroop out to the record store and spend 15 dollars for a CD?
> > > > The music industry's got no one to blame but themselves for the mess
> > > > they got into after decades of making one mistake after another.
> >
> > > You're supposed to download tunes by bands who don't
> > > care if you do download them, then you're supposed to
> > > support them by going to their concerts.
> >
> > What if you don't like those bands?
>
> What if you don't like going to concerts?
>
> What if the artist doesn't like giving concerts?
>
> There's always been something glib about "the Grateful Dead model".
And meanwhile the Grateful Dead were the highest earning entertainment
group in the world right up until Jerry died. Then Oprah passed them.
globular
The 60s were some kind of classical period above everything in the 70s
and left alone.
I don't know what those examples are meant to mean, there is nothing
about the 60s in them.
In the late 70s there was a return to a studio system after they had
fallen apart with various elements in the 60s, such as, the collapse of
the code, the insistent influence of French cinema, the rise of British
pop culture.
The 70s were connected to the 60s because it followed it, but the 60s
really left a paucity of direction more than anything. The 60s had more
of a connection to a conservative past, and so something to revolt
against was still in the memory.
You have to consider also the emergence of AIDS in the early 80s which
ended a lot of the 'permissive' era.
The 70s were famous for the rise of cocaine use in Hollywood.
Disco dates to at least 1975 with Gloria Gaynor's records. It had ups
and downs, but a peak in 1979 before top 40 pop seemed to change a lot.
Disco was plain music as was 50s music. Listen to American Pie from
1971, the 70s manifesto.
nick
> nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 1:16Êpm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <997e2ca0-7e4e-4483-a3fd-832f010e7...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > On Jan 10, 5:59Êam, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> > > > > You're a moron for using iTunes and you're a criminal for downloading
> > > > > do? ÊTroop out to the record store and spend 15 dollars for a CD?
> > > > > The music industry's got no one to blame but themselves for the mess
> > > > > they got into after decades of making one mistake after another.
>
> > > > You're supposed to download tunes by bands who don't
> > > > care if you do download them, then you're supposed to
> > > > support them by going to their concerts.
>
> > > What if you don't like those bands?
>
> > What if you don't like going to concerts?
>
> > What if the artist doesn't like giving concerts?
>
> > There's always been something glib about "the Grateful Dead model".
>
> And meanwhile the Grateful Dead were the highest earning entertainment
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not talking about the Grateful Dead as a functioning, succesful
rock act. I'm talking about the flip way people use them as an
example of how modern rock bands should operate--tour like crazy and
make money off the merchandise and you'll be fine. So we're not going
to get anymore Brian Wilsons or Phil Spectors; just work horses
endlessly slogging around the planet selling their t-shirts. So
that'll free us all up to be guilt-free hippies and get the music for
free.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> I'm not talking about the Grateful Dead as a functioning, succesful
> rock act. I'm talking about the flip way people use them as an
> example of how modern rock bands should operate--tour like crazy and
> make money off the merchandise and you'll be fine. So we're not going
> to get anymore Brian Wilsons or Phil Spectors; just work horses
> endlessly slogging around the planet selling their t-shirts.
So, the essence of your complaint is that musicians will have to keep
WORKING to keep getting paid? Just like everyone else?
Aww, poor musicians.
rochrist
> Rewrite that.
And use paragraphs this time.
Rockinghorse Winner
Great post, but I fail to see your point. Maybe some others can tease it
out....
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.9-174 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.8-0.1 OpenSUSE 11.2
"Hug your cat today" 2.6.24-16 Mint Elyssa
Rockinghorse Winner
>John Stafford wrote:
>> Rewrite that.
>Sure. Its impossible to protect copywrights on the Internet.
>Classic Greece never had a patent office, yet was the most innovative
>culture in all history. Creative minds now work on Linux, and do it
>online in the kind of peer to peer culture the Hippies hoped for.
>Carter signed off on contracts for the CIA to develop spread spectrum,
>phased array antennas and computer waveform analysis. It didnt come
>online til Raygun took over, but when it did, the Soviet jammers didnt
>work anymore, and they lost control over the flow of information. As a
>result, Solidarity told everyone where the next rally would be, and soon
>enuf, the Berlin wall came down.
>Now, control by the corporate media is being broken by the Internet.
>Nobody here defends the drugwar anymore, but you wont hear that on Fox
>News. I'm going to have a medical marijuana test case this week, and
>whether I win or loose, it'll be posted whether the local media says a
>word or not. You can look for a transcript of my pretrial hearing on
>Monday 1/11/10 - which may also rattle cages.
If you mean the computer culture was influenced by the 60's counterculture,
sure. Many of the groundbreaking work in the 50's and 60's and 70's was done
by people immersed in the ethos of the counterculture.
But grass roots community has always operated on nepotism and a closed
economy -- it's called looking out for your own.
And sure, the big corp's are going to try to muscle their way into local,
grass roots economies and drive the mom and pops out and jack the price up
of everything. This is a tension in *any* free market economy.
But you simply cannot resolve that tension by knocking out one side and
going all corporate or all grass roots. The local economies keep the large
corporations focused on the micromarkets' needs, and the large corporations
allow an opening for small business to focus on customer service. If you
allow one side to vanquish the other and declare victory, you have done
nothing but destroy the free market.
As troubling as it sounds, businesses of large scale are part of the free
market. They are not evil, just efficient at what they do. Nevertheless,
most of the employment growth in this country is by small business. That is
why pols cannot give in to the corporate lobbyists and hand the country over
to the corporations.
If you mean right now, the internet is in the heydey of anti-corporate
freedom, you are right. Will the corporations try to fight this? Tooth and
nail. Should we in the grass roots lie down and take it from the corps?
Absolutely not! They have size, but we have innovation and speed. The key,
IMO, is to develop thos technologies which will make it harder for a
centralized approach to work. Cloud computing is the greatest risk to
internet freedom, IMO, and we need to recognize that fact and develop ways
to make the cloud more free for everyone using it.
quote...@yahoo.com
Mark Nobles
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >John Stafford wrote:
> >> Rewrite that.
> >Sure. Its impossible to protect copywrights on the Internet.
>
> >Classic Greece never had a patent office, yet was the most innovative
> >culture in all history. Creative minds now work on Linux, and do it
> >online in the kind of peer to peer culture the Hippies hoped for.
>
> >Carter signed off on contracts for the CIA to develop spread spectrum,
> >phased array antennas and computer waveform analysis. It didnt come
> >online til Raygun took over, but when it did, the Soviet jammers didnt
> >work anymore, and they lost control over the flow of information. As a
> >result, Solidarity told everyone where the next rally would be, and soon
> >enuf, the Berlin wall came down.
>
> >Now, control by the corporate media is being broken by the Internet.
> >Nobody here defends the drugwar anymore, but you wont hear that on Fox
> >News. I'm going to have a medical marijuana test case this week, and
> >whether I win or loose, it'll be posted whether the local media says a
> >word or not. You can look for a transcript of my pretrial hearing on
> >Monday 1/11/10 - which may also rattle cages.
>
> If you mean the computer culture was influenced by the 60's counterculture,
> sure. Many of the groundbreaking work in the 50's and 60's and 70's was done
> by people immersed in the ethos of the counterculture.
And a lot of it was done by crew-cut, white-shirted IBM guys who
personified the culture the counterculture countered.
>
> But grass roots community has always operated on nepotism and a closed
> economy -- it's called looking out for your own.
But it always has an opening for someone who brings something useful to
the community, whether the willingness to work hard or a better way to
chat with your friends in China. A community that becomes too inbred
gets real weird and dies out.
>
> And sure, the big corp's are going to try to muscle their way into local,
> grass roots economies and drive the mom and pops out and jack the price up
> of everything. This is a tension in *any* free market economy.
Not necessarily. Big corps began with a couple of guys in their garage
trying out a new idea. When they build better mousetraps, the world
beats paths to their doors. Sam Walton started as the "pop" of one
mom-and-pop dime store who tried something different.
>
> But you simply cannot resolve that tension by knocking out one side and
> going all corporate or all grass roots.
But you can't really eliminate either side because, to coin a phrase,
"we have met the enemy and he is us."
> The local economies keep the large
> corporations focused on the micromarkets' needs, and the large corporations
> allow an opening for small business to focus on customer service. If you
> allow one side to vanquish the other and declare victory, you have done
> nothing but destroy the free market.
Economy of scale supports various market sizes as well. To build
something large and complex as a jet airliner takes much more than two
highly-skilled brothers in the shed behind their bike shop. But
maintaining and repairing bicycles probably wouldn't support much more.
>
> As troubling as it sounds, businesses of large scale are part of the free
> market. They are not evil, just efficient at what they do. Nevertheless,
> most of the employment growth in this country is by small business. That is
> why pols cannot give in to the corporate lobbyists and hand the country over
> to the corporations.
I don't see why it sounds troubling. Businesses of all scales are
required to have any kind of successful economy. And every single
business requires capital, whether it is only the needle and thread of
a seamstress, the wrenches and spare parts of a bicycle repairman, the
enormous building and machinery of an airplane factory, and the
investment in training the people who make all of these work.
>
> If you mean right now, the internet is in the heydey of anti-corporate
> freedom, you are right. Will the corporations try to fight this? Tooth and
> nail. Should we in the grass roots lie down and take it from the corps?
> Absolutely not! They have size, but we have innovation and speed. The key,
> IMO, is to develop thos technologies which will make it harder for a
> centralized approach to work. Cloud computing is the greatest risk to
> internet freedom, IMO, and we need to recognize that fact and develop ways
> to make the cloud more free for everyone using it.
I disagree with your key. The market will find the right size for
providers. Some technologies inherently require large investment and
large workforces, like building fiber-optic networks or putting a
satellite in geo-synchronous orbit. Other technologies inherently
require small investment and small workforces, like selling coffee on a
street corner.
Cloud computing is a great risk to freedom, but not because of
corporations. If one cloud-service provider pokes around in the data
entrusted to them in a way that harms their customers, they are going
to lose all their customers to their competitor who doesn't poke
around.
The true danger from that technology is government. Governments don't
have competitors who don't poke around, and they don't have anyone but
themselves keeping watch over them. Look at how hard governments around
the world are working to censor the net now, even without the
centralization that the cloud creates.
I have no doubt that the current Supreme Court of the US will deny
Fourth-Amendment protection of data in the cloud, allowing US
government agencies unrestricted access to everything. The key is to
find a way that makes all our technologies interoperate in ways that
are secure, reliable and private. Safe from thieves and counterfeiters,
of course, but more importantly, safe from those who would save us from
ourselves - those are by far the greatest danger to a free society.
Sir Blob
i dunno what drug references are supposed to mean here, plus pointing
out coke went into fashion when the previous decade had lsd or heroin.
having a studio system collapse in the 60s and see it go up again,
with the manichean star wars, practically in the early 80s just proves
my point.
your case for the 70s being more anti 60s than the 80s is slightly
ludicrous
and instead of zeitgeists i was yabberin on about the depth of the
matter, the copyright wars. there are always contradictory signs in
significants, or is it significants in signs, re rebel without a
cause, fosse's take on lenny bruce or burroughs doing whatever. as if
there was no american pie, covered by madonna in the 90s, btw, in the
60s, leopard skin pillbox hat for starters, zabriskie point leaves
mclean's enunciations as amateurish. where was the demand for monte
hellman in the 80s, when did all the cartoonish howard hughes
lookalikes emerge, compare melvin and howard from 71 to michael
jackson or zelig,
when did the born again christian crap really pound in, and mclean
even states his equidistance between bible and music
and yet, even thou everything points out the 80s and 90s were far less
50s than the 70s, i was talking about china blocking webpages or
requiring addressed domains... the u.s. converging fully with china...
internet becoming another tv,
pleeeaaase, the 80s was a reaganite era of corporate bullshit exactly
like the emergence of a victory of a for now defeated copyright would
look like. it had the world by the balls until, yeah, internet around
2000.
Sir Blob
far more 50s than the