Messages

Good evening, Yappers!

The Cybergod awaits your wisdom...

If anyone wants to download the finished version of Jikan: The Flood for free, you can find it hosted on Z-Share:

jikan_the_flood.zip - 12.20MB  http://www.zshare.net/download/8850784104f806a9/

There are two types:

• Your blatant spammers - they hope that either a) in the brief time the links are live some curious fool might click on links for "flange-melting fun" and "Scooby Doo porn" or b) that the forum is neglected and no one ever removes the links


• Your stealth spammers - they sign up, post "oh yeah me too" a few times and disappear. Sometime later, they insert links various spammy sites into their sigs in the hope that either some search engine bot stumbles across it and helps boost the sites search ranking (although I assume folks like Google have long ago downgraded the significance of such links).

Their aim is not to annoy - in almost all the cases it is either completely automated or some poor sod in a Chinese sweatshop is doing this as a break from farming gold in World of Warcraft and probably working from a script. When you Google up possible suspects (the ones that post something iffy but not enough to get them banned) you find identical posts and accounts of hundreds and sometimes thousands of forums (it is how Stop Forum Spam can react so quickly as this isn't isolated). When you go to block the account of a blatant spammer and check the IP range you'll often find dozens (and occasionally hundreds if the IP is somewhere like India or China or Indonesia) of stealth spammers.

Or maybe the internet is becoming self-aware and trying to communicate with us. I am the Mighty Cyber. Buy my shoes.

"FREEZE MURDOCH'S DEAL

"Rupert Murdoch's media empire has finally confessed to widespread phone hacking.

"Sign the petition - build pressure, stop Murdoch's takeover."

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/Murdoch_BSkyB_takeover_phone_hacking_petition

"...very little detail on how to get from here to there, or how to overcome mass apathy or entrenched powers."

Well, that's kinda' up to us, isn't it? The third film does explore this in a little more detail.

After watching Zeitgeist: Moving Forward I think I can say that the movement is not proposing anything like Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Consumerism or any other "ism." The main idea seems to me to be about creating the best framework we possibly can for society to exist in.

I like this idea because it doesn't tell people which god to follow or political party to vote for or anything like that - rather, it relies on individuals themselves to live their lives as they wish without worrying about hunger or poverty. With mankind's basic life-needs catered for, society would be free to evolve in whichever direction it collectively chooses with each individual participating in as great or small a capacity as they desire. I guess it's like saying that it doesn't matter if you're living in a Communist society, a Capitalist society or a strict religious society - if the structure of that society is falling apart you're going to be just as hungry, impoverished or dead as the next guy.

At the very least Zeitgeist: Moving Forward presents an intriguing and attainable vision for the future and I'd love to hear the thoughts/criticisms of it on this thread.

I disagree that Utopianism is implied. A better way of doing things is implied, but that is not Utopianism in my (admittedly limited) book.

I guess who does what is up to the social structure we put in place as a part of such a project. I personally favour the UTN (United Terrans' Network) idea to actually run the system. As to the world having limited resources - that's why the Venus Project suggests a global inventory before we begin to estimate just what we have to work with. There is more than enough on our planet (and in the "cosmic vicinity" of the Solar System) for everyone to enjoy abundance. (The best definition for abundance that I've heard is "the ability to do what you need to do when you need to do it," not "everyone can have whatever they want." I don't suggest that you think one or the other of these ways, I'm just explaining my own take on it.)

If we were to build something like the Venus Project and leave it in the same hands that run the current system, we really may as well not bother.

What system would you suggest to run something like the Venus Project? Or do you favour another future altogether? Maybe, from all the ideas and ways of doing things we've ever created or observed, humanity can construct a social system that actually works for the greatest number of people possible. Surely it's not beyond us?

Anyhoo - off to watch Zeitgiest III: Moving Forward. Dunno' what's in it yet, I'll report back later...

I've seen Jacque Fresco interviewed many times and he never uses the word "Utopian" as it indicates a final state for society. The main thrust of the Venus Project (which, I agree, has its flaws) is to begin making mankind's technology work for the betterment of society as a whole rather than as a profit-driven exercise. For example, using computer modelling to indicate how much corn needs to be grown and the best place to grow it may be more efficient than leaving those decisions to political/corporate systems.

Also, (as I keep banging on about) the switch to social economics would be beneficial for almost everyone.

Still, I guess it's easier to carry on as we are, innit?


Yes, technology is a tool. So is money. Technology won't save us and neither will money. As the old military adage goes, it's not the weapons you hold that wins battles, it's how you use them.

And their ideas for the future? Those just bollocks too?

If you haven't seen any of the Zeitgeist films, I recommend everyone should give them a go. Apart from Part 1 of Film 1 about the religious aspects of society (which is pretty out there and not really something I'm interested in), the rest I broadly agree with.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Enjoy!

Peter Joseph (of the Zeitgeist Movement) interviewed on Russia Today:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr7-Qbbrwyw

An email I just got from positivemoney.org which some may find interesting:

"Dear Mark,

"58% of the Icelandic public voted against the latest plans to pay back UK savers for the £3.5bn lost by British and Dutch investors in Icesave. After borrowing 3 times the GDP of the Icelandic economy, doubling house prices on the back of bribing economists to provide favourable assessments of the highly leveraged country, and entering the UK banking market, Landsbanki, marketed in the UK as Icesave, collapsed during the financial crisis.

"The Icelandic prime minister said the choice was the "worst option", meaning that it now seems likely that the British and Dutch governments will take Iceland to court over the £168 million the Icelandic public are expected to have to cover, after the assets of Icesave have been sold. £168 million doesn't seem like a lot of money, but to a country with a little over 300,000 citizens, the payout could amount to around £600 for every man, woman, and child in the country. One Icelandic commentator said "If all bank losses must be paid by the taxpayer, all bank profits should be kept by the taxpayer", the double standards involved in a system that guarantees enormous private profit and socialised losses are rarely clearer than in Iceland. The father and son team heading up Landsbanki were the two richest people in the small nation.

"The choice of the public to leave it to the courts may not have been the best decision economically, the court will likely rule in favour of the UK and Dutch governments, but the decision to take a stand can only be applauded. Iceland are likely to remain "outsiders" in international financial markets, their credit rating will likely be downgraded once again. The legal process could take up to two years to be resolved, and will likely feature prominently in news coverage when it begins.

"In the UK the Independent Commission are due to report back tomorrow, some journalists who were given early access have reported that the report is likely to suggest "firewalls" between investment and retail banking divisions, to prevent newly created money from being easily borrowed by investment banking divisions. Whether this will systemically prevent risky and socially harmful investment banking operations from being funded by money creation is as of yet an unknown.

"It is likely that investment banks will be required to hold their own capital, shielding losses from being absorbed by retail banks holding deposits. Banks have already begun to criticise this, claiming they will be put at an international disadvantage, and they expect ratings agencies to downgrade their ratings accordingly. The banks are also worried about the prospect of having to raise their own capital to form these subsidiary companies, and would prefer a system of "resolution", whereby the investment banking operations are only split into seperate companies in the case of bankruptcy.

"When the report is released tomorrow we will be going through it with a toothcomb, so expect more analysis of what it all means in laymans terms, and what the likely next steps are for the banking reform process.

"Best regards

Ben Curtis"

So, do we side with the Icelandic people against the banks, side with British investors against the Icelandic taxpayers or what?

That's not bad at all, is it? Makes me feel all chuffed inside!

And could you get the scrap steel exported to foreign climes quick enough to be unavailable to investigators?

We kinda' guessed...