JollyBOX blog - Comments

Roope: Is the CD doomed?

nospam@example.com (Roope) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:54:15 +0000

Very interesting article. I myself have always preferred CD to vinyl or MP3. It represents a solid middle ground that appeals to both collectors and audiophiles. Vinyl is too bulky to easily carry en masse and requires special equipment, while MP3 has no custom quality control. There is an answer to this in FLAC, but that format takes up too much space to really be a mass collection solution, not to mention is more difficult to come by.

I collect CDs, rip them into MP3s, and play everything off one computer (or my DS) for everyday listening. The true value of CDs for me comes in editing and video production, when I will rip a particular track at the highest possible quality just for the vid I'm working on. While I can't tell the difference in bitrates most of the time, I acknowledge there are people that actually can. I don't want artifacts to detract from my video when it's being watched.

Sandrin Rogerson: What's a geek ?

nospam@example.com (Sandrin Rogerson) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:09:06 +0000

Nette Idee, man entdeckt sicherlich so einige Schmuckstücke in der weiten Welt der Blogs

libervisco: Death of an Easter Egg

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:39:49 +0000

Oops, I meant to say above; I could hardly think of him as anything other than one of the most pure people in the world...

libervisco: Death of an Easter Egg

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:28:05 +0000

Well said. It is a scary reminder of the problem of death. I personally have it among my big three goals to invest into life extension and immortality research and things like this only escalate this desire.

All this said, I do think this was a great man. There was lots of controversy about him, but I am of opinion that he was trolled for money and fame, not to mention being a slave to his fans. After watching this documentary on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvhwWDCV9Bo&feature=related (9 parts) I could hardly think of him as one of the most pure people in the world, someone who could never grow up out of the innocence of a child.

It is only after his death that I REALLY paid attention to him, revisiting his music (especially songs like Heal The World, Earth Song, They Don't Really Care About US etc.) and getting totally blown away. I think this is a great tragedy.

libervisco: Bach's St. John Passion

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:00:24 +0000

It does.

I have recently turned from an agnostic to an outright atheist and as a matter of fact I've just yesterday watched a video by Richard Dawkins which basically calls all atheists to stop being polite and not ruffle any feathers and finally speak up and strike theism as hard as they possibly can.

I think I'm gonna answer that call.

The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

It's also interesting how deep a connection is between the God delusion and the state delusion. It all fundamentally reaches to the same roots in the psychology of modern humans, stemming from the dark ages of child abuse that we're barely just emerging from to form a distinctively authoritarian and as such self-denying and self-destructive worldview.

Without this, there would be no state, no god, no politics - only science (discovering), technology (applying discovered) and business (selling the applied discovery to others).

A.: Book meme

nospam@example.com (A.) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:22:46 +0000

"well, nothing new to report.Excellent apples!Look!"

libervisco: Meme – Reflecting on 2008

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:43:08 +0000

That was an exciting year! Congratulations on the achievements.

I think I'm gonna continue this chain and post the Q&A on my blog too. It's called "memeverse" after all.

libervisco: Why do I use Linux ?

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:40:53 +0000

That kinda sums up my reasons too. It also started due to a curiosity then I became all fanatical about the whole GNU philosophy and then it all cooled off and now it's just a good OS I know well. It also helps that I run the same OS both on my server and at home.

I wouldn't personally say Windows would work just as well. Mac OS X, though, probably would.

libervisco: Why Laissez-Faire Free Market wouldn't work out.

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:27:32 +0000

Well minarchy is certainly a more reasonable position than socialism (of any sort). As said last night, I'll take the minimal government (no taxes, no regulation, just enforcing non-aggression), but I still want no government.

The reason I distrust government even if it was minimal is the fact that it's been tried. USA had an essentially libertarian government and look what happened. I see the existence of government, no matter how small and minimal it is, as a slippery slope. Since even when small it is a concentrate of power (by being a coercive monopoly) it tends to attract with a tendency to corrupt, people who wish for a shortcut to some sort of a success, not by earning it through providing values on the market, but by merely convincing enough people that they'll be good governors.

That said, by arguing for a minimal government you're just stripping down some of the outright harms of the government as we have today, but not the existence of police and the fact that they have no competition in enforcing non-aggression and that they would therefore be likely less efficient in deterring crime than private investigators, arbiters and defense agencies could.

Thomas Jollans: Why Laissez-Faire Free Market wouldn't work out.

nospam@example.com (Thomas Jollans) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:47:11 +0000

You are making the mistake that any argument for government is an argument for systems we know today. The systems we have today are far from perfect, but I believe that a system where some entity has a monopoly on justice has a huge potential to be a lot more or a lot less just and good than a totally free market in anarchy. We mostly see the bad side today, but that doesn't mean it's the only way it can be...

Some early capitalist once said that the government should only be there to protect the citizens, and do that well (without interfering in the free market) — while I don't necessarily agree that a free market is the non plus ultra, I'd prefer such a capitalist minarchy to an anarchy any day.

Thomas

libervisco: Why Laissez-Faire Free Market wouldn't work out.

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:10:21 +0000

Hi,

There isn't really much for me to argue against here. You're basically saying violence would happen and then expressing fear that it would disintegrate the Free Market into flames of war and terror.

However, the fact is, we already have violence. We will always have violence. This is not in question. What is in question is the method by which we deal with it, the deterrent which we use against it, which you didn't mention in your posting.

In a government society the deterrent is the fear of fines, jail or outright fear for life.

When there is no government and therefore there is only the market the fear is of things pretty similar to the above. You could still be caught, jailed until you pay up the fine or even killed by someone defending from your aggression. And in fact, because defense agencies and organizations which do investigations would be in competition rather than being coercive monopolies they would do their job more efficiently.

And when I consider the side effects of government which actually contribute to at least as much violence that it is supposed to deter, by creating prohibited pockets of economy in which Mafia thrives the most, by frustrating people by taking their property or rights to acts which are not coercive or by wars which they themselves wage.. I really can't possibly see how government is doing a better job at preventing violence. To me it actually seems to be all about violence. It enforces at the threat of violence and its legislations often have violence as an end result.

I'm not really surprised anymore though. Since my personal paradigm shift I feel that I see more clearly the contradiction that exists between government and human nature, and the obvious link between institutionalized coercion and destruction of value which endlessly fuels more violence.

It just can't work. Heck, it doesn't. You say no-government society can't work without disintegrating into violence, but I'm compelled to ask how is the government not even worse?

Cheers

Danijel

libervisco: Religion

nospam@example.com (libervisco) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:02:26 +0000

Very nice post.

Personally, I'd say the reasons I actually tend to avoid terming my beliefs as "religion" are these:

1. It has too many negative connotations

2. It is too unclear, yet most people seem to equate it to belief in God, or to be more precise explaining away the unknown by attributing it to some divine force. And since I don't believe in God in minds of many I indeed am not religious.

That said, your definition above seems to make sense, as it fits the general perception of the "deepness level" of concepts that deal with religion - it is all "fundamental". Your definition, however, includes science within it. I'm not sure what the repercussions would be if mainstream started seeing science as religion considering the strong connotation the term has; that religion is not based on rationality.

So I would formally accept your definition. If we consider it outside of the context surrounding the term among the masses, it is a perfectly valid way to define it. But considering the context I am kind of tending towards just avoiding the term altogether and stating my beliefs for what they are, and I'd say they're quite similar to what you stated. Logic based scientific process and individualism. I'm just not sure whether I'd outright put myself in the atheist category as I might be more of an agnostic - simply not knowing God exists and keeping it at that, but not necessarily believing I have to know right now either.

So it's kinda like keeping my options open, but not believing until I have solid and sufficiently convincing evidence to believe.

Cheers

Danijel

Thomas Jollans: Oh, Paris !

nospam@example.com (Thomas Jollans) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:46:30 +0000

Indeed, trips to Europe would be way to expensive for you guys. The flight to Paris and back was less that €100 for us... but I could imagine a trip to, say, Montréal, plausible for you...

Tyler King: Oh, Paris !

nospam@example.com (Tyler King) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:39:46 +0000

Sounds like you had a good "academic" time . My school does trips like this (trips to London or France, etc.), except, its highly expensive, upwards of $1500 CAD/USD. So, I don't get to go anywhere