Messages

Quit fooling around. We all know you're talking about Joseph Beuys.

Look below, EvenWolf started a thread on this a week ago (titled "The Matrices"). Plenty of discussion in there.

As for myself, I haven't seen it yet... if it ends up being on TV at some point when I have access to one, I'll probably watch it, but I don't care enough to pay for it or bother getting it off the net.

Twiddling knobs (to use this phrase for the 2938th time), messing with sequences or playing the keyboard, mainly...

Everything.

Electronic music fake? That's a can of giant mutant killer worms best left unopened, so I'll keep quiet about it.

Regarding the interest thing, I don't really understand why it's so important for so many musicians to jump around and whatnot on the stage - but your question is about knob-twiddling, not circus performances. Concerning that - maybe you could hook up the laptop to a projector or something to replace the visible twiddling of physical knobs with that of software?

Here's mine:

http://konterbande.org/uhhr.zip

About 50 minutes... no music this time.

A Macedonian caught a golden shark. The shark said "If you let me go I'll grant you a wish."
"OK," says our hero, "I want a million dollars!"
"OK," said the shark and bit his legs off.

Soundclick.

For me, turning off the 85 Hz display thing did the trick. Antialiased sprites are on. (98 SE)

Knock knock.

Who's dead?

I'm currently re-reading Peake's Gormenghast books because I haven't had much opportunity to buy new books lately, and also because they're worth it.

Let epsilon be < 0.

Oh please. This was revealed to be a hoax years ago, and people are still falling for it? Also, I don't quite see what's so tasteless about it, since no cats were ever actually harmed in any way at all.

Sent on to Simple.

[HELLO, YOU TWO. THE MATCH IS OVER. STOP POSTING.]

HELLO, YOU TWO. THE MATCH IS OVER. STOP POSTING.

What I intended to say was not that the changes you propose are impossible or unattainable, or even that we shouldn't try, but that charity, whether on TV or elsewhere, is a minor obstacle, if it is one at all. That is why I pointed out how fundamental your demands are - there are so many things in the way that charity's one negative effect, that of cementing the status quo (I love this phrase for some reason) does not outweigh the short-term good that it does.

Again, I cannot see charity as anything but a symptom (in the context of your argument), albeit one that fortifies its cause - but not on such a scale that it can be viewed as counterproductive.

But that would not at all mean that TV (or any other) charities are in any way the cause of the problem; they would be a symptom. The changes you demand from a society that largely depends on charity are so fundamental that these charities' effect of cementing the status quo does not make enough of a difference to outweigh the good they do by helping those who fall through the cracks; their absence would not somehow magically cause this society to reform, no, it would be a symptom of the faults you assume having worsened in that the public that was previously unwilling or too lazy to help those unable to hep themselves is now not even interested in having the excuse that somebody is doing something.

Your argument fails similarly when applied to external matters such as starvation in various third-world countries. These countries are usually so extremely poor that their inhabitants simply can't afford to support each other via government means - and in fact, what government there is there tends to be rather corrupt and untrustworthy. There is so much wrong and broken there that external short-term and long-term help is strictly necessary, but whether you provide short-term or long-term help or both is merely a question of how you spend the money you're already willing to invest. Are you asking for a global system to help poorer countries develop? Here, the necessary changes are even greater and deeper than in the case of a single state's society. While I agree that charity can only be an intermediate solution, I would still say that the harm that it could possibly do (fortifying the status quo, as said before) is so minuscule compared to these obstacles that they are of no significance.

Your point may be valid in some ways, but it only applies to local charities - and as we are talking about charity television in general, that is not enough. Besides, your "faceless government institution" argument works both ways. Is it really better to receive money from such an institution, where people are employed who do this same thing every day, so that they grow weary of it and begin treating the needy they help (according to a system as proposed by you) in such a manner that they might as well say "Here's your money, have it and be gone with you, you filthy, begging, useless old scumbeard! Next!" - is this better than receiving charitable gifts from people who, while they ultimately do it for one selfish reason or another, don't have this weariness that any daily job entails?

Also, assuming your point to be entirely valid: wouldn't then a society in which civic charity is a necessity need to be reformed? Would it not be a good thing if the populace grew less fond of the way such affairs are conducted by the state?

Look at those whom those charities ostensibly seek to help - starving children (plus starving adults; nobody ever seems to consider them worth mentioning) and other victims of poverty. Now, I'm not so naive as to claim or believe that the improvement of their lives is the true purpose of these shows; no, they're merely a vehicle of furthering the popularity of the participating celebrities or organizations with those who are. Sadly, most people fall for it. Try to criticise

"Wait", I hear you say, "aren't you on the wrong side there?" Not necessarily. It's a fact that hypocrisy is rampant in charitable organizations and events of all kinds. I cannot deny this. However, does this mean that they effectively work against their own alleged purpose? Let your mental eye rest for a while upon the target audience of such charity shows. While it is true that many of them are deceived into believing that enough good is being done, or even (especially in the case of the studio audience) that they themselves have done their part, do you really think that a substantial number of them would have done more to help? More importantly, would those whose money goes into the charity pot have given much without the opportunity of improving the view of them held by the public eye?

It is true that the goodwill of the public is being used. But it is also true that in order to exploit any good you do for your own advantage you first have to actually do it. To those who really need it, help given selfishly is still better than no help at all.

Speaking of good cartoons being axed, I loved Freakazoid!

And once again I try to direct people towards the Digital Archive Project. Freakazoid is one of the archived shows. (and yes, it's a \o/ - worthy show)