Featured Games:
00:15 8bit killer
00:18 10800 Zombies
00:20 A Game With A Kitty 2
00:23 a7x
00:25 Absolute Blue
00:28 Action Fist
00:30 Ainevoltas 2
00:33 Akuji The Demon
00:35 Alien Abduction
00:38 Alien Assault
00:40 Alien Breed Obliteration
00:43 Alien Deathmatch 2
00:45 An Untitled Story
00:48 Anamaton
00:50 Ancient Ants Adventure
00:53 Arc Aether Anomalies
00:55 Armed Generator Doom Machine
00:58 Attack of the Paper Zombies
01:00 Banana Nababa
01:03 Bernard & Hank 2
01:05 Big Building boom Blues
01:08 Blasterman vs Yellowskull
01:10 Blasting Agent
01:13 Block
01:15 Block Towers
01:18 Blockman Gets
01:20 Blocks n Bricks
01:23 Blocksum
01:25 Bombie Zombie
01:28 Bonesaw
01:30 Canabalt
01:33 Carnage street
01:35 Castle Of Elite
01:38 Castlevania The Bloodletting
01:40 Cave Story
01:43 Centipong
01:45 Chalk
01:48 Cho Ren Sha 68k
01:50 Clean Asia
01:53 Click Copter
01:55 Coal
01:58 Cobex
02:00 Cottage Of Doom
02:03 Cowboykilla
02:05 Crayon Physics
02:08 Crazy Over Goo
02:10 Crystal Cubes
02:13 Das Uberleben
02:15 Death Worm
02:18 Debrysis
02:20 Demolition Gunner
02:23 Destruction Carnival 2.0
02:25 Destructivator
02:28 Dino Run
02:30 drone
02:33 Dungeon Chaos
02:35 DUO
02:38 DUOtris
02:40 Echoes
02:43 Enough Plumbers
02:45 Enviro-Bear 2000
02:48 Eternal Daughter
02:50 Fig. 8
02:53 Fish Face
02:55 Flyout
02:58 Flywrench
03:00 Focus
03:03 Forward Always Forward
03:05 Fraxy
03:08 Frets on Fire
03:10 Frozzd
03:13 Gamma Bros
03:15 Gang Garrison 2
03:18 Garden Gnome Carnage
03:20 GearToyGear
03:23 GENERIC
03:25 Generic Arena Shmup
03:28 Genetos
03:30 Gianas Return
03:33 Globot Wars
03:35 Gloomy Nights And Living Dead
03:38 Gravitron
03:40 Gravity Bone
03:43 Gravortex
03:45 Grid Assault
03:48 Grid Defender 2
03:50 Gridwars
03:53 Guardian Of Paradise
03:55 Gunroar
03:58 Hakaiman
04:00 Hane 2 Paradise
04:03 Hellycopter
04:05 Hero Core
04:08 Horizontal Shooter Redux
04:10 Hurrican
04:13 Icy Tower
04:15 Igneous
04:18 Iji
04:20 Island Hoping
04:23 Jardinains
04:25 JNKPlat 2010
04:28 Jumper 3
04:30 Jumpman
04:33 Karnn Age
04:35 King
04:38 Knight of the Living Dead
04:40 Knytt
04:43 Knytt Stories
04:45 Kobo Deluxe
04:48 La Mulana
04:50 Lbreakout 2
04:53 Legend Of Princess
04:55 Legend Of Shadow
04:58 Lethal Application
05:00 lockon
05:03 Love+
05:05 Lunaria
05:08 Lyle in Cube Sector
05:10 Madness Reloaded
05:13 Meatboy
05:15 Mechatron: 2154
05:18 Mega Man 7-FC
05:20 Merry Gear Solid 2
05:23 Microbes
05:25 Millenipede
05:28 Mission Extreme
05:30 Mogura 2
05:33 Mono
05:35 Mr. Kittys Quest
05:38 Mubbly Tower
05:40 muon
05:43 Mystical Ninji DX
05:45 N
05:48 NAAC
05:50 Nanosmiles
05:53 Neonplat
05:55 Neva
05:58 Nezumiman
06:00 Nikujin
06:03 Ninja Rush
06:05 Ninjah
06:08 Noitu Love
06:10 Obake
06:13 Open LieroX
06:15 Pacman Ex 3
06:18 Pacz! - Pacmanworlds 2
06:20 Paroxysm
06:23 Path Of Time
06:25 Phun
06:28 Plasma Warrior
06:30 Poing
06:33 Polarity
06:35 Project F-60
06:38 Prototype 1
06:40 Prototype 2
06:43 Protozoa
06:45 Pteroglider
06:48 Purple
06:50 Push Push Penguin
06:53 Q-Lat 3
06:55 Railroad Rampage
06:58 Rainbow Wars
07:00 Rayhound
07:03 Remaddening
07:05 Rescue The Beagles
07:08 Retrobattle
07:10 Return to Sector 9
07:13 Robbie Swifthand
07:15 Runman Race Around The World
07:18 Saintrooper
07:20 Seiklus
07:23 Self Destruct
07:25 Shotgun Fun Fun
07:28 Shotgun Ninja
07:30 Sim War 5
07:33 Skullpogo
07:35 Soldat
07:38 Space Barnacle
07:40 Special Agent
07:43 Spelunky
07:45 Squid And Let Die
07:48 Squish
07:50 Star Guard
07:53 Strange Attractors
07:55 Streambolt
07:58 Streambolt Desero
08:00 Streets Of Rage Remake
08:03 SUAVE
08:05 Super Mario Bros Crossover
08:08 Super Mario Bros X
08:10 Super Mario War
08:13 Super Obliteration
08:15 Super Stun n Run
08:18 super vampire ninja zero
08:20 Survival Crisis Z
08:23 Swarm Racer
08:25 Synaesthete
08:28 Synchro
08:30 SYNSO 2
08:33 SYNSO championship edition
08:35 T2002
08:38 Tank Domination
08:40 Tasty Static
08:43 Teeworlds
08:45 Tekkyuuman
08:48 Tetrablocks
08:50 Tetraform
08:53 Tetripong
08:55 The Cleaner
08:58 The Hordes
09:00 The Power
09:03 Theseus
09:05 Thrust Extreme
09:08 Thrustburst
09:10 Toribash
09:13 Torque
09:15 Torus Trooper
09:18 Tower Bombarde
09:20 Treasure Tower
09:23 Trilby
09:25 troid
09:28 Tumiki Figthers
09:30 Turbopac
09:33 Typhoon 2001
09:35 Uchuusen
09:38 Umbrella Adventure
09:40 Varia
09:43 VECK
09:45 Voltorometer Recharged
09:48 Warning Forever
09:50 Western Shootout
09:53 Wire Robo
09:55 Within A Deep Forest
09:58 Wootman

^first of all, i don't think it's fair to measure the energy calculation in joules.

Solar income is by far the biggest energy contribution to the production of crops, not any human factor. we're merely facilitating a nice opportunity for the plants to convert photons to food, because we can't to that ourselves. so the whole thing rests on our metabolism being "wasteful", energy-wise.

Another reason strict caloric calulation is meaningless for farming, is that the US and EU are subsidizing their domestic agriculture industry with billions of dollars, making farming methods and yields completely divorced from the financial success of a farmer.
Here, I can mostly speak from experience in the EU, where subsidies are often given for weird, counterintuitive behavior, meant to satisfy other goals than production, such as specific, fashionable environmental concerns ("preserve hedges and enclosures!"), or simply to preserve employment in that sector. Talk about wasteful.

And why isn't the haber process sustainable? Because it's dependent on fossil fuels? it only gets the hydrogen part from natural gas, the nitrogen comes from the atmosphere. A lot of people are spending lot of money these days on developing efficient, large scale, renewable hydrogen production, such as electrolysis machines running off solar/wind/nuclear power.
When people talk about "sustainable", they often forget to take into account future developments, and proceed to make gloomy prognoses based on current technology (see: Thomas Malthus)

Don't you like when the winter's gone
And all of a sudden it starts gettin warm
The trees and the grass start lookin fresh
And the sun and sky be lookin their best
Birds be singin, flowers be bloomin
A lot of brand new cars be zoomin
Fly girls lookin the best they can be
And the guys be dukey dukey Dan you see
Besides all that I like the warm weather
Cause that's when you can get yourself together
But I like Easter time with a grin
Cause when I was little we used to go to Coney I-sland
We used to eat a lot of stuff like cotton candy
Cause back then, it was like fine and dandy
You used to get dressed up in double knits
And your plaid suit jackets, they were the shits
The good ol' days, was back then
And the reason I reminisce, cause..

Now girls - have you ever broke up with your boyfriend
And you felt that the world was comin to an end
Sittin around the house poutin for no reason
Just because you thought your man was skeezin
For a couple of days, look gloomy and gray
Thinkin about the ol' happy days
All of a sudden, the telephone ring
He beg for your forgiveness and you know what that brings
Joy and happiness into your life
Before you felt like your heart was stabbed by a knife
I'm tellin you girl

>> ^Pprt:
I watched this not-so-shocking "expose" in the past, and there's surprising here at all.
Those who made innapropriate and outlandish statements were either expelled or dealt with internally. The same would happen with any other BNP member today.

That's hilarious. It's akin to the current government ministers abusing the system of expenses to plump up their salaries and then paying it back, as though that makes it better. As you well know, getting rid of the visible symptoms doesn't hide the illness. It's like throwing away a drug addict's favourite spoon and lighter.

Actually, who am i kidding? It's nowhere near similar, because these people probably still have active roles for the BNP only off the cards. There's ways round everything.

Advocating or perpretrating violence is a noble solution, but these opinions and these individuals are products of their environment.

Oh the naughty child syndrome argument. That's a good one. Right up there with "His heart's in the right place, bless him." Let's forgive everyone everything because they're just a product of their upbringing. I was emotionally abused when i was growing up, i've turned into a law abiding, non-violent, caring person. I know people who were physically, sexually abused growing up, they're also great people now. That excuse works for VERY limited variables.

Imagine that 30 years ago you lived in a nice town where everyone got along nicely and you self safe at night. Today one quarter of the population is Asian, religiously and culturally segregated, heavily unemployed, unfriendly, self-centered and violent. Of course they're mad.
Does anger make violence a noble solution? Never.

Heh, i'll do you one better. THIRTY YEARS AGO nick griffin (the BNP elected MEP) was taking an organisational role in the NF (national front). After having disagreements with the NF (he was too racist), he played a key role in arranging the INF (international third position). Read more about THAT particular racist group here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Third_Position.

So you've exposed your own defence of the BNP as a load of old bollocks without me even having to do it for you. Congratulations.

But regardless of your lying defence of these people, i still respect your right to an opinion. At least now you'll accept that the BNP are racists, are staffed by ex-criminals and ex-neo-nazis. At least now you'll accept that you want a racist government to go along with your racist ideals, and people will have to just accept you as you are. At least now you won't be hiding behind a facade of legitimacy, right?

You can be sure as hell if immigration weren't so mismanaged and had a less gloomy prospect the BNP would not be running on this particularly pressing social issue. Perhaps they'd focus on health care, the elderly, road signage... who knows.

OH MAYBE NOT!!!!!

The British people have a right to demonstrate concerns about the politics of immigration and they have a right to vote for the BNP. If you're averse to that, you're more intolerant that you think they are.

I'm extremely intolerant of intolerancy.

Anyone reading any of these posts, stop around the point where pprt willfully walks into his own debunk, beginning with "these poor guys 30 years ago they had such a peaceful and non-wacist attitude and now these modern politics are just making them angwy!!!!! "

I apologise for the lack of aplomb and delivery which i normally have, i've just woken up and these comments required an immediate reply before anyone gets sucked into his bullshit.

I watched this not-so-shocking "expose" in the past, and there's surprising here at all.

Those who made innapropriate and outlandish statements were either expelled or dealt with internally. The same would happen with any other BNP member today.

Advocating or perpretrating violence is a noble solution, but these opinions and these individuals are products of their environment.

Imagine that 30 years ago you lived in a nice town where everyone got along nicely and you self safe at night. Today one quarter of the population is Asian, religiously and culturally segregated, heavily unemployed, unfriendly, self-centered and violent. Of course they're mad.

Does anger make violence a noble solution? Never.

You can be sure as hell if immigration weren't so mismanaged and had a less gloomy prospect the BNP would not be running on this particularly pressing social issue. Perhaps they'd focus on health care, the elderly, road signage... who knows.

The British people have a right to demonstrate concerns about the politics of immigration and they have a right to vote for the BNP. If you're averse to that, you're more intolerant that you think they are.

I wish they'd make a decent video game version of 'Wheel of Fortune', with the real theme song, sound effects and Pat & Vanna. Since it wouldn't be too hard to program, they could pack in Jeopardy and the Price is Right too. It would be a great party game for when you are hanging out with your non-gamer friends.

Awesome that you got to go to E3. I've been trying to find a way into that thing for ages. Prototype looks pretty cool, and similar to 'inFamous' for the PS3, which was pretty fun.

How are things in poolcleaner.land?


In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Dude, that is exactly how Vanna White sounds on the Sega Genesis Wheel of Fortune when she congratulates a player.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Cungradulayshuns!

Dude, that is exactly how Vanna White sounds on the Sega Genesis Wheel of Fortune when she congratulates a player.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Cungradulayshuns!

CONGRATULATIONS!

http://obscure.videosift.com/talk/RedSky-gets-Gold-100-No-need-to-look-gloomy

I am posting the preface in its entirety, as I think it touches on most socialistic arguments put forth here. If this preface intrigues you, by all means...read on.

"It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as 'natural' and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once 'artificial' and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as "Utopian Socialists." Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.

It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an "ideological superstructure" of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was "revealed" as "bourgeois" reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.

At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term "Marxist" all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which "shall" come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx's prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx's arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.

The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart's Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life's game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name "Scientific Socialism" and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.

In this new edition of my book, which has been considerably revised, I have ventured to defy the almost universally respected Marxian prohibition by examining the problems of the socialist construction of society on scientific lines, i.e., by the aid of sociological and economic theory. While gratefully recalling the men whose research has opened the way for all work, my own included, in this field, it is still a source of gratification to me to be in a position to claim to have broken the ban placed by Marxism on the scientific treatment of these problems. Since the first publication of this book, problems previously ignored have come into the foreground of scientific interest; the discussion of Socialism and Capitalism has been placed on a new footing. Those who were formerly content to make a few vague remarks about the blessings which Socialism would bring are now obliged to study the nature of the socialist society. The problems have been defined and can no longer be ignored.

As might be expected, socialists of every sort and description, from the most radical Soviet Bolshevists to the "Edelsozialisten" of western civilization, have attempted to refute my reasonings and conclusions. But they have not succeeded, they have not even managed to bring forward any argument that I had not already discussed and disproved. At the present time, scientific discussion of the basic problems of Socialism follows the line of the investigation of this book.

The arguments by which I demonstrated that, in a socialist community, economic calculation would not be possible have attracted especially wide notice. Two years before the appearance of the first edition of my book I published this section of my investigations in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft (Vol. XLVII, No. I), where it is worded almost exactly as in both editions of the present work. The problem, which had scarcely been touched before, at once roused lively discussion in German-speaking countries and abroad. It may truly be said that the discussion is now closed; there is today hardly any opposition to my contention.

Shortly after the first edition appeared, Heinrich Herkner, chief of the Socialists of the Chair ("Kathedersozialisten") in succession to Gustav Schmoller, published an essay which in all essentials supported my criticism of Socialism.[1] His remarks raised quite a storm amongst German socialists and their literary followings. Thus there arose, in the midst of the catastrophic struggle in the Ruhr and the hyper-inflation, a controversy which speedily became known as the crisis of the "Social Reform Policy." The result of the controversy was indeed meagre. The "sterility" of socialist thought, to which an ardent socialist had drawn attention, was especially apparent on this occasion.[2] Of the good results that can be obtained by an unprejudiced scientific study of the problems of Socialism there is proof in the admirable works of Pohle, Adolf Weber, Röpke, Halm, Sulzbach, Brutzkus, Robbins, Hutt, Withers, Benn, and others.

But scientific inquiry into the problems of Socialism is not enough. We must also break down the wall of prejudice which at present blocks the way to an unbiased scrutiny of these problems. Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question, whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance—to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered as good and Capitalism as evil—whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with that "moral pathos," which we find in the invitation to the Eisenach Congress in 1872 and on which Socialists and Etatists always fall back, because they can find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.

The older Liberalism, based on the classical political economy, maintained that the material position of the whole of the wage-earning classes could only be permanently raised by an increase of capital, and this none but capitalist society based on private ownership of the means of production can guarantee to find. Modern subjective economics has strengthened and confirmed the basis of the view by its theory of wages. Here modern Liberalism agrees entirely with the older school. Socialism, however, believes that the socialization of the means of production is a system which would bring wealth to all. These conflicting views must be examined in the light of sober science: righteous indignation and jeremiads take us nowhere.

It is true that Socialism is today an article of faith for many, perhaps for most of its adherents. But scientific criticism has no nobler task than to shatter false beliefs.

To protect the socialist ideal from the crushing effects of such criticism, attempts have recently been made to improve upon the accepted definition of the concept "Socialism." My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what has stood for Socialism for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic. But why quarrel over the wording of it! If anyone likes to call a social ideal which retains private ownership in the means of production socialistic, why, let him! A man may call a cat a dog and the sun the moon if it pleases him. But such a reversal of the usual terminology, which everyone understands, does no good and only creates misunderstandings. The problem which here confronts us is the socialization of ownership in the means of production, i.e. the very problem over which a worldwide and bitter struggle has been waged now for a century, the problem (above all others) of our epoch.

One cannot evade this defining of Socialism by asserting that the concept Socialism includes other things besides the socialization of the means of production: by saying, for example, that we are actuated by certain special motives when we are socialists, or that there is a second aim—perhaps a purely religious concept bound up with it. Supporters of Socialism hold that the only brand worthy the name is that which desires socialization of the means of production for "noble" motives. Others, who pass for opponents of Socialism, will have it that nationalization of the means of production desired from "ignoble" motives only, has to be styled Socialism also. Religious socialists say that genuine Socialism is bound up with religion; the atheistical socialist insists on abolishing God along with private property. But the problem of how a socialistic society could function is quite separate from the question of whether its adherents propose to worship God or not and whether or not they are guided by motives which Mr. X from his private point of view would call noble or ignoble. Each group of the great socialist movement claims its own as the only true brand and regards the others as heretical; and naturally tries to stress the difference between its own particular ideal and those of other parties. I venture to claim that in the course of my researches I have brought forward all that need be said about these claims.

In this emphasizing of the peculiarities of particular socialist tendencies, the bearing which they may have on the aims of democracy and dictatorship obviously plays a significant part. Here, too, I have nothing to add to what I have said on the subject in various parts of this book (Chapter 3, Chapter 15, and Chapter 31). It suffices here to say that the planned economy which the advocates of dictatorship wish to set up is precisely as socialistic as the Socialism propagated by the self-styled Social Democrats.

Capitalist society is the realization of what we should call economic democracy, had not the term—according I believe, to the terminology of Lord Passfield and Mrs. Webb—come into use and been applied exclusively to a system in which the workers, as producers, and not the consumers themselves, would decide what was to be produced and how. This state of affairs would be as little democratic as, say, a political constitution under which the government officials and not the whole people decided how the state was to be governed—surely the opposite of what we are accustomed to call democracy. When we call a capitalist society a consumers' democracy we mean that the power to dispose of the means of production, which belongs to the entrepreneurs and capitalists, can only be acquired by means of the consumers' ballot, held daily in the market-place. Every child who prefers one toy to another puts its voting paper in the ballot-box, which eventually decides who shall be elected captain of industry. True, there is no equality of vote in this democracy; some have plural votes. But the greater voting power which the disposal of a greater income implies can only be acquired and maintained by the test of election. That the consumption of the rich weighs more heavily in the balance than the consumption of the poor—though there is a strong tendency to overestimate considerably the amount consumed by the well-to-do classes in proportion to the consumption of the masses—is in itself an 'election result', since in a capitalist society wealth can be acquired and maintained only by a response corresponding to the consumers' requirements. Thus the wealth of successful business men is always the result of a consumers' plebiscite, and, once acquired, this wealth can be retained only if it is employed in the way regarded by consumers as most beneficial to them. The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections. There are said to be voters who, faced with a decision between Free Trade and Protection, the Gold Standard and Inflation, are unable to keep in view all that their decision implies. The buyer who has to choose between different sorts of beer or makes of chocolate has certainly an easier job of it.

The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism. The criticisms in this book are aimed impartially at all the conceivable forms of the socialistic community.

Only Syndicalism, which differs fundamentally from Socialism, calls for special treatment (Chapter 16, Section 4).

I hope that these remarks will convince even the cursory and superficial reader that my investigation and criticisms do not apply solely to Marxian Socialism. As, however, all socialistic movements have been strongly stimulated by Marxism I devote more space to Marxian views than to those of other varieties of Socialism. I think I have passed in review everything bearing essentially on these problems and made an exhausting criticism of the characteristic features of non-Marxist programmes too.

My book is a scientific inquiry, not a political polemic. I have analysed the basic problems and passed over, as far as possible, all the economic and political struggles of the day and the political adjustments of governments and parties. And this will, I believe, prove the best way of preparing the foundation of an understanding of the politics of the last few decades and years: above all, of the politics of tomorrow. Only a complete critical study of the ideas of Socialism will enable us to understand what is happening around us.

The habit of talking and writing about economic affairs without having probed relentlessly to the bottom of their problems has taken the zest out of public discussions on questions vital to human society and diverted politics into paths that lead directly to the destruction of all civilization. The proscription of economic theory, which began with the German historical school, and today finds expression notably in American Institutionalism, has demolished the authority of qualified thought on these matters. Our contemporaries consider that anything which comes under the heading of Economics and Sociology is fair game to the unqualified critic. It is assumed that the trade union official and the entrepreneur are qualified by virtue of their office alone to decide questions of political economy. "Practical men" of this order, even those whose activities have, notoriously, often led to failure and bankruptcy, enjoy a spurious prestige as economists which should at all costs be destroyed. On no account must a disposition to avoid sharp words be permitted to lead to a compromise. It is time these amateurs were unmasked.

The solution of every one of the many economic questions of the day requires a process of thought, of which only those who comprehend the general interconnection of economic phenomena are capable. Only theoretical inquiries which get to the bottom of things have any real practical value. Dissertations on current questions which lose themselves in detail are useless, for they are too much absorbed in the particular and the accidental to have eyes for the general and the essential.

It is often said that all scientific inquiry concerning Socialism is useless, because none but the comparatively small number of people who are able to follow scientific trains of thought can understand it. For the masses, it is said, they will always remain incomprehensible. To the masses the catchwords of Socialism sound enticing and the people impetuously desire Socialism because in their infatuation they expect it to bring full salvation and satisfy their longing for revenge. And so they will continue to work for Socialism, helping thereby to bring about the inevitable decline of the civilization which the nations of the West have taken thousands of years to build up. And so we must inevitably drift on to chaos and misery, the darkness of barbarism and annihilation.

I do not share this gloomy view. It may happen thus, but it need not happen thus. It is true that the majority of mankind are not able to follow difficult trains of thought, and that no schooling will help those who can hardly grasp the most simple proposition to understand complicated ones. But just because they cannot think for themselves the masses follow the lead of the people we call educated. Once convince these, and the game is won. But I do not want to repeat here what I have already said in the first edition of this book, at the end of the last chapter.

I know only too well how hopeless it seems to convince impassioned supporters of the Socialist Idea by logical demonstration that their views are preposterous and absurd. I know too well that they do not want to hear, to see, or above all to think, and that they are open to no argument. But new generations grow up with clear eyes and open minds. And they will approach things from a disinterested, unprejudiced standpoint, they will weigh and examine, will think and act with forethought. It is for them that this book is written.

Several generations of economic policy which was nearly liberal have enormously increased the wealth of the world. Capitalism has raised the standard of life among the masses to a level which our ancestors could not have imagined. Interventionism and efforts to introduce Socialism have been working now for some decades to shatter the foundations of the world economic system. We stand on the brink of a precipice which threatens to engulf our civilization. Whether civilized humanity will perish forever or whether the catastrophe will be averted at the eleventh hour and the only possible way of salvation retraced—by which we mean the rebuilding of a society based on the unreserved recognition of private property in the means of production—is a question which concerns the generation destined to act in the coming decades, for it is the ideas behind their actions that will decide it.

Vienna, January 1932"

I posted it the last time this came up in sift talk and its still relevant. So, here is the copy paste to save me the re-write:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)

"Fighting" climate change makes you *feel* good because you're taking action with good intentions. Working towards cleaner industry and a generally more environmentally friendly society is a great goal. Throwing trillions of dollars at something that scientists do not even agree is a real problem is just a poor idea. Costs are fine, if you can prove you are actually going to fix something. Don't forget that regulation is a business. Apply the same skepticism to handing them trillions of dollars that you do to anything else. It's almost become fashionable to be environmentally conscious today with the government regulating us damn near into oblivion. You can't drill for oil here, you can't build power plants here, you have protected habitats springing up all the time, initiatives to change all light bulbs to the mercury filled energy savers are in place, and the list goes on. Basically, the planet's weather and climate systems are incredibly complex, and the data/support from the scientific community is just falling away from global warming. What I think will be even funnier is when we reach the point where the doomsday prediction deadlines have faded into history, there will still be people preaching environmental doom just over the horizon, and the failed predictions will be explained as being narrowly avoided by whatever feel-good eviro fad we're currently into. Of course by then we'll most likely be fearing death by another ice age if the historic trends keep up.

Here is a final bit for you from the Royal Society's talk on the future of science and the distaste for global warming junk science.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Future-of-science-talk-at-the-Royal-Society
(1 minute mark)

What are your thoughts on God deciding to create Jesus today instead of 2000 years ago, and Mary wanting an abortion? Are you for theistic abortion, or against?

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Hehe, where would you like to start?

In reply to this comment by thinker247:
I'm always up for learning strange ideas about various topics. Maybe we could have a strange-off competition, then sit at home and cry about the fact that we just competed to see who is more strange. Or not.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
I'm Toby, a true blue swede (blue because of the cold) and procrastinator extraordinaire. Socialy inept, silent to the point where you might think me mute, gloomy to the point where you might think me suicidal, there's hardly any prejudice about swedes I'm not living up to.
There's nothing in particular that I'd put down as an interest. Don't have any real hobby or past-time occupation except for lurking the sift, really. Also, Got a bit of a pet peeve when it comes to people listing theirs and adding stuff like "music", "movies", "food" etc. For some reason it just feels like such unnecessary information, a filler if you will, like there would be anyone who didn't like music or who couldn't stand food. Not that the interests themselves are the issue mind you, but rather the lack of specificity.
I've some strange ideas on religion, politics, society, video games and just about anything you can imagine, and would love to exchange thoughts if you don't mind the ramblings of an uninformed and ineloquent mind.

Currently unemployed after some time working in the eldercare business, I'm waiting to start my university studies this fall and hopefully become an engineer someday.
Previously I studied to become an English teacher, but after two years there was no question I didn't have what it took to be a real good one, and it wouldn't be fair either to me or my students to do some halfassed work.

The most amazing person I've ever met was a 12 year-old boy who had immigrated with his family from Iran. He was fluent in three languages (Farsi, Swedish and English), was an advanced guitar player aswell as a straight A-student.
It's people like that who give me hope for the future of humanity.

I'm always up for learning strange ideas about various topics. Maybe we could have a strange-off competition, then sit at home and cry about the fact that we just competed to see who is more strange. Or not.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
I'm Toby, a true blue swede (blue because of the cold) and procrastinator extraordinaire. Socialy inept, silent to the point where you might think me mute, gloomy to the point where you might think me suicidal, there's hardly any prejudice about swedes I'm not living up to.
There's nothing in particular that I'd put down as an interest. Don't have any real hobby or past-time occupation except for lurking the sift, really. Also, Got a bit of a pet peeve when it comes to people listing theirs and adding stuff like "music", "movies", "food" etc. For some reason it just feels like such unnecessary information, a filler if you will, like there would be anyone who didn't like music or who couldn't stand food. Not that the interests themselves are the issue mind you, but rather the lack of specificity.
I've some strange ideas on religion, politics, society, video games and just about anything you can imagine, and would love to exchange thoughts if you don't mind the ramblings of an uninformed and ineloquent mind.

Currently unemployed after some time working in the eldercare business, I'm waiting to start my university studies this fall and hopefully become an engineer someday.
Previously I studied to become an English teacher, but after two years there was no question I didn't have what it took to be a real good one, and it wouldn't be fair either to me or my students to do some halfassed work.

The most amazing person I've ever met was a 12 year-old boy who had immigrated with his family from Iran. He was fluent in three languages (Farsi, Swedish and English), was an advanced guitar player aswell as a straight A-student.
It's people like that who give me hope for the future of humanity.

I'm Toby, a true blue swede (blue because of the cold) and procrastinator extraordinaire. Socialy inept, silent to the point where you might think me mute, gloomy to the point where you might think me suicidal, there's hardly any prejudice about swedes I'm not living up to.
There's nothing in particular that I'd put down as an interest. Don't have any real hobby or past-time occupation except for lurking the sift, really. Also, Got a bit of a pet peeve when it comes to people listing theirs and adding stuff like "music", "movies", "food" etc. For some reason it just feels like such unnecessary information, a filler if you will, like there would be anyone who didn't like music or who couldn't stand food. Not that the interests themselves are the issue mind you, but rather the lack of specificity.
I've some strange ideas on religion, politics, society, video games and just about anything you can imagine, and would love to exchange thoughts if you don't mind the ramblings of an uninformed and ineloquent mind.

Currently unemployed after some time working in the eldercare business, I'm waiting to start my university studies this fall and hopefully become an engineer someday.
Previously I studied to become an English teacher, but after two years there was no question I didn't have what it took to be a real good one, and it wouldn't be fair either to me or my students to do some halfassed work.

The most amazing person I've ever met was a 12 year-old boy who had immigrated with his family from Iran. He was fluent in three languages (Farsi, Swedish and English), was an advanced guitar player aswell as a straight A-student.
It's people like that who give me hope for the future of humanity.

From the article I posted above:
"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

and actually, NCFOM held me and Soupskin's attention the entire time. Believe me, we were RIVETTED by it. So much so that the credits had been rolling a while before we fully took in that it was over.

What I did miss, and I think this is bad direction/production is that Moss was dead. The camera showed it for all of a second (maybe) and I was supposed to deduce that fact from his clothes, being as he was one more body lying on the floor covered in blood?
I'm not stupid by any means, I'm not inattentive - especially during that movie - but I am nearsighted slightly and I COMPLETELY missed that Moss was dead. Thus perhaps the ending missed the mark for me a bit. I didn't know Carla Jean was a widow when she made her statment. She mentioned her mother dying and that was it. That's some crappy acting/direction right there. I "get" subtlty. I'm probably the only person in the whole bible belt who "got" "Jacob's Ladder" and rolled my eyes at how overdone the ending was (still in my top five of movies) so it's not that I "missed" the meaning. I just feel that the ending was not meaningful (as was the whole movie) it was thematic

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
-------Spoilers-------

NCFOM does have quite a bit of humor in it and isn't nearly as dark or gloomy as se7en. It plays as a tight little thriller for 2/3rds and then turns very real, which is a nice twist you don't see coming.

If you like Coen films like Blood Simple or Fargo, then this one shouldn't be a problem.

The meaning of the film is in the title, and this revelation is tossed at you very softly minutes before the abrupt end of the film, so don't blink or go to the bathroom.

------MAJOR SPOILER-------

The scary dude DOES get called on his pseudo masculine fatalist bullshit by the wife just before she is killed. She tells him that he is the one who makes the decision to murder, not coins or games. His mojo is thrown off, which results in a nasty car accident. I personally assume that the character recovers to kill again, but with out the glee and games of the past. In keeping with the title, I believe he becomes an old man in that scene, just like TLJ in the last hotel scene.

There is plenty of meaning in the film if you want to find it.

IMO, this is one of the best films of the year. It held my complete attention up until the very last scene, which I missed because I went to the bathroom.