- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 1248
It's everywhere and it's become a little too overwhelming.
If you think about it, philosophically, your entire lie is implied consent - you were born without your permission, you work without it, live, die with out it, it's merely taken for granted. Too much of life happens "TO" you, without any consultation, and at no point in the process are you sufficiently informed to to make even the simplest of decisions.
Nobody is, despite what they tell you, and when you consent to anything you're generally setting yourself up for a whole slew of unintended and unimagined consequences which may well haunt you until the end of your days.
But this isn't about that.
I'm speaking of Advertising, which has become ubiquitous online - and given how much of our lives is conducted online now it's become too much.
In websites, often so cluttered that you can't see the very article you came for, that then try and sell you adblockers for the very ads they're throwing at you - YouTube, I mean you. I mean, fucking hell, I have to watch an ad now just to watch an ad or product endorsement.
Product endorsements are another ones - clickbait articles that lead you to paid advertisements masking as news articles, "New discovery", the abundant products embedded in reviews, movies, books even (American Psycho), the list doesn't end.
The news itself - nothing but product endorsements, those flashes on rising crime, civil unrest, violence, they're all selling you on anti-depressants, security systems, guns, when was the last time you saw a news story about a company that paid for advertising? You don't. You pay for advertising and all the news is good. Pay for the news and you still get the ads, now only they're embedded in the journalism, not in the margins.
Every website rapes you with them - how many don't? Not many, for sure. And they're loaded in before the content - waiting on your article? Sorry, wait for the ads which we have to determine by your browsing history, user profile, internet searches, predicted age, sex, hobbies...
They've made it a condition of accessing the internet - it's become the new social contract, you're on occasion reminded by the insidious "Accept cookies" that pops up from time to time, the terms and conditions of which no one in the world has time to read.
And what's really starting to piss me off is how my email has been hijacked by it. "Promotions" tab for things I have no interest in, have never searched, I used to think it was that Rod Boyle Bastard in Australia signing me up for all sorts of random shit (Actually, I'm sure he's a pretty solid guy. With a name like that...), but of late I'm just convinced that it's google trying to monetize the fuck out of me, sure, I could get a new email address, but I've had this for years, and there's the "Sunk-Costs" fallacy, that I've invested in this email, who has time to change it, my letterhead and stationary, notify relatives, businesses? And they know this, that's why they start this shit with you.
I've come up with a theory that I should perhaps just start over online. Ditch all my emails. Only surf the net in full privacy mode. Physically write out the music videos I like and scrub my online presence. Maybe.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 2298
Original: http://rodboyle.com/index.php/68-calgary/2986-wuhan-covid-19
Now, more credible sources are being vocal about entertaining the same theory. Some good research and analysis, I'm inclined to agree, but - read the whole article and make up you're own mind.
Link: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/coronavirus-lab-escape-theory.html
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 1181
Much ado has been made about the intelligence of Octopodes, or Octopuses. So I wondered, has anyone ever thought to put a touch-screen in their aquarium? I mean, they could learn to change the background (different deep sea backgrounds, videos of other octopuses, predators, etc). What would they choose? Would they learn to operate it?
I mean, there should be a movement to get computers to or swipe screens to them, see what they do with them.
Because I'm curious.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 1090
You see it crop up on Facebook - "The Kootenay Housing Crisis", by which they mean there's a shortage of affordable housing for local residents.
This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit. Not the housing crisis, this is real, I've lived out 5 years now, or close enough to, and there is a dearth of available and affordable housing. And what's available is often misrepresented - what initially seems like a good deal is complicated by heating bills - out here that's a big expense, or driving (a must), or a dozen other unanticipated expenses that invariably end up being appended to your rent and cost of living.
But the term "Housing Crisis" - whether it be here or elsewhere - is too often applied to mean that there's a shortage of housing, when the fact of the matter is that there's a failure of governance to create and enforce policies and law that would ensure everyone had access to housing. Policies that would - for example - state that any property that sits vacant is subject to a substantially higher rates of tax than a property that is occupied. Policies that would tax secondary properties at substantially higher rates than primary properties - the fact remains that house prices are largely inflated due to speculation and foreign/absentee owners. And policies that would see properties that sit vacant for extended periods of time (say, for the sake of argument - 3 years) - whether it be because they're for sale or other reasons - can be seized and auctioned by the city or province.
Property - like too many other things - should not be a commodity that can be bought/sold/traded at a profit - it should be used and preserved. We have no problems suing landowners who contaminate their properties with toxic chemicals, we have laws preventing the building of unsafe structures, laws can as well be implemented that ensure everyone has equal opportunities to housing.
Other solutions worth considering: Do away with property ownership entirely, all property is "on lease" from the federal government, much like they do in National Parks. In theory, everyone should be able to afford housing FOR THEIR LIFETIME. Make property uninheritable - you can pass down your principle living residence upon your death, but all secondary residences are auctioned by the government. PROHIBIT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP (This is a no-brainer!) There are more, I'm sure, these are just a few that spring to mind.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 1016
This is, of course and we're all assured - a bad thing, and frankly I take a dim view of people that do it because it causes an increase in my rates.
On the other hand, why should we be forced to have insurance at all? I mean, it's obvious, if you think about it - it's to prevent us from incurring a debt or liability (eg: house fire on a mortgage, car accident that's our fault...etc) that we can't pay. The insurer then assumes the risk and adjusts the premium based on how risky they think we are.
But then, poke a little closer and you'll see some disturbing things. Like how come we have to pay insurance on every vehicle we own? Technically, I can only be driving one car at a time (despite having two hands). This is a nice piece of legislation that seems a tax on the rich. Or - if I have the assets to pay any liability I might incur, why should I have insurance?
Or, consider my case, but I think you can generalize to yourself - never a claim, in almost 40 years, wouldn't insurance then work better - for me, for us, if it was done like a life-insurance premium where we could at the end of our term withdraw (with compounded interest) our contributions?
The more you look at it, the more you realize that insurance is just a scam legislated into law by those interest groups with a share in insurance companies...