“We live in a culture that throws sexual imagery at us all the time, that bombards and drowns us with it — but not with our own real sexuality. We are bombarded with a marketing-based set of images, a phony simulation with all the wholesome goodness bleached out of it, fit into narrow and mainstream-friendly pigeon-holes. For those of us that don’t entirely fit what is being sold — and in at least some ways I think that’s most of us, the din can be so overwhelming that it can drown out even our internal voices, until the media is telling us our sexual selves.”—
So, did they find the God particle? Or did they play God themselves creating a few millions black holes most of which are floating around now. Let us hope none of them stay long enough to catch more mass.
Fuck voodoo physics and mad nuclear scientists. Why couldn’t you just keep on building simple nuclear bombs instead? Btw. did you know: The LHC is producing antimatter for antimatter weapons.
On March 19, CERN reached an all-time energy record, managing to fire up two separate proton beams in opposite directions at 3.5 trillion electron volts (TeV). That’s huge. That amount of energy is equivalent to the energy created by a fully-loaded aircraft carrier going 8 knots (about 9 mph). In comparison, the next most powerful accelerator—the Tevatron at Fermilab in Illinois—can reach a maximum of nearly 1 TeV. Well, now CERN is stepping up its game. In the early hours of March 30, they’ll begin working the two proton beams into a collision course, reaching a new record of 7 TeV.
Steve Myers, CERN’s director for accelerators and technology, describes the challenge of lining up the beams as being akin to “firing needles across the Atlantic and getting them to collide half way.”
The scientists are looking for clues to the Higgs-Boson, the proverbial blank spot in the standard model of physics, the particle which allegedly gives mass to all the matter in the universe. They’re also looking for clues about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Please direct all black hole questions to the right.
A. The object of sabotage and misappropriation, whether practiced by the individual or the group, is the unleashing of a wildcat strike.
B. Every wildcat strike must develop into a factory occupation.
C. Every factory occupied must be appropriated and turned promptly to the service of revolutionaries.
D. By choosing delegates (who are subject to instant recall and mandated to collate decisions and to oversee their implementation) the assembled strikers lay the groundwork for a radical reorganization of society… into a society of universal self-management.
Metafilter still exists? It even looks the same as in 2005. They don’t even bother to illustrate their posts. How vintage! Asides of that this here is a pretty good basic defintion of culture jamming and a link collection on top of that but without an image it will fail on Tumblr.
Should Food Stamps Buy Organic Salmon for Hipsters?
Let the hipsters starve. Maybe that will make them realize that being an apolitical fashion victim doesn’t pay the bills. I’m tired of young people who only care about looking cool and nothing else. A youth without rebellion is worthless. Let them eat their Nike sneakers made by children in Asia.
There’s been a lot of fuss and feathers about the Salonarticle “Hipsters on Food Stamps,” which describes the rise of 20-something artists who are now eligible for food assistance and and are using their benefits to float through a difficult recession, Perrier in hand.
The hipsters (read: bohemian-types in places like Brooklyn and Baltimore) defend themselves by saying they’ve been as hurt as anyone during these tough economic times. They meet the eligibility guidelines for food stamps, and they’re using that government subsidy wisely — by spending it on nutrient-rich food they cook at home.
Others are complaining that these lazy artists and writers and are spending taxpayer dollars on dinner parties and artisan cheeses.
Hipsters using food stamps is a new phenomenon, but the argument is as old as charity itself: if we’re going to give out benefits, and there’s not enough for everyone, whom do we help? On one hand, we might give assistance to the poorest of the poor who need the most help. On the other, shouldn’t we help those who just need a little leg up, temporary help that can get them out of a jam and back into economic productivity?
Where does our money do the most good? (I’m guessing few people would answer “Whole Foods.”)
We get angry with people who buy soda and chips with their food stamps. We get angry with those who buy organic produce. The bottom line is, we’re uncomfortable talking about poverty.
Here, we have a class of people with education and skills, but they’re still in the unemployment line. When there are six unemployed people for every one job available, we know we’ve got a problem. This recession has blurred our former class lines, pulling a lot of people who used to be in the middle class on down. At the same time, the people who were already low-income have sunk to no-income.
For both these groups, food stamps are one of the easiest, most direct forms of assistance our government can provide. Unlike welfare or unemployment, we can control what they do with it. The spending helps grocery stores stay in business, and whether that’s Whole Foods or Save-A-Lot, that means keeping other people employed.
When we talk about government subsidies, we need to remember that food stamps help a lot more than the people who eat the food they provide — whether that’s Ding Dongs or crème brulee. Right now, we need people to spend. We need them to be able to pay their rent or their mortgages, so society doesn’t absorb the much larger costs of homeless shelters and food pantries.
The cost of food stamps is much lower than the cost of more foreclosures, less consumer spending and more people on the street.
Food stamps we can afford. We can’t afford what happens without them.
“Fellow street artist Vegas (S. Vegas) and I have decided to extend an invite to street artists and adbusters alike to participate in our latest project. V-TARP, or The Vancouver Transit Ad Re-appropriation Project is intended to reclaim the mindspace dominated by corporations and put street art in those highly sought after spots used to communicate with the public. If you would like to participate email email@example.com for the dimensions and address.”
Polish architect Hugon Kowalski from H3AR architecture and design recently proposed this three water towers in the region of Darfur, Sudan that allows access to underground waters through the application of water pumps.
The health hazards posed by cell phone usage are getting increasingly hard to ignore. They include, but are not exclusive to, an increased risk of brain cancer for people who have been using the phones for more than a decade. Numerous European countries, Israel and Canada are already pursuing guidelines for safer use of cellphones. A year ago a group of surgical neurologists at the University of Pittsburgh called for access to industry data. Even the FCC is beginning to drop hints of a problem.
Separating fact from fiction in the debate over health risks posed by cellphones has not been easy. On one hand a growing body of solid scientific evidence links long-term heavy cellphone use to an increased risk for brain cancer, especially when a person begins using a cell phone prior to age 20 (as much as 5-fold increased risk of brain cancer.) On the other hand there is a rather rabid group of nuts who excoriate cellphone usage along with most other modern conveniences even as they travel along the extraterrestrial highway spotting UFOs and little green men. These competing messages leave the average purchasing public feeling confused and ready to tune out the naysayers in favor of unbridled access to cellphones.
The debate, however, is beginning to be dominated by evidence-based science. There are several large peer reviewed analyses of data from as far back as 2007 (in the well respected Journal of Occupational Health) and as recently as September 2009 (in the gold-standard Journal of Surgical Neurology) establishing a link between heavy cell phone use of longer than 10 years and increased risk of brain tumors. While there are many telecom sponsored studies that show no correlation between short-term use of cell phones and brain cancer, there are no studies that refute the link between long term cell phone usage and brain cancer.