Errant Bard

Members
  • Content count

    11,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Errant Bard

  • Rank
    Insane precursor of bad business
  • Birthday 05/29/1977

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South of London, north of Barcelona

Recent Profile Visitors

12,772 profile views
  1. "Minor" IS attacks in Europe

    Worth mentioning: There are almost never "refugees" involved in the incidents happening in France. It's mostly done by French citizen, born in France, contrary to the recent ones in Germany. Why? It's a question that can be interesting to explore. One thing seeming to link all the attacks is the young age of the attackers, this being said. The French murderer was only 19 here. French politics reacted to that attack (link in french): For the "left", the president said that "killing a priest means profanating the republic" For the "right", the previous president said that "the juridic arguments lead us to an incomplete action against terrorism", calling for the jailing of people on the basis of mere hinches from the police (he always hated the justice). (Note: both reactions from the French politicians make me want to vomit)
  2. Shooting in Munich

    Would you please explain what you mean by that exactly?
  3. Shooting in Munich

    Right. I just heard that the shooter had that exchange with a Munich inhabitant prior to the shooting where the man called him out, telling him he belonged in a psychiatric hospital or outside the country, and the shooter replied that he was German, and actually just got out of psychiatry. Should this incident, beside examining the focus given by the media, really be conflated with terror attacks more than with people just blowing a fuse, something that happens everywhere in the world, all the time? (for example)
  4. Shooting in Munich

    Some choices, considering the evolution of society, will be harder and harder to make, though. Compared to cases in history, we have against peaceful coexistence new factors like mondialisation, overpopulation, resource starvation, and growing micro and macro inequalities. Let's take Greece and its debt (that Germany insists must be paid in full.) Sure, Greek society has a choice to continue sinking their country into the mire (selling production units to other countries, diminishing salaries, pensions, making promising people leave, seeing debt grow 10% per year, etc), but at one point people, those who actually have the power, will switch from Siriza to Golden Dawn, like they did from Conservatives to Siriza before, because society is composed of people, and those people don't want to choose misery... (this is why neo-con make me laugh sometimes here, when they insist on fiscal righteousness and debt reimbursment: Do they think a people will stay sheepish and do everything they say no matter the pressure. I see those guys as big unconscious proponent of dictature.) Anyway, if their growing misery is also linked to immigration (like it's done in Hungary despite them having very very few migrants staying), then it does not really stays what I would call a choice: society will follow the anti-misery discourse and elect government that will act against immigration, despite what we would call reason and generosity.
  5. Shooting in Munich

    It's interesting, what you say is reminiscent of an intellectual discourse that is objectively on the rise in my country, whose locutors are called by some "neo-conservatives", by others "reactonaries" (examples would be Michel Onfray or Alain Finkielkraut.) It's like the current trend. Anyway, for the changing of mind, I sure hope most muslims do NOT change their mind and keep liking our countries (that also happen to be theirs, for a lot of them. 10% of France population is muslim, as I was saying) and more generally other people despite differences in culture (let us remember a lot of copts were living until very recently in Maghreb: the changing of mind that chased them is recent, and from a small subgroup of muslims in those countries.) One man can do a lot one way or another, we just have to look at Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Mohamed Bouazizi. I hold the same mind-changing hope for the next mass shooter in the US or the next Breyvik copycat. I am not holding my breath. I am envisioning the future as a mix of Huxley, Bilal and Beukes: terror strikes, an indifferent population, a police state and deregulated economy ("growth") as the only horizon and priority. When ISIS will have stopped to scare the good bourgeois like Al-Qaida did, we will move on to the next bogeyman, will it be Russia this time? There is always the great leader Kim if needs be. Maybe some independentist faction will surge again, the way Europe is going. ETA could get their share of the media pie in my region if they did their thing right.
  6. Shooting in Munich

    Hmm, most of the migration does not actually come to EU, though (one in ten, roughly), and I really doubt that one can shake off one's cultural burden as easily as you say, it cannot happen out of thin air, efficient welcome and integration policies (from what I've heard and seen they are impressive in Germany, speaking of that) have to be created by governments. Of course if like France your nurtured a divide between your citizen with immigrant roots and the rest of society for like 40 years, speaking of "efficient integration policies" becomes tricky and vaguely humorous when nothing new is really brought to the table by anyone except closing the doors and shooting the intruders.
  7. Shooting in Munich

    While I do not totally disagree, I feel like you are creating a sharp divide out of a more complex, contextual and transitory state of the world, that can and will shift rapidly, depending on environment (what you call the power of the people); as an example, let us remember that fifty years ago, there was a law forbidding French comic artist to draw "immodest" women, and that entailed that, yes, even drawn, women's hair had to be hidden by a scarf (shocking I know, for those who see muslim societies and people as essentially "closed".) Less anecdotically, still with women, they did not have a right to contraception or vote... And this is despite the extremelly social and humanist views emanating from the resistance's council , those ideas were notably brought forward recently by people like St├ęphane Hessel, whose books partly inspired movements like Spain's Podemos. What I am saying is that anyone using a "us versus them", using arguments like supposed social essentialism, would belong in the "closed" group you defined. Things are more complex than that: while there is always the tentation to create that mythified "other" that has all the flaws, it is more like every single individual and group has attributes that have to be struggled with one by one. The stigmatisation of Islam as a marker of a "closed" group ignores some context, that way, for example the fact that 10% of the French population is muslim, has been for decades (two generations at least,) yet terror strikes have to be piloted from outside, and nobody is talking of the 99,99% of those french muslim that do not go making bombs explode... When a Breivik shoots people, it's not catholics (or whatever) that get essentialized, but his political orientations. So maybe "we" should consider the way we create those groups, and the way we essentialize their characteristics based on singular cases, maybe the grouping or the prejudice are not pertinent. Why would a grouping based on abstract, complex, controversial ideology not include both bastards and saints, and even people who are both at the same time, depending on the subject? Well, of course there will be stereotyping if one decides to imply that all practitioners of a religion (because, really, no book or ideology has ever attacked me directly without the help of some human carrying it. Islam does not drive trucks.) are basically the same. This being said, all migrants I've heard don't really care about the "open"/"closed" divide: they move because: They would die or live in misery if they stayed Their target country offers them perspectives of a better life Freedom as an incentive for exile is way overrated, basic needs is where it's at.
  8. That's fair, I admit it's not the strongest book I have ever read, but it's still better than -in the same genre- I am A Legend, and not a bait and switching crypto-romance book like the Spiritwalker trilogy, there's that. I just wanted to have some UF here, but nothing sprung to mind, maybe Karen Beukes would have worked, or maybe the Black Sun Daughter, though I really wasn't convinced by it, as much of an Abraham fan I can be.
  9. I will also add my voice to the ones recommending Ash: A secret history, and The Liveship Traders. I will actually oppose the recommendation of the SpiritWalker trilogy, seriously, or one may as well put Jeanelle Angeline of the Black Jewels trilogy forward. If we stay in Fantasy, standalones, there is also the Iron Dragon's Daughter, the Bone Doll's Twin (don't read the others) or Deathless that work well, also stuff like Discworld or Shadows Of The Apt but: If it does not have to be fantasy, what about Who Fears Death by Nnedi Okorafor, To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves by Karen Joy Fowler, The Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson, or The Girl With All the Gifts by MR Carey?
  10. Books with high fan theorization

    The Bible, the Quran and their eventual peripheral publications have had centuries of fan theories spawned by fans, but not only that, also: movies, exgesis, wars, genocids, and so on. Stuff like Baudelaire's "Les Fleurs du Mal" have been fan theorized even in school. That's poetry for you. Popular romance books will have fan wars about who "ends up" with who. (not limited to romance, anyway, popular stuff like Harry potter suffers too)
  11. Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

    What bugs me are the usual implications by pro-police-state-copyright-laws that : Illegal downloading can be blocked (outside of their wishful thinking) The laws introduced to try to block those illegal downloads are not worse than the illegal downloading Those poor authors whose works appear in torrents would, in any real-world scenario, get more than pocket money if the very medium that makes downloading impossible to avoid was so heavily regulated that illegal downloading did not happen somehow.
  12. Fantasy series with multi-layered, intricate stories?

    Hmm, if we include both series and standalone, among best-sellers... Rothfuss, Gaiman, Butcher, Mieville, Rowling (iirc, most stuff is narrated by Harry?), Brust, KJ Parker Tom Holt, Elliott, Addison Monette? Omniscient third person I cannot think of any example though... damn. I think it's the other way round: authors want(ed) to write epic saga, and the industry pushed them to, leading to contracts on like ten yet unwritten books being signed, and to match that ambition, authors use the latest style flavour: multi-pov structure. On the ASOIAF subject, I feel that the problem is the author's lack of discipline that's at fault, as other guys are able to actually lead their story correctly despite having the same multi-pov structure, like Abercrombie, Lynch, Stover, Pratchett, etc.
  13. Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

    I am a bit surprised by your remark: Aren't laws always a question of politics? Whether they allow heirs to enjoy free rides or they make works go into public domain. I have no doubt that parents may want to help their progeny to get ahead in life out of love, but to me their motivations are entirely disctinct from the ways they choose to do that -and some of those ways are not just on a bigger scale-. Your Black Mirror analogy feels like the setup of a false dichotomy: pushing a work into public domain instead of keeping it private property is precisely the opposite of making everyone cycle: it's allowing the whole society to sit back and read that work instead of cycling to get it... Yeah, your heir will not benefit from your nepotism and will be forced to earn his share (and what's bad about that? He will be able to read a lot of stuff that went into public domain from other authors, too, so it's not as if he won't have benefits too.), but it's the whole humanity that benefits from it. I was not clear, probably: I never argued for the elimination of IP, my point was about inheritance and time limits. IP is made to support people who create, it's a good concept, if it does not get out of hands, it has to exist, it should absolutely not be eliminated. In my response to you, you will notice that in the lastic maker company analogy, I linked a creator's brain to the plastic factory: I meant that the creator can produce ideas and sell them, protected by laws against copy (really, people who sell loobootin shoes from china are as much legit as people who copy books), but once he is gone, the company is gone too, and heirs may inherit the creator's fortune, but not the brain/factory. The analogy is necessarily flawed as tangible good are vastly different from ideas in about all aspects, but on the production and inheritance front, it works more or less, I think. Whatever may be our disagreements on other facets of copy right law, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Native language I mean: I am not from the US, or the UK, or any english-speaking country for that matters, sorry I was not clear. I don't understand how you can think that blocking poor people (the number of them rising lately) from accessing cultural assets for free just so one guy can get money he only earned by virtue of being born in the right family isn't bad for society, likewise. If you are focusing on the idea of the shorter and hard deadline, well, heh, I don't understand how it's a favour to the creator to give him life-long free ride instead of an incentive to produce new stuff again (taking into account the time needed for artistic production of course). Maybe it's a favour to the person, who can coast along in life (I suspect it's the 1% of creators or less who can do that though, so the argument is not really pertinent to real life anyway, but it certainly would target a much bigger percentage of corporations), but it kills the creator (again, no I'm not asking for them to struggle, but to set a reasonable time limit, that would anyway match with the end of exploitation of a standard work, but would allow investment in new stuff from corporation instead of reusing again and again the same big old Mickey Mouse or Superman)
  14. Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

    Because IP is not actually property. It's a great trick to have included "property" in that term, but you do not own anything tangible. In my language, IP is actually called "Author's Rights", entirely different spin given by the expression compared to "IP" yet it designates the same concept. The very existence of Public Domain shows that your stance is problematic for most: actual tangible property does not become public after a time. In the end IP is a social construct that did not always exist (it's actually a modern invention of capitalism, I think), and we should stop and think about its purpose: as I said, originally it was created to protect creators and promote innovation: why, in a capitalistic world (enlightenment creators would create for the sake of humanity, but were generally independently wealthy) would anyone create if he could not live off its creations? This being said, what is then the purpose of extending copy rights to people who did not create anything? All I see here are negatives: this hurts actual creators (who would create their own original thing but cannot get funding because parasites are taking a market shares with an IP they have had no hand in creating), and this hurts society as a whole (as old stuff is promoted, choking innovation). See, the problem I have is exactly defined by your words: nobody should have a "free ride". Not your children, nor a random corporation, not even yourself: you get to have a just reward for your work, and that should be the end of it. Why should someone receive a salary for a job they did not do? This is the limit of the analogy, but to me, the plastic maker company is the author's brain: it is not inheritable. If you posit that the legal exclusive rights are bound to the idea, not the physical objects, then the product is the idea, and you cannot inherit a product that has already been sold. It's easy enough to put a time limit starting from the idea's first production, without any link to the author's lifespan: this would entice producers to produce quickly, and creators to continue creating without resting on long-withered laurels.
  15. Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

    Why? I honestly do not understand why you seem to consider it self-explanatory: If I (invented plastic|wrote a book), then it is not my kids who did that: I did it, so I get rewarded for my work... I get the money, then of course I can redistribute it to my kids if I decide to do so, but this does not mean that my kids get their pocket money when I'm not here to give it. Then of course there is the issue of copyright: In my country at least, it's not meant to be a lifelong rent, but a just reward for effort that ends at one point to promote innovation (or at least it's the stated intent): If I create one plastic basket, I get a fixed sum, and I need to produce new plastic backets to get additional money. So even if I invent stuff, I am pushed to invent again before my death, nevermind rewarding people who did not even invent anything. This is both just and good for humanity as a whole. The technical finer points about exclusive rights of exploitation by people who invested in you are details, in the end: this is something that happens in any venture: what happens if the company ou invest in goes suddenly bankrupt?