[SteveC]

If you do not know what the military-industrial complex is, then you can't answer this question. (And you should go read Eisenhower's farewell address.)

If you do know what the military-industrial complex is, then I would like to ask the following question:

Is Apple a part of the military-entertainment complex?

American foreign policy is predicated primarily on protecting America's intellectual assets. The primary use of these assets is used in the creation of entertainment or the media of the entertainment itself (music, movies, etc.) As such, the "industrial complex" is not just the making of military hardware, but also the making of entertainment hardware and content. That puts Apple, Pixar, Disney, RIAA etc., at the center of the entertainment-complex. Quicktime technology has transformed pornography, sports, etc., and other forms of entertainment. So I think a case could be made that there is as much a military-entertainment complex as there is a military-industrial complex.

Microsoft is very much embedded in the military technology that the government runs on. Is Apple really that "different" in form or function by creating consumer entertainment technologies that are defended with the heavy hand of the US military?

Here is a link to Eisenhower's comments: here

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.-Eisenhower

[Taskiss]

SteveC, the USA is capitalistic. Socialistic societies are about people, capitalistic ones are about the money, and the USA is definitely about the money. Plus, just about everything is part of one "complex" or another. The fact that the military is chartered with protecting the way of life here, and the fact that that way of life is capitalistic, well, they're going to be protecting industry. It's all tied together.

Those facts seems to offend your sensibilities (based on previous posts in different threads), but you're in a definite minority. To change that fact, you'll need to do more than launch tirades on a technically oriented internet forum.

[chucker]

[Shades of Blue]

Easy way to do your part, Steve; stop buying anything, ever. Pretty much anything you buy from anyone benefits some corporation or another.

[Windowsrookie]

[faramirtook]

[Mac+]

^ That's beautiful... not quite as beautiful as FFL's gif, but still beautiful nonetheless.

[SteveC]

:-) So what was Eisenhower's "tirade" about then? I was just opening up some ideas for discussion.

Unlike Eisenhower, I think we should have these discussions now, not when we are on our way out. It was a waste of power for him to say things like that "as a private citizen," when he could have taken steps to correct the problems when sitting as President.

Yes, everything is part of a "complex" somehow, even "not buying" fits within a cycle. I never said to stop buying anything. The wisdom of power, like the power of technology, is in the hand that yields it.

The thread about copying OSX from one computer to another, each that a user purchased fairly and legitimately, made me realize just how blindly people accept the validity of a piece of paper. Rather than arguing the merits/demerits of the excessive reach of the law, I though I would put it into a larger historical context. (Think Different.)

It is said that obedience to law is Liberty, and it is also said that laws can be tyrannical. Obviously there has to be a qualitative difference between these laws if one is to be the source of liberty and the other is to be considered tyrannical. Saying that "it's the law" really isn't an analysis, it is blind obedience.

Why would Eisenhower, as Preseident, be implying that blind obedience is a bad idea? It should be obvious: blind obedience what made Nazi Germany possible. People feeling "guilty" about using a product, or "happy" that they paid a corporation twice, are simply two sides of the coin. I disagree with the intellectual premise of both emotions. (Welcome to the edge of the coin.)

Since this forum is "AppleOutsider" I figure we can discuss this issue here without interference from the mods. The issue about whether it is "fair" to copy the OS specifically is part of a marge larger issue and cultural conflict regarding the use, misuse and abuse of political power; the differences between education and indoctrination, etc.

Obviously, if you cannot understand (or were unaware of) Eisenhower's warning (late as it may have been) then my question may seem absurd, but clearly some of the opinions expressed here have expressed "a blind obedience to the validity of a piece of paper." Not knowing the age of the poster, it is hard to say if this view is indoctrination or habit. (I'm 50)

While I appreciate Apple's technology, I have no problem separating my admiration for the technology from the behavior of the company (ie Steve Jobs,) or the roles of government and corporations in general. I'm self-employed, so I understand the drive to satisfy the bottom-line, etc., but I also have kids, and the world I see is probably worse than the world that Eisenhower was afraid of. The dumbing down of the populace makes them easily manipulable.

The fact that Jobs can get people routinely to stand in line, pay more, pay twice, etc., certainly reveals that he is a cult leader. Of course, people stand in line Cabbage Patch dolls, too, but that just reinforces my point that there is a military-entertainment complex. As long as Americans are fed with gadgets and restaurant franchises, will we turn a blind eye to everything?

History has shown no evidence that ignorance is bliss for very long. Eventually reality makes an unwelcome intrusion.

[Mugge]

Well, at least this is a new sort of conspiracy theory.

[chucker]

*is off to fetch beer and make popcorn*

[Banana]

Hmm... Godwin's rears his ugly head after 7th replies, and from the OP, no less.

Could this be a record?

[tomoe]

Hmmm....beer...

[Mugge]

[Taskiss]

Being 50, you should realize that things are better today than they were when you were born. "Miranda" springs to mind...

My distaste for your philosophy is your apparent position that you're the possessor of some kind of information that others are too ... dense? ... blind? ... stupid is what it comes down to ... to realize.

You might have had some sort of revelation that opened your eyes. Then again, you could be subject to some sort of terminal pessimism. I expect you to start calling others here "sheep" any moment now.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Taskiss "Miranda" springs to mind...

That?

[SteveC]

that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; -Eisenhower

Oh the irony. How is it that so many Mac users are so immature? Is it because Steve Jobs (like Bill Gates) was an immature college drop-out? The spoiled kid with the teddy bear and diapers is the one who won't share his toys.



Is that Apple's latest release? The long rumored iDiaper.

[Moogs]

Let me simplify your argument for you Steve. It's less a conspiracy than a bunch of opportunistic scumbags taking advantage of their fellow citizen (who frankly is not very observant).

Large swaths of the American population (possibly the English population as well) are more interested in being entertained than informed. Consequently, sometime ago, most TV news organizations switched to an "infotainment" mode. Many cable channels like Military Channel, Discovery Times Channel, National Geographic and others, have followed suit. The latter two in particular put so much political agenda into their programming schedule and content that I have begun to lose respect for organizations I once looked to for good info. They give you some carefully crafted information, and surround it with dramatic narration, fancy graphics and audio, and other things to keep you and your ADHD kids mesmerized.

What the average person in this country gets, and bases their world-view on therefore, is not good information but partial information, half-truths and cliches. Everything they watch and surround themselves with, is designed to entertain them first, enlighten them second. And the enlightenment part is typically a bad spin job, not real information with opinions from both sides, etc.

Is Apple a part of this? Partly. ISFA being a part of the "entertainment culture" and being a big phenomenon right now. But if I were you I'd be lot more worried about the gigantic communications conglomerates like Disney, Fox, and others, that have their mits in every little thing you see, read and hear. What's going to result from it? Sooner or later we're going to have multiple generations of adults who are so poorly informed and so oblivious to how things are supposed to work (the first of those generations is 18-25 right now), that eventually they will be badly manipulated / tricked into giving away their rights, their power, their future.

I look at so many of today's young college kids and high schoolers and it's like... do you know *anything*? Are you aware of any aspect of your country's heritage, what it means and why you want to protect it? It's scary as hell. There have always been burnouts and motorheads and others who bombed out of school and knew nothing, but today... many of the apparently "decent students" know nothing either.

When that happens... well, I just hope I live somewhere else or am dead. Go live in the mountains or on an isolated tropical island somewhere.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by chucker That?

Miranda limited the reach of the law, but you seem to be applying that it was the "good reach" of the law that limited it. How would Orwell parse that contradiction, I wonder.

Search and Seizure now includes the right of the state to protect the intellectual property of Pixar and Disney. It seems to me that we have increased the police force, and have only (sometimes) limited the State to beat the crap out of you. (See Guantanamo, etc.)

But thank you for the serious answer.

(Goodwin, btw, was a moron. The belief that something can't happen is exaxtly why it does happen.)

[Mugge]

I still fail to see how the military is to blame for the apparently sorry state of American TV.

It's not like they brought Comical Ali back from Iraq and put him on 60 minutes.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SteveC Miranda limited the reach of the law, but you seem to be applying

I didn't bring it up. Also, I believe you mean "implying".

(Goodwin, btw, was a moron.

Godwin.

The belief that something can't happen is exaxtly why it does happen.)

You don't even know what Godwin's Law is, do you?

[Bryson]

Read this, Steve.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Moogs Let me simplify your argument for you Steve: large swaths of the American population (possibly the English population as well) are more interested in being entertained than informed. Consequently, sometime ago, most TV news organizations switched to an "infotainment" mode. Many cable channels like military channel, National Geographic and others, have followed suit. They give you some carefully crafted information, and surround it with dramatic narration, fancy graphics and audio, and other things to keep you and your ADHD kids mesmerized. What the average person in this country gets, and bases their world-view on therefore, is not good information but partial information, half-truths and cliches. Everything they watch and surround themselves with, is designed to entertain them first, enlighten them second. And the enlightenment part is typically a bad spin job, not real information with opinions from both sides, etc. Is Apple a part of this? Partly. But if I were you I'd be lot more worried about the gigantic communications conglomerates like Disney, Fox, and others, that have their mits in every little thing you see, read and hear. What's going to result from it? Sooner or later we're going to have multiple generations of adults who are so poorly informed and so oblivious to how things are supposed to work (the first of those two generations is 18-25 right now), that eventually they will be badly manipulated / tricked into giving away their rights, their power, their future. I look at so many of today's young college kids and high schoolers and it's like... do you know *anything*? Are you aware of any aspect of your country's heritage, what it means and why you want to protect it? It's scary as hell. There have always been burnouts and motorheads and others who bombed out of school and knew nothing, but today... many of the apparently "decent students" know nothing either. When that happens... well, I just hope I live somewhere else or am dead.

Aw shucks. Then you will miss the opportunity to "live in interesting times."

If the kids are morons, it is the adults that are to blame, not the kids. The conglomerates are as much a reflection of the people as the people are a reflection of the conglomerates. History rests heavy on everyone's shoulders, since we are all indoctrinated before we are educated.

You sound like you are older. We really can't expect these kids to raise themselves, we need to be challenging the crap they are getting fed by our contemporaries. Today, Apple is feeding them a bunch of crap with Al Gore, Product (Red), Bono, and a host of other pseudo-compassionate manipulations. (Rosa Parks on the website, etc.) Jobs and Gore are not much older than me. Why believe them, when all they want is money and power?

It's odd that the best use of the military-industrial-entertainment complex is to restrain the military-industrial-entertainment complex, but so it is.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by SteveC Aw shucks. Then you will miss the opportunity to "live in interesting times."

Define "interesting".

If the kids are morons, it is the adults that are to blame, not the kids.

Granted but it's almost beside the point now. For one generation it's already too late. They think life is all about acquiring gadgets / toys, hooking up, looking good, and being green. Not that there's anything wrong with any of those things on their own but when that becomes the totality of your existence, bad things are bound to happen. I really, truly believe we need some type of revised, voting qualification system.

If you can't indicate on a simple 10 question multiple choice quiz that you have a basic understanding of the underpinnings of your nation's government and what your duty as a citizen is, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Because you're ultimately going to be the idiot who can't see through the haze and make an informed decision when the country has reached the brink.

And not to say there isn't a minority of kids who have their act together, but man... will the tides ever be against them. It will be hard to stand up / man up against a sea of peers who always make the easy assumption / want the easy path in everything they do. Mental laziness of the masses vs. a few informed souls. Eesh.

You sound like you are older. We really can't expect these kids to raise themselves, we need to be challenging the crap they are getting fed by our contemporaries.

Thanks, I think... If by older you mean, not in my teens or 20s, yes. My generation is basically the last that has any decent percentage of well-informed citizens, though we started the trend of idiocy IMO (and our parents along with us). We were the first soldiers on the "big entitlement, feel-good-at-all-costs, don't bother with the things that should bother you" bandwagon. I watch many of my contemporaries raise their kids and see very clearly which ones learned their lessons in life and which are the societal sheep, letting infotainment land raise their families / teach their life lessons for them. Sad times...

Today, Apple is feeding them a bunch of crap with Al Gore, Product (Red), Bono, and a host of other pseudo-compassionate manipulations. (Rosa Parks on the website, etc.) Jobs and Gore are not much older than me. Why believe them, when all they want is money and power?

Again, I think you are going too far. Apple is just doing what Amazon and any other highly visible tech company would do in their shoes. And FWIW, I'll take Bono ANY FRIGGIN DAY over literally 99% of all other entertainers when it comes to civic and social responsibility. He's a bit of an ego-maniac no doubt but he's at least willing to make a real effort to talk with politicos, learn how he can manipulate the system to good ends (because any politico knows the kind of inluence Bono himself has in the public eye), etc. Gore is Gore. He does some good, but he's also disingenuous at times and certainly a part of the two party machine.

At least Apple is taking a stand one way or the other and making some of these good ideas visible / more visible, rather than doing nothing / making some pittance of a donation to the charity of the month, which is what most big companies do.

[SteveC]

Yes, that was a typo chucker, and yes, I know what Godwin's law is.

It is basicly saying that history is irrelevant, and that the internet has rules of etiquette like Martha Stewart. In the Church, this is called "the limits of dissent." It could also be called "political correctness." <yawn>

If someone has to have permission to speak, then it cannot be free speech. Our legal historical tradition is more muddy than Godwin's law, because the story behind all so-called political philosophy is a straw-man. Is Hilter often used as a straw-man? Yes. Did I mention Hitler? No. I mentioned Nazism, which is about the followers, not the leader.

I am trying to get people to see the difference between the two. ie, the difference between "themselves" and "how they think of themselves." I do not know enogh about Godwin to say if he could parse that difference or not, but there is a good posibility that he could not, since this "theorem" has obvious errors. It is a modified attack on the person, rather than an attack on the substance of the argument, which in this case exists safely removed into straw-man status.

I could discuss Plato, Socrates, Jesus, Moses, Jefferson, Locke, Marx, etc., but what difference does it make? They are all the same story. I started with Eisenhower. If you can be blind to one part of history (Eisenhower witnessed this part of it,) then you can be blind to all of it. We elected our General to be President, which is how all Kings came to power. The first was Washington, who similarly annex lands that belonged to others.

If one can't see the good and the bad of Apple and Jobs, then how well can anything be discerned? What makes one software suck and another good without using the tools of comparative analysis? Nazism is historically easiest thing to see, see we are constantly priding ourselves regarding their defeat, building memorials to soldiers and holocaust victims, etc., but perhaps you don't see those, either.

Only the most ruthless can win any war. America was more ruthless than the Germans and the Japanese, hence their victory. (Yikes! People hate it when I say that we were more effective at killing innocent people than the Germans.) For many years Microsoft was more ruthless than Apple, but now Apple is the more ruthless. What they used to call "unfair," is now their operational strategy. Hell, they even have the record companies calling them names. That is a lot like the Nazis complaining about the cruelty of Soviet Union Communists. Absurd, but nevertheless true.

Don't underestimate the power of a straw-man. Instead of killing the strawman argument, Godwin created a more powerful version of it.

Is the military-industrial complex or the military-entertainment complex a straw-man? Before you can answer the question you first need to understand what the terms mean. Did Godwin? Do you?

It would be better to understand the flaws of Godwins Law than to believe them. Yet another example of blind obedience obliterating people's imagination.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by SteveC Yes, that was a typo chucker, and yes, I know what Goodwin's law is.

And yet you continue to misspell his name throughout your new post?

It is basicly saying that history is irrelevant

It says no such thing. As a matter of fact, it says absolutely nothing about history.

[Axl]

Originally Posted by Taskiss Socialistic societies are about people

oh lawd!!

it's always about money

USA has become pretty socialistic and will probably continue down that path with a national I.D. card and universal healthcare in the future.

Things have become more centralized and regulated:
Central economic planning(The Fed), Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services… some of the departments I can think of at the moment. There are also all the independent federal agencies, committees, boards and commissions. On the foreign policy front, the platform for both major political parties is socialistic(i.e. nation building and policing)

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Axl oh lawd!! it's always about money

Socialism has no such thing as money. Please don't confuse Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, etc. with socialism. Some of the politicians involved with those systems do have socialistic and communistic ideals, but thus far, every single attempt at such systems has not even come close to meeting Marx's/Engels's goals.

Taskiss's statement is perfectly accurate.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Socialism has no such thing as money.

If there is exchange, barter, work performed, resources allocated, food handed out, shelter provided, or any transfer of goods, ideas, services, or information from one person, group, or organization to another, there is an analogue to money, and a market will develop around it.

Unless you have an utterly oppressive government micro-controlling every aspect of life, of course.

[Mugge]

Ok, screw what SteveC is posting. I'm afraid he is beyond the reach of reason. But there are some other things here I'd like to address.

Originally Posted by Taskiss SteveC, the USA is capitalistic. Socialistic societies are about people, capitalistic ones are about the money, and the USA is definitely about the money. Plus, just about everything is part of one "complex" or another. The fact that the military is chartered with protecting the way of life here, and the fact that that way of life is capitalistic, well, they're going to be protecting industry. It's all tied together.

I think it's misleading to say that socialism is about people and capitalism is about money, despite that's what the names sounds like. I really think it would be more appropriate to speak about freedom of the individual versus what's best for society. Admitted. I shouldn't be paraphrasing the meaning of socialism, because I loathe it, but I tried to make it neutral. My point is that your way of putting it is unfair towards capitalism, because there's more to it than just money. And yes, in this globalised and interconnected world, pretty much everything and everybody is to some extent part of a "complex".

Those facts seems to offend your sensibilities (based on previous posts in different threads), but you're in a definite minority. To change that fact, you'll need to do more than launch tirades on a technically oriented internet forum.

Originally Posted by chucker Socialism has no such thing as money. Please don't confuse Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, etc. with socialism. Some of the politicians involved with those systems do have socialistic and communistic ideals, but thus far, every single attempt at such systems has not even come close to meeting Marx's/Engels's goals. Taskiss's statement is perfectly accurate.

I assume you are talking about those idealistic versions of socialism that never work in real life. In that respect it's true that money has no importance, but that doesn't mean that money is everything in an ideal capitalistic society. The important part is freedom, and I have a hard time seeing a capitalistic society work without that. The moment people aren't allowed to do what they like you kinda lose the whole idea of free enterprise.

[Mugge]

Originally Posted by Kickaha If there is exchange, barter, work performed, resources allocated, food handed out, shelter provided, or any transfer of goods, ideas, services, or information from one person, group, or organization to another, there is an analogue to money, and a market will develop around it. Unless you have an utterly oppressive government micro-controlling every aspect of life, of course.

Nah. You just share everything, and love is free. It's an "ideal" society.