Gay Cruising Spots In Us.

Access to culture: necessarily free?

Access to culture should necessarily be free?

The web laws continues to make stir several years ago. However, this law could not be more controversial raises a very important debate in our societies: access to culture should necessarily be free?
We start first with the positive response to this question: "Yes, access to culture should necessarily be paid." Then we will go the other way: 'No access to culture should certainly not be paying. This will allow us, I hope to reach a junction to provide an answer on this highly philosophical!

1) Yes, access to culture should be paying!
Access to culture is access to the work of one or more persons, one or more organizations. That which enriches our knowledge, that builds our thoughts, which entertained us intelligently, allowing us to feel we live in society and enjoy life in this community, which allows us to move forward, in short, that generates advanced societies.
But if we start to offer free access to this culture, those who are manufacturers or preservatives will be even less well paid. Being paid less, it's risky not to live in this building or cultural preservation. And it therefore has the potential to see fewer and fewer manufacturers or preservatives culture. But in this case, which is enriched you ask? Some take advantage and abuse the money, but it is an economic problem as in all sectors: that is the evil of developed societies. Also, book a paid access to culture is to allow small companies (with large groups also obviously) to continue to live. Culture is not just a producer: a set of individuals who work there. Money is the sinews of war to culture as well.

2) No, the access to culture should be free!
If access to culture is free, so the majority of people can benefit, especially the most disadvantaged. By offering free, it broadens the scope of this culture and it prevents from widening the gap between castes who could access all forms of culture and other less privileged classes who would sacrifice themselves for access. Access to free culture would be a vehicle for gathering, unity if not unity, and thus a guarantor of equality in access to every culture. But there arises a problem: no money, culture has a future? Another question: everyone should it necessarily have access to all forms of culture or culture should not she be protected from access too massive? This leads us to ask ourselves: to offer free access to general culture, it would tend not to degrade?

3) Culture: a common share rich
In sum, it is necessary to preserve our culture, to avoid making a commodity sold off by offering it for free. Culture is a service and even a fine. Culture is not a bottomless pit to drink too freely at its source, it will eventually become polluted due to overexploitation or even dry up. In addition, some of this windfall benefit "all free" to exploit to their advantage this source. Hence the fact that you have to pay to ensure their safety and preservation of its quality. But the problem resurfaced previously raised: why some might be accessed easily and others are expected to bleed to pretend to touch this world so distant from their cultural concerns or desires? Also, a principle of more equal access to culture should be established: the rates proportional to income, for example ...

Culture is an asset of the noblest. We need to protect, preserve, ensure its expansion and further its expansion to all populations. The financial problem is urgent in this case. It would, for the sake of equality, that everyone can access the same services and cultural products. However, cost is a significant obstacle. Conversely, offer free access would degrade the culture and no longer feed its constant innovation. So why not create an egalitarian principle: access to the halls at different rates (Practically impossible to manage) and then develop, as is already the case in many cities, shows and other cultural celebrations in the poorest neighborhoods. The principle is:
If you're not going to culture, the culture will come to you. If you do not have the means to go to the culture, the culture will come to you. By cons if you do not want the culture, hide!

Daily Motion Beautiful Agony

must kill the battalion Google!

must kill the battalion Google!

War is terrible. We do not want the logical and preferred peace. But when the threat is too Pregnant, must take action. Aux armes citoyens!
threat, once again, just Google ... But this time, not Google itself, but of all those who can not do without and who see God as the solution to all problems ...

1) But why always criticize Google?
Google, as I recall, is a company with 1001 concepts, ideas of 1001 and 1001 applications (like this is a fine slogan ...). Technological progress is very important in order to change society, or rather the companies. The problem is that only companies industrialized benefit from these technological advances for the moment. Good for them, good for us who read these lines you will rejoice .... I would rather say "too bad for us." Too bad because, after 99.99% of Internet users, only Google knows how to develop the right applications at the right time, only Google can get married in 1001 projects at the same time, only Google is able to release a variety of products and services we did not even feel the slightest need (ha marketing prowess!). Certainly, Google is the benchmark with substantial resources at his disposal. All evil is there: this (apparent) single reference leads to a monopoly, not commercial, but a monopoly of thought (and why not have a monopoly of the heart ...). We adapt our minds to think Google, format it and our minds are becoming increasingly dependent programs become necessary for our brain. Take a student from any class, ask him to do a search on Copernicus, his life's work. What will his reaction? In 99% of Google. (Note that aside from the remaining 1% will not know some type correctly ...). Google We obviously found some interesting results with the search tool, but an encyclopedia should she not been faster and more efficient (with all the noise caused by whatever documentary search engine that is)? This example on the retrieval that does not make us lose sight of all other applications where Google seems to have become master ...

2) Google: a democratically elected dictator?
What a lovely paradox that as pretty: a "democratically elected dictator." And yet it has something to thrill! Google has in effect a dictatorship, or rather we impose the dictatorship Google. Exclaim some nice dictatorship. But how a dictatorship can it be nice? What we must realize, I've talked previously, is a way of thinking Google is needed, which makes the realization of the dictatorship more and harder. But what to do: should we abolish this dictatorship? I would say that we must transform this dictatorship in transparent democracy. That competent persons (politicians, industrialists, philosophers, etc.) are regularly called upon to consider (this is a very important part of their job) and give their opinions on the ins and outs of each of Google services. Behind each of the applications developed apparent magnificent obviously hiding effects pervert more or less voluntary (invasion of privacy, spyware, misinformation, faults, etc.).. And all this is that it must be realized. Moreover, when an organization, state, or worse, a group of states decide whether or not directly assign work to Google, it would appear sensible to consider the disastrous consequences this may have on the economy (survival small businesses for example), democracy (have different sources of thoughts is not a guarantor of democracy?), politics (influences), in short the lives of everyone directly or indirectly.
We see the situation is complex analyze and review difficult to emerge from all the advantages of technologies the company Google and cons about the future of our planet.

must kill the battalion Google, not the military kill Google. We must target the harmful agents of the army Google to join forces to benefit our future and the future of developing countries. It should also make sure to preserve our democracy and not peddle ideology Googlienne but some ideas from Google.
Google should not be a dictatorship. And yet his empire continues to rally to his cause people increasingly vulnerable to the trap of thinking Google. No, Google is not evil ... but some people pulling the strings of this puppet have wonderful intentions totally opposed to those of an egalitarian democracy and respectful. But that takes so these strings? And who manages to manipulate the puppet and so many people? [The remainder of this post was self-censored. But censorship does not exist in a democracy! Ha good, but it would mean that ...]
So Google, good or bad intentions? Both Captain. Remember also that hell is paved with good intentions ...

PS for those who have not understood my message and my previous thoughts.

Google, again and again. Inexhaustible subject. Alarmist. As usual. But who is to counter the monopolization Google? Few, too few people.
I repeat myself because some people may misunderstand what I say: I do not wish in any way the end of Google, I'm not criticizing Google's free, I'm not saying that Google is manipulating us, no, far s' in need! The fault comes from our camp, all of us. I would indeed open a larger population on technological advances offered by this company but also by other companies rather than just 'Hallelujah' at each implementing one or both of the projects Google: I wish indeed a permanent reflection on the projects of Google and the risks associated with them. The ultimate course that one would associate a name to each of the puppet son Google and those who influence his every move, and (especially), and all those who take the son but not s 'in use (yet) not ...