Issue 547 Disposable versus Reusable March 13, 2015

Here we contrast disposable versus reusable objects.  Here we go.

Disposable:  Anything disposable is generally cheap initially, but costs build up over time.  For instance, paper plates are great as they save water, are more hygienic than potentially eating off an improperly cleaned plate, but can build up in the garbage fast.  Paper towels are another example.  They are hygienic as you do not have to rub your face on a dirty towel, but over time they build up in cost and fill the garbage can.  So you can see that cleanliness is key to the advantage here and that that cleaning a traditional towel uses a lot of water.  

Reusable:  Here we have cheap goods that are durable.  You buy them once and use them for years until they are no longer useful.  Plates just need to be washed in water with a little soap.  Towels are thrown into the laundry after about two uses.  So rather than the cost to buy a new plate or towel, you have the cost of cleaning them.  This cost is mitigated by cleaning in bulk so as to save money and thus can cost less than disposable brands.  But these also take up space.  You are not going to keep plates for a dinner party of 12 or more if you don't have that many people coming over every so often.  So this is economical if you know how to clean them, and use them, but as stated, they take up space and if improperly maintained, are not hygienic as you will end up eating off the dirt and grime you left there from not maintaining your wares.

Conclusion:  Balance to me seems to be the answer.  Use cheap reusable towels for your body twice so that you minimize dirt and grime while maintaining costs.  Use reusable plates and bowls for yourself and family.  Use disposable items like paper towels for messes that are germ filled like spills, and cleaning, while using paper plates for those occasional dinner parties.  Basically, use each object to its strengths to maintain a sustainable and healthy household. 

Issue 546 Our Gladiators March 12, 2015

Entertainment is a source of getting away from it all.  To stop thinking about the everyday.  Thus we have gladiators.  Who are they you ask?  Well, allow me to tell you.

Modern Gladiators:  So the modern gladiators are very obvious.  They are:

1) Sports figures:  these people who play football, soccer, and the like are gladiators in their own sense.  They play a sport for glory and prestige, the same way gladiators of old did.  In short, they want to be champions in their team sports.

2) Boxers and martial artists:  This group comes closest to looking like the original gladiators.  The only real difference is that the brutality is put in check by rules, and there in no death.

3) Video game characters:  We play first person shooters, multiplayer online quests, amongst others.  This allows us to become our characters and gladiators so that we ourselves can be the heroes.  

Why have them:  It is all based on entertainment.  And the reason we don't kill them off is because our watching them makes them rich (or the franchises owners rich).  You may even argue that capitalism saved the gladiator from destruction, and our desire to see our favorite teams, players and video game characters duke it out over and over again keep these teams and such playing.  We desire entertainment, and that unto itself is all based on distracting us from the everyday problems we face.

Conclusion:  Gladiators of the modern day fight for prestige.  We watch for entertainment.  And in the end money is made to continue this cycle.  Let us face it, our everyday life is full of pressures, and these fictional and nonfictional people help us get through the every day.

Issue 545 Addiction to electronics March 11, 2015

Are we addicted to our electronics?  It is a ponderous question.  So let's self-reflect to see if we really are.

Signs of potential addiction:  Do you look at your phone almost constantly?  Do you rush to grab your phone the minute you hear the notification pop up?  Basically you may be getting addicted to your phone/the internet.  The biggest sign of addiction to me, is that you text the person next to you.  This is not socializing in person anymore, but semi isolationist as you try to protect yourself through the barrier of technology.  They see a plain piece of paper (electronic paper so to speak) with words written down.  There is no body language, no inflection, nothing but words.  In one way it makes the conversation somewhat more authentic as there is no extra fluff to the conversation, but in the end people stop knowing how to act in front of others.  And even worse, all you do and say is now on public record.

Now is this really an addiction:  I really am not 100% sure that this is actually an addiction.  It is more to me that people are starved for social interaction and that is because people fear rejection.  So the people jumping on a notification for a "like" or a "comment" is just them wanting more interaction and conversation with people.  So that leaves people who can only talk in front of each other via texts.  These are people who lack the social skills to actually start and keep a conversation up.  It is not really addiction in my eyes.  People just have trouble communicating for various reasons.  Thus the fall back electronic means becomes the sole way for them to communicate properly.  You can even say a person's true personality comes out through their electronic devices for they may actually become more honest and engaging than they are with traditional human to human interaction.  

Conclusion:  What do you think?  Are people simply starved of their ability to properly communicate, or are they really addicted.  Consequently, this contributes to our lack of privacy on the internet as we post pictures and comment through blogs, and Facebook like services. So our level of social interaction increases on the internet when our preferred methods of social interaction are electronic.  I personally think that we are just struggling, but you may think differently.  Hopefully we are not addicted, but this is just me being hopeful.

Issue 544 A Shameless Future March 10, 2015

With technology advancing the way it is, we literally have no privacy.  So what impact could this potentially have?  Let's discuss.

We know what you did:  Because of technology, the world will literally be able to see you for who you really are.  The information on the internet, the footage of you walking past a camera, all of it is going to be public knowledge.  There is literally no escape from the prying eyes of anyone and everyone.  So all your embarrassing moments and secrets are live and in color for all to see.

Reaction:  Because people know that they can no longer hide, even in their own home, people will become willing to do almost anything.  Some may think, wait, they know what we are doing so would we not try to hide our embarrassing moments?  Short answer is no, because you cannot escape, thus you simply stop trying to hide your silliness, your anger, your happiness, and all that you are.  In fact, because you cannot do anything privately anymore the level of what we are willing to do increases.  We are more likely to let ourselves be embarrassed, and then shrug it off.

Result:   This future that we are bearing witness to will cause us to look for people who are authentic.  We will be able to see people for who they really are.  So if all the information on the net shows that they are full of empty promises, then we know they are not authentic.  In this future we will know if that person is faking who they are, or if they are self-aggrandizing.  Literally it will all be a search away.  So, we can see people for who they really are and thus we will conscientiously seek real people.  This will also cause the phonies to start to act more authentic and thus our society, while shameless, will face, in my opinion, an improvement.

Conclusion:  People are going to behave how they feel.  They will stop caring what people think to a degree and become freer in a sense.  But, my worries are on morals.  Without morals, the society will fall.  However, people with morals and principles will be the most authentic, and thus will become emulated by others so that they too can be trusted and sought out by people looking for authenticity.  So I say do not fear this future, as it may lead to something great.

Issue 543 Cyber Defence and Obama March 9, 2015

I actually agree on something the President wants to do.  In this case it is to shore-up our electronic defenses against foreign attack.  So here is what he wants to do, and what I feel he should also be doing.

Obama's proposal:  The NSA used to be the only game in town when it came to electronic defenses.  In this case, it was all regulated by government.  Then it was deregulated and we now have a myriad of antivirus and antispyware programs.  But this is increasingly not enough as hackers and other bad guys seem to be removing the blocks on all the data that we want kept private.  Obama proposed a new cyber security agency to do this job, but I only like a single part of this proposal which would allow more people to fight hackers without relying on government or a need for a new agency.  In this case that part of the proposal will declassify data on hackers, cyber-attacks, and the methods they used, which has been kept secret by both the military and intelligence agencies previously.  In this case, the data will release data primarily to companies who make cyber defense software like Norton, MacAfee, and the like.  This would allow them to shore-up gaps in peoples' private security and in a company's security as well.  This to me, the NSA can do on its own without a new cumbersome bureaucracy, but the President likes big government, so what can I say.

My addendum:  In addition to the one part of the President's proposal, I would make one additional part to this.  In this case, I would license hackers to hack back.  So if a company or a government facility is hacked, hackers licensed by the government will actively seek to identify the hackers and at the same time stop them from doing any damage/retrieve stolen information.  This concept is underway, but if it is combined with the above, it will allow antivirus and spyware companies to offer a new service that can actually protect you actively, rather than passively defend your computer.

Conclusion:  Defending our electronic information is becoming increasingly important.  Identity theft is a very real threat, and can ruin people financially.  In an age where there is no more privacy, this last vestige of financial and key private information must be protected.  What more can I say, messing with people and potentially harming them must be prevented. So these two things together will more than shore-up our personal defenses.

Issue 542 9 cents worth of love. March 6, 2015

Did you know that the emotion called love uses about 9 cents worth of chemicals?  I learned this while watching a discussion between Penn Gilet (an atheist) and a Rabbi on the Blaze network.  In this discussion, they discussed love, and the differences between the types of love and whether faith is needed to love.  So here is what they talked a little bit about.

Faith in love:  They discussed if we need more faith in love itself, so that we might realize, or feel love.  For Penn Gilet, he did not need faith, for he, just knows the emotion love.  He does not need faith (God) to back it up.  For Penn, love is just that love.  He does not care if it is a chemical reaction or not, but that the love for his family is all that he wants or needs to feel love toward someone else.  In a sense he has faith in love even if he has no faith in God.  The Rabbi on the other hand needed love of God to feel love.  His connection with God is so strong that God becomes a part of his love of family.  In that sense, God's love and his love become inseparable.

Greedy in love:  Part two of their discussion on this topic asked if we, the faithful, are being greedy in needing God's love so that we might feel love. You see, the Rabbi, in the way he said it, made it sound as if God's love was inseparable to love of each other.  But Penn pointed out that it might be us being greedy.  Again, Penn being an atheist just needs the emotion, and needs nothing else to back it up as he has faith in love.  The Rabbi, in response said that yes, he was being greedy needing God's love to love others, but to him that was a part of loving another.  That loving another as per our own emotions, and through God allows us to love both sinner and saint alike, not to mention family.  

Evidence of Love:  From here it evolved into a debate on if we need evidence of love so as to not dismiss it all as a chemical reaction.  Penn says no for the emotions he feels toward his daughter are real enough.  The Rabbi answered that we do in fact need evidence, for love to him comes through God.  Together it highlighted that some people need evidence while others do not, but that evidence comes through faith and not science.  In this case, love to an atheist was real and something he could have faith in on its own, while the Rabbi needed Gods support, or the faith in God as a lens to have love feel real.

Conclusion:  So this discussion (mind you, this is one of many things discussed) differentiates between a love through the eyes of the faithful, and the eyes of those who do not need faith.  Neither one, dismissed love as a simple chemical reaction as each put their faith into love itself.  As such, love has a different element that allows even those with unscientific and scientific minds to believe in something greater.  This is what I got out of the interview, that love really cannot be explained by faith, or science.  Love simply is and that some get greedy with love, or need support with love, etc.  In the end, love really seems to conquer.  

Issue 541 What Government should run the moon? March 5, 2015

Well, my readers, let us get away from the more serious side of things and look toward the future.  In this case I would like to discuss with you all on who should actually run the moon once colonization begins.  So let's begin.

The people of the moon:  For our purposes, the moon should remain neutral to all conflict on earth.  Reason being is that from the moon, any nation, or the colonists can attack the entire planet without limit.  Also, it will act as an outpost for humanities further expansion amongst the stars.  So a neutral government will be the best one, so as to maintain peace.  Further, people of all nations should be allowed to colonize so that the varying interests of each group clash.  This mimics the whole ambition counter acting ambition established in America's own constitution.  Thus, the idea is to divide loyalties to the original home nation, and make it all belong to the moon resident’s fellow colonists.  And then we arrive at our answer, a democracy, or sorts, will run the moon.  They will have a legislature to make laws, and a senate to approve of them.  Each settlement will be represented by population in the legislature, and with one each in the senate.  This ensures no one side holds too much power.  Let's face it, the moon will be a transportation hub, and thus a central location for interstellar trade.  So each settlement, or even city for that matter needs a say in their survival and prosperity.

Basic laws will be just that, basic.  So a central charter that outlines these laws and the rights everyone has are a given.  Basically, it will be something to rally behind.  As such, laws against murder, and establishing a court system to prosecute crimes is a must.  But also, adapting the charter to the characteristics of lunar survival is a must also.  Resources will be very tight, and thus some form of distribution network for food, and resources may in fact be needed to be either regulated or at the very least monitored for this to work.  You see, unfairness in resources could in fact drive people apart and thus preventing that and maintaining unity is a must.

Why self-rule:  So with just how the government should run, you may be asking why not the United Nations, or a coalition government between existing countries.  Reason is because the countries here will not be responsive to the needs of the colonists.  They will use the colony(s) for their own purposes which will either be for profit or control.  Survival of the lunar people is not a priority if they do not provide what the host country(s) want.  Also, the countries on Earth are not as responsive to places that are far away.  They cannot see a crisis if there is one.  So waiting on bureaucrats on Earth can cost lives, as well as money.  That is why the moon needs to govern itself.  

Conclusion:  The moon will be dependent on the Earth initially to send it resources, but as time goes on with interstellar trade increasing, the need of the Earth will dwindle.  Thus, managing this, and preventing being taken advantage of relies on a government that has the moons interest at heart.  Thus, self-rule is the only way for this to work in my opinion and therefore prevent a repeat of past mistakes.