I think we really are skirting the boundary between physics and philosophy. I suppose the fact that actual experiments are being proposed pushes the holographic universe idea and the simulation idea towards being actual physics. However, I still have categorizing the holographic universe hypothesis as real physics. By real physics, I mean experimental physics, where we base our ideas about the physical world on what we actually observe.
Given the moves towards walled gardens by both MS and Apple, I am making my own moves towards open or more open platforms. Debian laptop. XBMC set-top box with linux. Android phone. Possibly a linux tablet. And I am encouraging the same from those around me. Open computing is too important to lose.
I must bravely agree with the author completely. We must prepare our children for the future. Clearly we need a few intellectuals. But these folks all wear grey and work far too hard.
What future is that? The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization?
I suspect that algebra has value beyond its immediate application and utility. I think this is often overlooked in debates like this. When learning algebra, you are in effect modifying your brain in a particular way. You are training yourself to think a certain way. You can gain a feeling of mastery if you learn it well. And implicitly, you are taught the value of reason and logic. The very fact that you are asked to learn algebra carries the message that logic and rational thinking are valuable skills, and that people who are good at such things are particularly valuable to society. The pursuit of a topic like algebra encourages discipline and structure in the way you think about many other things.
To focus only on the immediate applications of algebra is small minded and unwise, in my opinion.
There are diamond reserves in the older regions of Africa and North America. It is not surprising that there are diamonds in the centre of Asia as well. The geology is similar. Basically what you need is an area with very old rock that hasn't been hugely disturbed by geological processes. The Canadian Shield contains 3 to 4 billion year old rock, and I believe there are also areas with similar rocks in both central Africa and central Asia. Diamonds can be found in areas with rocks with ages more than 2.5 billion years. I think this is because the kimberlite pipes that bring them to the surface only happened that long ago, though I'm not absolutely sure of this. Once deposited by those pipes, the diamonds remain at or near the surface, where they can be mined.
The much bigger problem is people sneaking onto your boat while you're either away or asleep, and stealing things.
Joshua Slocum, the first person to sail around the world alone (late 1800's) had problems with people sneaking onto his boat in Patagonia. He had the trick of putting tacks on the deck, since the natives in the area were always barefoot. Plus ca change...
My own personal philosophy on this is simplicity and reliability. You have to ask yourself the question: what if a particular device breaks. What happens if lightning strikes my boat and zaps most of my fancy electronics? Will I be able to cope. Will I be able to fix the device? Will I be able to replace it "out there".
That said, being able to communicate via satellite is excellent. Having internet out there is excellent. Having GPS is excellent. Having up to date EPIRBS is excellent. Having chart-plotters and electronic self-steering is excellent. I also think that more standard time proven technology such as sideband radios would be good. However, there are caveats.
Firstly, you have to power all that gear. You can use your diesel engine to charge the batteries, but you are burning fuel, and you are reliant on the mechanics of your diesel engine. I think wind turbines are quite effective much of the time for charging batteries, and I think solar panels would also be a good backup, especially in the doldrums.
Finally, I think you have to consider the level of backup you have for your technology. I would have numerous GPS devices, protected from water and lightning surges. I would also be familiar with how to use a sextant, and how to use sight-reduction tables to establish a line of position. I would have enough paper charts that I wouldn't be stuck without my chart-plotter. I am personally a fan of mechanical self-steering using a wind-vane, but that possibly isn't for everyone. Still, if you lose power and you have electronic self-steering, it is not a good situation. The hydraulic rams used in electronic self-steering systems take a fair bit of energy as well.
My own boat is on the drawing board, sometime in the future. It will be outfitted according to principles of simplicity and reliability. Not being of independent means financially, I will avoid many of the toys that cost money and break out there, because I feel they would tether me too much, instead of allowing me to be free. Most of the things on my boat will be simple and reliable.
A simple sediment core from the Arctic seabed provides temperature and biological records going back a very long ways, and can trivially establish if the ocean in an area was exposed or whether it was covered with ice.
Yes, I know the saying goes, don't argue with a fool because outside observers won't know the difference. Sorry, I fed the denier troll. Slaps back of hand. I'll try not to let it happen again.
If you read response #4 of this update from Real Climate, you will see that the National Snow and Ice Data Centre hasn't called the record low yet (as of 26 Aug 2012 at 12:04 PM), since they use 5-day moving averages on their graphs. The graph referred to by the realclimate.org update and I think in the OP is based on daily data. The response is from Walt Meier of the NSIDC. I'll quote it here:
These are daily values, not the 5-day average, which is not quite at a record yet. Using a 5-day average removes some of the noise due to weather and other effects that cause small errors in the daily values. Thus the 5-day estimate is a more robust measure of sea ice changes. We will make an announcement on our web site when we have passed the current record: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Walt Meier
NSIDC
I think however that there are other data series that do agree that the record has been broken, even with 5-day averages. Here is my favourite data compilation for Arctic Sea Ice. It contains many different graphs from different sources. Taken together, the data paints a disturbing picture.
I really used to like that movie. Ed Harris as Neil Armstrong. Perfect casting. One thing I really got out of that movie was how NASA originally wanted to have the astronauts as ballast, giving them little or no ability to pilot the craft. Neil Armstrong was one of the astronauts who protested, and forced NASA to outfit the capsules with pilot controls. If you look at the Gemini capsules, they actually do resemble airplane cockpits if looked at from the right perspective.
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job.
I suspect this is the equivalent of focus group research or polling for him. Slashdot is a relatively small, but somewhat representative group. By hanging around here, he gains insight into the opinions of quite a few people, and he can test the effectiveness of the propaganda.
We didn't evolve to stand upright either, or at least we haven't evolved very much. I heard a discussion by a scientist studying our spines' adaptations to standing upright. It's basically a kluge. For most of evolutionary history, spines were horizontal. Now we are using most of those abdominal adaptations to stand our spines upright. This scientist said using our spines to support our heads upright is something like supporting a melon with a toothpick. It is no wonder we have so many back issues.
Everyone says Brave New World is depressing. What is so depressing about having flying cars, great drugs, and spending all your free time having casual sex with hot chicks?
Ah. I see you took the blue pill.
But seriously, I think that we as humans have a desire for meaning in our lives. Some of use may be able to exist in our current corporate brave new world. However many of us find this existence profoundly empty. I believe this phenomenon is the primary reason why so many Americans are turning to extremist religious views that explicitly reject classical reason in favor of a simplistic view in which the world is 6000 years old. This may seem comforting to them, but because we live in something of a democracy, these people have votes. And many of them are basing their voting decisions not on reason but on illusion. History shows that any civilization that bases its decisions not on reality but on illusion is doomed.
In my opinion, Rand's destructive philosophy urges people to live the life of a psychopath. Here is a quote from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
...Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats...
It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.
If I may contribute an addendum, here is the quote to which I was referring, by Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death (pdf). It compares Orwell's 1984 to Huxley's Brave New World:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.
Yes, Brave New World. Especially since Brave New World seems to reflect our current cultural situation in much of the west.
I have heard Huxley's Brave New World compared and contrasted with Orwell's 1984. In 1984, the powers that be manipulate the public's opinions to believe that, in essence black is white and 2 + 2 = 5. In Huxley's Brave New World, the public simply doesn't care about the reality of the world. Most people are simply interested in what is in front of them, their desires, their fears, without any real concern about society as a whole. That sounds a lot like the current corporate state.
I am very close to buying a laptop from a company that manufactures laptops designed to run linux. Either ZaReason or System76. I am currently using an early 2007 Macbook Pro, which has been a fairly nice machine. However I don't like the way consumer computing is going, and I feel the need to stand up for my right to run a Turing complete computing device. And $800 or so for a laptop isn't too much for me to plop down.
The most effective propaganda contains an element of reality. The "occupy" movement contained, necessarily a certain type of person, one who had the ability to camp out night after night. However I would argue that the concerns of the movement are wider and are shared by more than just people who can camp in a park for several weeks. I would in fact argue that the concerns of those in this movement have a provenance that goes farther back than the movement that occurred in the 1960's. I believe that the 1960's social movements were something of an isolated island in history. They didn't have much a heritage morally or ethically.
I suspect that something we share is a desire to make a future for our children where they can prosper, where they are free to pursue their dreams, where they can fulfill their potential. Those of a libertarian bent tend to believe that if you leave the individual to himself, he will make the best choices to maximize his well-being, and that larger structures have little business telling the individual what to do. In many ways, this is an appealing view, one that entails a great deal of freedom for the individual. I personally believe there is some truth in this idea. However, if you take it to far, I believe that it will lead to its opposite: less freedom.
We currently live in a three class society. The upper class, the middle class, and the lower class are the defining social structures of western civilization. I am a member of the middle class, and I suspect you are too. The middle class in our society is still the largest class, and in our democratic system it has most of the votes, and thus theoretically the most power. I think it is worthwhile examining the origin of this three class structure. In simple terms, it comes from the ancient Greeks. There is little doubt of this. I think Aristotle actually wrote something to the effect of "the best form of government is a constitutional government in which a strong middle class is firmly in control". Here is a discussion of Aristotle's ideas. The problem is that a three class society doesn't naturally appear. You have to actually try to create these three classes. Ancient Greek civilization had three classes, but the surrounding civilizations did not. In Persia, there were only two classes; the king was considered a god and his underlings formed un unchallengeable power structure. The same was true in Egypt, where the Pharaohs ruled. Europe during and immediately after the Dark Ages also consisted of two class societies. In Europe, the two class society was manifested in feudalism. In a feudalistic society, there were lords, who owned most of the land, and there were serfs who worked the land. If you were a serf, you had almost no power to change your fate. If you were a serf, your children were doomed to be serfs. No upward mobility to speak of. No real education. Little chance to fulfill your potential. On the whole, I don't think most of us would have liked being serfs. I don't think that most of us would enjoy living in a two class society, where the lot of most individuals is effective slavery.
What I worry about is that the laissez faire free market capitalist movement will move our civilization closer to a two class society. I believe that if we stop trying to maintain a strong middle class, then the middle class will decay. The average income of that middle class will approach that of the lower class, while the majority of the wealth will migrate upwards. There are many reasons to believe this, not least is comparison of ancient Greece with the civilizations surrounding it. I think that civilizations naturally tend towards being two class, unless actions are taken to create a middle class. And right now in America we are not taking actions to preserve the middle class. We are letting it decay. This decay is undeniable, and is in fact the root cause of both the "occupy" movement and
I find it interesting to watch the "propaganda" machine in action. When there is a new development that might affect the public mind (say for example the "Occupy" movement in its early days), there seems to be a delay in the response by certain parts of the media. Comments by establishment right wing posters are initially sparse, and coverage in right wing media sources is initially factual and muted. Commentary is initially limited. Then the comments begin to increase, and gradually adopt a common thrust. Right wing postings on discussion boards become more common and usually have a common theme. With the "Occupy" movement, some of the themes were, as I remember, that the protesters were a bunch of hippies, that they should get jobs, that they don't have any demands, or that their demands are unrealistic. The coverage peaks, and then declines over time. By the reduction in coverage, the public gradually subconsciously gets a sense that the phenomenon is declining, that it is finishing. People then turn their attention elsewhere and the message that the movement is finishing becomes a reality.
Many readers might say, well, that the above descriptions were true. They were hippies. Their demands were unrealistic or didn't exist. They did decline. To which I would ask how you actually developed those opinions? Did you visit the protesters? Did you interview them? Did you actually try to understand their concerns? Did you really get inside their heads and try to comprehend their concerns in a deep way? Because if you didn't, your opinions were largely based on what you saw in the media. Your opinions were largely based on what we might call propaganda. And that propaganda likely originated largely from the minds of "public relations" experts. It was probably, when necessary, vetted with "focus groups", who were likely monitored in detail for their emotional responses to various statements. It was probably reinforced with polls and interviews. And it was very effective.
I doubt the American Revolution would have taken place if the British had had such all pervasive means of propagandizing the masses.
Why is it important to see the root file system on your phone? I've never looked at my iPhone and thought, "if only I could see the root file system."
Transferring files is easier and more intuitive to me if I can use folders. Having software such as audiobook players able to view folders on the phone gives me the ability to manage my own book library, instead of Apple's way of hiding the real structures from me, and having me use clunky irritating and unintuitive file transfer via iTunes instead. Having multiple applications on the phone be able to view common files is also useful to me. My iPad makes me pull my hair out sometimes when I transfer say a movie to one player only to find that the file is inaccessible by other players on the same iPad, because each application gets its own limited sandbox to play in, and can't easily read files in the sandboxes of other applications. In other words, I want to be able to use my device my way.
I don't use Verizon, but it wouldn't matter anyways, since (a) my phone is not locked to any provider (all Nexus S phones are unlocked as far as I know) and (b) I get my updates directly from google (or at least I'm 90% sure I do...they just show up). I have Jellybean and its pretty good so far. The update became available just the other day. The phone downloaded it automatically and then asked me if I wanted to install it. Waited a little while and voila...Jellybean.
Yep. Bought an unsubsidized Nexus S. Never locked. Gets updates. Relatively inexpensive. Why would anyone buy one of these other crappy phones that don't run even Android 4.0. And I can actually see my root filesystem, unlike an iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the "simulation" is simply programmed to deceive this test? Then what do you do?
If no test is possible, then it is not physics but only philosophy.
Scientists perform experiments that are constrained by the laws of nature.
Philosophers perform experiments that are constrained by the laws of logic.
I think we really are skirting the boundary between physics and philosophy. I suppose the fact that actual experiments are being proposed pushes the holographic universe idea and the simulation idea towards being actual physics. However, I still have categorizing the holographic universe hypothesis as real physics. By real physics, I mean experimental physics, where we base our ideas about the physical world on what we actually observe.
Given the moves towards walled gardens by both MS and Apple, I am making my own moves towards open or more open platforms. Debian laptop. XBMC set-top box with linux. Android phone. Possibly a linux tablet. And I am encouraging the same from those around me. Open computing is too important to lose.
I must bravely agree with the author completely. We must prepare our children for the future. Clearly we need a few intellectuals. But these folks all wear grey and work far too hard.
What future is that? The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization?
I suspect that algebra has value beyond its immediate application and utility. I think this is often overlooked in debates like this. When learning algebra, you are in effect modifying your brain in a particular way. You are training yourself to think a certain way. You can gain a feeling of mastery if you learn it well. And implicitly, you are taught the value of reason and logic. The very fact that you are asked to learn algebra carries the message that logic and rational thinking are valuable skills, and that people who are good at such things are particularly valuable to society. The pursuit of a topic like algebra encourages discipline and structure in the way you think about many other things.
To focus only on the immediate applications of algebra is small minded and unwise, in my opinion.
There are diamond reserves in the older regions of Africa and North America. It is not surprising that there are diamonds in the centre of Asia as well. The geology is similar. Basically what you need is an area with very old rock that hasn't been hugely disturbed by geological processes. The Canadian Shield contains 3 to 4 billion year old rock, and I believe there are also areas with similar rocks in both central Africa and central Asia. Diamonds can be found in areas with rocks with ages more than 2.5 billion years. I think this is because the kimberlite pipes that bring them to the surface only happened that long ago, though I'm not absolutely sure of this. Once deposited by those pipes, the diamonds remain at or near the surface, where they can be mined.
The much bigger problem is people sneaking onto your boat while you're either away or asleep, and stealing things.
Joshua Slocum, the first person to sail around the world alone (late 1800's) had problems with people sneaking onto his boat in Patagonia. He had the trick of putting tacks on the deck, since the natives in the area were always barefoot. Plus ca change...
My own personal philosophy on this is simplicity and reliability. You have to ask yourself the question: what if a particular device breaks. What happens if lightning strikes my boat and zaps most of my fancy electronics? Will I be able to cope. Will I be able to fix the device? Will I be able to replace it "out there".
That said, being able to communicate via satellite is excellent. Having internet out there is excellent. Having GPS is excellent. Having up to date EPIRBS is excellent. Having chart-plotters and electronic self-steering is excellent. I also think that more standard time proven technology such as sideband radios would be good. However, there are caveats.
Firstly, you have to power all that gear. You can use your diesel engine to charge the batteries, but you are burning fuel, and you are reliant on the mechanics of your diesel engine. I think wind turbines are quite effective much of the time for charging batteries, and I think solar panels would also be a good backup, especially in the doldrums.
Finally, I think you have to consider the level of backup you have for your technology. I would have numerous GPS devices, protected from water and lightning surges. I would also be familiar with how to use a sextant, and how to use sight-reduction tables to establish a line of position. I would have enough paper charts that I wouldn't be stuck without my chart-plotter. I am personally a fan of mechanical self-steering using a wind-vane, but that possibly isn't for everyone. Still, if you lose power and you have electronic self-steering, it is not a good situation. The hydraulic rams used in electronic self-steering systems take a fair bit of energy as well.
My own boat is on the drawing board, sometime in the future. It will be outfitted according to principles of simplicity and reliability. Not being of independent means financially, I will avoid many of the toys that cost money and break out there, because I feel they would tether me too much, instead of allowing me to be free. Most of the things on my boat will be simple and reliable.
A simple sediment core from the Arctic seabed provides temperature and biological records going back a very long ways, and can trivially establish if the ocean in an area was exposed or whether it was covered with ice.
Yes, I know the saying goes, don't argue with a fool because outside observers won't know the difference. Sorry, I fed the denier troll. Slaps back of hand. I'll try not to let it happen again.
If you read response #4 of this update from Real Climate, you will see that the National Snow and Ice Data Centre hasn't called the record low yet (as of 26 Aug 2012 at 12:04 PM), since they use 5-day moving averages on their graphs. The graph referred to by the realclimate.org update and I think in the OP is based on daily data. The response is from Walt Meier of the NSIDC. I'll quote it here:
These are daily values, not the 5-day average, which is not quite at a record yet. Using a 5-day average removes some of the noise due to weather and other effects that cause small errors in the daily values. Thus the 5-day estimate is a more robust measure of sea ice changes. We will make an announcement on our web site when we have passed the current record: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Walt Meier
NSIDC
I think however that there are other data series that do agree that the record has been broken, even with 5-day averages. Here is my favourite data compilation for Arctic Sea Ice. It contains many different graphs from different sources. Taken together, the data paints a disturbing picture.
Ok. Scratch my post. It was John Glenn in that movie, not Neil Armstrong. Still, an enjoyable movie. It just didn't portray Neil Armstrong.
[embarassed]My bad.[/embarrassed]
He had The Right Stuff.
I really used to like that movie. Ed Harris as Neil Armstrong. Perfect casting. One thing I really got out of that movie was how NASA originally wanted to have the astronauts as ballast, giving them little or no ability to pilot the craft. Neil Armstrong was one of the astronauts who protested, and forced NASA to outfit the capsules with pilot controls. If you look at the Gemini capsules, they actually do resemble airplane cockpits if looked at from the right perspective.
Off to the wild blue yonder. RIP
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job.
I suspect this is the equivalent of focus group research or polling for him. Slashdot is a relatively small, but somewhat representative group. By hanging around here, he gains insight into the opinions of quite a few people, and he can test the effectiveness of the propaganda.
We didn't evolve to sit at a desk after all.
We didn't evolve to stand upright either, or at least we haven't evolved very much. I heard a discussion by a scientist studying our spines' adaptations to standing upright. It's basically a kluge. For most of evolutionary history, spines were horizontal. Now we are using most of those abdominal adaptations to stand our spines upright. This scientist said using our spines to support our heads upright is something like supporting a melon with a toothpick. It is no wonder we have so many back issues.
Everyone says Brave New World is depressing. What is so depressing about having flying cars, great drugs, and spending all your free time having casual sex with hot chicks?
Ah. I see you took the blue pill.
But seriously, I think that we as humans have a desire for meaning in our lives. Some of use may be able to exist in our current corporate brave new world. However many of us find this existence profoundly empty. I believe this phenomenon is the primary reason why so many Americans are turning to extremist religious views that explicitly reject classical reason in favor of a simplistic view in which the world is 6000 years old. This may seem comforting to them, but because we live in something of a democracy, these people have votes. And many of them are basing their voting decisions not on reason but on illusion. History shows that any civilization that bases its decisions not on reality but on illusion is doomed.
In my opinion, Rand's destructive philosophy urges people to live the life of a psychopath. Here is a quote from George Monbiot in the Guardian:
...Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats...
It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.
If I may contribute an addendum, here is the quote to which I was referring, by Neil Postman in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death (pdf). It compares Orwell's 1984 to Huxley's Brave New World:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.
Yes, Brave New World. Especially since Brave New World seems to reflect our current cultural situation in much of the west.
I have heard Huxley's Brave New World compared and contrasted with Orwell's 1984. In 1984, the powers that be manipulate the public's opinions to believe that, in essence black is white and 2 + 2 = 5. In Huxley's Brave New World, the public simply doesn't care about the reality of the world. Most people are simply interested in what is in front of them, their desires, their fears, without any real concern about society as a whole. That sounds a lot like the current corporate state.
I am very close to buying a laptop from a company that manufactures laptops designed to run linux. Either ZaReason or System76. I am currently using an early 2007 Macbook Pro, which has been a fairly nice machine. However I don't like the way consumer computing is going, and I feel the need to stand up for my right to run a Turing complete computing device. And $800 or so for a laptop isn't too much for me to plop down.
The most effective propaganda contains an element of reality. The "occupy" movement contained, necessarily a certain type of person, one who had the ability to camp out night after night. However I would argue that the concerns of the movement are wider and are shared by more than just people who can camp in a park for several weeks. I would in fact argue that the concerns of those in this movement have a provenance that goes farther back than the movement that occurred in the 1960's. I believe that the 1960's social movements were something of an isolated island in history. They didn't have much a heritage morally or ethically.
I suspect that something we share is a desire to make a future for our children where they can prosper, where they are free to pursue their dreams, where they can fulfill their potential. Those of a libertarian bent tend to believe that if you leave the individual to himself, he will make the best choices to maximize his well-being, and that larger structures have little business telling the individual what to do. In many ways, this is an appealing view, one that entails a great deal of freedom for the individual. I personally believe there is some truth in this idea. However, if you take it to far, I believe that it will lead to its opposite: less freedom.
We currently live in a three class society. The upper class, the middle class, and the lower class are the defining social structures of western civilization. I am a member of the middle class, and I suspect you are too. The middle class in our society is still the largest class, and in our democratic system it has most of the votes, and thus theoretically the most power. I think it is worthwhile examining the origin of this three class structure. In simple terms, it comes from the ancient Greeks. There is little doubt of this. I think Aristotle actually wrote something to the effect of "the best form of government is a constitutional government in which a strong middle class is firmly in control". Here is a discussion of Aristotle's ideas. The problem is that a three class society doesn't naturally appear. You have to actually try to create these three classes. Ancient Greek civilization had three classes, but the surrounding civilizations did not. In Persia, there were only two classes; the king was considered a god and his underlings formed un unchallengeable power structure. The same was true in Egypt, where the Pharaohs ruled. Europe during and immediately after the Dark Ages also consisted of two class societies. In Europe, the two class society was manifested in feudalism. In a feudalistic society, there were lords, who owned most of the land, and there were serfs who worked the land. If you were a serf, you had almost no power to change your fate. If you were a serf, your children were doomed to be serfs. No upward mobility to speak of. No real education. Little chance to fulfill your potential. On the whole, I don't think most of us would have liked being serfs. I don't think that most of us would enjoy living in a two class society, where the lot of most individuals is effective slavery.
What I worry about is that the laissez faire free market capitalist movement will move our civilization closer to a two class society. I believe that if we stop trying to maintain a strong middle class, then the middle class will decay. The average income of that middle class will approach that of the lower class, while the majority of the wealth will migrate upwards. There are many reasons to believe this, not least is comparison of ancient Greece with the civilizations surrounding it. I think that civilizations naturally tend towards being two class, unless actions are taken to create a middle class. And right now in America we are not taking actions to preserve the middle class. We are letting it decay. This decay is undeniable, and is in fact the root cause of both the "occupy" movement and
Too late.
It's called "propaganda".
I find it interesting to watch the "propaganda" machine in action. When there is a new development that might affect the public mind (say for example the "Occupy" movement in its early days), there seems to be a delay in the response by certain parts of the media. Comments by establishment right wing posters are initially sparse, and coverage in right wing media sources is initially factual and muted. Commentary is initially limited. Then the comments begin to increase, and gradually adopt a common thrust. Right wing postings on discussion boards become more common and usually have a common theme. With the "Occupy" movement, some of the themes were, as I remember, that the protesters were a bunch of hippies, that they should get jobs, that they don't have any demands, or that their demands are unrealistic. The coverage peaks, and then declines over time. By the reduction in coverage, the public gradually subconsciously gets a sense that the phenomenon is declining, that it is finishing. People then turn their attention elsewhere and the message that the movement is finishing becomes a reality.
Many readers might say, well, that the above descriptions were true. They were hippies. Their demands were unrealistic or didn't exist. They did decline. To which I would ask how you actually developed those opinions? Did you visit the protesters? Did you interview them? Did you actually try to understand their concerns? Did you really get inside their heads and try to comprehend their concerns in a deep way? Because if you didn't, your opinions were largely based on what you saw in the media. Your opinions were largely based on what we might call propaganda. And that propaganda likely originated largely from the minds of "public relations" experts. It was probably, when necessary, vetted with "focus groups", who were likely monitored in detail for their emotional responses to various statements. It was probably reinforced with polls and interviews. And it was very effective.
I doubt the American Revolution would have taken place if the British had had such all pervasive means of propagandizing the masses.
This reminds me of the Star Trek episode "The Game", where the entire crew gets addicted to a simple game.
Why is it important to see the root file system on your phone? I've never looked at my iPhone and thought, "if only I could see the root file system."
Transferring files is easier and more intuitive to me if I can use folders. Having software such as audiobook players able to view folders on the phone gives me the ability to manage my own book library, instead of Apple's way of hiding the real structures from me, and having me use clunky irritating and unintuitive file transfer via iTunes instead. Having multiple applications on the phone be able to view common files is also useful to me. My iPad makes me pull my hair out sometimes when I transfer say a movie to one player only to find that the file is inaccessible by other players on the same iPad, because each application gets its own limited sandbox to play in, and can't easily read files in the sandboxes of other applications. In other words, I want to be able to use my device my way.
I don't use Verizon, but it wouldn't matter anyways, since (a) my phone is not locked to any provider (all Nexus S phones are unlocked as far as I know) and (b) I get my updates directly from google (or at least I'm 90% sure I do...they just show up). I have Jellybean and its pretty good so far. The update became available just the other day. The phone downloaded it automatically and then asked me if I wanted to install it. Waited a little while and voila...Jellybean.
Yep. Bought an unsubsidized Nexus S. Never locked. Gets updates. Relatively inexpensive. Why would anyone buy one of these other crappy phones that don't run even Android 4.0. And I can actually see my root filesystem, unlike an iPhone.