We seize on them as examples of what technology can achieve,
even though much of it is bent towards satisfying degraded needs. We
are rich and bored, and have plenty of disposable income to spend on
things that mildly titillate us.
Your insight might also apply to the high level of interest
various rich people have developed in the subject of
space travel. See, for example,
the recent slashdot story about Jeff Bezos
This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was
about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected
insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.
I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may
the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any
of his rights):
We'll ram through the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can elect.
(Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck!)
'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the
cops of the world.
I think MS's idea of a "better" search product would be
one that embodies Gates' "English butler" idea. It
would figure out (automatically!! without even being
asked!!) what you really must be looking for.
Sort of a Google-on-acid, all run by Clippy.
There are a
million virtual streetcorners with a million lonely pamphleteers on
them, all of them decrying the war and not actually coming together in
any organized fashion to oppose it.
On a purly practical level, this remark is off base.
There was a long build-up to American-Iraqi War I, but there were no
serious mass protests (that I can recall) until
the bombing began. Then the bombing campaign and the
subsequent mop-up ground action was
over before the opposition could make much of a difference.
Things are very different these days -- the opposition
continues to build and the fighting has not even started.
I suspect the war will proceed as planned, but at
every escalation point the anti-war structures
now in place will facilitate a great escalation of
opposition from the general public.
Meanwhile, sites such as
www.antiwar.com
provide hundreds of thousands of people with information
about what the Bush administration is doing, what's
happening in Europe and in the Arab world.
That kind of easy access to relevant news and excellent
commentary simply didn't exist during any other
war or buildup to war. True, today the guy who
checks out antiwar.com every morning might not
be doing anything else. But next month maybe he will
be marching in streets in protest, and he will have
absorbed a great deal of background information
that will make a difference in subsequent
"yeah, I was there" conversations.
That kind of talk directly adresses a
fundamental weakness of the Bush people --
the mass consent, such as it is, they have
engineered is based primarily on the shallow
propaganda technique of constant repetition.
Saying "Saddam has got to disarm!" and
"weapons of mass destruction!" over and over
again creates in the minds of many people
the notion that Iraq is just as dangerous as, say,
North Korea. BUT, quite often, really,
conversation with more knowledgable fellow
citizens can disabuse people from such
impressions.
As to the "phamphleteers," if there really are
a million of them, that's wonderful!
Getting intellectualy involved with issues,
formulating one's thoughts, putting them
in words, putting them up, almost literally,
before the whole world -- those things are
often precursors to more active forms of
involvement. And I bet some of them have
some worthy ideas, too.
The ultimate question is: who are your friends?
Who do you really care about? Who really cares about
you? If life is about nothing more than lots of "stuff",
then global capitalism is the most peachy-keen notion
ever to have intruded into the dull wet-ware of
homo sapiens.
But the fact is,
I want my neighbor to have a job because he and I
live in the same neighborhood.
Sometimes people who have been brought up and educated
to see themselves and the world entirely in economic
terms find this concept hard to grasp.
When will politicans realize we cannot have an Orwellian government
AND an informed and educated population AND a market economy at the
same time? IDIOTS!
They know that already. Why would they really want an
"educated population" (or a "market economy")?
If I think I am going to die in a battlefield and I am shitting in my
pants, a robot will do nothing to ease my anxiety or fear.
That isn't the point -- the data could be fed to a real-time
combat status monitoring system, so that "Big Don" Rumsfeld
could see little brown dots appear on his computer screen
as he sits in his impenetrable bunker.
I don't think an outright boycott would make much sense.
Too much work organizing and publicizing it. Some
religious groups tried boycotting Disney a few years ago.
Probably didn't accomplish much.
I think if those of us who dislike the **AA patronize various
forms of live entertainment and otherwise occupy our
geekly little minds with alternative channels and/or content,
that will be good enough. And if we break down and
see a movie once in a while, well, a few guilty pleasures
won't make all that much of a difference anyway.
7) Encourage a mass culture that spits on intelligence and study and
instead elevates drug use, coolness through sex and violence, and
contempt for school.
This is an important point. I saw a movie once where the
hero was a guy who "took a day off" from school and had a wild
and crazy time. The only teacher in the movie was a excruciatingly
boring old fogey that no "cool" kid in his right mind would
want to emulate. I'm glad we have people like Ben Stein
coming out against that sort of thing.
What would be cool would be to hook up a bunch of/.ers to
such a device and note which brain areas light up, which
become dim, which go totally dark, etc.,
based on which posts are being read.
This sort of thing might eventually become the basis for
a new kind of moderation system.
Random evolution won't bring it about :
creating better intelligence will require a vast organized effort,
whether it be designing circuitry or modifying the genetics of
existing people.
Perhaps some level of "better intelligence" can also be cultivated
by developing new forms of human organization.
It is interesting to think about the highly emotional
language Ms. Osbourn uses to express her position.
If we outlaw hatred because we hate hatred, then
are we not hating ourselves?
If we simply admit that hostility is a common enough
part of human life, and that we often have hostile feelings
within ourselves (as Ms. Osbourn obviously does) then
perhaps some day we can become grown up enough and decent enough to get
past some of it. Odi et amo et cetera.
As far as "racists, sexists and homophobes" are concerned,
some are "scum," some are not. Most do not advocate the
enslavement of 90% of the world's population. Many (most,
I would think) do not advocate the enslavement or the
harming of anyone. They simply have ideas, attitudes or
emotional reactions that most educated people
have either gotten over or at least learned not
to express. But learning is a long process. Sometimes it can
take generations.
There are serious problems of definition. Who gets to
say what does or does not constitute "hatred?"
If I say, "It wasn't 6 million, it was 5.93 million,"
am I minimizing the crimes of the Third Reich? Who would
get to decide such a thing? I will guarantee you one
thing: Whoever it is WILL use that power to further
political agendas that have very little to do
with protecting the disadvantaged, and that will have
a great deal to do with strengthening the rule of those
who are already way too powerful.
I couldn't get to the NYT article, but I think I have a
reasonable idea what it's about based on the excerpts I've
read in various/. comments.
My understanding is that Gelernter had devised some kind of
spiffy interface, sort of a post-GUI thingie, which might
be cool in and of itself, except that Proffessor G. goes on
to make utterly absurd claims about op systems being
irrelevant.
Point One: when developing any kind of spiffy innovation
(such as, to plug one of my own ideas, a
Voice/Hand Motion
Interface), the quality of the development
environment is itself a crucial issue. Maybe some people
like Visual Studio better than development facilities on the
Mac or on Linux, but the issue is definately NOT "irrelevant."
Point Two: A truly innovative, order of magnitude better,
ordinary-user oriented interface could easily have
"killer ap" or "tipping point" type effects. Thus,
if first implemented on a non-MS op system, it could be
the lance that knocks Bill Gates off his
horse.
City
halls and other government agencies could use the Internet to help
organize and facilitate a wide variety of bottom-up groups to tackle
whatever problems are at hand.
Is anyone else here uncomfortable with "government agencies"
trying to "facilitate a wide variety of bottum-up groups to
tackle... problems"? It is hard enough to gather a group
of people with enough energy and committment to address a
problem. When such efforts are "facilitated" by the government
itself, all that energy is likely to get co-opted.
... too many elected officials are using the Internet
primarily as a public-relations vehicle.
That's the "bloody shirt" to be waved about while organizing.
E.g., chatting with your barber, you might say, "I checked out
the (local governemt) web site just to see who I could call
to ask a question about my water bill, and guess what? Twenty
high resolution photos of Supervisor Snort, and not a single
damn phone number!! To heck with that! So I just set up my
own website with some of that information..."
That's one reason it's not surprising that political candidates
usually come from within the small group of connected individuals who
already know the rules.
Well, duh.... If you are not part of a "small group of
connected individuals" and if you don't "know the rules," then
you won't get anywhere, period. The solution is to form your
own small group and learn the rules. If you're an opportunist,
you then go about getting yourself and your buddies into
office. If you're an altruistic reformer, you use your
newly gained "power" (such as it is) to address whatever issues
concern you. If you are a radical, then you offer
seminars -- teach those rules to everyone! Supply hints on
group formation! And at the same time, recruit for your own
outfit. Now things are moving...
First, incumbent officeholders should be prohibited from using
government Web sites to promote themselves.
No!! That would take the fun out of everything! We want to
use the deficiencies of their websites to promote our own
organizations!
Likewise, all government Web sites should also be required to list
detailed information that tells the public how and when individuals
can mount electoral challenges for those posts.
I basically agree with the sentiment here. What forms you need to
file and where you get them and where you file them is pretty
basic information. And as long as governmental units are
deficient, activist sites have something to complain about and
also a void that they can fill.
By the way, I live in Southwestern Oakland County, Michigan, and,
the last I looked, the Huron Valley School system website had
many problems -- PDF files where simple HTML would do, etc., etc.
Any readers in this area who are interested in a bit of
mild-mannered cybernetical activism can send me an e-mail,
maybe we can work together and Try to Fix Things (TM).
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
especially has set his country's media the sole task of relaying his
regime's propaganda.
I bet the Iraqi TV News shows go on and on about how "fair and
balanced" they are. But that's what I like about living in
the U.S.A. -- no "regime propaganda" on TV.
Great PR move! Multi-billion dollar American company issuing
threats against a soverign nation. I'm sure that having their
legislature kow-tow to arrogant foreigners will go over really
well with Australian voters. Ballmer needs a clue. Threats
are GWB's job. Steve is just a song and dance guy.
Maybe it would be a good thing if everyone stopped "sharing"
the RIAA's music. It would be even better if everyone
stopped listening to it. Colleges could set up music
servers containing only works for which free distribution
has been authorized by the performers, composers,
lyricists, etc. Geeks could write spiffy computer programs
to reduce the administrative burdens of such arrangements.
They could also develop popularity metrics and write
programs to compute them.
All of this would help "localize"
music. Often enough, local bands would want their music
available freely on the local server in order to promote
attendance at live performances. Fans would be better
able to find suitable entertainment. Artists and fans
would be able to meet other artists and fans with
similar interests.
Obviously, a grand shift of this sort could have many
economic, social and political consequences. When a
formerly centralized industry becomes decentralized,
the people formerly at the center lose. As Tuli
Kupferburg wrote, "When the mode of the music changes, /
The walls of the city shake." That might also be
true of modes of distribution.
Patents are
essentially like world records; there is no way so many new and
nonobvious creations can be produced in a year.
Obviously, it is not obvious to you.;)
But seriously, patents are not like "world records."
"World records" are for things we easily understand
intellectually ("smallest measured time taken for human to run one
mile") but that are physically difficult. Patents are
for stunts no one has thought of yet.
To help enforce the nonobviousness aspect of it, when a patent
application is submitted there should be a short description, of maybe
50 words or less that summarizes what the supposed invention does,
with care taken not to reveal any of the claims or how it is actually
done. Then that summary should be published, after which there is a
set time period of maybe a month or two during which the public is
allowed to submit documentation or even a working product that does
the same thing. If somebody else can come up with a solution in a few
weeks based on such a short description, it does not meet the novel
and nonobvious criteria. If any the submitted documents or products
are substantially similar to the patent application, the patent must
be rejected. Some things would only need a short phrase like "online
auction" or "one click shopping" or "swinging on a swing" [uspto.gov]
for somebody else to come up with a solution in a few days or even
hours.
Hmmmm.... A non-obvious idea for confirming
non-obviousness!! Excellent work! Have you thought about
taking out a patent?
My take on it? Snowball's chance in hell. Not her fault, or Dave
Winer's, just how it's going to play out.
. . .
All of those nationwide supporters aren't going to help unless they
all have close friends and relatives in the district of contention,
now are they?
It isn't necessary to win an election in order to win one
specific issue.
If the funding and other support Grubb gets from
bloggers
is enough to enable her to capture, say, 20% of the votes, then
Coble might decide that further services to the
entertainment industry would be a political liabiliy.
A "losing" campaign can also accomplish a great deal in
terms of organizing -- getting people involved and
enthusiatic and working together and learning about
issues. This could lead to more powerful challenges in
subsequent campaigns and perhaps, ultimately, victory
at the polls.
These days, most political campaigns are based on "big
money" which is spent on TV ads, etc. But a true
"grass roots" campaign can do enough on-the-ground,
door-to-door work to make up for low levels of funding.
If outside support merely buys some miniscule amount of
local advertising, then it won't make much difference.
If it used to support local organizing, e.g., to
pay for flyers that campaign staff go door to door
handing out, etc., then it might make a lot of difference.
It's bad politics to put everyone into the same handbasket.
All exhortations of the form "All geeks must do XXX" are
wrongheaded. Large scale political changes require
multiple approaches. There was no single organization that
set policy for the civil rights movement, the anti-war
movement of the '60s or of the labor movement. Yet all of
those movements, comprising vast arrays of temperaments,
tendencies, philosophies, etc., have been profoundly
influential.
The kind of "activism by way of coding" that McCullagh
advocates is certainly an excellent way of addressing
some of today's serious issues, but we should not
limit ourselves to one mode of engagement.
Even "small" things like writing letters to
editors or congress types contribute something to the
general momentum. They also help build our senses of
personal involvement. If a thousand or so candidates
this fall are asked about the DMCA
when they appear in public, a few of
them might actually take notice.
The general points to keep in mind are, first, become
involved, somehow. Write letters, checks, code,
whatever you like. Speak up at meetings, talk to friends and
co-workers. Post your opinions on message boards, especially
"non-geek" boards (when you can do so without going off topic).
Study the issues. Make movies. Write folk songs.
Start a school. Many
possibilities!
The second general point is: organize. Join an
existing outfit or start your own. Five or six people
working together can accomplish orders of magnitude more
than five or six people, each working alone. True, one
rally with two speakers and a dozen listeners won't
affect national policy. But a few hundred rallies could be
the beginning of a swing in public awareness.
Finally, since many of the odious steps taken by decision
makers, the power structure, etc., are highly technical
in nature, effective opposition to those measures will
require many forms of active participation by people who
are technically astute. That means that
many of us will need to get out of our cubicles
or basements and (figuratively speaking, for now) take
to the streets.
Interesting essay. It was written by Derek Copold.
The A.C. poster probably got it from
here.
Anyway, I don't think our govt is really worried about
"lonely philosophers." Even in the book Brave New World,
Watson was allowed to go into exile in the Faulkland Islands.
And though Nietzsche may have recommended "turning inward",
his most popular work begins with Zarathustra leaving his
isolated mountain and attempting to share his ideas with
other people.
Exactly how tyrannical things are going to get is anyone's
guess at this point. The trends are certainly discouraging.
But effective, appropriate forms of opposition will come
from people (including a few formerly lonesome philosophers)
who are willing to organize.
I don't share Copold's pessimism.
Not only is "meaningful change in the
world" possible, trying to bring it about is a hell of
a lot more fun than the deep introspection Copold
recommends.
Slashdot Mirror
Your insight might also apply to the high level of interest various rich people have developed in the subject of space travel. See, for example, the recent slashdot story about Jeff Bezos
This news proves, in a weird way, that the recent war was about imposing "our" will (the will of a few well-connected insiders, actually) on Iraq, not on bringing it democracy.
I'm reminded of the lyrics of on old Phil Ochs tune (and may the ghost of Phil forgive me if my quoting violates any of his rights):
I think MS's idea of a "better" search product would be one that embodies Gates' "English butler" idea. It would figure out (automatically!! without even being asked!!) what you really must be looking for. Sort of a Google-on-acid, all run by Clippy.
Meanwhile, sites such as www.antiwar.com provide hundreds of thousands of people with information about what the Bush administration is doing, what's happening in Europe and in the Arab world. That kind of easy access to relevant news and excellent commentary simply didn't exist during any other war or buildup to war. True, today the guy who checks out antiwar.com every morning might not be doing anything else. But next month maybe he will be marching in streets in protest, and he will have absorbed a great deal of background information that will make a difference in subsequent "yeah, I was there" conversations.
That kind of talk directly adresses a fundamental weakness of the Bush people -- the mass consent, such as it is, they have engineered is based primarily on the shallow propaganda technique of constant repetition. Saying "Saddam has got to disarm!" and "weapons of mass destruction!" over and over again creates in the minds of many people the notion that Iraq is just as dangerous as, say, North Korea. BUT, quite often, really, conversation with more knowledgable fellow citizens can disabuse people from such impressions.
As to the "phamphleteers," if there really are a million of them, that's wonderful! Getting intellectualy involved with issues, formulating one's thoughts, putting them in words, putting them up, almost literally, before the whole world -- those things are often precursors to more active forms of involvement. And I bet some of them have some worthy ideas, too.
The ultimate question is: who are your friends? Who do you really care about? Who really cares about you? If life is about nothing more than lots of "stuff", then global capitalism is the most peachy-keen notion ever to have intruded into the dull wet-ware of homo sapiens.
But the fact is, I want my neighbor to have a job because he and I live in the same neighborhood. Sometimes people who have been brought up and educated to see themselves and the world entirely in economic terms find this concept hard to grasp.
'Twas remarked:
They know that already. Why would they really want an "educated population" (or a "market economy")?
Another thing they do is take serious posts and mod them as "funny." ;)
Anyway... You should add "Wag the Dog" to your list. Lately, there has been a whole lot of wagging going on.
Then there is still hope for the Republican Party!!
I don't think an outright boycott would make much sense. Too much work organizing and publicizing it. Some religious groups tried boycotting Disney a few years ago. Probably didn't accomplish much.
I think if those of us who dislike the **AA patronize various forms of live entertainment and otherwise occupy our geekly little minds with alternative channels and/or content, that will be good enough. And if we break down and see a movie once in a while, well, a few guilty pleasures won't make all that much of a difference anyway.
What would be cool would be to hook up a bunch of /.ers to
such a device and note which brain areas light up, which
become dim, which go totally dark, etc.,
based on which posts are being read.
This sort of thing might eventually become the basis for
a new kind of moderation system.
It is interesting to think about the highly emotional language Ms. Osbourn uses to express her position. If we outlaw hatred because we hate hatred, then are we not hating ourselves?
If we simply admit that hostility is a common enough part of human life, and that we often have hostile feelings within ourselves (as Ms. Osbourn obviously does) then perhaps some day we can become grown up enough and decent enough to get past some of it. Odi et amo et cetera.
As far as "racists, sexists and homophobes" are concerned, some are "scum," some are not. Most do not advocate the enslavement of 90% of the world's population. Many (most, I would think) do not advocate the enslavement or the harming of anyone. They simply have ideas, attitudes or emotional reactions that most educated people have either gotten over or at least learned not to express. But learning is a long process. Sometimes it can take generations.
There are serious problems of definition. Who gets to say what does or does not constitute "hatred?" If I say, "It wasn't 6 million, it was 5.93 million," am I minimizing the crimes of the Third Reich? Who would get to decide such a thing? I will guarantee you one thing: Whoever it is WILL use that power to further political agendas that have very little to do with protecting the disadvantaged, and that will have a great deal to do with strengthening the rule of those who are already way too powerful.
I couldn't get to the NYT article, but I think I have a reasonable idea what it's about based on the excerpts I've read in various /. comments.
My understanding is that Gelernter had devised some kind of spiffy interface, sort of a post-GUI thingie, which might be cool in and of itself, except that Proffessor G. goes on to make utterly absurd claims about op systems being irrelevant.
Point One: when developing any kind of spiffy innovation (such as, to plug one of my own ideas, a Voice/Hand Motion Interface), the quality of the development environment is itself a crucial issue. Maybe some people like Visual Studio better than development facilities on the Mac or on Linux, but the issue is definately NOT "irrelevant."
Point Two: A truly innovative, order of magnitude better, ordinary-user oriented interface could easily have "killer ap" or "tipping point" type effects. Thus, if first implemented on a non-MS op system, it could be the lance that knocks Bill Gates off his horse.
Is anyone else here uncomfortable with "government agencies" trying to "facilitate a wide variety of bottum-up groups to tackle ... problems"? It is hard enough to gather a group
of people with enough energy and committment to address a
problem. When such efforts are "facilitated" by the government
itself, all that energy is likely to get co-opted.
That's the "bloody shirt" to be waved about while organizing. E.g., chatting with your barber, you might say, "I checked out the (local governemt) web site just to see who I could call to ask a question about my water bill, and guess what? Twenty high resolution photos of Supervisor Snort, and not a single damn phone number!! To heck with that! So I just set up my own website with some of that information..."
Well, duh.... If you are not part of a "small group of connected individuals" and if you don't "know the rules," then you won't get anywhere, period. The solution is to form your own small group and learn the rules. If you're an opportunist, you then go about getting yourself and your buddies into office. If you're an altruistic reformer, you use your newly gained "power" (such as it is) to address whatever issues concern you. If you are a radical, then you offer seminars -- teach those rules to everyone! Supply hints on group formation! And at the same time, recruit for your own outfit. Now things are moving...
No!! That would take the fun out of everything! We want to use the deficiencies of their websites to promote our own organizations!
I basically agree with the sentiment here. What forms you need to file and where you get them and where you file them is pretty basic information. And as long as governmental units are deficient, activist sites have something to complain about and also a void that they can fill.
By the way, I live in Southwestern Oakland County, Michigan, and, the last I looked, the Huron Valley School system website had many problems -- PDF files where simple HTML would do, etc., etc. Any readers in this area who are interested in a bit of mild-mannered cybernetical activism can send me an e-mail, maybe we can work together and Try to Fix Things (TM).
A butterfly flapping its wings in Manhattan can cause a hurricane in Redmond, Washington.
Great PR move! Multi-billion dollar American company issuing threats against a soverign nation. I'm sure that having their legislature kow-tow to arrogant foreigners will go over really well with Australian voters. Ballmer needs a clue. Threats are GWB's job. Steve is just a song and dance guy.
Maybe it would be a good thing if everyone stopped "sharing" the RIAA's music. It would be even better if everyone stopped listening to it. Colleges could set up music servers containing only works for which free distribution has been authorized by the performers, composers, lyricists, etc. Geeks could write spiffy computer programs to reduce the administrative burdens of such arrangements. They could also develop popularity metrics and write programs to compute them.
All of this would help "localize" music. Often enough, local bands would want their music available freely on the local server in order to promote attendance at live performances. Fans would be better able to find suitable entertainment. Artists and fans would be able to meet other artists and fans with similar interests.
Obviously, a grand shift of this sort could have many economic, social and political consequences. When a formerly centralized industry becomes decentralized, the people formerly at the center lose. As Tuli Kupferburg wrote, "When the mode of the music changes, / The walls of the city shake." That might also be true of modes of distribution.
But seriously, patents are not like "world records." "World records" are for things we easily understand intellectually ("smallest measured time taken for human to run one mile") but that are physically difficult. Patents are for stunts no one has thought of yet.
Hmmmm.... A non-obvious idea for confirming non-obviousness!! Excellent work! Have you thought about taking out a patent?
It isn't necessary to win an election in order to win one specific issue. If the funding and other support Grubb gets from bloggers is enough to enable her to capture, say, 20% of the votes, then Coble might decide that further services to the entertainment industry would be a political liabiliy.
A "losing" campaign can also accomplish a great deal in terms of organizing -- getting people involved and enthusiatic and working together and learning about issues. This could lead to more powerful challenges in subsequent campaigns and perhaps, ultimately, victory at the polls.
These days, most political campaigns are based on "big money" which is spent on TV ads, etc. But a true "grass roots" campaign can do enough on-the-ground, door-to-door work to make up for low levels of funding.
If outside support merely buys some miniscule amount of local advertising, then it won't make much difference. If it used to support local organizing, e.g., to pay for flyers that campaign staff go door to door handing out, etc., then it might make a lot of difference.
It's bad politics to put everyone into the same handbasket. All exhortations of the form "All geeks must do XXX" are wrongheaded. Large scale political changes require multiple approaches. There was no single organization that set policy for the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the '60s or of the labor movement. Yet all of those movements, comprising vast arrays of temperaments, tendencies, philosophies, etc., have been profoundly influential.
The kind of "activism by way of coding" that McCullagh advocates is certainly an excellent way of addressing some of today's serious issues, but we should not limit ourselves to one mode of engagement. Even "small" things like writing letters to editors or congress types contribute something to the general momentum. They also help build our senses of personal involvement. If a thousand or so candidates this fall are asked about the DMCA when they appear in public, a few of them might actually take notice.
The general points to keep in mind are, first, become involved, somehow. Write letters, checks, code, whatever you like. Speak up at meetings, talk to friends and co-workers. Post your opinions on message boards, especially "non-geek" boards (when you can do so without going off topic). Study the issues. Make movies. Write folk songs. Start a school. Many possibilities!
The second general point is: organize. Join an existing outfit or start your own. Five or six people working together can accomplish orders of magnitude more than five or six people, each working alone. True, one rally with two speakers and a dozen listeners won't affect national policy. But a few hundred rallies could be the beginning of a swing in public awareness.
Finally, since many of the odious steps taken by decision makers, the power structure, etc., are highly technical in nature, effective opposition to those measures will require many forms of active participation by people who are technically astute. That means that many of us will need to get out of our cubicles or basements and (figuratively speaking, for now) take to the streets.
Interesting essay. It was written by Derek Copold. The A.C. poster probably got it from here.
Anyway, I don't think our govt is really worried about "lonely philosophers." Even in the book Brave New World, Watson was allowed to go into exile in the Faulkland Islands. And though Nietzsche may have recommended "turning inward", his most popular work begins with Zarathustra leaving his isolated mountain and attempting to share his ideas with other people.
Exactly how tyrannical things are going to get is anyone's guess at this point. The trends are certainly discouraging. But effective, appropriate forms of opposition will come from people (including a few formerly lonesome philosophers) who are willing to organize.
I don't share Copold's pessimism. Not only is "meaningful change in the world" possible, trying to bring it about is a hell of a lot more fun than the deep introspection Copold recommends.