Insanity

Here's my take on what insanity is.  It is due to a failure somewhere in the thought process.

I used to think it was something global.  As though everything goes wrong; a mind's capabilities that end up collapsing.  Nothing legit could come out of an insane person.

But, spending time with a person that may be deemed insane at times I must revise my conclusion.  First, this insanity is of a part of the mind.  In the case I saw, it was the ability to retrieve data - the memory was dying.  Interesting may be a sick word to use in context, but I'll admit that the reasoning seemed to be working perfectly.  Operating on imperfect material just completely messed up the reasoning.  Add in very short-term memory, and it's chaos.

Another thing I noticed was slipping in and out of the dream world.  Given the person was tired, this was expected.  What wasn't expected was the content within the dreams and reality to be indiscernible.  Awaking from a dream thinking that what happened in the dream applies to reality.  I guess the opposite is true as well.

Then there was complete denial of the insanity.  All the checks and balances in the person's mind told them their logic was flawless.  Even though information was incorrect, this was not detected.  Even the fatigue did not give them a hint that they might be not thinking straight...

The fatigue also added a slowness to actions.  Seconds were needed to reason about simple things, such as how to use an appliance.

Not something to wish onto anyone.  But very annoying since the person losing their marbles can not detect themselves that they have lost it.  Hurting others in their environment without realizing it...  Animosity builds within relationships...

In the end, the madness was due to lack of sleep and lack of nutrition.  Two important things, without which we may become a burden onto the world.

My Issue With Trust

This is something that's been bothering me for quite a while.  What has happened past 2001.  After that time, it's as though the foundation of our society lost its way.

These are words not to be said lightly - so let me step back a few steps and explain my thoughts.

Everything we have is built on trust.  People trust schools to care for their children.  Contracts are just a legal binding to what is trust.  The bigger the project, the more you have to trust the people that build its components.  That the people are competent, and know what they're doing.

Now - let's zoom to the present.  There's fear - and trust.  Fear that we can't trust another person.

Even after that year, security was tightened as the trust was tested.  A normal reaction.  It keeps on tightening.  Yet it does nothing to our current situation...

Supermarkets are still the same.  They trust you will be loyal - and not taint the food as you walk the aisle.  They trust you won't inject something into the food - some of it not even sealed.

What will we do?  Put the food inside of vending machines so that only the employees can touch it?

Can we trust those employees?  We'll they'll need a security clearance to work at the local grocers.

Those employees seem young and untested - they haven't gone through life - why not require older employees to manage the food?  Because we can't trust anyone anymore.

What about the machine that now dispenses the food... it could be injecting poison into the food.  We need a second group to verify them.

And why not put each part of the production underneath the camera.  So that a consumer can verify that things were done proper.  However who set up the camera?  Can they be trusted?  Did they make it loop from another time? It will be very generic, standard, similar work done each time.

And we can continue down this spiral of trust.  See how troublesome it becomes.

Now closer to the heart of the issue - us regular people did not hardly change our habits.  Think of it.  The food is still promoted as it was before - as is most of the goods we purchase.

There are still cameras.  There are still guards - just more of them.

Who has the insane amounts of protection?

I'll propose that there will always be a weak spot.  Things we assume to be always safe will not be so at some point.  I haven't even talked about trusting those that make the food...  (recall the peanut fiasco - thank goodness that wasn't intentional)

Go down the current road - and for whatever we do, we'll need a security clearance.  Because anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Progression Towards Consciousness

While I'm aware of this, I'll write about it.  I've become more conscious of my surroundings.  I notice more things than before.

Yet, if you asked me a few years ago, I would have been quite content with my ability to assess what was going on around me.  The feeling of being at the top of the world.

However, I'm grateful for this.  Now - if I can see more than before - and before I wasn't willing to acknowledge there was more to see since I couldn't see it - that would mean I still have quite a bit of progress to do.

What type of details you ask?  Simple things that you take for granted I'm sure - at times I feel like my social skills are years behind.  For example, properly detecting another person's mood, reading expressions, and knowing how my current expression affects other people.

The last part is interesting.  I'm able to give the "no" look to others, and they avoid conversation - and by they I mean people trying to sell things at stores.  My parents always get stuck in such conversations.  If I put on my "yes" face - then they'll approach.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work when the store is empty.

Unfortunately as well, I've only discovered the latter recently - all while reading "The Rick Mercer Report: The Paperback Book".  Miracles that a smile can do.

The Selfless

The selfless are normally well regarded in society.  They put others first, and take care of themselves later.  I have no problem with that - it's a great quality.

My topic is the extremely selfless people.  Those that omit the 'take care of themselves' part.  The ones that are lonely and are selfless for attention.  So desperate for attention - and at the bottom of the social pit.  And their lives are too comfortable to leave the confines of their homes.

Then comes my fear - am I becoming one of these people.  Socially isolating myself.  But then another task takes over my thoughts until I'm back to self reflection.  And then I think of fun - it's never in solitude - always among a group.  Either friends or unknowns.  Once things get better financially - I'm going to look for a chess or go club.  My mind could use a bit of tweaking, and my social skills are in need of updating.

But that's the least of my worries for now - I still see other people.  Some people, though, are much further along.  It shows me the path to avoid.  They seem apathetic to suggestion - say they'll resolve the issue while delving further in their ways.  Even worse - the word `I' became unspeakable - replaced with the word `we' bearing more power but skewing reality.  And some things are `because it's who I am'.

Giving up.  Definite failure?  I hope not.  So away from that I steer.

Land of Cycles

My current, ever-changing, opinion of life is getting weirder - however, I'd like to focus today on cycles and dependencies.

The thing that brought this to my attention was game reviews - they're nice, simple, and an easy way to figure out what's potentially interesting.  This works well with my mode of obtaining games, go to the store, browse the shelves, read reviews, watch game-play videos, and ultimately (after quite a bit of research) purchase a new game.  Normally, this system works great - but it's inherently flawed.

The store will pack up on what they believe to be popular.  Not a problem, a wise business decision - I'd do the same in their shoes.  The review sites will focus on reviewing what they believe to be popular games, not a problem - a wise decision - that's what people want.  Game-play videos will focus on popular games, and the more popular a game becomes (before launch or after), the more content it gets...

Let's complicate things - the store must determine what's popular.  An easy way to do this is by looking at trends, and review sites - see how hyped a game is.  The review site will use various arcane factors (I'm guessing popularity, brand-recognition, known people, etc.), and the videos will be either from publishers, users, or critics - the user-videos will only cover the popular...  (would you go out and buy an expensive toy without any assurances that it's good - just looking at a box?  Some would - and I would for certain brands)

With that disclaimer out of the way, I'm free to reveal that I'm preventing innovation.  Simply stated - if it doesn't gain recognition - then it won't be bought.

Now, let's assume some sort of game comes out: it should get reviewed.  If someone wants to verify that review, they just need to rent it - but the rental store will only stock up on what's known to be popular (or the ones near at least).

It's like an infinite circle - if no-one within that circle picks up the product and puts it in the spotlight - it's as though it never existed - I won't know about.

If it appears on shelves - I'll read up about it.  If it appears on a game site - I'll read up about it.  Then I'll do research as normal.  But notice how this limits what I'm willing to try as a game?

Enough of this simple game cycle, let's tackle something for relevant - the economy and recession.  At it's core, the concept is quite simple: people stop buying putting others out of a job.  These people stop buying, and the entire machine comes crashing (why throwing money at the problem - in an intelligent way - is a good idea in my opinion - as more people spend, more people stay with jobs, and the more things float).

This cycle is interesting in that we are stuck based upon what we know.  The only difference being that games are bought based upon what others know for sure, stimulus is given to who is guessed will be useful in the future.

Like the pro gamblers working the stock-market to make money.  Hopefully their magic eight-ball is truthful.  You can say they use logic to determine what to do - however life always throws random events and oddities to spice things up.

Last note: I trust they know what they're doing

Is this fair?

Today, my beef deals with licensing, owning, and lies. The problems are lesser for the pirates - they really don't have to care. Neither would they care, the license agreement is just a bunch of text that they blindly click "next" with without any chance of repercussion.

I have fun reading license agreements for software. You can really only read them AFTER having bought the software, and you can't return the software if you don't agree. So the solution is make the license agreement a contract people must read and sign at the cash register when buying software. Also give them a pop-quiz to make sure they read it and understand that by using the software all their rights have been violated to a certain degree.

The next is allowing companies to change a license at will. Either through system critical updates, or just writing it in the contract. My solution: all contracts, digital or not, must be editable by the user who can propose amendments to the contract if they don't agree. And to make this perfect: if a user does not agree to a contract for a software update, and obtain a virus from lack of patching, then the user of the program can sue the company that made the program for the cost of the program. The last part is to keep free software free.

And lastly, people are told that they "own" media. "Own it today" the ads say on TV. Then you notice that after all the nice restrictions, they own the media, and the user has the license. Any fault in advertising in saying "own" instead of "license" will give the user of the media the right to "own" the media to do whatever they wish. Also, clear license agreements must be drawn up so we know what we're getting as consumers (a la iTunes)

The last thing deals with transfer, and the idea of not being allowed to resell/transfer a product. Again, I think that's lame. The goal of all this DRM is to ensure that a digital copy becomes a physical copy - that no-one makes more copies out of thing air. Then why can't we share our digital copy like a physical copy? Or is this a one-way street where it's all the positives according to the company?

I think I'm just peeved that the pirates have it better than the legit user. They can preview a movie/game/whatever before buying. They don't have to care about a ridiculous contract they have to sign and agree to only after they can no longer return the product. They don't even have to care about activation. Nor do they have to care about invalidated keys. Things just work with little effort or fear of revocation from some anonymous remote entity.

At times I wonder why I put so much extra effort in trying to "be legal" when I could even more easily not care like the rest of the masses and fire up an illicit p2p program and access all the media/software I could ever want.

If that were the case, my money would always go to the best producer of a given media. The best movies, the best games, etc. This is because of unlimited previews, I get to try new things, not fearing about the $30+ hole it'll burn in my wallet. And when I do buy something, I know it's the best... So companies can't rely on rehashing the same thing for consumers that feel safe paying into the same old thing. This is more my fear of stagnation - people not creating new IP but shifting from existing ideas to ensure profitability. Who would pay $50 for a new, innovative, untested concept without trying it first or getting good word-of-mouth reviews?

This is the end of my rant. All to say, pirates have it nice. Pirates and rich people will try the new innovative products and get the word out. The rest of us prefer the tried and true media - and get iffy and not buy into anything else.

My solution to all you media companies out there: follow what I outline above. At times you make people sign contracts such as "we are not responsible if your system contracts a virus from using our software" when given software is a single-player-game with no required internet connectivity, etc... That's beyond lame. You expect us to buy something using a medium who's demo can be easily distributed at a low cost thanks to P2P technology.

So here's something to ponder: All my favorite media I tried before buying - either through demos, cartridges borrowed from friends, etc. All my worst purchases are from hype and reviews. And trust me that affects companies as a bad purchase = ban of producer/studio from my "safe to buy from" list for life.

Passports

All hail, a new dumping ground for thoughts beyond of "Random". Now there's "Life", something that hails more of a questioning of modern relics. Passports, currency, government, etc. being of these things to be questioned of their efficaciousness. It is intended to go deep into the roots of what we are, but, being completely ignorant of all the philosophical thought that has come before it... Enjoy!

Also, notice the added links!

To begin, let's define the purpose of a passport. It's used as a document to determine if a person can enter a country or not. Sort of like Country A trusts Country B, so they let their accountable citizens travel. How do we decide which citizens? Use the top tier and have them sign off on the authenticity and integrity of the person.

Let's take three small communities (A,B, and C) for example. C's people are completely untrustworthy; or so speculation goes, so no-one from C can enter A or B. A or B trust each other, and people wish to travel, but to leave a good impression, only a select few can travel.

If A, B, and C are small communities, each consisting of about 20 people. Under such circumstances, people from the community know exactly know should come and go. It's small, and can manage itself.

Let's bring the population up to maybe about 100 each. There will some bad apples in all 3 communities. C currently is being punished for no reason. A and B interchange people, but they now need guards to ensure that only those that are allowed travel. Still, it's a small community, and guarding the borders is relatively trivial.

Population boom, 10 000 people in each community. There are troubled people in each community. C is still being unfairly punished. A and B still interchange people, but having a few guards managing the borders is no longer reasonable -- the population is so big that it now needs police to keep the calm. As well as people outside verifying the borders.

Why verify the borders? so no evil comes in. But why? there are equal numbers of trouble-makers in A, B, and C. Each has their own police force. Only thing that they are attempting to stop is the spread of the crime; which is still leaking through the borders. Those that want to circumvent the system will manage; unless if easily rooted out by the nation.

In our non-fictitious world, people are just re-exported to where they came from.

The idea of the passport is good: guarantee that people going to another country originate from somewhere, and that they are somewhat screened. The downside: are countries too big to issue such control? The populations are massive; people no longer have to escape their community to reach anonymity. It's in the looming office building on the other side of the street.

Build a wall? Go right ahead; tunnels will be built, people adapt. And how can you be 100% sure that someone has not fooled the system.

Building a new electronic system? will people care about it? will all employers care?

Passports, like government, are an opt-in process. People can make a big fuss out of them and follow their every indication, or just do as though they mean nothing. Traffic ticket? It's your taxes that go to paying those officers that give out tickets. Income tax? It's just an agreement between enough people that it must be done: if 100% of the people disagreed, an no-one filed it one year, the government could yell and scream all it wanted, whine, complain, but theres no way it could imprison everyone at once.

Right now, we are opting in for passports. Well, governments (which we keep well funded) opted in for passports.

Are passports a good idea? of course; but at their current scale, they probably are somewhat of a joke (in the west that is).

Am I suggesting that everyone revolt against what they don't like about the government? Be careful of your decisions. It has to be practically unanimously agreed upon. 50% doesn't cut it (more than 50% take part in file-sharing, and under that logic it would become legal). Will people break under the pressure of the "leader"? (the ones we pay to lead the country are quite powerful, and have access to the military to make the population comply, no? - unless the military is against the government; which you have another issue at hand). So, the quick answer is no.

Is this an over-simplified version of things? of course; it's just here to make you think -- it has opened doors of thought in my mind as well. Excellent for creative writing.