The bent knob.

Our democratic system has a major fault. A nearly invisible flaw that will eventually drive our nation, both our economy and society, into the ground. It is the fact that not every one can go for higher education.

A democracy, or rather, republic, requires that every voter be educated in order to be aware of the issues being voted on. In a perfect democratic society, every person would be aware of all issues facing the world and the nation. They would be scientists of every nature, and artisans of every genre. They would have the knowledge to make every political decision, and know every faucet of history and law. This is, of course, ridiculous. But in order to make for a perfect democratic system, that would be necessary.

In loo of perfection, we can settle for a system that work well. One that functions, despite the imperfections that result from uninformed decisions. This system, however, would require that every person have at least a college degree.

Right now, America only requires that a person have a high school degree. With a high school degree, a person can get a very low paying job. They can read a newspaper. But they are less likely to know the more important facts about the world around them. A person with only a high school degree within the current society has not gotten many of the advantages, such as a focused instruction on a certain topic, that would help them to inform others in an authoritative manner. Without this focus, there is less information circling, and it is easy for wrongheaded ideas to slip through the societal filter. Without this protection, propaganda becomes more powerful, and thus power can be transferred to less people. Over time, such power becomes focused in a few, and instead of a democracy, an almost aristocracy develops.

This does not mean that the developments that result from limiting higher education actually benefit the rich. On the contrary, they become a powerful dampener to lives of the wealthy. Limiting the number of people able to go to college results in less people becoming scientists and artists. Thus, there are less developments. Innovation, with regard to the people who potentially could create it, is more of a gamble then a system of predictability. Thus, with less people within college, there will naturally be less people coming up with good ideas. Those good ideas include medicine and other technology, let alone the entertainment. Thus the quality of life, including for those who have money, will deteriorate. In essence, the rich will have money, yet live only as well as the middle class would have if education were universal.

So the solution is universal higher education. Education should be not only a right for everyone, but also a duty to the society. In order to serve a country dependent on voters for decisions, education should be of the utmost importance. It is only when we focus on education that we can regain the prominence that the United States has enjoyed in the past. Though it is not perfect, with everyone being educated to their utmost ability, democracy will be able to lead us into a much better future, as so many groups of people that were kept from it upon our country's inception now have access, if only they had the resources.

The Human Animal

Like it or not, humans act like animals. Perhaps that, despite what theists and others will say, is because we are essentially just animals ourselves. We eat, we sleep, and we die. We just like to think of ourselves as somehow a cut above everything else. Perhaps we are destined to be more, but just saying we aren't animals doesn't hold any water.

Sure, we know how to use fire. And create it. And we know how to use other tools. Yet when it comes to our social practices, it seems we are backwards. The most dangerous practice that humans share with animals is the tendency to form groups.

Forming groups is important for the survival of any animal species. If all the animals of a certain species were to band together and work as a single unit, they would eventually run out of resources. This is especially true of predatory animals. Think of wolves, for example. If all the wolves within a certain biosphere were to band together, they would be cooperating to capture food. When they compete, they kill off members of each others' groups, thus reducing the number as a whole. But if they cooperate, they will only grow in number, thus overwhelming the supply of prey, and leading to the eventual starvation of the wolves in the area. Thus, groupings within animals is important.

Humans, however, have developed tools. In current times, these tools include weapons that could easily devastate whole cities. Yet we have kept our tendency to form groups. These groups are better known by other names. We call them races, nationalities, religions, social classes, and genders. We separate ourselves, instead of working together. We do this in a time in which we no longer need to worry about gathering enough to eat. Instead, populations starve as others stuff their bellies and their store houses next door. We bomb each other instead of make peace. We hate instead of cooperate. And we oppress instead of discovering the what mutual respect could bring. With the aforementioned weapons, we run the risk of annihilating ourselves.

It is in this, that I believe most of our problems lay. Ideas, such as racism, should have been dropped into the void of the past long ago, yet it is still a very current and powerful issue. Humans are still very willing to hate. We still identify mainly by our nationalities, thinking of the people from other countries as potential enemies, instead of part of the human race as a whole. Religionous bigotry is a mere biproduct of a need to segregate ourselves. Those with money still horde it, instead of sharing it, and potentially improving their own lot as well, as many of those who could not afford education might have brought advances that would have improved life. And we still see a need to force people into regimented and rigid gender classes, that serve to hurt every person, as people's ability to give voice to speech is stiffled.

So, instead of something more, we seem to still be animals. As time goes on, we ebb between progress and regress, always on the cusp of discovering a new existence. But for now, we stand still with the wilderness, with our eagerness to destroy ourselves.

Game Copyright Protection Frustrations, Part 2

Another option to DRM presents itself. This tactic, however, puts the responsibility back in the hands of the customer. If the industry really wanted to end pirating of their games, they should move away from such hard solutions like software protections. They would be better served by a soft approach. This tactic involves a little bit social education. The more cynical might call it propaganda, though it does not rely on the stretching of truth, or the outright deceptions that are so common in many forms of advertising.

What this tactic involves is making public the damage that pirating does, not only to the companies, but to the consumer, and the industry in general. Showing the creators of the games on TV talking about how much pirating hurts their art. Show the trends of pirating, and how it relates to the numbers of sales of the game. Show how that trend relates to the relative amount of money spent on games. Start websites discussing the problem. Get spots before movies talking about how bad pirating is. Show how pirating has affected other industries.

Most importantly, however, get the fan community involved. Every large game company has fans that are loyal. Tap into that loyalty. Instead of pushing them away by putting in protections, pull them in. Have the heads of the company, or more importantly, the developers of the games, go on the forums and ask for the fan's aid in combating piracy. This will not only increase loyalty, but also make those who would otherwise get a pirated game think about saving up, as they would then feel a sort of kinship with the game developers. It makes the company less of a monstrous entity, and more of a community. Then ask those fans to help out by being watchdogs, letting the company know of places where the games are being pirated.

Just as importantly, make sure those fans know that the company is puting trust into the hands of the customer. Clearly state in the advertisements that there will be no software protections that will be put into the game. Let them know that there will be extra benefits that will be added to the game as time goes on, support for the game will not be dropped. Explain how continued pirating would make continuing support fiscally unfeasible. This will make the fans more likely encourage their friends not to pirate. If pirating continues, then drop support for the game, making clear that pirating was the culprit. By shifting the negative attitude from the game companies to the pirates, the pirates will lose the popular support. This will also serve to improve the image of the gaming industry, as will as reduce the number of people willing to pirate games.

Right now, the issue of copyright protections on games is hurting the image of gaming companies. They seem like big corporations out only for an extra buck. Brand loyalty is slipping, as fans cease to identify with the company that is producing the game. If pirating is to lose ground, this image has to change. Otherwise, the unending war between potential customer and creator of software will eventually drag the industry down.

Game Copyright Protection Frustrations, Part 1

First, let me state that I am not in any way on the side of pirate-ers of software. I understand that many wish to play the games, yet cannot afford them. These are hard times. It goes without saying that the easiest way to get the games for many is through illegal means. This, however, is a disservice the people that spent hours of love and hard work creating the games that those pirates profess to admire. By pirating, those who find ways to illegally distribute or obtain the games are hurting the industry, reducing the chances of better games being developed. Such is not the "cool" or "underdog" thing to do, it is simple theft. It isn't as if games keep people alive, and that the fans can't wait for the titles to hit the bargain bins. There is no defense for such actions. There are many good things that the underground computer community does for our society, but pirating games is not one of them. And as for the idea of stealing games only being hurtful to the big corporations, it is untrue. It hurts those of us that are willing to pay for the games. In fact, it even hurts those who are getting the pirated games. When corporations believe that high quality games will not sell as well due to pirating, they won't be willing to pay as much for the talent necessary to create great games, and thus we start to end up with carbon copy cliche's instead of real entertainment. Or even worse, they start to go to rediculous measures to keep their copyrights safe. Which leads me into my point.

It seems that big game companies are starting to put what can only be described as trojans on their software. They stay on the computer even after the game is removed, and often can cause the software to not run on the computers of those who actually paid for the game. Sometimes it as limited numbers of installations. Other times, the "protection" interferes with the ability of the game to even install at all. This is all in the name of preventing possible online theft. This all sums up in the fact that DRM hurts the customer. And ironicly enough, it isn't even a fool proof way of preventing piracy. With the proper editing of the software, DRM can be bypassed. So in effect, protection software like DRM only serve to make the product less appatizing to those who would legitimately pay for the game.

And that is a big problem, especially for those companies who are using such "protection". By using such devices in the attempt to prevent pirating, they are effectively reducing their own sales. So what happens, is that everyone loses. The game company sees its profits cut. The potential customer either buys the game and is unpleasantly surprised, and thus tells friends not to purchase the game, or simply avoids the purchase. Fans are dissappointed, and the brand name is damaged. The only people who keep on course is those who pirate.

"Digital rights management -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. .

The post that ran away.

A little while ago I was writing a blog, but then I had a movie, and couldn't.

Mandatory Blog Post #3: Anger at the mark.

It is truly a sign of how far away from the ideal we have moved when we declare that we will not support those who need aid within this country. What is disturbing is the movement away from providing welfare programs, taking that money that could be used to help people, and moving it away to support war, the ultimate in hurting people aside from genocide. Perhaps it is the animal side of our minds that drives us to view those whom we see as not being contributors as evil. Perhaps, in older, ancient times, this view would have helped our tribes survive. We would leave the sick and the old to die alone, caring little for their suffering as we moved on to find resources. We are not held to such animal urges anymore, with all the advancements we have we could provide for everyone. Wealth could be spread among everyone. Instead, it is focused on the few, and those who are without are left without.
The reading drove home how dangerous the depraved view that somehow people who live on welfare are less then human is. It drives people to stay in abusive relationships, it forces people to live on less and expect less. It brings to the forefront the question: when are people going to think about their group instead of themselves. The obvious greed in the idea of telling people that they should not take welfare when they need it most is astounding. To tell women they should live in abusive relationships rather then try to make a life on their own to protect their kids shows how selfish our society has become. Poverty should be the enemy, not the impoverished. Instead of revile, society should act with compassion.
The views of society are obviously meant to keep the poor from rising up in the social ladder. Why else would programs that helped the poor be ended. It is the evil by the rich and powerful that says that people should be content with less. They merely do not want to share what they have. They do not want competition. They hate the ideals that America stands for.
Education is obviously the most powerful way in which people can gain a better life. That is why the rich desire to give less and less to education, ensuring that costs rise, and less and less people can compete with them. Education should be free; yet it is one of the most expensive undertakings that a person can push into. Education has become a barrier, instead of a ladder.
Which is why more programs like Access are needed. We need to provide people with a way to gain a foothold in the economic realm. Without such footholds, people will slip in greater and greater numbers into poverty. And even the rich cannot escape the consequences if our society collapses because of this greed. If correcting steps are not taken, this disastrous future is all but inevitable, as society is already showing signs of a possible collapse.

Once Upon A Time

Once upon a time, the world worked like it was supposed to. People gave to each other through charity, the sick were looked after without asking, nobody was allowed to suffer when it could be at all avoided. The people did not have everything, but what they did have, they shared. Even when they didn't have enough, they would break their own meals and provide for each other. There was no need for a government, because no one would willingly kill each other, as it reduced the hands that could provide.

Painful Writing

I wonder how people deal with the idea of contradictory statements. Often, these statements feel as if they are saying the same thing, yet they are actually saying the opposite. It is not a practice that is new to the world, though it has, in the past, been quickly pointed out within the US. This has become especially popular in recent years, after the election of President Obama.

Kairos (For Class: Mandatory)

I remember the very first practical lesson I learned when I was in the Journalism major. That practical point was about timing. Timing is practically everything when reporting. It is much like using bread. Wait too long and the bread gets stale. Sometimes it even grows mold. Issues are not important forever, they, for the most part, come with use by label. A fire might go out in a few hours, and then the story on it wafts away like so much smoke. Then something else happens. Timing has a lot to do with how affective an argument is, a fact that is often forgotten in the real world.

The most effective arguments focus on an issue that is currently on the minds of the populous, or at least on the minds of the target audience. A good example right now would be the health care debate. The question on whether we should ensure everyone is a powerful subject. Combining this with the current economic crisis can make an especially effective argument for the public option. Since the cost of health care is going up, and the income of the average person is going down, it makes sense that everyone would rather have health care cheaper. Looking at that fact, it becomes clear that the only way to make the greedy health insurance providers lower their prices is through competition. The public option is a very obvious example of competition, since it would be not be answerable to stockholders and would therefore be more likely to not cheat the client in the name of profits. Without the current economic crisis, the argument would be significantly weakened, since people could afford to pay the premiums until now.

Another argument made stronger by current events is the argument for programs to combat poverty. When the economy was good, the topic of poverty was hardly touched, as it was easy for the average person to look at their jobs and feel secure. Now, however, there is the real possibility for practically anyone to lose their job. This creates a feeling of urgency to argument for better welfare programs. As people lose their jobs, they lose their source of income, and thus are vulnerable to the possibility of dipping into the poverty line. This is especially true of those who had good jobs, as there is certainly time needed to adjust spending habits to the new income level. As the public watches the increase in homelessness and unemployment, they begin to consider the possibility that they may to lose their jobs. They start to identify with the poor on a level they did not previously consider, as they themselves have to cut back more and more. It is one thing to say you pity the poor and want to contribute time and resources to helping them. It is entirely another when you fully understand what it is like to have to survive on less, and then desire institutions that would help you. Providing a net for people who don’t have enough money is essentially to restarting the economy, and right now the argument for strengthening that net is especially powerful.

The Online Death. (For Class)

There have been many that have documented and commented on the tendency for some of the online society to forget the real world. People play and play on online games, becoming disconnected from the people they love for the people on line that barely know they exist. It seems, this is where convenience is leading to the death of the real society.
There is much communication in the real world that can only be interpreted though body motions. A smile, a hand gesture, a raised brow, all of these things provide flavor to the meanings of the sentences that a person verbalizes. This cannot be communicated online. In its most extreme forms, such as flicker, such communication as intonations are completely absent. There is very little emotion that can be expressed in such a limited form. Yes, writing as an art form can convey a lot of meaning and emotion, but that is not the focus of the discussion. People online are not practicing that art form, and thus are merely spewing what they are thinking at the time.
That is, perhaps, what is so attractive about online communication. It provides a channel through which people can safely ignore the emotions of others. It is this safety that is so addictive. Real relationships take time and emotional investment, and such is nearly impossible with a virtual connection.
The danger is the investment of emotion into the online entertainment industry. People start to feel as if they are truly connected to those who are on the other side of the wire. People feel they have relationships with a character they met online. This is ironic, since there is no reason for people online to tell the truth. They can lie about their gender, financial situation, and hobbies. Without a picture, and sometimes even with a picture, the reality is never as verifiable. Thus people invest their time with what is often a fake relationship.
In the end, the connection can easily be cut. A new game is invented, so those people lose track of each other immediately. Such is true of when a new form of instant message becomes available. So, even the most honest online relationship is merely temporary. Such things, without becoming rooted in the real world, are doomed to die.
It is thus, necessary for people to get off of their chairs, and find a real relationship in the community around them. If they think they have found a real relationship with the virtual world, they need to find and solidify that relationship outside the computer. A life without true connections leads to loneliness and depression, as the unconscious eventually realize such is not real. Breaking away from the computer can be hard, however. The feeling of community without emotion cannot be found elsewhere.
And that is the caveat. It is necessary to take risks, especially within relationships. It is necessary to experience the dangers inherent in true relationships

The Newsy Reality (For Class)

Why is it that our news seems to be so bombastic in their declarations of possible evil. Instead of news, we get entertainment. When we should be hearing about the war, about natural disasters, about heinous murders and about things that would naturally affect the audience, we get something different. We get sex scandals, high school food menus, and empty sidewalks of places where there was a protest. Instead of getting information that might affect us, we get assaulted by a sitcom, where everything is for the most part, about nothing.

I remember my journalism classes. We were taught that the news organization was built to safeguard the public from the possible abuses of the government, and to provide information that would directly relevant to the reader. In the earlier times, the newspaper would be picked up because the information in it was essential. If the reader did not know that there was a dangerous killer in the area, people would not be safe. If they did not know that a possible financial bust might be in the future, they would continue to spend on frivolous things. If they were unaware that corporations were the driving force behind stopping health care reform, they might decide against supporting something that would ultimately help them. Without such information, the reader has very little reason to consider the news organizations important.

As such information became less and less a part of the news, the news programs had to make their shows more and more like an entertainment show. Now, in the extreme, we hear so much about how the latest celebrity dresses, or about the newest diet drug. We hear very little information that only a dedicated journalist could provide.

This is more important that the average person would believe. It not only affects the way a single person acts, but also the way in which the country acts as a whole. Without that essential information about the true motives of the law makers and the politicians, as well as information on why certain laws are being passed, a democracy cannot function. It will inevitably become an aristocracy, with the people in power creating laws that are detrimental to the public on a whim. Without such information, the United states will cease to be a democracy, and become an oligarchy, ruled by those with the money to pay for air time, with a public distracted from their declining way of life by sound bites. It is paramount that people demand that their news act in their best interest.

Ironically, it is the internet that is bringing the news back into order. A place where information runs free, corporations cannot hide the information behind a wall of trivia. With the internet, the truth cannot be held back, as someone will inevitably post it, sometimes even from outside of the America. It is ironic, that the wild west of the information would is bringing order to a country that is slowly losing its grip on freedom. It is therefore, paramount, that the public be educated in the use of the internet as a source of information.