Archive

Archive for October, 2011

Is Controlled Desktop Fusion Possible?

October 31, 2011 6 comments

You might have heard many so-called “prominent scientists and experts” repeatedly tell their audience that controlled desktop nuclear fusion is not feasible as it requires extreme pressures and temperatures similar to those found near the center of stars. But is that really true?

Consider the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. This 1960-era device can fit on your desktop and generate neutrons with energy values consistent with those predicted for nuclear fission. Indeed, devices based on that principle are still used as a portable high-energy neutron sources.

Here are a few links about it’s rather peculiar history- The Farnsworth Fusor and Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor. The basic design of such systems is well-known and has been successfully built by amateurs- fusor.net and here. Here is a video of one in action-

The biggest problem with current publicly available designs is that none of them put out more energy than you pump in them.. However the whole idea that nuclear fusion requires some exotic conditions found only in the core of stars or some super-powerful Tokamak machine is a big fucking lie!

And this brings us to the recent claims about the E-cat which supposedly fuses Nickel and Hydrogen to give Copper and Energy.

Ni-62 + Proton -> Cu-63 + Energy.

Nickel 62 is one the minor natural isotopes of Nickel and Copper 63 is one of two natural isotopes of copper. While the theory behind the E-cat does not quite add up, it does seem to work and that is all that matters. It is also possible that the guy behind it is a fraud. However what he is promoting is not as far-fetched as many “experts” would want you to believe.

We know that a device like the Farnsworth Fusor allows controlled nuclear fusion to occur under desktop conditions- albeit at low efficiency. Why is it so heretical to believe that somebody might have used similar or different design principles to design an apparatus in which the net process is energy positive?

Many so-called “experts” and “scientists” have been promising controlled energy-positive nuclear fusion for the last 60 years. They always claim that “it is 20 years down the road” but have nothing concrete to show for it after almost 60 years, thousands of efforts and billions of dollars. Maybe.. they are just clueless but too dogmatic and greedy to admit it.

So why not try something new and different. Why keep on building larger and more expensive versions of setups that just don’t deliver? Are the egos and careers of scumbags worth more than the potential discovery of controlled and energy-positive desktop fusion?

Comments?

High-Quality Ambient Porn and Evolution of Male Expectations

October 30, 2011 19 comments

There has been much breast-beating (pun intended) by feminists and their CONservative allies about the effect of high quality and ubiquitous porn on men. Some of my views on that subject have been expressed in a few previous posts such as- Women Can No Longer Burn, Ban or Destroy Porn, Why Online Porn Is A Game Changer and Porn Replaces Relationship Sex.

One of the issues about ubiquitous online porn which is acknowledged but quickly glossed over by feminists, CONservatives and whipped men is that it permanently alters male expectations from a sexual relationship. Let me explain..

Consider you average guy with an average looking girlfriend, wife or whatever. Let us say that his current “partner” refuses to blow as frequently as he wants. Prior to the last decade he could either accept his ‘fate’ or jerk of to professional porn. The digital camera and the intertubes have thrown a hitherto improbable kink in that process aka high quality amateur porn.

Prior to this recent innovation, the women in erotica and porn were either very beautiful, very airbrushed or very trashy. Therefore the mind of a guy could at some level put a barrier between the porn and his pathetic life such that he did not expect what he saw on the screen to cum true for somebody like him.

But high quality amateur porn is something unlike anything before it both in content and sheer volume. The average guy can now see tons of prettier than average but still accessible girls deep-throating their boyfriend, licking his balls, taking it up their ass and that is just for starters… ;). These girls are not carefully airbrushed models nor are they skanky looking harlots with bad plastic surgery. You can see the laugh lines on their faces, the life and joy in their eyes, cum drooling from their lipstick smeared lips, the few hair near their assholes which they forgot to shave and the asymmetry and slight droop of their tits. You can see their effect of an obvious hangover in their eyes and faces, the ecstasy and pain of being fucked senseless, the lines on their foreheads, the faded and now regret-worthy tattoos on their ankles and the plain underclothes around them. Even the ambiance in the photos is so average- from ‘the simpsons’ on TV, to the color and patterns of the comforter, the futon, the sometimes dusty half-empty liquor bottles, the empty pizza box from a national brand, the brand of laptop, the color and type of door on the closet, the same jumble of branded clothes on the floor.

They are people just like you in everything from levels of wealth, education, lifestyle and even consumer brand preferences who happen to be having much more fun than you. The guy who looks at such porn is seeing much more than nekkid people having sex. He is seeing what his life could be at that very moment if he was with somebody who cared about him. Furthermore, unlike the women in such porn are neither inaccessible or skanky.

It is therefore likely that a guy who watches such porn would experience a far deeper dissatisfaction with his shitty life than fapping to airbrushed models or implant heavy pornstars.

I cannot help but point out that this revolution in porn is occurring alongside the continued demonization and marginalization of men by feminism and CONservatism. Add in atomization, the anti-male nature of the socio-legal system and the generally poor attitude/behavior of women towards men and you have the makings of a situation that has no precedent in history. We do live in interesting times, don’t we?

Comments?

NSFW Links: Oct 30, 2011

October 30, 2011 2 comments

These links are NSFW.

nekkidcuties.tumblr.com/archive/2011/10 -Tons of self-shots.

nekkidcuties.tumblr.com/archive/2011/9 -Tons of slender amateurs, semi-pros and a few pros.

Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

Destroying the Exploiter’s Illusion of Security

October 29, 2011 16 comments

Warning: This post is heavy in Speculation and Nihilism.

Almost every single one of you must have, at some point, wondered about what make it possible for so-called “normal” people to behave like self-centered assholes and abuse, exploit and kill others. Your life is probably full of interactions with such people- be they teachers, cops, lawyers, physicians, professors, managers and bureaucrats.

Yes that is correct- those who have a bit more power than others are far more likely to abuse it that those who have much more.

But let us get back to the main reason that these “people” can afford to keep on behaving in the manner they do and screw over others. It is one thing to want to lie, cheat and abuse and another to do it day after day, month after month, year after year. I had mentioned in one of my previous posts that the Dodo survived as long as it did because there were no negative consequences for its behavior and limited abilities on Mauritius for over a million years.

So, let me spell out what I have only hinted at in some of my previous posts. These “people” behave the way they do because they don’t believe that their victims, or people linked to them, will be able or willing to kill them. They are not afraid of the consequences of their actions because all ‘normal’ avenues of recourse and redress in the existent system are meaningless as they are the gatekeepers of those very systems of external feedback. They are thus effectively the law, authorities and judges for their own behavior and therefore secure as long as the system is functional.

The last words of the previous paragraph ‘as long as the system is functional’ are important because the illusion of security and invulnerability rests on the belief that only a tiny percentage of their victims will take matters into their own hands. Now, you might say- “but isn’t that what we see anyway? and how can it ever change?”. To obtain the answers to both questions we must first understand the reason behind the rather low current rates of blowback.

The single most important reason for the low risk of victim strike-back in western and other developed countries is- things are still not widely perceived to be bad enough. Contrary to what many of you think other factors such as personal docility, culture, race etc have little to do with the rates of blowback.

Perceptions can however evolve through more information and alternate social connectivity.

Don’t believe me? Then ask yourself the following question- Can a person, or even a large group of people, keep a watch for and escape every attempt to harm them? The answer is clearly in the negative otherwise the USA would have won Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan with almost no casualties- if you get my point. The reality is that even an organisation built with trillions of dollars, having almost unimaginable capabilities and possessing the ‘latest’ methods to search and kill cannot stop its own from getting killed and maimed by a bunch of illiterate, boy-loving goat herders who just happen to be determined to fight back.

But you might say- “aren’t these professions and their members necessary for keeping society running? Wouldn’t their demise have a negative effect on society as a whole?”

My two-word answer to that is- Who cares? Face it, if any of them have ruined your life beyond repair what happens to society does not matter as it has already forsaken you. Why should you care about the future of system that has broken and thrown you into the trash bin? Who cares about the welfare of a system that has no future for you? Let me put it in another way- Would you care if everybody on this planet died a minute after your own death? The “you” in yourself ceases to exist once you are dead and therefore what happens after your final exit is neither relevant or consequential.

In any case, most of these petty dictators populate professions which were no longer as consequential as they used to be. Do we really require so many teachers and professors in the wired age? Could’t computers do a better job of diagnosing people than doctors and aren’t a lot of treatment for chronic diseases rather useless? Since cops spend most of their time catching people who are either desperately poor, retarded or innocent- wouldn’t better social safety nets and fewer personal laws solve the problem better. Are so many lawyers useful or healthy for a society? What about managers who cannot help but run functional companies into the ground and bureaucrats who cannot help but abuse power once they stop playing solitaire? The old conditions and technological limitations which necessitated the existence of these scumbags are either gone or waning rapidly. Their abrupt and permanent disappearance would, if anything, improve the quality of human existence for the rest of us. In conclusion, I would also like to point out that atomization and anonymity which is currently used to facilitate abuse of most people by these petty despots can be turned again against them.

While the speed and number of pathways for the spread of information and ideas are more robust and diverse than at any previous time in human history- it ultimately comes down to the aggrieved parties acting on their beliefs.

Comments?

Eurythmics: Here Comes The Rain Again (1984)

October 28, 2011 3 comments

A very old music video.

Enjoy!

Categories: Music Video

Heavily Monetized Societies are Fragile

October 27, 2011 11 comments

The vast majority of people cannot see obvious problems because they seldom think through any given situation. The following is one of them-

A society which monetizes every human interaction and exchange is on a path of decay, collapse and death.

Now, this insight might come as a shock to many people living in so-called “developed” countries because they know of no other way to organize society. Indeed, many of those morons believe that even further monetization of human interactions and exchange will ensure more stability because of the ‘profit’ motive. But is that really the case? and what are the points of failure for a social system based on the idea of homo economicus?

The points of failure in societies that monetize every human interaction and exchange rise from two sets of linked problems.

1. Who sets the price for any item, service, interaction etc and how?

2. Can you avoid future retaliation from people who cannot afford something they desire?

Let us be clear about one thing- precise prices for things and services are seldom meant to facilitate social cohesion. Instead, they are usually set by one party such that the needy party is disadvantaged. The party that rips offs the other also makes an implicit assumption that its actions won’t come back to haunt or kill it in the future.

Most people will play nice in the face of mild to moderate ripoffs in a moderate percentage of total transactions. However, they will stop acting in good faith once the ripoffs are severe, widespread or start compromising the availability of fundamental needs. The pathways for satisfying fundamental needs such as water, food, shelter, medical care and sex have to be reasonably stable and any effort to change rules governing their access will always have negative repercussions, especially if one party in the transaction is seen as disingenuous. While we have no shortage of, or difficulty producing, any of the fundamental needs and most luxuries of life- we have many problems with distributing them.

Consider the following two examples-

A. Consider a person who is well-educated, had a well-paying occupation and a decent lifestyle for years. What would happen to this previously content person if he was repeatedly laid off for reasons beyond his control or had a serious illness affected his ability to work or get rehired for an equivalent pay. How would that affect his or her worldview? As many of you now, this is precisely what is now happening to a rapidly increasing number of people who used to be comfortably middle-class.

The reality is that in our heavily monetized era, a steady income from an unreliable external source is so highly linked to the necessities of life that even small disruptions in that flow of money can have all sorts of synergistic negative effects– from divorce, loss of house, child custody battles, outlook for future employment etc.

Have you ever asked yourself- Why should a person endure an inferior lifestyle for no personal fault? Some of you might say that ‘life is not fair’- but does a person who feels mistreated or wronged care about your CONServative and LIEbertarian point of view?

B. Now consider the fate of a guy born after 1970. He faces a similar set of problems whether he is in countries as diverse as Japan, Spain, Italy, Canada or the USA. Apart from the problems due to feminism jumping the shark, he also faces socio-economic deprivation due to circumstances beyond his control.

He has heard all the talk about waiting for the baby-boomers to retire, becoming more “responsible”, “educated” etc. But guess what- he is not becoming younger, his situation is not visibly improving nor is there any realistic chance it ever will. However unlike previous eras, he also lives in a culture where the family and extended family do not support and help each other like they used to. Moreover the social safety net, which was supposed to replace the security of familial ties, is being sucked dry by both older scumbags and bankster-types as we speak.

Which brings me to another rarely mentioned aspect of such societies-

Heavily monetized societies are also heavily atomized and not subject to the previously known patterns of individual behavior and system feedback.

That is a fancy way of saying that the atomized people in such societies are highly mistrustful, mercenary, paranoid and can only act ‘civilized’ as long they feel they are somewhat secure. The USA, and the west, appear to be stable despite the obvious long-term issues because we have been able to paper over the larger cracks through demography (baby-boomers), technology (cheap food, entertainment etc) and the pretense of an extensive social safety net. The social safety net, as it exists, has never been tested with anything beyond a small number of retirees and some poor people. The real test is coming up.. very soon and may have already started.

and this is where developments in communication technology over the last decade feed into the problem. By allowing people to find out more about the world around them from multiple independent sources and communicate with each other, it creates an environment where the world view of people evolves into something very different from any previous era. The result is a world with a lot of well-informed but passive-aggresive types whose behavior and responses to situations cannot be modeled or extrapolated from previous data sets thereby breaking down the ability of social control systems based on older assumptions and models of human behavior and responses.

Comments?

See, their morals, their code… it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you, when the chips are down, these… these civilized people will eat each other. See, I’m not a monster, I’m just ahead of the curve. – Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008)

Why Windows XP is Still the Dominant Operating System

October 26, 2011 14 comments

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of Windows XPs public release and it is still, for better or worse, the dominant operating system on PCs. While some shills might talk about the imminent death of PCs in favor of smartphones and tablets or the “glorious” future of cloud computing- the reality is that PCs (desktop and laptop) are here to stay for the foreseeable future. The persistence of PCs as a type of computing platform is linked to the physical proportions and limitations of humans and even voice, eye movement and brain wave controlled user interfaces are merely augmentations for what can be done with your own hands at a visual distance of 1.5-2 feet.

So what made Windows XP so dominant and long-lasting?

The simple answer is that it was good enough, easy enough, stable enough, universal enough and inexpensive enough to displace operating systems before it and still compete with later ones- both from Microsoft and Apple. It can still do pretty much everything the latest operating systems can while preserving a familiar and easy to use interface. Its was also introduced just before mass ownership of PCs took off throughout the world, so it is effectively the only operating system many PC users have known. Did I mention that its hardware requirements, which once sounded onerous, are very modest by current standards.

But in our dystopic era of trying to wring ever-increasing amounts of profit from thin air something like Windows XP poses a real problem to bean-counters and management-types. While these ‘people’ have no capability or interest in providing real world value, they cannot resist the temptation of extracting more money out of customers by providing a newer but often inferior product. You might remember how Microsoft tried to push ‘Vista’ down the consumer’s unwilling throat in 2007-2008. They temporarily forgot that you cannot sell inferior stuff when superior alternatives are available. To their credit- they did realize their folly within a few months allowing both easy XP ‘downgrades’ and speeding up the development of Windows 7.

Windows 7, while a step in the right direction, is essentially a prettier and somewhat more secure Windows XP. Though a significant part of the code was supposedly rewritten it is rather peculiar that many device drivers and programs written for XP work flawlessly on Windows 7, unlike Vista. You might have heard about how Microsoft wants to, once again, revolutionize computing with the upcoming Windows 8. However I doubt they will do so, given what we have seen and heard about it till date. But then again- it has not yet been officially released and things could still change a lot.

So how many of you use Windows XP on your desktop or laptops? I still do.. though one of my newer laptops is a Windows 7 machine.

Comments?

Gaddafi’s Public Lynching Had Few Precedents

October 22, 2011 11 comments

OK, this is another post about Gaddafi’s public lynching. Did you realize that it was somewhat unique and possibly a trendsetter? Here is why-

When was the last time a totalitarian leader of any country of note was lynched by a mob of commoners?

Tough question, isn’t it? Pretty much every unpopular leader who was killed after being overthrown from Caligula, Louis XVI, Quisling to Ceaușescu met their fate at the hands of their armed forces under the new leadership. The killing often occurred after a show trial with some appearance of due process or as part of the coup. In any case, even unpopular leaders don’t get lynched and abused by commoners. But Gaddafi was lynched by commoners in front of multiple cellphone cameras and this event was then broadcast, within a few hours, all over the world.

There is simply no recent precedent for an all-powerful leader, who ruled for decades, suffering such ‘indignity’ at the hands of commoners.

While most of you may not realize it, his treatment by the mob broke a tradition wherein even sadistic despots were allowed to die with dignity because of their previous role or position. The mob lynching of Gaddafi has therefore subconsciously set a new standard for the treatment of deposed despots and it will be doubtlessly imitated by others.

In a perverse way- he was a trend setter even in his manner of death. I can only hope that the future will have more instances of the ‘Gaddafi Special’ being applied to leaders of countries, organizations and corporations. He was lynched even though he was richer than most western politicians, businessmen and CEOs. But in the end- all his connections, dollar bills and gold could not protect him from what he richly deserved.

Comments?

Declining Median Income, Adverse Demography and the Future of Capitalism

October 22, 2011 9 comments

I have often talked about the necessity for some form of income support to maintain a functional society and economic system since we live in an era characterized by rapidly increasing automation of production and services, fewer well-paying jobs and a demographic profile tending towards negative growth. Let me explain the problem, once again, with some recent economic data.

A new report by the US Social administration suggest that the median per-capita income, for the year 2010, as reported by employers is $26,363.55. Yes that is not a misprint- 50% of wage earners (75.2 million individuals) in the USA make less than 507 $/week before taxes! This number does not include those who have no income because they have dropped out of the workforce, are too young to work, stay-at-home moms etc. Unreported income in the USA would likely add an extra 2-4 thousand/year to the median wage-earner income- but that is it.

However the most disturbing part of this report is the trend in individual median income and work-force participation over the last 10 years. There has been no increase in inflation adjusted median wages over the last 10-12 years, concurrent with a stagnation in the wage force participation (measured as a % of the population) even though the US population grew by over 30 million individuals during that same period.

The last decade was a lost decade for the median US wage earner- if he or she still has a job. Moreover this double decline (income and # of workers) marks a disturbing turn for an economic trend that began in the mid 1970s.

Now add in the issue of population aging. While the USA has one of the younger populations, as far as developed countries are concerned, it too has become noticeably considerably older over the last decade. It was 32.9 years in 1990, 35.3 years in 2000 and 37.2 in 2010. Hence, a larger percentage of the poorly paid working-age population is also older than before. Maybe I am wrong.. but older and poorer people usually have fewer new kids and usually don’t buy bigger houses and more stuff. Fewer and fewer young men are now marrying and getting on the slave treadmill, thereby starving the system of tools to play against each other. Now it is certainly possibly to run an economy for a decade or two based almost entirely on teaching, healthcare and bureaucratic jobs- but ultimately somebody has to do keep the underlying system at a functional level.. and women are not good at that sort of stuff.

The retirement for baby-boomers looms large, since they are starting to cross over into the 65+ age group with its numerous implications for medicare, social security and private pensions. Who is going to pay for greedy physicians and hospitals ever larger amounts of money for decreasing amounts of healthcare? The healthcare cartel clearly has not factored in things like Google, international travel, automation and the fact that failure to provide services might cause angry people to lynch them and their progengy. While paying social security is nowhere as big a problem as CONservative lies imply, it and most other “achievements” of the current version of western civilization are based on the continues existence of a youth and growth heavy demographic profile that no longer exists, or can be resurrected. Private pensions, of all types, are even more dependent on that type of magical thinking.

Which brings me to what I see as the core of the problem. The version of capitalism we live in today, whether it is in USA, socialist Western Europe or not-really-communist China, is built on certain assumptions that are simply not true today.

1. Capitalism, in all of its known forms, is a ponzi scheme that requires a naive, youth-heavy and disposable population to enrich the few. Ironically, communism required the same and the collapse of communism in eastern Europe occurred about a generation after people started having smaller families. Coincidence?

Now tell me- which developed countries are becoming younger and growing at rates approaching those seen say 60 years ago? Even many developing countries now have birth rates and life-expectancies that are essentially equivalent to developed countries.

2. Successful and stable capitalism requires ever-increasing amounts of money changing hands (increased aggregate consumption) but it’s very structure ends up concentrating money in a few hands (reducing aggregate consumption) thereby ultimately destroying the very condition required for its success and stability.

How can you make ever-increasing amounts of profits if you have increasingly fewer and poorer customers? Sure.. you can cook the books for a decade or so, but can you do it forever?

3. Most of the paid-out profits in capitalism are based on projections of future growth and accounting ‘techniques’. In the old days, real growth and technological advancement allowed the scam artists (capitalists) to paper over those discrepancies. Today the system does not have enough real growth or technological breakthroughs to allow the scammers to deliver on their promises.

So they are now effectively sucking blood (money) out of a body (system) which cannot produce more than what is being lost. The requirement for ever-increasing profit in capitalism is a form of parasitism which is totally dependent on the availability of a healthy and growing host to be be sustainable.

4. Successful and stable capitalism is also dependent on the vast majority of people in that system playing by unwritten rules that ensure a reasonably functional society. But would they still do so in face of falling incomes, bailouts for the rich, lack of social safety nets, disintegration of conformity-inducing family units and a general “screw others” attitude?

The information age (last decade) and the rapid decline of group conformity have increasingly created a cynical, detached individual who is only looking out for himself or herself. While the possibility of large-scale and outright violent confrontation has decreased over the last 40 years, dysfunction by a billion small passive-aggressive cuts is a real possibility.

In some ways the current problems are even bigger and more systemic than what Marx foresaw. The systemic defect lies in the underlying system that gave rise to all versions of capitalism, communism, feudalism etc. You simply cannot run a technologically advanced and steady-state society by the paradigms, means, rules and institutions we are familiar with. Nor can you turn back the clock..

Comments?

Gaddafi Deserved His Very Public End

October 21, 2011 10 comments

In less than 48 hours since it happened, we are starting to hear murmurs about how Gaddafi should not have been lynched to death. The concerns range from the religious chanting amongst his lynchers to talk about due process and justice.

Here is my counter-question to those who think he deserved a better deal:

Did Gaddafi, during his 42-year long rule of Libya, exhibit any worthwhile degree of fairness, abide by due process or give a rat’s ass about the basic human dignity of his subjects- let alone those who voiced their opposition to his rule?

Why should he expect good treatment if he did not do so to others? Conversely, since he treated others poorly should he not expect the same treatment when he is on the receiving end of those he mistreated?

Most older white scumbags seem to harbor sympathy for such tyrants since at some subconscious level they realize that they are more like him than the people who lynched him to death. By sympathizing with his him, they are unintentionally showing their true colors- pun intended.

Ask yourself- are people hiding being “laws”, position, power, social norms, ill-gotten wealth who then screw over, hurt and kill others really that different from Gaddafi?

If the actions of a bankster causes the ruin, deprivation or suicide of a vulnerable person- isn’t that bankster essentially a miniature despot? What about businessmen, MBAs, lawyers and other assorted corporate scum whose actions causes the destruction of livelihoods, unemployment, misery and default on pension obligations? What about physicians who perform procedures of dubious therapeutic value to make more money while causing unnecessary suffering and death? What about universities who lure students to join them with the promise of well-paying jobs, only to then leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in undischargable debt and no job prospects? What about professors and teachers who get paid for their services regardless of the outcome of their students? What about aging whites who sit on their ass in an office and complain about the ‘poor work ethic’ of younger generation? What about cops who arrest, kill innocent people or abuse their power? What about public prosecutors and judges who are more interested in appearing “tough on crime” rather than trying to reduce the need for criminal behavior?

They do so only, because they firmly believe that they will not suffer any negative consequences for their actions. They hope to hide behind “laws”, due process and other bullshit. They depend on your sense of fairness, pity and compassion to exist while simultaneously denying those to you in your hour of need.

Here is my advice- Don’t fall for their bullshit, appeals to authority, humanity, laws, compassion, culture, civilization etc and treat them just like they treated you (or people like you). You have no obligation, reason or duty to a better person than them as they broke their end of the bargain first- and kept on doing so for profit.

Comments?

The Power of the Cellphone Camera: Gaddafi’s Final Moments

October 20, 2011 5 comments

You might remember that I wrote a couple of posts about how cellphones, even the non-smartphones, have transformed the world. Here is a very topical example.

Graphic Stuff: Gaddafi’s Final Moments as captured by a cellphone camera.

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs

Long Commutes Are A Waste of Your Waking Hours

October 19, 2011 27 comments

Enduring long commutes to work is one of the most bizarre and hard-to-understand behavior. Sadly, it is seen as ‘normal’ in North America. But is it worth it?

There are only 24 hours in each day. Assuming that you sleep about 8 hrs per day.. you have only 16-odd waking hours per day. Let us say that your workday is 8 hours long and you spend about an hour or two to get ready for work and unwind a bit when you return from it etc. Now subtract the time your average person spends on routine bullshit, cooking, cleaning, paying bills, grocery shopping etc.

That translates into less than 5 hours per day for you to LIVE. Did you notice that I have not yet deducted commute time from the leftover hours. Yes that is correct.. commute times cut into those hours!

The average person in N. America probably spends somewhere between 1 and 1.5 hours, every single day, commuting to and from work- not to mention the time spent getting to malls or running errands. And what do you do during those hours anyway? Stare at the traffic in front of you, constantly trying to get to your destination on time?

and what do you do if for?

Living in a sterile suburb inside an overpriced stucco shitbox that looks like every fifth shitbox in that development. While you might buy a house in that particular locality for prestige, chances are that you will be surrounded by neighbours you will never know, let alone trust.

Chances are that you will spend most of your free waking hours fretting over minutiae about the decor of ‘your’ house, the large mortgage, the repair and utility bills, taxes and security of the income stream that allows you to pay for the stucco shitbox. The best part is that you will likely move to another part of the country for a job and thereby abandon (sell) the very thing that was the center of your existence- only to start the same shit cycle once again.

And who are you doing it for?

Maybe it is for you wife or common law partner who is most likely an aging, bitchy, sex-denying woman who loves to spend on house remodeling. Maybe it is your kids who are alienated from you and only pretend to like you so that they can keep on buying stuff which supposedly elevates their status amongst peers. Maybe it is for showing off and impressing your neighbors and coworkers- whom you cannot trust and have no lasting connection with.

Are you doing it for somebody you really care about or something that matters?

The saddest part is that you might have become a far happier person if you has spent all that time doing any number of things from playing RPG games, fucking whores, fapping to porn or getting high on something. Those activities would have provided you everything that your ‘busy’, suburban, commute heavy and superficial lifestyle were supposed to- but cannot.

Your voluntary slavery, future-time orientation, sacrifice and belief in the system will never provide what you, as a human being, really wanted. There will never be any real sense of lasting achievement, fulfillment, happiness and peace in your life. Ironically, your death will ultimately free you from this dystopia and put an end to your voluntary servitude.

Of course, you could have always chosen to live an alternative, yet perfectly feasible, life where you could do and enjoy almost everything you really wanted. But doing so requires you to abandon your comforting delusions and peer pressure.

Comments?

Cloud Computing will Fail without the Ability to Backup Data Locally

October 18, 2011 11 comments

The last two years have seen an explosion growth of yet another tech buzzword- “cloud computing“. While many naive readers might think that the “cloud” is a new idea, it is in fact the original form of multi-user computing.

You see.. in the era before I and many of you were born, computers were multi-million dollars and multi-ton machines used by a few brave and nerdy souls. The high cost of those machines made individual ownership, even by many corporations, a bit dear. Consequently many of the mainframe systems were shared by users who accused it through dumb or very basic terminals. There is a reason that operating systems based on Unix are light years ahead of Windows and Macs when it comes to handling multiple users and their processes.

While the dumb terminal connected to a very capable multi-user machine has certain advantages (power, capacity etc) it has a major flaw which was obvious to people even in that era. There is always the possibility of one mistake or misstep taking out every user’s data and access to computing. You can increase system up-time and alleviate the risk of catastrophic failure through clever, but expensive, engineering (IBM Z Series) and redundancies. However the fixes are expensive and you are still subject to the whims of the power-hungry scumbag who owns the system.

The PC “revolution” solved this by creating reasonably cheap personal computers with decent data storage and backup ability. I personally suspect that the very fact that you owned your PC and its accessories was a major factor behind the success of the PC over cheaper dumb terminals.

Fast forward to an era that began with Gmail and ubiquitous high-speed internet, when it once again become much cheaper and worthwhile to store your data and perform computations in a large cluster of remote computers. Today services from Flickr, Tumblr, DropBox, FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube to various Amazon “Clouds” are an integral part of our life- yet their old vulnerability never went away.

If anything those old vulnerabilities have been amplified by the current economic and legal environment. You see.. a cloud built of IBM Z class servers with multi-site backup would be pretty close to indestructible- but also really expensive. Most clouds being built today are increasingly made up of customized servers designed and run with an eye on cost-cutting. Cue Taleb’s Black Swan.. Also companies can deny and throw you of their “clouds” without any real possibility of legal redress

This fragility comes at precisely the same time that “cloud” based services from Gmail to FaceBook and DropBox are becoming an important part of people’s lives. They are now closer to utilities than luxuries and indulgences. However even this would not be a major problem if people could easily mirror the data and applications in these “clouds”. You can, for example, easily backup all of your Gmail data on your local hard-drives (main and backup) at pretty much every login, if you choose to.

But what about services which you cannot mirror, host easily or which have DRM? What happens when the “cloud” dies or you lose access to it?

It is likely that we will experience a series of large outages or serious compromise of some important “cloud” based service in the near future. I am making this prediction based not on my deep understanding of technology but of human stupidity, ego and legalistic bullshit. Only after most people experience the joys of trusting “cloud” computing that we might start to develop a better way to storing and accessing data- one in which both your personal computers and the “clouds” effortlessly mirror each others data and functionality as required.

Comments?

How Fairy Tales Work Out in Reality

October 17, 2011 4 comments

You might have seen a rash of articles about men not manning up. However many of these scumbags ‘forget’ that the underlying reality has changed in a rather unprecedented manner.

Enjoy! Comments?

The Upper Middle Class will be the Big Losers in Class Warfare

October 16, 2011 27 comments

With the ongoing worldwide protests against the 1%, you might be tempted to think that they will be the biggest losers in conflicts arising from class warfare. I believe that any conflict will take out the 2-10% -ers before it takes out the top 1%. Here is why-

The 1%-ers can exert their power only because the 2-10%-ers are only too willing to do their bidding. The public face of rent seeking behavior, inequality, elitism, snobbery and fraud is that of the upper middle-class, not the very rich.

While the public recognizes the faces of truly rich scumbags such as Blankfein, Dimon and a few others, the majority of their experience and dislike for the rich comes people who are not truly rich. The behaviors and attitudes of your average doctor, lawyer, small businessman, manager, professor etc are the major source of public discontent and hatred.

Don’t believe me? How many truly rich persons have you met or interact with on a daily basis? I can bet that most of you don’t. Now ask yourself- How many scumbag doctors, lawyers, small businessmen, managers, professors, cops, upper level bureaucrats do you know and have to interact with? Aren’t your conceptions of the behavior of the truly rich shaped by these people?

The funny thing about the upper middle-class is that they are not truly rich. While their lives may be comfortable and luxurious, they are one serious illness/accident away from a far more austere lifestyle. However these morons act as if they are rich, or will soon become rich, thereby exhibiting behaviors which no sane person would indulge in. The truly rich don’t mind having such henchmen who will do their dirty work for a somewhat better lifestyle and a faint chance at becoming truly rich.

Of course, these delusional morons have none of the advantages which the truly rich enjoy. While they might live in better neighborhoods, they are not hard to get hold of. Their lives are far more open to the public than the truly rich. Everybody knows where they live, where they shop, how many kids they have, where they work, where they take vacations etc. Now combine this ready “accessibility” with their public persona, shitty attitudes and the willingness to support the truly rich.

When TSHTF, it is these people and their kids who will bear the brunt of public anger. Face it, people are more likely to go after those who have hurt them in the past than those they have never met in person. Did I mention that these morons are the biggest cheerleaders of the truly rich.

What do you think? Comments?