Monday, 28 December 2009
To accurately capture the quality of a certain aspect of digital - or any type of - photography, only the aspect being tested can change with each experiment. To make this clear, let's outline the tools and environment needed to capture a photo:
a) Subject and Lighting.
c) Film plane (sensor).
d) Camera support.
d) ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, Focus, Distance from Subject (framing).
e) Post production (in-camera or none altogether).
g) Display (print or screen), calibration & resolution.
Rather obvious, no? If we are to effectively test the quality of a sensor against another, only the sensor should change between tests. This may be rather difficult in today's world where different products have accessories that change some or sometimes all of the other constants that would make for a scientific test, but the logic remains the same. Ken Rockwell uses this logic quite clearly in his camera testing by using the same lens, photo environment/technique and photo post-production (enlargement, cropping, etc.) in each comparison.
One aspect that most comparison-articles tend to neglect: Lens quality. A lens has 'grain' and sharpness, and if you ignore this fact in your testing, your comparison will be false - or at best, incomplete. Say, for example, you are using a not-so-sharp lens to compare sensors: If the maximum sharpness of one lens 'grain' covers more than one sensor pixel, it hardly matters how many more pixels you use to capture that (non-) sharpness, as even if the entire rest of the photo environment/technique remain the same, the result will appear the same.
Add to this neglect the method used to calculate pixel density (or a debunking thereof), and you will have a truly mislead reader. The 'megapixel' method should be ignored altogether, as it is not attainable/usable by the human mind, let alone photographers: we measure by perception and vague reckoning, and never by mathematical calculations of (dimension-undefined) area. We used to 'measure' grain density by a certain ISO 'constant' compared to the size of the film plane we were using, itself compared to the visibility of this combination in the final image (at its desired size). We have no way of isolating/including any of these elements of reason with just a single 'megapixel' number.
So, if you want to test a sensor between camera models, you're basically going to have to start ripping cameras apart and switching parts between them. Until a test of that sort occurs, I will continue to insist that pixel density does matter - but only if the rest of your camera/display environment can detect the difference too.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
I'm still incertain, but a 'fast on slow' model seems to fit better. The lower the difference in interacting energies, the higher the force of attraction - just like gravity between two passing objects - and this would make sense on a model based on an 'inert' quid: increases in energy in the 'secondary flow' would end up 'farther away' from lower energy interactions (in both space and time) and their higher gravitational pull (in our dimension) - just like in any explosion: light, sound, debris. So I feel better thinking that all we see is a result of an energy interaction with a base inert energy (that will eventually return to an intert state) - but who's moving and who's not is relative, isn't it? Still, I'd rather think about it this way without throwing in an extra 'point of view' complication that wouldn't matter anyways.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Instead, I'd like to think that the base particles we know (photons, electrons and quarks) gain their 'binding power' through their friction - or speed difference - with our universe's 'base energy' (I came up with the name 'quid' for this - I may be so bold as to use it later). Thus I remain with my initial model, in order of speed: quid, photons, electrons, and quarks.
Now, imagine a pinhole in a piece of paper, and a jet of air streaming through it. The air at the centre of the hole will be the practically unhindered fastest, and the air brushing against the paper towards the edge will be subject to a certain turbulence, thus slower. This fits even the models we know today, there is a certain attraction between the moving air and the paper: one of these phenomena we know as lift.
I'm not so sure I like the above analogy. Only the 'attraction' created by the friction between inert and moving elements would be true, but even then: actually the paper would represent the fastest-moving material, and the flow through the centre of the hole the slowest... so maintain only the resistance between different speeds, that 'binding' power increases with difference in speeds between matter.
Thus photons are the fastest thing we know, and would they somehow gain enough energy to match the speed of the field/base energy they are passing through, they essentially would... disappear. At least, to us.
On the other end of the spectrum, once an energy flow gains 'binding power' above a certain level, it ceases to become 'pure' energy, and becomes... energy-containing mass. From here on 'down' we can apply this model to all the laws we know today, but I'd still like to stress a marked difference between the base 'friction/bonding' phenomenon (gravity) and all other phenomena that may occur further down the scale of atomic construction (magnetism, electricity).
Now, why ever do these 'energy bonds' maintain their state, and why has the matter they created spread from a single point? Here, we have to return to dimensions.
Imagine an aquarium (a model fathomable by our minds incapable of imagining infinity) filled with an inert gas. Within, no matter which direction we go, at no matter what point in 'time', the substance remains the unchanged same, as we have no means of comparing our destination state/place to our point of departure. Thus, in essence, neither space nor time exist there.
Now, we introduce a brief jet of air (or other substance) into our arena according to the above model. The substance created by the disturbance would vary according to its distance from the point of injection. Let us assume that, for the moment, there is no element of time (as our 'base energy' encompasses this), but should we follow the 'building effect' the disturbance has caused, we would be in fact introducing the element of time. Thus a pinhole 'projection' into a timeless void would become a pinprick when the element of time is added; I think it is imaginable that any disturbance in the 'aquarium of space-time' would in fact create an almost infinite number of dimensions. It is important to stress here that our universe's 'base energy' (quid) remains omnipresent in all states of space and time.
So if an initial disturbance is 'projected' into a certain direction ('dimension'), the elements created therein will interact along that path while maintaining their initial state. 'More disturbed' energies would bond into quarks and hadrons (neutrons/protons), 'lesser disturbed' energies - charged but less-binding electrons - would bind to the first, and the 'practically undisturbed' energies that we know as photons would shoot ahead of the pack into space, as would the results of any other 'energy accelerations' created by the interaction of the base elements (positrons, electrons) that resulted. But we know this model already.
I would just like to add a thought about the different 'types' of quarks, electrons and photons we know: these may be just a result of different 'levels of friction' divided between 'spectrums of behaviour' - again, photons, electrons and quarks - that have a 'stable' centre state; energies above and below this stable state results in different 'flavours' of each element, but energetic interaction tends to result in (or 'gravitate towards) a stable state.
Thus I think that our universe, as we know it, occurred only once in our space-time. I'm not sure how it will all end, but according to present models it seems that all the elements we know will combine their energies enough to 'accelerate' to their initial state - quid - to disappear once again. This already seems to be happening within black holes.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
In fact, 'faster' or 'slower' than what we know isn't important here: it's the difference in speed of, and 'friction' resulting from, - one energy flow and another. 'Faster' or 'slower' is just a matter of perspective. Hence what we would consider 'fastest' would be closest to our universe's 'base energy speed', and slowest would be the farthest from it. No matter how you look at it, the spectrum remains the same.
If I was to make a spectrum of 'flow' speeds, and this will most probably resemble much of what has already published in the scientific world, it would be, from fastest to slowest (or 'closest to the base' and 'farthest from the base'): Base energy, photon, electron, quark.
To the best of our knowledge, a photon is an electromagnetic force. I mentioned earlier that I sensed (or would like to sense) a common element in both sides of Einstein's equation: what if this element was the 'base flow' of our universe? What if a photon ('light'), as we know it, was a result of friction between one flow of energy and the common 'base flow'? Again, the 'speed' of one or the other wouldn't matter - it's the difference between the two.
The 'bonding' - or polarity - caused by the difference in speed of one force and another makes sense - and it could be the origin of all forces of attraction known to our universe.
Let me take this one step higher in the 'speed' scale. If a difference in speed between two flows becomes greater, the energy 'riding' the 'base flow' (at one point I'm going to have to find a name for this) increases in polarity, or 'magnetic energy'. Electrons fit this model, as they do have polarity. If a positively charged electron hits a negatively charged electron, they 'eliminate' each other and emit a photon (I'd like to think that they combine to form an accelerated form of energy - that photon).
Step the speed difference between two flows up another notch and the polarity power of the flow 'riding' the base flow increases to a point where it begins to bond with others with the same strength of attraction: this would be quarks. The polarity of the 'riding' and 'base flow' would result in the different types of quark we know today - namely 'up' quarks and 'down' quarks (and the other types we know about may just be variations in flow difference above or below the bonding 'speed') - and these in turn bond to form what we know as protons (two 'ups' and one 'down') and neutrons (two 'downs' and one 'up').
The rest is a matter of consequence: neutrons and protons combine to create atoms, the stability of which is determined by the equality of the interacting attraction of their nuclei and electrons. I'd like to think that the gravity of a mass is caused only by an accumulation of the 'central' polarity attraction of each atom, and that phenomena such as electricity, fusion, fission and magnetism are only a result, affected in only a secondary way by gravity, of the interaction of these base structures.
The above would also explain 'dark matter'.
One of the subjects I looked up was atom structure, form and behaviour. Another was the composition of the universe - and there I found how few atoms there are in our universe compared to its size. This led to the subject of still-hypothetical "dark matter". Which only gives more fodder for thought.
I'm going to let go of the concept of 'dimensions' for the moment to just look at our own.
One thing that got me thinking was the 'cooling' aspect of the atomically composed part of our universe: if a, say, planet somehow strayed into outer space to a region free of all light and gravitational influence, it would eventually 'cool' to an almost inactive state; yet this would not be the case, as the planet, because of its mass (atom structure), has an energy of its own. Yet atoms tend to 'degrade', especially unstable ones; but degrade into what?
That question brought the 'energy flow' idea, and the idea that this flow was too 'fast' (or 'reduced') for us to detect, and the idea that most everything in our universe was built upon it. What would happen if we turned our idea of "hot" on its head, and thought along a model where this energy flow (and its 'speed') was a 'neutral state', and that everything slower than it becomes 'denser' and 'hotter' the slower it goes?
Thursday, 17 December 2009
Sunday, 13 December 2009
I began by thinking of the smallest particles we know being a result of combined flows of energy. This didn't sit quite right with me, but then I thought: what if the base of everything we see around us, no matter its level of construction, is in fact energy flowing in the same direction, and that very energy is the base of attraction we call gravity? If every molecule contains atoms that contain hadrons that contain quarks, it doesn't really matter the stage of construction, does it? If it is proven that every particle we know contains some gravitational force, this adds up to something for me.
We know that when particle combine in massive quantities, a huge gravitational pull is created; the higher end of this phenomenon we call black holes. Now, scientists have stated since decades that gravity at the centre of some black holes is so enormous that matter practically ceases to exist - but what if it does cease to exist - at least in our direction, or dimension? What if the forces accumulate in numbers so great that it causes them to... change direction? They would essentially disappear - at least to our dimension.
Take this model to the other end of the scale: we have quite recently begun experimentation with particle accelerators. Isn't the aim of this endeavour in the same high-energy direction as the centre of a black hole - combining particles under the duress of super-high energy levels? I have to check my facts, but it would seem to me that in some atom collisions, some quarks had "disappeared".
Finally, back to the big bang. What if the origins of the world as we know it wasn't an explosion (in the conventional sense of the term), but an accumulation of energy in one dimension so massive that it suddenly... changed direction? This model of 'injection' of energy from a single point redirected into our present direction would explain many things - namely the limits of our universe (the 'nothingness' beyond), and it would also define what dimensions are as well as the infinite possibilities of what directions they may take - or at the least, it can show the uniqueness of the dimension direction we are travelling in, and the difficulties and conditions of travelling to others.
Addendum: At a first glance, the above seems to be consistant with Einstein's E=mc² - but if his equasion was used as an equasion mapping containment, or comparison (mass/energy), and not conversion? I also have doubts about the constance of 'c' (the speed of light)... in my attempt to make a timeless model, a certain element of c (if it were to contain or be a result of a 'flow' tying us into our present direction) would enter into - or be substracted from - both sides of the equasion. More later.
I think my line of thought has more to do with the direction of our dimension - everything else resulting after that can only be measured in terms we know for our better comprehension, so I can almost consider "time" as a second layer of calculation. I'll try eliminating it from my model to see what happens.
I've seen enough of hollywood's "into the fourth dimension" movies - while I thought it was common knowledge that time was the fourth dimension - but I'd like get rid of altogether the concept of there being a limited amount of dimensions.
I remember, while skipping my own classes to visit my brother's school (for gifted youngsters), listening to a group from his class theorize about what a world that had only two dimensions would look like. Although I found this line and level of thought invigorating (next to the repetitive tedium of my own classes), from the start I had to reject the possibility of such a world: if we're talking mass, there would be no height and width to measure if there is not a depth; and what of time?
I may have stated my views to my brother later, but I left the question as just another of those paradoxes that we have to live with, like the "something from nothing" question that was the origins of our universe. As I mentioned in my earlier post, this changed with the emergence of quarks and string theory.
The concept of mass consisting of three physical dimensions is very approachable for our cognitive abilities (first we draw a square in the air, then we 'extract' it into a cube), but when we get down to an atomic and particle level, we see that there are no 'steps' in dimensional extraction; the only common centre is a centre of gravity; mass projects from the centre in all directions.
So, either we try to count the possibly infinite 'dimensions' projecting from each centre of gravity, or we reduce the phenomenon to the base elements of its existence - clustering and direction.
Time for me is but a chain reaction: elements combining, displacing and changing one another, and our perception of the passage of time is but our witnessing of this chain of events. There is no 'up' or 'forward' in this sense - I can only observe that this interaction is heading in a common direction.
It's this common centre of gravity that we see at every level of our existence - from quarks to entire planetary systems - that intrigues me the most. What if the 'common direction' I perceive as time is in fact but a dimension projecting from a gravitational centre of its own? But this takes me back to my earlier question.
Saturday, 12 December 2009
When we're dealing in subjects that count on sources and knowledge beyond our individual empirical reach, it is normal that we depend upon the research and accumulation of knowledge of others more informed than we. Yet I, the ignorant, could have a hard time discerning what source of "knowledge" to accept over others; no matter the decibel volume of the source, one thing that can't be masked or exaggerated in any findings is the method through which they were found.
Science is an observation process that contains as little human emotion or identity as possible. A researcher's previous findings, and conclusions thereof, can only point him in a new direction of research. What separates a true scientist from the rest is his method of treating all evidence from that point onward: a true scientist will not attempt to make any conclusion until he has accumulated as much information as possible from as many sources as are available to him. Do you see the direction of logic here? The evidence points to the answer, not the other way around.
Introducing "identity" into the scientific process corrupts and discredits it. Whether the motivation for the "identity factor" be because of personal gain or just pure stubbornness, any person who conducts his research to "prove" preconceived ideas is not scientific. In all my years of following scientific research, very few of the "conclusions" I have seen that go against general scientific consensus are of any scientific value, as most turn out to have been generated by those working for the very special interests whose activities would be impeded by any action taken on the real scientific data available to us.
Of course, in the past, new scientific discoveries have debunked old ones. This is normal, and very scientific, but we are no longer in an era where science replaces human ignorance; we are in an era that is the result of several layers and several generations of scientific research. Whereas we had nothing concrete on which to base our findings before, science has managed to build a rudimentary model of undeniable truths upon which to observe our universe, thanks to our discoveries of the workings of atoms, gravity and the like. We are no longer in the time of Copernic where the only alternative to science was the status quo that was religion then.
Yet I do see parallels to that era in the world today. The status quo may no longer be religion, but it has adopted a form that is almost identical to religion, an almost blind faith in all things that preserve "our way of life". If we prefer to shut our eyes to the fact and science to favour our own comfort (or what we perceive to be comfort), we are just as condemnable as 16th-century religion, yet this time around, through our heightened means of communication, we are doing all the disillusionment work ourselves. Again, as in most every cycle in history, the status quo will hold strong until it begins to be perceived as a source of suffering - and in this age where it is the status quo-dependant upper eschelons of society whose voice is heard the most, I don't see this happening any time soon.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
What the hell was your motive? Qui Bono?
For me, it can only be one of two scenarios: Either someone with "good intentions" (and the road to hell is paved with these) opened the way to the official catacombs, "hid" it, and someone inexperienced to the underground (long-time cataphiles would NEVER do this) found it later; the other is revenge. Revenge for what? The only thing that could qualify for a "revenge" against the city of Paris is their closing of a clandestine underground theatre a few years ago.
Either way, it amounts to different bull*hit with the same result. I just found out today that the catacombs may be closed indefinitely — this effectively kills all plans I had to return to the underground after an absence of almost eight years. Not only can I not photograph the official catacombs, I cannot return to the unofficial underground to continue the experimentation I had begun in my last visits.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
The thing that irked me most was mathematicians trying to make the numbers 'work' - if one formula works, they use this base to project calculations to the next level (and discover something - energy sources, new dimensions, etc. - 'new'. This I think is the reason some scientists came up with a possible nine dimensions through their research into string theory.
The thing is, based on the rest of what we know about atoms and inter-particle interaction, this theory doesn't make sense. If every particle existing bonds with its neighbour around a central 'gravitational' centre, why only nine dimensions? Shouldn't these project - or flow - in all directions, as the base upon which our 'present-time' physical world is built?
Scientists have devised different types of "attraction" - gravitational pull, magnetism, strong interaction, etc. - but I am drawn to a (personal) theory that there may be one unique form of attraction ruling all. For this we have to look to the lowest form of particle we know - the quark - and its characteristics.
Quarks themselves come in different 'flavours' - up quarks, down quarks, charm quarks, etc. - but all experience a unification of all known forms of physical attraction. There is something to be found there. There may be some other sort of particle on a lower level than a quark, but I'll build my theory model at that level for now.
A quark is a charge, but my question is this: what if a quark wasn't a 'charged object', but rather a point, or intersection, of energy flows?
This would explain a lot of things for me. I don't know what form energy flows would take - I would imagine circular, as straight flows would mean infinite length and an absence of effect by other flows - but I'm sure, based on most every physical model we can see today, they would combine upon themselves in any possible direction.
Now, imagine several flows of energy from any and all directions, and imagine that a point where the flows collide is... a quark. This quark would have a 'direction' based on the angle of impact, and this quark would be a 'building point' for further atomic construction. Thus a collision between two energy flows at a certain angle would have one direction, and a collision between two (or more) others at a differing angle would have another. Then consider the resulting 'direction' to be a... dimension. As the directions of flows possible would be almost infinite, so would be dimensions. I would also add into the equation my idea that 'direction' is also... time. When quark construction starts, the 'building blocks' of our universe progress along the same path, interacting with other elements travelling in the same direction as it.
Built on this model, it would make sense that quarks travelling in the same 'direction' - or in the same dimension -, depending on the results of the collision, would combine into a heavier mass - or a haydron. From here we can build our model along the laws we already know.
But back to the energy flows - what if it was this the origin of gravitation and other forms of attraction? Even an atom has a gravitational centre... but what if an objects 'gravity' was so great and so compounded that even the creation of physical mass was impossible? This would explain phenomenon like black holes. Yet I'm sure even black holes, although they may be a route to the 'base energy flow' of the universe, have a direction as well. The absence of mass would make inter-dimensional travel difficult for any material that is anything above a base energy flow.
The whole together, from an inter-dimensional (multi-directional) perspective, would be a massive ball of revolving energy, and the interaction between energy flows would result in the "mass" that we see today - but we can only see this mass if it is travelling in the same direction as we.
UPDATE: Writing all this down helped to clarify my concept a bit - and now I'm having second thoughts about the "colliding energy" part of my theory. The rest still feels solid though - everything we see around us is travelling in the same "direction", and that infinite directions are possible - but I'll have to mull further about what set us along this path.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
I don't understand how, in a political atmosphere we call "democracy", a network of politician-influencing lobbyists can even exist. What use are voters if the decisions of the politicians they elect are influenced not by themselves, but by the money of a few? One could argue that the voters could be 'educated' about the 'good' in their representative's lobby-influenced decisions to get later votes, but this is working in the opposite direction of both reason and democracy (explaining an interest-led decision with a selection of supportive facts, instead of the reason-based methodology of examining all facts available and coming to a logical conclusion only afterwards). Lobby-influenced decisions are rarely in the interest or the will of the people, otherwise there would be no need for any lobbyists at all.
The fact that the subservient public continues to support this system irks me to no end; the reason this climate continues to exist is because of the deficiencies of our education and media. People these days are simply not 'trained' to think for themselves, many do not even want to: not only does the politico-corporate alliance take full advantage of this situation, it is doing all it can to ensure that things stay that way.
Higher wisdom does not lie within the uninformed voting masses, but that doesn't mean that the masses shouldn't be informed. Wisdom is there all the same in raw form: facts about the living conditions of all should guide any decision about what would be best for all. To generate a public both informed and involved, all one has to do is to make the facts and statistics used for political decision-making transparently available to the public themselves.
In an era where many even try to apply "new meaning" to the term "is", today's use of the word "socialism" isn't at all what it was in the year that cartoon came out. Socialism was almost a synonym to communism in those years; the 'socialism' term's use even predated 'communism' (look at 'communist' country names for a why of this).
Today's 'socialism' is a buzzword more than anything these days: most politicians who use it eradicate, or glean over, its original definition in relaying it to an audience who doesn't even know what socialism is. It's nothing short of a scare tactic targeting the ignorant.
The 'government controlling things' is all about context: A thoughtless right-winger tends to think of the government as an entity over which he has no control (a fearful attitude almost a faith - and many of this strain elect representatives for their ability to destroy government); a democrat has more of a tendency to see himself as part of the electoral process (the government exists only after the people). So for the fearful former, something government run is out of their control; for the latter, the same is something run by the people and their wishes.
In a perfect world, there should be no need for a government-run system, but today's world is far from perfect: our economic system is rife with both greed and misinformation (or lack of education). There are many (namely those 'special interests' making the most money from the present situation) who would like things to remain exactly as they are. Then there are those who are too uneducated to understand that a better world can exist.
Personally, I'm still indecisive over what role a government should have: Its first and foremost role, and upon this I remain solidly convinced, should be the maintenance and enforcement of law - but how far beyond that should it go? In today's world there exist no laws against misinformation or excess - partly because we the people don't even have a solid definition for the same. If we could determine all that that is detrimental to our economy (in addition to the already-existing laws about our personal selves), the world would be a much better place, but we have yet to do so. The ventures the most prone to abuse and excess are those catering to - or depending on - the largest number of people, as it is logical that this is where the largest profit-seekers go; this explains why the majority of today's riches are detained by so few. We should study our system, determine the excesses that cause its ills, and remedy them through new laws.
I tend to place health care, autoroutes, sanitation, utilities and communications into the same group; all of these should be consistently available to me no matter where I go (or to who I talk to) in my country, and, personally, I am willing to pay for that privilege - that freedom. In this regard, I imagine public services - a name grouping the above - as a non-profit business run by the people, only managed by government - remember that if you don't like how things are run, you can always fire the manager - with your vote. We don't have the same privilege over the private sector (and I'm not suggesting that we ever should), nor do we have a say, in the present system, of which private contractor a politician chooses, or at what price (profit). Something needs to change there, too - something in the order of 'if it's in the interest of all, all should pay'. I don't care where you shop, but I do care about where I am able to go (in the same comfort) and who I can talk to. I'm sure there are many who would define this as socialism, but it is only a very limited small part of its function, and not at all an entire-economy-government controlled system that is 'real' socialism.
My foremost misgiving with Microsoft: it is not a software development company: it is a marketing company before anything else. From its 1981 "creation" of PC-DOS for IBM, in reality an already-existing OS bought from Seattle Computer Products, Microsoft adopted the marketing method to which it owes its fortune: getting their software pre-installed on many computers as possible. They did the same sort of deal with IBM-Clone manufacturers with their re-branded MS-DOS software.
Pre-installing OS' on computers has two advantages: it a) assured massive profits for Microsoft even before computers hit the shelves, as the OS shipped with the computer at no visible extra charge to the buyer; b) most importantly, assures Microsoft a captive audience that will become dependant on its product: first-time computer users will "learn" whatever they see in front of them the first time they turn the computer on.
As Microsoft managed to ensure itself a large part of the PC market from the get-go, cross-platform compatibility problems resulted in a network of users that would have to rely on Microsoft's product to communicate 'seamlessly' with each other. Their large market share created another level of dependency on their product: many software developers made the economically-sound decision to create products only for the Microsoft platform. The number of developers making this decision only increased with Microsoft's market share.
Microsoft's marketing scheme in itself is condemnable: it exploits consumer ignorance. Fortunately today there are other alternatives to Windows, but unfortunately, because of Microsoft's enormous market share, these took decades to develop to an equally performant level; only recently do Microsoft consumers have an equally tantalising 'ease-of-use' (at least to their knowledge) alternative, at the same time that Microsoft's own bumbles (Vista) driven its users to seek better, often less expensive, alternatives. Old habits die hard, and Microsoft had a decade's advance in ingraining these into its consumers.
Like I said, the majority of today's Microsoft consumers are well aware of Windows weaknesses and alternative OS'; for this it is no coincidence that Microsoft is setting its sights on developing countries. If I can permit myself a moment of ironic digression, I see a parallel with the behaviour of the Catholic church in face of its dwindling flock of Western-world faithful. Yes, it's all about indoctrination.
Had Microsoft used its lead to make itself the best product in the market, all the above would be (more) forgivable: instead they used. and still use, the majority of their enormous profits for... marketing: patent protection (any idea even not their own, ideas not even in development), advertising, and even underhanded techniques like spreading fake hype (paid bloggers and comment-leavers) and FUD. Microsoft's profits are so huge that all of the above expenditures don't even dent them, yet the company is still unable to create a functional and secure piece of software. Patents and licences themselves are part of the problem: Microsoft has painted itself into a patent-protected faulty proprietary-software corner. Another thing that Microsoft seems to forget: the end user doesn't care how things work "under the hood", but they are easily discouraged when they are made aware that their OS' engine is vulnerable (without ever really understanding completely why). Mac is that mustang with the bold racing stripes (and a cool dashboard) that just works, and that's all the end-user needs - or wants - to know. The end user wants to use a tool to get another job done; having to learn how the tool works itself in order to get a job done, or having to adapt one's work habits around the tool itself, is an unnecessary additional step that many users can do without. Moulding the user around the tool has always been one of Microsoft's major goals, and this is why many of its users are loathe to change.
But to return to the main course of my argument: software development isn't Microsoft's principle trade. This is not the case of other developer companies/communities such as Linux and openBSD; Apple, whose OS today relies on a *nix engine, is difficult to place in the grouping because they also specialise in hardware development. Although most every analyst is comparing the above through statistics based on "market share", I see this analysis as skewed; Linux is free. Linux may have less "value", but today they are quietly running, with the help of Apache, most of the world's web servers. Linux development is constant, community-based, and, because it is open-source, anyone can compile a program for it. But I digress.
I'm sure that you can see now that the companies whose future I do believe in are *nix and Mac. Mac is a case apart: their speciality is, and always has been, the "common user", and all of their development, at least in the "Jobs years", has been wowing/making a simpler/better OS experience for the same. Jobs' innovation seems to be the result of a constant study of how users work today, how they can work better (without being thwacked into a totally new set of work habits), and how the advances in technology can be used to attain that goal. Mac has recently gained an enormous market share with its iPod and iPhone innovations; this was possible largely because to the consumer eye they were platform-independant tools, although apple provided an easy "link" to many platforms with its (sometimes controversial) iTunes music program. Mac puts bettering a user experience before anything else; this in itself can be considered a marketing scheme - but an irreproachable one. Jobs is at the centre of all this, and I won't hide that when I think of an Apple without him, I worry for that company's future as well.
The above is why Microsoft has always dogged in Mac's innovation footsteps - it is a company focused on what a consumer will buy (or how he can be made to buy), before anything else. Take windows (second to adopt the mouse, "mac-like" gui, amongst other features) and the Zune for examples of coming in second (or in the latter case, almost last) innovation-wise. Because they didn't come up with the idea in the first place, they are forced to do it "differently"; because of their patent/licence restrictions, they have to (reverse-)engineer their "new" product from scratch, and a "different but the same" look design-wise usually ends up in failure if the result is not up to par with the widely-accepted product that (cough) inspired the design in the first place.
I think my earlier Catholic-church analogy was a good one: the more educated we become, the more choices we have; both Microsoft and the Vatican rely on the lesser-educated/indoctrinated (and loathe to change) for their income, and this is why both are setting their sights on developing countries today. Not only is the west better educated about its choice of tools, but its communication/community habits have changed as well: we no longer have to rely on salespeople to tell us what's good or not, and a product's real quality, no matter the magnanimity of its ad campaign, can be exposed and spread to all within a number of days. Vista was a prime example (victim) of this.
Microsoft has little chance for continued success in the environment described above. If they had any b*lls, they would switch their sights to making a computer experience better for the end user, just as Mac does. This would involve a total change of ethic, staff, and branding - but the most major change by far would be their scrapping their buggy/virus-vulnerable over-patented core - just as Mac did. I don't see this happening anytime soon, but I really hope they use their still-large lead and still-huge resources to a good end.
I think I can sum up the increasingly shrill right-wing's motives into one phrase: Keep the money flowing into the same pockets.
For that the benefits of the American economy continue flowing into the same pockets, there would have to be a sort of managed stagnation: as we are a naturally progressive society, the only means of preventing us from moving forward to newer technologies and ideas would be to submit our populace to a constant barrage of misinformation and dumbing-down about the real value (and existence of) of all that is available to us in the world today. This is what the right-wing is all about, and this is exactly what has been happening since decades.
Those on the economic recieving end of the above are the most silent players in the same story. The loudest and most shrill pundits of the right-wing agenda only feed off these: most of the feeders a) see themselves as being one of the 'well-connected' or 'privileged elite' or b) are getting some sort of financial support for their 'points of view' that benifits the financial supporter or c) see themselves as the 'enlightened leaders' over, to the benifit of the leaders, an optimally mindless society (message: "here's what you should think") or d) a mix of any of the above. In all cases, the goal for all the above is: keeping things exactly as they are.
Reality is what you make of it based on your own knowledge and experience - there's no alternative to this. You are you. Yet today many would like to convince us that we "don't see it right" and provide their spun "explanations" as an alternative - this shouldn't even be given consideration if the base problem remains the same, but many swallow it wholesale, then - most importantly - move on, leaving the problem uncorrected between the hands of (or behind the backs of) the spinners.
Worse still, many seem to be HAPPY to remain thoughtless, biased, blindly supporting those who profess to "think better than they" - what is going on? Do they think themselves "privileged" in some way? Are they hoping for a "piece of the pie" that the horrible events engendered by their "masters" will generate? If it is Iraq we are talking about here, I think hardly anyone will get any real benefit at all - for now, their only "right" is to send their children to die for their own "right" to consume the stolen petrol sold to them by the same private companies that are imposing oil-driven cars. Hello? Elephant? Room?
Where is the rationale in all this?
Let's have a look at it from the bottom up, beginning with the very fundamentals of any economy. This would be the single unit - the work one man (of course by this I mean women as well) must do for himself to maintain his own existence. It is a common fact that, no matter the trade, one must at least fulfil this prerequisite to be categorised as one earning "an honest living". There's work of the body and work of the mind, but I'll develop that further on. For now we can say that, in the years of early humanity, an economy was limited to trading the fruits of one's labour against that of another, usually within a limited community. The invention of money was just a step up from this basic level - it allowed one to trade directly instead of trading chickens for grain for bricks as we used to.
All economies were "local" until the first 18th-century industrial revolution. Steam power and new metal alloys mixed with human inventiveness made it possible to make a single "type" item millions of times over. I suppose we could call this the beginning of the "factory economy" period.
Though it is more complicated, the production of any given product can be thought of as a "micro-economy" in itself: From its raw material roots, it engenders the work and techniques through its many stages until its appearance on the store shelf. The math is simple if we look at a factory's "top level" profitability - the money it spends to make its product is money going into the economy; the money it takes for the sale of its product is being taken out of the economy. The difference between the two, of course, is loss and profit. Therefore a company who takes much more than its production costs is taking money out of the economy.
If you would like to complicate this "top level" example, apply the same principle to every company involved in a product's "sub-production" - the mining company that provides the raw materials, the machine company that provides the factory's machines, the transportation company that carries the raw materials to the factory and carries finished product from the same to the store shelf. Now imagine that every company in this pyramid wants (at least) a 10% profit margin. By time you get to the top you will find that a product's "real" value is most often less than half of its price on the store shelf. It is mainly for this reason that the "first world" economy, as it stands, will be incapable of competing with the likes of China.
Now, about that profit margin. It would be next to impossible to even try imposing any means of control upon it (and I would be totally against the idea), but it is possible to determine whether it is "justified" or not. Were we all but beasts of labour an economy would be a simple matter, but thanks to our minds this is not so. It is thanks to our inventiveness and technology that we are able to create machines that lessen our physical burdens; it is exactly here where profit is warranted: when an invention lessens its user's workload. An inventor has every right to the time and money he saves his customer - and this at no damage to the existing economy. One is a maker of progress, and the other a benefits from it. If work is money, the balance there is pure. With this system only the inventive would be rich. But shouldn't this be so? There is still the impossibility of calculating the "how much work saved" side of things. (Aside - Outside this realm is entertainment, and in any well-educated society this should be democracy at its best - outside of the cycle of "need and sustenance", a customer will pay only if he's willing; that is to say if the product is good and the price is right.)
Our lives today are much easier thanks to generation after generation of inventors, but not all of them got a return for their work. Rather, mainly and namely from the second industrial revolution (1840's-1920's), it was the appropriator and producer of an idea who made the money - for the main reason that he already had the capital enough to produce. This already would instigate cries of "Unfair!" but there is little we can do but to brand such 'gleaner-profiteers' as the thieves they are, and hope that this would have a repercussion on the product sales. There is no feasible means to protect an idea - patenting has this intention in mind but there are always thousands of "almost" loopholes and ways around it. Though it is a basic truth that a product could have no better than its inventor as producer, in today's market it is he who pays that plays. Period.
The question to ask is "Why do those able to produce have capital enough to do so in the first place?" Again, I must stress that I am against 'taking' anything from anyone who already has it - we can't unless it was unjustly taken, and as things stand there are no laws to say that the existing greed-motivated system is "bad" - so we can't. Besides, once taken, the only rightful person a property could be returned to is the person from whom it was taken. In today's system, yet another next-to-impossibility. But I digress.
I think an idea of regulation may be based around an idea of "Squatting money". Capital that, once removed from the production cycle of a functioning economy (think of it as labour energy taken from the whole of a functioning "even trade" community), causes it imbalance.
True that most profit rarely "sits still" and is usually re-invested somewhere. Here we get into another sticky subject - is "investment" labour? Is loaning money labour?
The answer to the latter is easy enough, if one would calculate a bank's profit-earning as that of any factory in comparing its "production costs" against its profits. Yet is this really applicable in this way - does a bank's functioning and services save their clients any work? When one thinks about it, the answer is no; In fact, in total accumulated labour, though it is spread over time, the bank takes much more than it gives.
Investment is another matter more complicated. If a party give X amount of cash to a company, allowing it to expand its research/production to make new products, and based on this expansion makes new profits, giving the X cash invested a plus-value of the profit gains since its time of investment, is this labour? My first reaction is to ask "does the product save work for those who buy it?" If the answer is yes, that initial investment could be treated as "venture capital" which itself is positive in my books. If the answer is no, then more than likely it's pure speculation. Think record labels, petrol companies, etc.
But the question of the origin of the money invested also counts. Money of privilege is not money of labour. Nor is inherited money. Inheritance if fine; I see no problem at all with someone who had no need to live a life of labour thanks to a gift of someone else's who is no longer there to profit from it; yet I do see a problem if this capital is used for purely speculative purposes, especially investments in companies dealing in the market of "sustenance". Think petrol. Think metal. Think grain. Let the inheritors spend their parent/donor gains, thus, as the inheritor contributes no labour of his own, putting the economy back into the economy.
Again, how to apply this to law? I myself am totally against inheritance taxes - what right does someone have to claim half of the earnings of someone who had already spent his life paying his "just due" in taxes on those same earnings? Totally besides the point and quite unwarranted.
All of the above put together may seem confusing, but there is a thread through all of it - a division between sustenance, inventions and entertainment. Sustenance is our basic requirements for survival, inventions (machines and medication) ease our struggle to survive, and entertainment, well, entertains. (Just to clarify: energy is sustenance). Should we divide the market along these axae, discerning speculation and monopolies is a much easier task.
Now the relation between business and government. In any real democracy there should be none, only the impartial, un-biased and people-voted "anti-abuse" laws to protect both businesses and consumers alike.
What is a government? It is supposedly, within given borders, the guardian of laws demarking and enforcing the lines between all its people consider "good" and "bad" for its proper function. In some societies it is also the guardian of the 'collective security for the individual' meaning unemployment insurance and health plans paid in advance out of money pooled from a country's "collective wealth".
Before going further, but still concerning the above, I should pause to say that I see a country as a company that you yourself belong to that you yourself invest in. By that I mean that, should you agree with how a country functions: Its laws, its demands on its people and what it gives in return, you may choose to remain there. This for now is only an ideal, and granted that not all people have this choice, and certainly not at an early age.
I could even go as far as to suggest that everything in a given country open to "public use" be run by the government through funds invested by its people. By this I mean things health, transportation, and perhaps communication. Of course the government should run companies such as these - a democratic market is a free market and who uses one company or another should be up to the people themselves. I also agree that all could be privatised, but I do not at all leaving things like health and energy open only to those driven by the greed factor - a country's single non-profit nationwide infrastructure would be much cheaper to run and more stable (re-routing) than independent company-owned localised networks. Government energy of course would be paid as it is consumed, government health through an average base-plan (perhaps with options for higher coverage), government transportation paid for in a localised/national manner depending on the population concentration (aka local services provided) and government communication paid equally by every person who wants to use their network. Of course anyone can unsubscribe to any or all of the above for another service.
I see the above as a country in itself. Utilities used by all should be governed by all - meaning through democracy - for a lower cost per capita and a better gestation through custodians chosen by vote. Who would refuse to put their money into a system where they have a say in who's doing their job towards the services they get in return? In the present system people have the feeling they have no control over anything governmental (or commercial or consumer-oriented), and it is for that they don't vote. If you were giving your money to a company who has the job of giving you what you pay for, and you knew you would have your say about its success, would you pay? Would you vote? Damn right most would.
The same goes for laws. The guardians of the "public good" should be a minimal, network, vote-maintained from its tip to toe. To hell with politically-motivated judge designations and "bad" laws packaged with "good" ones for a unique senate vote - to hell with secrecy and closed-doors negotiations. The whole, save perhaps only the deepest defence infrastructures (and I stress defence), should be open to public scrutiny. Secrecy is "under the table", a sign of trickery, condescendence or mistrust; any of these inflicted by a politician towards the very people who put him in office makes for a sad and scary situation indeed. Is a country like this one worth investing in? Go figure.
Of course, for the above to work, we have to change our means (and raison d'être even) of education. School should be schooling towards the trade most interesting to a student - not a means to a minimal-effort "star job" often promised by the very same system. In fact, for the above system to work, individual thought must reign - proven fact must be taken for proven fact and tried and proven by he who is learning; anything opinion can come only after. In fact, in schooling, we must do away entirely with anything opinion. Give our young a chance to decide for themselves before subjecting them to the decisions of others. I can already hear the nihilists and right-wing nuts stampeding at that prospect.
Lastly, the place for religion - not in government. Religion is a political system in itself, a system whose laws are for the most part created for the preservation of its very same political hierarchy. Very few exceptions aside, religion is belief - belief in unproven theories of living man, and not at all a practice of a rational, logical and utilitarian thought. To state otherwise would be a heresy against humanity and all it has accomplished until now. Nor can we impose one improvable theory for another. Trade reason for belief and you've given up your role in any democratic system. But, as in any democracy, that should be for you to decide.
Through all of the above life would be business as usual, we doing our trades and trading what we earn with that of our neighbours. Oversimplified: Yes, Utopian: Compared to today, perhaps, but Impossible - not. Through the above I have but outlined only the base of what a country should be. I would like to see people return to working for a living and liking their jobs - their reason for living - instead of the conniving, arranging, fixing and indoctrinating "greed is good" period we are in today. Might I remind you that even the latter is a "reason to live" for some and the pride in that has today's world to show as a result.
People who think are rarely violent, and those conscious of what they accomplish in life (and its value to others) even less so. I think it is time that we, for now the majority, come forward to make our world our own. For all of us.
So those who would put the tool above what it creates are not only missing the point - they've obviously missed out on the experience of having an idea of their own.
LOL, no, the fact is that, since I'm new to Slashdot, it took me a bit to "get" that the best way for what you write to be seen is to answer someone else's post. Or post earlier. Anyhow, this isn't even an answer to anything, it's how I see things, so I guess the best place for a rant would be here anyways. Here goes...
I think much of this discussion about the tax levy, as well as the tax itself, is besides the point.
This is far from the first time we've heard the record industry's "Eeek they're pirating us!" screech - remember when cassettes came out? Ask your grandad about the record industry hullaballoo when radio started airing music. And ask you're great-grandad what operetta owners had to say about the invention of the gramaphone. Each "old technology" thought that the new would be the death of it. The market did indeed change, but this was never so.
What makes the game different this time around is not only the government's "trying to help" in a very undemocratic way (and "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", my grandaddy always loved to say), but also the state of the music industry. it is a wreck.
As far as I'm concerned all this whining and grubbing is for the sake of stockholders only. Music sales are indeed going down the tubes but it's not only for the piracy. Granted many young'uns have been brought up with the "if it's online it's free" mentality, but we all seem to be forgetting one major major detail - sound quality.
When I was a kid I was happy with the sound of a tape recorded from a friends LP - or from the radio - but could I stand that flat muffled quality on my hi-fi today? Methinks not for more than ten minutes, and that's leaving lots of room for the nostalgia factor.
If they really, really wanted to crack down on "piracy" as they say, they would make it illegal to swap music online above a certain bitrate. This would not only draw the line between "sampling" and piracy, but as I suggested with my first adverb, it would most probably even help the sale of "real" music. Think to the "hearing it on the radio" days: Many of those who did and like the song would go to their Dr. Disc and shell out for the album. Mp3's are exactly this for me today.
If the music companies really wanted to get their [expletive]s out of the hole they'd go back to letting people make music instead of trying to mold the entire industry, from creation to sales, to what they think their increasingly younger lemming-audience are most likely to buy.
As for the tax bit: In any democracy, any charge taken from one party can only be justified by the costs it makes for another. This tax law is none of that, as it takes from an indistiguished everyone to deliver to a pre-prescribed... cause. Whether it be for the government's "anti piracy squad" or to the record labels themselves, any such law will but thievery to more than a few - rightful owners of music, for example, who like the handiness of an mp3 player - and thievery it is. I'm not sure who started this ball rolling, but as far as this law is concerned, I see it as one government copying another's (they did it first and no-one complained so it must be OK!) legislation.
Really, to be honest, I haven't the slightest how things should be set straight again. Toss it all and start from scratch, perhaps. I've still got my Fender and a wicked hair-do - anyone good on the drums?
It is completely possible to make a fast-loading flash presentaion, but to do so one must load it in bits - like any web page. All it takes is a bit of thought beforehand - while the first sequence is playing, the second is loading, or the images or films for the rest of the movie (think "streaming") are loading.
I think this "start to end" Flash assembly-line way of working has to end - a way of working that, most probably after being published after a satisfied in-computer viewed "there" from its webmaster creator, loads into any remote viewer's computer like a bowling ball through a garden hose.