Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Obscene images now illegal for everybody?

Copied and pasted from another source:

‘‘§ 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
‘‘(b) MINORS.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.
‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION.—For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as ‘sex’ or ‘porn’, is not misleading.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—HR 4472 EAS
‘‘(1) the terms ‘material that is harmful to minors’ and ‘sex’ have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B; and ‘‘(2) the term ‘source code’ means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.’’.
(b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252B the following:
‘‘2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet.’’.

This basically means that it is now illegal to link to images of obscene nature without giving a warning. Not just for minors, but for everyone. True, it is a practice that is generally frowned upon, but making it illegal? The government is infringing on some of our freedoms, here.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Survival... Right here, Right now

What does it take to survive in this place? What course of action should you take; what mentality should keep you safe and prosperous? Listen to me... talking like I know what I'm talking about.

The ways of survival in this place are much more subtle than they used to be. In the old times, you would pretty much win by being stronger, faster, and better than your opponent. Now it's basically a given that your opponent [the entire compilation of society] is stronger than you. If you choose to throw yourself against the grain, the amount of resistance you would face is unimaginably enormous. Therefore, it is important to be somewhat subtle in what is obviously an optimization equation. If you're always with society's grain, then you will never get what you want that way either... so the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

It's this game of push pull that makes life so difficult. You're in it to win for yourself and yet you cannot win by yourself. Therefore, you are forced to team up with others who are interested in themselves. Trust becomes an issue. They will care about you, but only if it helps them to gain for themselves. If you do not provide the service they are looking for, they will search for a new ally.

A lot of this may seem foreign to you, but it describes the patterns of every day life. Consider a situation that you've had with a friend. You're looking for a friend who is funny, trustworthy, and good looking... whatever you're looking for. Why are you looking for this friend? It helps to have someone to back you up when you need it, and to have someone to be around, talk to, play games with, whatever you like to do. You do it for the security. It looks good to have friends. When you have friends, you are much more powerful then just a loner... provided that everything is mutual and running smoothly. By mutual, I mean each person provides a service, whether abstract or concrete or a combination of both in order to benefit the other person. Of course, whenever the word service comes to mind, one thinks sex. Yes... good job, now go kill yourself.

Jk... Had to throw that one in there... because I feel like I'm being too literal and dry.

But anyway... there is an optimization equation that tells what size a group should be in order to be as powerful as it can without mutany. It depends on the similarity of the people, and how they interact with eachother. More specifically, it depends on whether or not each person believes in the same ideals as everyone else, and there is a possible way to have some unique "job" to do in order to reach it. No person likes someone who is exactly like them... that's called competition. You don't like people who are as good as you at things... you like to think of yourself as the pro. Other pros seem to demean your value. Therefore, if there is a way for people to work together with slightly different tasks in order to achieve the same goal, that is the idealistic society.

Now what happens if we throw the monkey wrench into things? What happens if there is mutany? How do the people react? Mutany is caused by two or more groups who disagree with the goals of the entity, or with how the goals are being achieved within the entity. Mutany usually causes a schism, or split in a society, forcing two smaller and competitive societies to form. In nature, the winner of the smaller societies wins whatever decision was disagreed on. Here in our world, if two smaller groups are formed, they often compete in more humane ways... such as trying to put eachother out of business or attaining more public approval. A larger group offers more leverage, but at the risk of impurity of purpose. Therefore, it is an optimization. If there is an impurity of purpose, that impurity separates and the pieces attempt to eliminate eachother until a new and inclusive purpose arrrives, or until one piece remains alone.

How do you apply this to every day life? Let's say that Sally doesn't like the way that Mark has been talking to her. The entity of Mark, Sally, George, Sam, and Marge now have impurity of purpose because of a trust issue. Those who mostly relate to Sally will join her group and those who mostly relate to mark will join his group. Those who remain inbetween will feel the tension of the polarized entity and will either be forced to leave both groups, join one or the other, or somehow pull the group back together. Depending on who you are, the optimized situation for you varies... also the stakes and situation determine what would be best of each person in the entity.

What happens if there is a single person within an entity who is just not upholding his job? Evolution has a quite convincing answer to that question. Look to the structure and function of the salamander. It seems farfetched, but there couldn't be a better example of what I'm talking about. All of the salamander's cells make up the entity of the salamander. If a predator has grabbed a hold of the salamander's tail, the group of the tail is at danger for death while simultaneously endangering the entire entity of the salamander. Thus, the salamander has developed the ability to remove the tail from its body, preserving one group while killing another. Evolution is extremely helpful in pinpointing the level of optimization in rejecting members and helping them up to speed. The salamander has developed methods to help the tail survive, but all options exhausted, the tail must be disposed of to save some part of the entity. And usually, the largest part of an entity gets saved because it has the most power.

I haven't really explained how to survive because survival tactics change on a daily basis. Playing the game of survival is a lot like playing pin the tail on the donkey. Optimization is the key. You do not want to be a loner, but you also do not want to have too many people. You have to decide when and when not to destroy those who are harmful to the cause of the entity. You have to decide when the entity must be reduced in size because of impurity. And you must be lucky as hell... but hey... luck is determined by skill, and skill comes from practice. Go out and try things. Peace mo-fos... and thanks for reading this whole thing, if you read it... cuz I don't know if I would.