It is easy to see what you have had.

"I need a friend, I need a love, I need someone who'd miss me.
When I get home I don't want to be all alone."
- "I need a House" by Marie Serneholt

No matter what we do, we generally don't want to end up in solitude. When something really outstanding comes our way, we wish to share our overwhelming exuberance with a companion. When troublesome clouds give a sinister gloom to our horizon, we feel the need for someone's support, even if it is merely moral.

Every once in a while a person comes along in our lives that cheers us up, who we feel we could be together with. If we are lucky, we feel right, and if we are very lucky, we stay together with that person. It is the age-old issue of finding one's other half. Some appear to have more than one other 'half' and some go through their options on a regular basis. In some cultures it is not only acceptable, but encouraged for some men to have many other 'halves', amounting up to several complete people. In others, a person can only choose to bind oneself to a single other 'half'. So why do we do it?

The obvious answer would be the driving force of all living - reproduction.

The less obvious answer is emotional value. In times of great risk, some people believe that it is better to risk when you have nothing to lose. While that may be a safety net of sorts, it has a major negative influence on motivation. Sometimes knowing that you have something or someone to lose is all that you need to get you going. In essence, it is really fear that helps you, and fear is a powerful motivator for getting things done. Moreover, having someone around creates a sense of security, which is invaluable in the cases where that someone is not at risk. It is a safety net for the times you have something else to lose.
It is fairly obvious that while people can be competent enough to fare well alone, it is not the preferred state of affairs. Good company is invaluable.

"Until there is a name, nothing is real."

Identity.
Who we are, what we are. What makes us who we are.


It is one thing to know how others see you, a spoiled brat, an underachiever, a bookworm... Your appearance and your actions define you for others. What you say, what you decide to do, what you accomplish, what you leave unsaid.
Some of the impression we leave is through the people we know. Who we've decided to befriend, how we deal with troublemakers, who we wish to converse with. Know thy friends, know thyself. It is an old truth that people seek similarity, to find familiarity.

It is another to know yourself. A lot of how we act is the result of a 'social contract', unwritten rules that define common social protocol to retain our standing, to be taken seriously. Break the rules, and you will become a lot less welcome in many circles. To increase our chances of being successful, of finding the perfect someone to spend your days with and to grow old with, we abide by those rules. We act as we have been taught, how we see fit to act in certain situations, trying to act 'human'. And by following the rules, we blend in, we wear a mask to hide who we really are. We may sometimes choose to do what is expected of us, we may sacrifice our inner child to make sure we have a future. That is fine, everybody has to do that, but what we must not forget is who we are. We are not simple creatures who cower from reality, we do not fall easily, even if it might appear we do. We keep pushing, even when it seems like we've given up. We are feisty, we are stubborn.
But the only way to show who we really are, what we feel inside, is by wearing a mask. To be ourselves, we follow the set of rules, because others do the same. It is the most basic thing we all share, that connects us. It is culture that helps us define who we are for others.
We are who we are, and we will never stop wearing our masks.

Even if you do not comprehend, try to understand.

Cooperation.

On Wednesday I attended an event that brought together students from two popular fields of study: medicine and computer science. While I quite enjoy the idea of people from different fields coming together, what I witnessed there was quite sad. These fields should work together, especially as technology is invading more and more into our daily lives, which affects our health. Healthcare relies heavily on technology, from computer-assisted monitoring to online databanks pertaining to people's history of illnesses and treatments. Medicine and computer science work together every day, so the students of these fields should also be able and willing to work together. That they generally are, but effective cooperation needs more than mere will. It requires knowledge of the other side.

While the computer scientists could easily define the differences between diagnosis with similar names, the medicine students had a very difficult time defining what a 'server', 'HDD', or even a 'transistor' is. And I do mean that people did not know what these things are, not to mention what they do. Sure, hardware assembly is not something anyone should be good at, but one should have at the very least a vague idea about what is sitting in their laps, why they can read e-mail from anywhere...
Not knowing these things hardly hurts other people as much as the people who don't know. To be able to use the newest and most efficient technologies you need to understand how to use them, what your actions cause. Technology, especially in healthcare, does not obey the 'something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it' rule. Doing the wrong thing can be the difference between life and death. Doing a very wrong thing can cause permanent damage to multiple patients, and possibly the people around them. This situation is not a new thing caused by the sudden explosion of technology. Getting an EKG is quite difficult and a single wrong move means not getting the right result. Yet a single EKG can be the basis of a diagnosis.

Another problem with not knowing much anything outside your field is simple communication. It is a popular stereotype that all a medical student does is studying. All night and all day, just to become a doctor someday. And so meeting non-med-school people ends up as a Simpsons line: 'Do you like... stuff?'.  It just doesn't cut it. What dismays me is that sometimes the stereotype is spot-on. It is no secret that med school requires a lot of studying because there are lots of test, tons of material to be crammed, and your GPA matters. It is true for some other fields of study as well, but this should not keep people's world views to become extremely narrow. It is one to become a specialist, it is another to become an individual. Don't limit yourself.

Tanks, you're welcome. Have some medicine!

So it would appear that the United States wishes to buy a few more Abrams tanks. By 'a few' I mean 'a few hundred' and by 'Abrams tanks' I mean the big mean machines they have a few thousand in spare. In spare, as in 'not in active service', 'for backup'. These are the top of the line tanks that are extremely difficult to even slow down, not to mention to halt permanently. Sure, an actor might be able to do it, but even that has to be an inside job.
The point where it gets interesting is that the military does not want the tanks. They find no use for them, they have more than plenty for any possible encounter. It is all the politicians' work. Isn't it natural to spend a few hundred million dollars on tanks that won't be used, but will require regular maintenance? Well, maybe not during an economic boom, but it appears to hit the nail during a slump.

And tanks are not the only machines that are costing lots of money and are more effective at their duties than puny humans.

Researchers in Indiana University put a computer to do a doctor's job. The result: "The computer was nearly 42% better at diagnosing illnesses and prescribing effective treatments than human doctors.", "The researchers also noticed a significant disparity in cost. Doctors charge about $497 per unit of outcome change, whereas the computer cost only $189 for the same measure.". A staggering result that might make one wonder how come those self-diagnosis web services fail so miserably. The reason, while some of it lies in the underlying architecture of the diagnosing algorithm, is mainly the evaluation. In the case of web pages, the person has to check oneself for symptoms, often missing or misnaming them, sometimes even thinking of symptoms they don't actually exhibit. For a proper examination, you need doctors and nurses. Once you have them, you can let the machine do the diagnosing, always under the watchful eye of the humans. The computer may be extremely adept at diagnosing illnesses and proposing cures, but it depends heavily on data collection. Often enough, subjective data collection. And that can only be done by people. So I wouldn't worry about healthcare suddenly becoming a lot more effective. There is time for that yet.


In other news, the Large Hadron Collider will remain nonoperational for the next two years due to upgrading and maintenance.

"We are really talking about humanism."

Cosplay is an interesting phenomenon. In essence, it is people dressing up really quirky. What sets it apart from many other activities, especially group activities, is that it does not matter what you look like, as long as you dress quirky, imitating a fictional character.

Race and sex, because they are easily distinguishable, have been the basis of much discrimination for millenia. Slavery, bans on short skirts, continually lower salaries and decreased chances of promotion are just a few from a myriad of different methods of discrimination. Cosplay does not discriminate like that, one might even say girls enjoy dressing up even more than the guys do. With all that make-up and masks, the race of a person often remains a mystery. Even when it doesn't, everyone is equal. Well, except for the people who skimp on their costumes and make sub-par effort and consequently look nothing like the characters they attempt to portray. Other than that, equal. Everyone shows what kind of fiction they enjoy, and that is all.

It bears resemblance to 'casual Fridays' - everyone can dress how they want, as long as it has a 'theme'. You still have to dress proper for an office job, you have to dress like an another person for a cosplay event. You can feel more relaxed than usual as everyone around you do the same. It is a good way to hinder racism and sexism, if not other -isms. It is a way to move towards a more equal society.

"Was it really me fulfilling my prophecy?"

Often we hear of stories about people who were destined to do something to be some kind of symbol. It could be a status attributed to a newborn, a deity in flesh. Or it could be people dying shortly and suddenly after accidentally missing a certain death situation. If you had a 'destiny', a preset course of life meant for you, would you follow it, or try to break free from the chains of fate?

Now, the issue to be addressed is the fact that prophecies are usually general and vague. They are lousy guides and most of the time you will understand them only once they have come true, and cause useless anticipation and nervousness before it. In a way, this is why horoscopes often hit the bullseye - people interpret them according to events that happen, which is why a single horoscope can apply to a plethora of cases.

In the cases where the events are described in detail, it is more complicated. If it is a single event, you cannot know that it would happen if you did not change your actions. If it is multiple events, then you can see that the first events do happen as per the prophecy, and you can thus test whether you have the ability to change what happens. If you don't, then there really is nothing to be done. However, if you can change the future, then you will know what will happen if you decide to act in a specific way. You will know the end result of your actions. And that is a powerful tool. Obviously you can anticipate the consequences of many of your actions by simply thinking of the actions, their direct consequences, the potential consequences of the consequences et cetera. But knowing the consequences of an action for certain, that gives you knowledge about how things will work out, as opposed to how things might work out. You know what that means - very simple risk management.

"A wise man does not cower from knowledge. Instead, he uses it to guide him."

Another BBC report.
Apparently, Dead Space is a computer game that costs £40 and people can choose to pay extra for acquiring equipment sooner than you are meant to. And people found workarounds to make sure they get the equipment without paying EA for it. These workarounds are extremely simple, basically going to resource-laden locations more than once to see that all they have taken with them has reappeared.


However, some people deem it unethical or illegal to use such cunning... trickery to avoid payment. It allegedly borders on piracy - getting stuff you are supposed to pay for for free. However, since there is no actual foul play here, the game files are not being edited, no third party tool is being used, I see no problem. What people are doing is allowed in the game, it is a 'feature', not a 'hack'. If the software allows you to do it, and you have paid for the software, then you should be allowed to use the software in every way it is possible.

What bugs me is that the in-game money-hunting is even there. If you pay for something, you expect to get it. The whole thing. Not most of it, all of it. You should not be asked at every turn to buy additional features. Yes, I read the article, and realize it was made to discourage piracy - even if you already have the game, you still need to pay for it. Even more troubling, the things that are sold are equipment, and I assume they are game-specific. By that I mean that when you finish the game and decide to have an another go at it, and start a new game on a higher difficulty setting, you would have to shell out even more cash for the same thing that you have already bought.

Quite frankly, in this case, I have more of a problem with the option to spend money in a bought game rather than people bypassing it using bugs or features in the game. After all, if the option is there, why not use it?

It's a whole new world out there. A world ready for change. A world ready to be experienced.

Unification.

"The population exists harmoniously without jealousy, envy or concern for individual advancement. Each individual works for the improvement of the whole, instead of the desires of the individual. The unified government is the social equivalent of a colony of bees."

The ideal of socialism - everybody works for the whole and receives according to one's contribution. The idea that won't happen by merely changing the rules or enforcing government oversight. That has been tried in different shapes and forms, and it has failed miserably. Sure, it starts out super-effective, boosting production. But in those cases the economy side has been largely ignored by the powers that be, resulting in the lack of people who would purchase the produced goods. As usual, it meant that the produced goods would have to be aimed at increasing the strength of the military, and as usual, that has ended up really, really badly.

The big issue was that people did not want to be told exactly what to do and gain next to nothing for it. So they started swindling. The lacking motivation meant lower production and the oversight was too rigid to be of any real use - making people grow corn where it does not grow is an exceptional blunder. And it is also the reason why it hasn't worked and why it won't work for years, if not decades to come. Simply put, society is like a human body. The subconscious decisions, such as sweating and blood circulation happen without 'big' orders from above. They happen whether we think of them or not, they are automatic. In a society, these are the adaption events, making sure everything works efficiently without strict oversight. It is a mechanic of 'raise, raise, lower', it seeks for the optimal temporary value that works for the moment, it does not define a value that has to be strictly followed at all times. The only decisions the brain has to take care of are the actions that do not simply preserve homeostasis. These are the guidelines, what should become more developed, what is no longer of critical value, what overall changes and restructurings are necessary. The importance is great - someone has to guide reactions to severe sudden changes of some conditions, but the responsibility is quite small - it should only interfere when the local 'cells' can no longer continue the way they've been going so far.

The problem herein is that Unification means people think alike. They follow the same guidelines, the same basic principles, the only difference is in the manner of applying those principles. For efficiency, the ruling has to be smoothly transitive, but without conflict. That is to say, nobody stays in power for too long, but the people replacing the people leaving power must be like those new rulers. The change serves as a buffer, it holds back possible dictatorship, and it makes sure many people are experienced enough to lead the country in case of a disaster which renders the current 'guides' inactive. To create a society where everyone has the same ideals you'd have to raise a group of people in similar conditions from birth. Or use faith to brainwash people into believing the same ('Strength through unity, unity through faith'). In any case, it is a strenuous process that does not guarantee positive results. And even if it did, it sounds like a horrible place to live for anyone living right now. Sure, I'd like to see it, but being a part of it is another matter altogether.

Progress =? Chaos

A good deed never goes unpunished. And that should come as no surprise, as any 'good' deed is selfish in its nature.

It is an old truth that everything we do we do because of one simple reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time. The reason why our deeds appear like good ideas is because we benefit from them, by acquiring something we did not have before, or to make us feel better. Usually only when it makes us feel better. After all, altruism is based on egoism.
That is true for everyone, every man, every woman, every small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, but it is hardly big news or some kind of insightful wisdom. But what we need to keep in mind is the consequence of this universal truth.
It is a known fact that reactions happen to increase general entropy, to create chaos around us. This is particularly true in isolated systems, but often apply in open systems as well. The cool thing about systems is that you can expand them, you can make them move, you can choose a system that satisfies your needs. So if you were to put a planet and everything orbiting, on, and in it in a system, the processes that take place in general increase entropy. Sure there are some processes that counteract that, but they are overpowered by the entropy-creating processes. Everything slowly moves towards chaos.
The human race is a bit special, at least that's what people keep saying about it. Humans don't just evolve, their civilizations evolve with them. From being basing hunter/gatherers groups to feudalisms, from there on to larger monarchies and other dictatorships, the wheels of evolution turned human civilization towards socialist ideals and democracy. From a clear-cut chain of command (the alpha male society) to insanely complicated institutions that annoyingly often step on each other's toes, hinder each other's functions. With the increase of population to be governed, chaos was inevitable. No matter how good an idea a revolution really is.
With the human population continuously increasing, and the ability to communicate with almost anybody in the whole world face to face without even leaving home, I cannot help but feel that there is a next step just waiting to happen. But will it be more chaotic?

When we think of the past, the societies we find are often construed as 'barbaric' and 'brutal'. But they worked for their times. Those ideals and systems are by large obsolete, and would not work with large populations. So... either a new system and new ideals come along soon, or the population will have to decrease to account for the lacking social change. Either doesn't seem very appealing.