Have you seen the Microsoft commercials where everyone goes to "the cloud?" Ever wonder what cloud they are talking about? There are some who say cloud computing is the next big technological breakthrough, but there is a darker truth lurking within the cloud.
To simplify the concept of cloud computing, it is best to think of an apartment building. In an apartment building, you rent the space you are living in, but you don't own the building. Cloud computing is similar, whereas your computer would be more of an access point than a work horse. Your computer would allow you access to a virtual server, which would be able to run all your applications and programs. If you have ever used remote access to log into another computer from your laptop, you should be fairly familiar with cloud computing. Basically, your computer would be the gateway to the unlimited resources of the cloud.
The cloud would provide all the memory, RAM, data storage, etc. that you would ever need. The upside is that you wouldn't have to buy expensive equipment but you'd still be able to run the most memory-intensive programs. You would also be able to log into your account at anytime and anywhere in the world. If you use Hotmail or Yahoo, this is the basic concept behind their web-based email. You would pay per use and not be subject to high traffic rates. So what are the cons?
Cloud computing may be the next big threat to individualism. Since your computer would only be a portal, your data would be stored in the cloud. A company would store your data for you, and they would allow you to access it at any time. Could the cloud ever claim ownership, like Google did with their Google Chrome User Agreement?
Microsoft already launched their Azure platform, which is a cloud-based operating system. Cloud computing may soon be everywhere. I am all for innovation, but it seems that with every new technological breakthrough comes ten different ways to infringe upon our privacy, individualism, and rights.
Stay smart. Stay informed.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Showing posts with label individualism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individualism. Show all posts
Monday, December 13, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Light Bulbs And War
"There is no such thing as collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements - and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men," Ayn Rand (The Virture of Selfishness, 148).
Ayn Rand makes a very strong statement about collective achievements not existing, but is something that requires a group of people a collective achievement or an individual achievement? Is war a collective achievement?
War is not a collective achievement; war is the sum of the individual achievements of individual men. To win a war, one must have individuals fighting on the ground, individuals relaying messages and information, and individuals planning out the attacks and defenses. All of these individuals are fighting to protect their individual rights and individual lives. Individuals can join forces against a common enemey, but that does not make them a collective and it does not make them sacrifice their individuality.
What about the founding of the United States of America? A group of citizens banded together to create their own country and overthrow the tyranny of Great Britain, surely that must be a collective acheivement. Great Britain oppressed the individual, all individuals, and the individuals stood up against that oppression.
The Constitution does not form a collecive; the Constitution is an agreement between individuals with similar moral values. Ayn Rand states, "Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights - and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members" (150). Without individual rights, there would be no United States, there would be no Constitution. Communism and socialism aim to promote and sustain the common good through collective achievements. If your neighbor slacks off at work and you break your bakc, you will get a raise but so will your neighbor. A collective achievement would reward everyone equally, even though not everyone contributed equally. If the United States' military wins a war, we all get to be on the winning side, but not everyone receives a medal.
Let's scale things down a bit and examine the light bulb. Is the light bulb a collective achievement? Edison did not invent the light bulb on his own, he had people helping him. Unfortunately, we are going to have to simplify the story of the invention of the light bulb because Edison did not invent the first light bulb, but he did invent the first practical light bulb. Is Edison's invention a collective achievement if others helped him? Is my blog post a collective achievement? I did not invent or manufacture the computer I am typing on, I did not invent the internet nor do I maintain any servers, and yet not many people would argue that this blog post is my individual achievement.
The light bulb is the individual achievement of Edison, but it is also the individual achievement of the rest of his team. Edison paid his team, and each one of his team members can be proud of their individual achievement. The success of the light bulb depended on the talents of several individuals, individuals that cooperated under the banner of a dream that was shared, but also a dream that belonged to the individuals, not the group.
Your American dream may not match my American dream, and yet we both have an American dream. As individuals, we are free to pursue our own dreams to better ourselves. Often these pursuits lead to the betterment of our way of life, but the goal is not to better the lives of everyone, but to better the life of ourselves, whether it be through a monetary betterment (through product/service sales) or a convenience betterment (a letter opener instead of using your fingers). People may think they are acting to realize a collective achievement, but they are really acting to realize their own individual achievement. A sniper shoots an enemy combatant to save the lives of the rest of his unit, but the reason he wants to save their lives is because his life may depend on the individuals in his unit being able to do their jobs.
The reason collective achievements do not exist is because individuals act for selfish reasons and individuals should act for selfish reasons. Edison did not invent the first practical light bulb to make his team rich, but he was willing to pay the individuals for their worthy contributions. In war it is individuals fighting individuals; it is no different than Edison and his ligh bulb. The general enlists the infantry to help him realize his goal and he rewards them accordingly. The individuals are fighting for their own selfish reasons; maybe they want money, maybe they want to defend their individual freedoms, or maybe they enjoy killing. Whatever the reason, they are there because they want to be there. If they did not want to participate, they would find a way to dodge service or dodge the draft.
Collective achievements do not exist because the common good does not exist. The individual good does exist and therefore only individual achievements can exist. Anyone enlisting you to aid in a collective achievement is hoping to convince you to sacrifice your individual rights in order to achieve their individual goal. The definition of collective achievement is the "anonymous product of undifferentiated masses." Collective achievements are the same as slavery.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Ayn Rand makes a very strong statement about collective achievements not existing, but is something that requires a group of people a collective achievement or an individual achievement? Is war a collective achievement?
War is not a collective achievement; war is the sum of the individual achievements of individual men. To win a war, one must have individuals fighting on the ground, individuals relaying messages and information, and individuals planning out the attacks and defenses. All of these individuals are fighting to protect their individual rights and individual lives. Individuals can join forces against a common enemey, but that does not make them a collective and it does not make them sacrifice their individuality.
What about the founding of the United States of America? A group of citizens banded together to create their own country and overthrow the tyranny of Great Britain, surely that must be a collective acheivement. Great Britain oppressed the individual, all individuals, and the individuals stood up against that oppression.
The Constitution does not form a collecive; the Constitution is an agreement between individuals with similar moral values. Ayn Rand states, "Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights - and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members" (150). Without individual rights, there would be no United States, there would be no Constitution. Communism and socialism aim to promote and sustain the common good through collective achievements. If your neighbor slacks off at work and you break your bakc, you will get a raise but so will your neighbor. A collective achievement would reward everyone equally, even though not everyone contributed equally. If the United States' military wins a war, we all get to be on the winning side, but not everyone receives a medal.
Let's scale things down a bit and examine the light bulb. Is the light bulb a collective achievement? Edison did not invent the light bulb on his own, he had people helping him. Unfortunately, we are going to have to simplify the story of the invention of the light bulb because Edison did not invent the first light bulb, but he did invent the first practical light bulb. Is Edison's invention a collective achievement if others helped him? Is my blog post a collective achievement? I did not invent or manufacture the computer I am typing on, I did not invent the internet nor do I maintain any servers, and yet not many people would argue that this blog post is my individual achievement.
The light bulb is the individual achievement of Edison, but it is also the individual achievement of the rest of his team. Edison paid his team, and each one of his team members can be proud of their individual achievement. The success of the light bulb depended on the talents of several individuals, individuals that cooperated under the banner of a dream that was shared, but also a dream that belonged to the individuals, not the group.
Your American dream may not match my American dream, and yet we both have an American dream. As individuals, we are free to pursue our own dreams to better ourselves. Often these pursuits lead to the betterment of our way of life, but the goal is not to better the lives of everyone, but to better the life of ourselves, whether it be through a monetary betterment (through product/service sales) or a convenience betterment (a letter opener instead of using your fingers). People may think they are acting to realize a collective achievement, but they are really acting to realize their own individual achievement. A sniper shoots an enemy combatant to save the lives of the rest of his unit, but the reason he wants to save their lives is because his life may depend on the individuals in his unit being able to do their jobs.
The reason collective achievements do not exist is because individuals act for selfish reasons and individuals should act for selfish reasons. Edison did not invent the first practical light bulb to make his team rich, but he was willing to pay the individuals for their worthy contributions. In war it is individuals fighting individuals; it is no different than Edison and his ligh bulb. The general enlists the infantry to help him realize his goal and he rewards them accordingly. The individuals are fighting for their own selfish reasons; maybe they want money, maybe they want to defend their individual freedoms, or maybe they enjoy killing. Whatever the reason, they are there because they want to be there. If they did not want to participate, they would find a way to dodge service or dodge the draft.
Collective achievements do not exist because the common good does not exist. The individual good does exist and therefore only individual achievements can exist. Anyone enlisting you to aid in a collective achievement is hoping to convince you to sacrifice your individual rights in order to achieve their individual goal. The definition of collective achievement is the "anonymous product of undifferentiated masses." Collective achievements are the same as slavery.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
No Left Turn On Red
*Note: In this blog, I am referring to roundabouts meaning the circular traffic junctions, not the method used by politicians to compose arguments.*
There is absolutely no need for a red left-turn arrow. We've all seen them. You're waiting to make a left turn, and the green arrow turns to yellow, and then instead of giving you the "Left turn yield on green," it goes right to a red arrow. So you sit and wait as there is no oncoming traffic for the next 3 minutes. You seriously consider turning, but you know, deep down, that the second you do, a police officer will whip out and pull you over.
What started this train of thought, and why I'm writing about it in a political blog, is that I was bemoaning the red turn arrow to a coworker, and eventually we got on the topic of roundabouts. He hates roundabouts, while I love them. He said that roundabouts are communist/socialist because everybody else has to sacrifice so that one car can make a left turn. I said that roundabouts where individualist because you were left to your own ability to make your turn. Stoplights are more socialist than roundabouts. You have to sit at a stoplight waiting for everybody else to go, while you wait for the government to change your light back to green.
OK, so Uncle Sam isn't sitting there with a switch to change the stoplights, but someone in the government had to figure out how to regulate that intersection, and install the device to change the lights. At the micro-level, the government regulates our travel everyday with stoplights. How do they get away with it? Under the guise of public safety. Now, I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be any rules of the road. If that were the case, we'd have to go back to walking everywhere.
The problem with 4-way stops is that most people who happen upon a 4-way stop are too dumb to figure out what to do after they've stopped. This gets exponentially more complicated with an increase in the number of lanes being forced to stop. Since I paid attention in driver's ed, and since I don't drive a Prius (or another variety of small car), I know when to go, and if it's not my turn, well, my SUV clears the way pretty fast. Naturally, the 4-way stop is the preferred system of the government. They want to force everyone to be equal, so everybody should have to stop at the intersection before proceeding on with their journey. Although if they had it completely their way, only white males would have to stop at a 4-way stop and the rest of the population would have a special bypass lane.
When the 4-way stop fails, the next step is to put in some very simple stoplights. Theoretically, everyone is still equal, because on a long enough timeline, everyone will have an equal experience with catching a green light, or a red light. But then you have people who think yellow is the same as green, so the government really can't allow that to happen, so then the stoplights become more complicated. Soon they'll have lights on there that tell you when you can blow your nose. The same is true of the auto industry. They make cars that will tell you when you're falling asleep, when you're drifting out of your lane, and cars that will even stop for you.
Think of that. A car that will stop when it senses an obstacle in your path. Your first thought might be, "Well that sounds awesome." But really think about it. What if you're in a parking lot and somebody is trying to rob you? You hop in your car, and they're right in front of you. Normally you'd drive right through them, but now you can't, because your car won't let you. It's that very simple difference, between safety and control. It could be as simple as a red turn arrow that doesn't allow you to make a turn you deem to be safe, or it could be a car that takes your driving control out of your hands and leaves you a sitting duck for thugs. Of course it's all marketed as the newest, coolest technology that will help make the world a safer place, but is a world controlled by the government a safer place?
I believe that a world run by individuals is the safest place, individuals who look out for their own interests first. That's why I like to see a roundabout, because it feels like a small victory for the individual. A roundabout, to me, is the government acknowledging that the best way to control that intersection is to leave it in the hands of the individuals. No green lights allowing some to drive, no red lights forbidding others to drive, and most importantly, no red left turn signals.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
There is absolutely no need for a red left-turn arrow. We've all seen them. You're waiting to make a left turn, and the green arrow turns to yellow, and then instead of giving you the "Left turn yield on green," it goes right to a red arrow. So you sit and wait as there is no oncoming traffic for the next 3 minutes. You seriously consider turning, but you know, deep down, that the second you do, a police officer will whip out and pull you over.
What started this train of thought, and why I'm writing about it in a political blog, is that I was bemoaning the red turn arrow to a coworker, and eventually we got on the topic of roundabouts. He hates roundabouts, while I love them. He said that roundabouts are communist/socialist because everybody else has to sacrifice so that one car can make a left turn. I said that roundabouts where individualist because you were left to your own ability to make your turn. Stoplights are more socialist than roundabouts. You have to sit at a stoplight waiting for everybody else to go, while you wait for the government to change your light back to green.
OK, so Uncle Sam isn't sitting there with a switch to change the stoplights, but someone in the government had to figure out how to regulate that intersection, and install the device to change the lights. At the micro-level, the government regulates our travel everyday with stoplights. How do they get away with it? Under the guise of public safety. Now, I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be any rules of the road. If that were the case, we'd have to go back to walking everywhere.
The problem with 4-way stops is that most people who happen upon a 4-way stop are too dumb to figure out what to do after they've stopped. This gets exponentially more complicated with an increase in the number of lanes being forced to stop. Since I paid attention in driver's ed, and since I don't drive a Prius (or another variety of small car), I know when to go, and if it's not my turn, well, my SUV clears the way pretty fast. Naturally, the 4-way stop is the preferred system of the government. They want to force everyone to be equal, so everybody should have to stop at the intersection before proceeding on with their journey. Although if they had it completely their way, only white males would have to stop at a 4-way stop and the rest of the population would have a special bypass lane.
When the 4-way stop fails, the next step is to put in some very simple stoplights. Theoretically, everyone is still equal, because on a long enough timeline, everyone will have an equal experience with catching a green light, or a red light. But then you have people who think yellow is the same as green, so the government really can't allow that to happen, so then the stoplights become more complicated. Soon they'll have lights on there that tell you when you can blow your nose. The same is true of the auto industry. They make cars that will tell you when you're falling asleep, when you're drifting out of your lane, and cars that will even stop for you.
Think of that. A car that will stop when it senses an obstacle in your path. Your first thought might be, "Well that sounds awesome." But really think about it. What if you're in a parking lot and somebody is trying to rob you? You hop in your car, and they're right in front of you. Normally you'd drive right through them, but now you can't, because your car won't let you. It's that very simple difference, between safety and control. It could be as simple as a red turn arrow that doesn't allow you to make a turn you deem to be safe, or it could be a car that takes your driving control out of your hands and leaves you a sitting duck for thugs. Of course it's all marketed as the newest, coolest technology that will help make the world a safer place, but is a world controlled by the government a safer place?
I believe that a world run by individuals is the safest place, individuals who look out for their own interests first. That's why I like to see a roundabout, because it feels like a small victory for the individual. A roundabout, to me, is the government acknowledging that the best way to control that intersection is to leave it in the hands of the individuals. No green lights allowing some to drive, no red lights forbidding others to drive, and most importantly, no red left turn signals.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)