Everywhere around us the buzz is out. the newest gaming tech or computer feat flies through the media dominating whole sections of popular news broadcasting programs and controlling an astonishingly large portion of the Internet's emerging news source as well. The release of Microsoft's Kinect brought with it over 10 million purchases within 10 days. according to Robotic Nation by Marshall Brain "Human brains are thought to be able to process at a rate of approximately one quadrillion operations per second. A CPU in the 2040 time frame could have the processing power of a human brain, and it will cost $1,000. It will have a petabyte (one quadrillion bytes) of RAM. It will have one exabyte of storage space. An exabyte is 1,000 quadrillion bytes. That's what Moore's law predicts". Creativity will allow the expansion of technology to continue endlessly as is shown with this Coke powered phone.

     The bottom line is this: what does this really mean to me?  Some argue it will create a disengaged, lazy, un-educated, un--fulfilled, and regressive society; as in D. Keith Shurtleff's The Effects Of Technology On Our Humanity. Others firmly support that it enables us to overcome other problems, reach new levels of success, and evolve as a species. However, it would seem very few have proposed solutions to the possible problems. In fact, the majority of articles on the Internet even admit we are wasting our time complaining about this ambiguity when we could create solutions.

     I propose that every problem does in deed have a solution. There are three basic types of problem solving that can be employed in every situation: yours, mine, or ours. Based on this principle, three clear solutions exist for you personally and this challenge as well as society as a whole:

     One: accept technology for what it is and can be.  This is what most of us in first world nations have decided to do. Regardless of what it may do, technology is currently helping each and everyone reading this blog. We rely on it and thus, bestow faith in it. going back to the optimistic approach to the problem itself, this solution is basically stating that there is no problem, and that if there were, technology would help us solve it anyway.

    Two: Ban technological advancement. Although drastic, this method is justified with a little bit of research into the science and truth behind situations like i-robot or Matrix. The only effective path for which this solution has application is on a personal scale. The reality is that the capitalist mindset governing most of the economic power of our world today does not permit such a drastic and "non progressive" methodology. Thus, this approach would manifest itself in lifestyle choices similar to that of a monk.

     Three: Find the middle ground between technological revolution and the human condition. Perhaps we do not need robots to clean our houses and cook our meals. But on the other hand, who doesn't appreciate the powerful effects of information technology in the areas of politics, art, science, medicine, education, and recreation?

   However annoying it is to hear: compromise is inevitably better than extremes in almost every real world scenario. So, take a shower manually, turn on your iPod with the touch of a finger, and walk out the door to enjoy your balanced lifestyle

Modern Music

     Hipster: "a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter"
          -Urban Dictionary

      We all have one or two friends who pride their individualism above all else. Often using it to mentally place themselves above the "culturally-sheltered mainstream society". Once or twice we too have claimed to be totally "in" to something obscure or unknown to seem cool or "in the know". More often than not, this thing is our music; the most massively produced art in the world.

      Even more often than that, one frequently claims dis-interest in mainstream. We reject it as "too typical" or holding to the idea that it requires no talent. Music, just like every other art, is subjective. That is to say that everyone has their own personal taste when it comes to auditory art. Music is meant to be appreciated; made to please the ear and alter the emotions of the listener. There lies the catch twenty-two of art. The "goodness" of something is most commonly measured in how well it achieves its purpose. So how can we tell what music is good or bad? Many argue that it is not possible or necessary to dictate which music is better, often claiming it is like "comparing apples to oranges".


     First, I would like to suggest to the reader that it is indeed possible to compare apples to oranges. To do so, one must state a value and criterion to measure the achievement of such value. In the case of music why not make the value happiness? This seems a perfectly good value as it is arguably the purpose of all that is "good". So, now for the tricky part; how do we measure happiness? The reality is that music which more people like clearly provides the most happiness.


   Here lies the rub, music these days has a backside, another value, a more obscure/variable criterion: cool. Music needs to be "cool" these days. A new science has emerged because of it; one that dominates in art, culture, and technology. This sport is known as "cool hunting". Cool hunting involves polls, studies, and social engineering, all centered around people ages 12-20. The new generation of young people will be more studied than any other group of people in history (this includes Roman, Greek, British, and Asian empires). Ironically, the biggest enemy of cool hunters is themselves. This is because once they find cool, they sell it. And sell it and sell it and sell it, until everyone has it. Then it is no longer cool. The self destructive nature of cool hunting goes back to the first article of To Be Considered: Push and Pull. We want what is unique, harder to obtain.


So, is it fair to say mainstream is not as good as Indie? Or that we should all adopt a taste for the same "manufactured music"? It depends on what you value. As far as determining which one is better, a value debate is in order. To determine the better of apples and oranges, we must first decide which aspect of the fruits we are judging.

Short Hours

   Whether the deadline for that new project is intimidating, or you have to get up and go to work, time is always running out. Who can count the innumerable amount of "time management" books out there, designed to teach us how to handle our minutes and hours in such a way as to magically make them multiply.

     The reality is; time is finite. At least, yours and mine is. Since the dawn of time man has tried countless times to overcome death. The pyramids, much of religion, literature contributions, and medicine have quite often been the outcome of an individual or group effort to outdo time. Stephen Hawking has proposed that due to an inherent limit in attainable velocity, one may travel forward in time, but never backwards. He claims that it may be possible to accelerate our rate with which we go through time. However, not even Stephen Hawking was capable of creating a world where we are able to percieve time at a more rapid rate.

     It would seem that we will never be able to input more than our fare share of data into our consciousness. On the other hand, we all experience a slowing and quickening effect of perception every day. how long does it take for an hour to go by when you are inputing data into forms on a computer screen? How long does an hour take when in a situation of great joy such as catching up with a long lost friend? the answer to both of these questions is technically the same one hour timespan. However, we do not perceive them as the same.

     Mathematician and physicist Ron Kurtus explains: "It is well known that time seems to go faster when a person is having fun or when the person gets older. This could be explained by the fact that the person is not paying that much attention to time. Likewise, during an accident, the person's concentration on what is unfolding is great, thus making the perception of time slow down."

    How does the idea of differential time perception apply to the individual? The implications are uncertain and definitely un-researched. Unfortunately, time is still an unexplainable phenomena. Many theorize that it is in fact the fourth dimension. Perhaps the easiest and indeed, only method of time travel is, in fact, our own mindset. The saddening truth is that if you truly want more time, you have to watch the clock meticulously. By doing so, you might realize how much time you really have.

Push and Pull

     Everyone knows of "the one who got away". At some point or another we, as human beings, want something. We desire to obtain a person, an item, a position, a piece of information. The problem is, we can't always have what we want. More importantly than rejection itself is what it does to the rejected party.

     What do you want more than anything else? what is the "would be light of your life"? Is it that new luxury convertible? or perhaps the bombshell in the cubicle over? Here's the rub: is that thing easily obtained? Almost always the answer is: no, it is not. Why is that? Here is the reason: people want what they cant have.

     Many are aware of the classic little brother "reverse psychology" scenario; the big brother wants the little brother to stop copying him so he says to his brother: "keep copying me please. I love the way it sounds like an echo". The little brother immediately stops copying him. This is because suddenly, he is supposed to copy his brother and it is no longer fun anymore.

     As funny as this is, listen to what helium blogger and professional writer, Paul Lines has to say: "In reality, the desire to want what we cannot have is something that has been embedded within the human psyche since man first walked the earth. The desire to be an equal, if not superior to others, is something that has always been with us. Look at the wars that have occurred because leaders wanted what they could not have, therefore decided to take it by force."

     So what does all this mean? It means we have cleverly created a malicious disease of the mind whose soul purpose is to keep us from being happy. We created it to give us an excuse. An excuse for why we cannot possibly be content. how much attention does one get if he/she were to never complain, not once vent about what they want, never show desire for the unattainable. Thus we devised this mental conditioning to keep everyone trying to get more.

   Who is to blame? The truth is there are countless sources for our feelings of inadequacy: the media, peers, boredom, a cutting edge based society, and the need for self achievement are among the top reasons.  Instead of focusing on pointing fingers, perhaps we ought to examine a solution.

   To sum up the purpose of this article, I leave you with this challenge: next time you are about to say "if only..." stop. Stop and consider, why do I need this? why do I want it? could I be just as happy without it? The answers might surprise you.