Can I state for the record how much I *HATE* capacitive touch screens? I hope that when somebody searches Google for "Hate", "Capacitive", and "Touchscreens", my small blog post helps to register one more vote for the downfall of this awful form of Touchscreens. And this is because they SUCK. They REALLY, REALLY, REALLY suck!

For starters, you don't actually need to touch them to activate them. Unlike resistive touchscreens, which require a modicum of contact in order to activate them, Capacitive Touchscreens only require electrical capacitance, which can happen even when you're finger hasn't touched the screen. You don't have to touch the screen for it to respond! Sounds like it might be handy in a Sci-Fi kinda way, but in practice, it means that the screen has a mind of it's own and you're never too sure if it's on your side or not. With a resistance touchscreen, you actually need to PRESS it, resulting in real-world contact, and not electrostatic obscurity.

Secondly, FORGET about any form of precision when using capacitive touchscreens. Resistive touchscreens will always ANNIHILATE capacitive touchscreens because of a little thing called a Stylus! Now I know there are styluses out there that *claim* to work with capacitive screens, but I can tell you from personal experience, they do NOT. Also, the one I used was almost as thick and clumsy as using my own finger. Forget about skillfully touching a 10 pixel wide button, it's not going to happen. With a stylus, you have the precision of a mouse pointed. The contact point for a stylus is around 1 millimeter. The tip of my finger is well over 15 millimeter! It's at least 1/2 an inch. Even children's fingers are well over 5 millimeters across. Unless you're a premature infant, you're never going to be able to interact with the screen at close to the resolution it can do. Sure, if you're screen is 20" across, this might not be a huge problem, but what happens when you're finger is just 3" wide? My finger covers over %15 of the screen. Unless the buttons are as large as Preschool toys, you're NEVER going to be able to touch anything of use with such large pads. But you can with a stylus!

Now, I can appreciate the hard, less scratch prone surface of a capacitive screen. But what good is a scratch proof surface when it's also USER-PROOF?? A screen isn't there to just be looked at, it's there to be USED! And well style over function might be the motto of CERTAIN companies, I'm a "power-user" and I expect a piece of machinery to do what I need, when I need it. It can't just look pretty, it's got to WORK!

As for the matter of Multitouch, I have it on good authority that resistive screens can pull that off with no problem. Here's a link with a video....

http://www.umpcportal.com/2009/02/multi-touch-comes-to-resistive-touchscreens

A good example of the miserable failings of capacitive touchscreen is the Cowon S9. The Cowon is an AMAZING video and music player. And it also does something else amazing, it plays most low-end Flash games and content. You know all of those Flash games you can't get enough of? Well the Cowon can play them! Well.... kinda.

You see, the Cowon uses a capacitive touchscreen. And that screen is quite small, around 3 inches in size. And most flash games are aimed at computer monitors, which are far larger. So when you're trying to play the game, you often find important buttons that are just too FLIPP'N SMALL to be touched by a full size finger! Tap, Tap Tap... Nothing! So most of those games are unusable, despite playing wonderfully on the hardware. But all of them would be usable if there was only a way to touch small buttons...... like a STYLUS!!!!!!

Then there's my Palm Pre and Zune HD. Both of them have capacitive touchscreens and many applications. But whenever using the screen, it's often extremely hard to tell what's going on, because you're finger is covering the screen. Unlike a slender stylus, which you can easily use and see around, the human finger is about x10 to x20 as thick, not to mention the hand it's attached to. So touching a button requires you to temporarily obstruct the entire screen! Not a problem if you're clicking on a URL in a website. But a *HUGE* problem if you're playing a video game, or anything else that requires alot of quick button presses with any accuracy!

And don't even get me started on the IGNORANCE of people that say that resistive touchscreens aren't finger friendly. Only a MORON can't use resistive touchscreen correctly. Just tilt up your finger and use the tip! It's that EASY! These fools that have used capacitive touchscreens for too long forget that when you use a resistive screen, you need to use the end of your finger, instead of the surface. So they complain ad nauseum about how unresponsive resistive touchscreens are. MORONS! Just use your finger tip, it works excellently!

I believe that every person is born with a certain quality of "Potential". Now, I don't mean some esoteric statement about childhood development, I mean a scientifically quantifiable factor. Potential, the word I'm using for this paper, is Will x Power / Time = Potential. It's a physical force living beings exert on matter within the realm of time and space. Will is your ability to focus and see what needs to be done to achieve what you desire. Power is the physical forces you are able to bring to bare on that matter. And Time is the very finite resource you come into this world with. Together they allow living beings to overcome the Temporal Inertia that holds objects in their fixed Fate. Now my math is poor at best, so the equation needs some tweaking, but thoroughly believe that this is a quantifiable factor, which is used to influence the future of matter, as well as the destiny of the being doing it.

What I am also pondering is if there is some means to measure Potential directly. Of course, the Observer Effect is always a factor when dealing with objects over time. To measure a child and tell them that their Potential is high could have drastic outcomes on how they use their time. So to make an accurate measurement, you can't tell, or maybe even make aware later, that you have measured your specimen. The more ignorant your observed person, and the people they remain in contact with, the more accurate the results.

I'm thinking that there should be a small wake that follows around people with higher degrees of Potential then individuals that have less. Their very "being" in a location should cause an effect on random interactions on an atomic, or even sub-atomic level. A sort of change in the background noise. It would most likely be a small but constant change in the results you'd normally observe. Higher results would occur when moments of focus are used by an individual with high Potential.

Perhaps if the person you were observing was focused on something, like playing a video game, that required alot of focus of the mind with split second timing. Put them near one of the devices for monitoring random interactions on an atomic level. A microscopic, non-dangerous, radiation source being monitored could do the trick. Then place the same device further away from people. It needs to be as far away from current human interaction as possible. Even scientists knowing that it's there, exerts some influence on the device, but hopefully that will be minor. When dealing with time, even just looking at something can change the results to a degree. Comparing the two monitors should produce a minor, but constant change between the results of the two devices in the presence of someone with high Potential. This should give a quantifiable amount for "Will".

One positive outcome of this sort of experiments is not only to be able to measure "Will", but possibly help enhance it. One's ability to focus, see oncoming potential outcomes and choice a course that is most advantageous is essential to achieving positive results over time. Everyone from gamblers, to industrialists would love to know how to maximize their positive results. The ability to achieve higher states of Will could make that possible.

Of course, on a more academic level, it would be interesting to track the movement of Potential between individuals. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of Society and the Economy, people are essentially trading Potential constantly. Potential is quantified as money. You invest moments of your life to do someone else's Will. In return, you are given money, which allows you to exercise your own Will over things. This system isn't perfect by any stretch, and often Potential is traded in vastly unequal forms.

The issue with wasted Potential is how it's used. Certain activities have less or more value then others. People's Will has greater results under circumstances where their natural talents are best utilized, producing more Money in trade for their life's Potential. Creative people need creative outlets. Monotonous people need order and routine to be best used. So natural talents effect how effectively Potential is ability to be applied in an economic system. This might even be true for all applications of Potential, it's hard to say at this point.

But the grander vision I'm pursuing here is that Potential is like form of currency you come into this world with, and it is measurable. It's something people spend over their lives to get the results they want from the world around them. It's their level of influence over objects and people around them, when seen over their lives. And I believe it can be tracked.

Of course, to achieve this result, I would need to spend some of my own Potential in pursuit of this measurement. And perhaps, the result of seeing this effect, would in, and of, itself, have drastic effects on matter over time. So maybe it's not achievable at all by me, because I might lack the Potential to investigate something that could have such drastic influences on people around me. To drastically alter the lives of people around you, you'd need to exert allot of Potential.

It's hard to say what repercussions successfully proving my theory would have on myself. Fate might bend under Will over Time, but it has a nasty tendency to push back in rather unexpected ways. Ever heard of the term "Cursed"? It's just a state where negative outcomes are increased. And those people that have had the most drastic effects on humanity always seem to allot of misfortune follow them around. It's hard to say what might happen if you overreach your Potential and lack the Will to hold things in the place you want them. It could have dire consequences.

Tired of dating little boys yet? You know the kind... ironic tee-shirt, cargo shorts, baseball cap. Children. Maybe it's time to date a REAL man, with a job, ambitions, somebody you might have a future with. Don't blame men if you keep dating boys. You knew you didn't have a future with that man when you started dating him. He will Never change. What you have is never going anywhere. When he said he liked "Camping and the Outdoors", it was because he didn't have a place to stay. When he said he "Liked to Party", it's because there was NO other thoughts in his empty little head. And he IS sleeping around on you. You didn't think he was trolling MySpace looking for "Friends", did you? He's a CHILD, and you're too old for that ****. Leave him to the under-aged girls he's no doubt hitting on whenever you're not around. It's time to upgrade to a Real Man.

A decent woman has the self respect to actually expect a man to pay for a meal. Don't go "Dutch" on anything. That's weak sauce for bozo's that can't afford to be dating. And don't put up with a man that would get all grabby on a first date. No decent guy would date a woman that would accept that kind of behavior. A real Lady should have enough dignity to expect to be treated like a lady.

Divining is a process of doing something random, and looking at the results to interrupt answers and possibly the future. The process of divining seems absurd on the surface, and is steeped in superstition. But there is the possibility that it might work. In fact, there's even some proof.

One of the best examples of divining is divining for water. Experiments have shown that certain people have a relatively high success rate, well over random odds when it comes to finding water. This might be because nothing is more central to human life then water. Water is something that we need right down to our base level, life is impossible without it. So if any form of divining was to be successful, you'd have to assume water would be the first and foremost.

But how could something as simple as a stick find water? Or how could a set of bones tell give you answers? And what is that blue goo in a Magic 8-Ball? I don't know about the 8-Ball, but divining could work because of something central to intelligence itself, the effect human mind on the flow of time.

As I have suggested in other entries, the human mind seems to have a small ability to predict the future. It's rarely clear, probably because the fluctuations caused by seeing the future. The observer effect dictates that when you see something, you cause change to it. To see you're future is to change it, and there in, cause it never to be. This makes clear observation of the future pretty much impossible. But that doesn't mean small "feelings" might not get through without causing harm to future events.

You might have felt it yourself, during those moments when you knew something was going to happen. Or when feel your "lucky" and have success gambling. During these moments, you can feel the joy of your success before it happens. Likewise, you might have experienced a "bad" feeling, because you can feel the approach of negative emotions in your future. Simple feelings seem to have the easiest time slipping through the net of causality. Observing something directly causes it to change, but indirectly it seems, can avoid changing the event you're seeing well still providing forewarning of it.

Divining might take advantage of this simple feeling more directly. Instead of waiting for vague feelings, divining attempts to get people to do simple actions that they can subconsciously influence. The tiny changes in movement of the action open up a spectrum of possibly results, which the human mind might be guiding it's way through to give an answer covertly. It's as though you're aware of the answer on some level, and you're changing the results of the random event to give away the answer, without presenting it the answer completely. There in, the impact of predicting the event can be lessened, allowing some knowledge to get through without causing the future to also be changed.

In addition, there's the interpretation of the divining act to consider. If there is subconscious knowledge within people of future events, giving them something random to look at might help coax that knowledge out. And all without violating the integrity of the future by directly observing it.

Of course, this all hangs on something I've previously wrote about; what time is to the human mind. This theory ties into the concept that time is only a factor to our conscious mind. We experience what we believe is the present only because our conscious mind processes things in slices. It can't move forward in thought if the past isn't fixed. So our perception of the past is fixed. And it can't act directly on the future because of the observer principal. To observe something is to change it. If the future was always seen, it would be in a constant state of chaos. The flow of time would implode and our reality would dissolve. So to retain continuity, the future can't be seen directly. So our minds are stuck in the present on a conscious level. But really, within the dimension of time, we have already seen every moment of our birth to our death.

Side note:

This idea, on the surface, does seem to lean towards the idea of fixed destiny. But I would like to put forward the idea that it actually does not. The dimension of time should be thought of as any other dimension. Objects within it have inertia. They have weight within the flow of time, and head towards certain fates based on what pushed them. The "X" factor here is human will. I believe that people can change fate, and the movement of objects within time, by pushing against the enviable. As living beings expend the precious moments of their life, they can change the future of themselves and those around them. And the more people stand united to change something, the more time can be shifted onto another track. But to do so requires constant physical and mental effort. And like all things with inertia, time will attempt to retain it's fixed route, pushing and pulling back towards the original fate at a constant rate.

For an example, a man decides that he's going to change his life, switch jobs, and move to another place. But in doing so, he has to sacrifice his old life. He needs money to change, which he won't have without a job. And "things" start to crop up. The weight of his attempts to change causes fluctuation in the events around him. Maybe he meets a new girlfriend and find he'd lose her if he left. Or a family member gets ill and needs his help. Barriers will appear as he pushes against fate. The fall-out could effect many, and those effects will weigh back on him to stop his actions. Ultimately, he might give up, or break all bonds and move forward. But the people and objects tied to him all have their own weight in time, and have to likewise try to remain fixed. So an event that seems to effect just one life, actually effects many, and this man has to push all of those people, and the mass of objects, all in order to make a change happen.

So a simple choice comes with many consequences. But free will still exists, and fate is not really fixed.

It's pretty often I some comment on TV or in person, maybe in the lyrics of a song or some kind of news commentary, damning a good person with high morals for some slip up, or just blatantly casting dispersions without any substance at all. It seems to be rather in vogue to "damn the saints". Find someone of high character and dissect them until every possible flaw is magnified to such extremes as to make the subject seem to be some sort of heinous monster. But why? What drives this mad dash to prove the failings of others?

Jealously could be one factor, but I don't think it's the main cause. It's more a feeling of inferiority, caused by guilt. Those who spend endless time picking apart others seem to have a deep-seated problems of their own. Drugs and Alcohol, infidelity, lying, cheating, you name it. It's often very easy to see the flaws of these character assassins, be it the singer who preaches against the an elected official when their own past is littered with hookers and drugs, or the news commentator who's been married 5 times talking about infidelity of a minister. Those who caste stones typically have the large piles of rocks at their own feet, in the form of their own personal problems. These metaphorical rocks they caste are really their own problems they want to throw at others.

Sarcasm, apathy, cynicism, they are all forms of self defense. They are a way to deal with your problems by laying them at the feet of others. Of course, this doesn't solve anything. It only makes enemies, hurts others, and achieves nothing positive. It would make more sense for one to deal with one's own problems, rather then seeking out the flaws of others. But it's quite often the case that those with these problems refuse to let go of them.

I suppose, if you experience enough hardship and/or heartache, it simply becomes you. It becomes such a large, overwhelming facet of your being that it defines you as a person. You can literally lose yourself to depression, guilty, and suffering. Without it, you don't know who you are anymore.

If people want change, they have to be willing to let go of this burden. After while, it might seem like a pet or a badge of honor, but in reality, this kind of anger and pain is more of sickness that will only destroy you and hurt those around you. You've got to let go of it. And the first step isn't to lay it at the feet of others and accuse them of being responsible. The first step is to be responsible for it yourself.

Where is home? For too many of us these days, there is no real home. Long gone are the days when you could expect to have just one family home that you grew up. Most people have to move several times before they are adults. So the places you live in might not ever really have the time necessary to become "home". The longest my family ever stayed in a place was 15 years, with the shortest just a few months. The place where we stayed for 15 years sort of felt like home. But then I moved away, and then moved back, and then we all moved somewhere else, and soon it felt like I didn't have a home anymore. They were all just places where we stayed. Locations, not home. Even now, the apartment I live in by myself, for the last 3 years, doesn't really feel like home. It's just another place I'm staying. I'm never certain when I might move.

You know where I do feel at home? On my computer. It seems like that's the only constant I can cling to, my anchor in this world. As long as it's working and online, I feel like I have a base. Not only does it provide the very money I need to survive, but also alot of the personal connections I have. Now my computer is my home.

I have several computers, but my one, main desktop is my "home" computer. It's the only I really lean on. That is strange, in and of itself. All of my computers can access the internet and do the same things, but one of them feels more like home then the others. I guess the feeling of home is most connected to that which you rely on the most to anchor your world. And my desktop is that "home base" that I live around. Every other computer is more like a toy, since I don't rely on them. If they break down, I'm not troubled much by it. But when my desktop breaks down, I'm frantic. It's like the fragile anchor I've based my life on is shattered by the Blue Screen of Death, or some weird Disk Writing Error, that threatens the very core of my being. Sounds rather dramatic, eh? But as long as it's running, I feel all right. That might be why I never turn it off.

For people whom travel alot or have nothing at all, the concept of home is often reduced down to a thought or even a memory. It's possible to make your home out of a fantasy in your head of people and places. A thought you indulge in whenever you need some support and security. Such a home can never be taken from you, but it's lack of substance can make it fragile. Often these imaginary homes are anchored by some kind of memento. Just a little physical something you have that reminds you that this home is real. As long as you have that object, you know your mental home is real, and some sense, even that you're real.

I guess the concept of "home" is a constant that you build your life around. Be it a real location, or physical object, or even just an esoteric thought that keeps you grounded and stable in your mind. Something that makes you feel safe and secure, even if it's probably not. It holds you together and reminds you who you are. As long as you have that one thing, then all of the other chaos of the world can be dealt with in time. But without it, the crushing weight of the world could well overwhelm you.

I asked a psychology student today, "What is Crazy". Her responses was, "I know what is Crazy". Not exactly a clear definition. But then again, psychology as a whole isn't much of a clear science. Unlike other sciences that exist off imperial facts, psychology is defined more by society then by reason.

But under a more scientific light, what is "Crazy". Is it a detachment from reality? Is it an inability to blend in with society? Is it an inability to control one's actions?

A viewers of a scary movies often experience a detachment from reality, to the point where they jump when something scares them on the screen, or become paranoid after watching the movie of some kind of monster or boggy man that continues to stalk them like it did the characters from the film. This seems to be a rather sharp detachment from reality, but is acceptable because others have also experienced it as well. So detachment from reality seems acceptable as long as others have experienced the same thing, but unacceptable if nobody else has. This means that people that experience unique detachments are crazy only because nobody else has experienced what they feel. It's an interesting, if somewhat prejudicial way to look at things. Are we really to punish people for being unique? In psychology, that often seems to the case, because physiology is social motivated, rather then scientific.

How about the unwillingness, or inability, to blend in with society? This is always a volatile subject. How far out of society's norms should a person be allowed to act? If the actions are consciously driven upon by the individual, then it becomes an issue of personal expression verses social acceptability, which varies widely from region to region. Things like tattoo and dress can get a person into alot of trouble if the local population exercises alot of peer pressure against them. Of course, some people are completely incapable of acting like everyone else. Their actions always seem bizarre because they don't comfort at all to social norms. But really, should people be punished just for being different? This seems more a factor of local prejudice then an actual malady, depending of course, one if those actions harm another person. Then again, who hasn't seen a "Trespassers will be Shot" sign? Apparently, under the right circumstances, extremely anti-social behavior is acceptable, even to the point of death. It's all about what society is willing to accept.

How about the inability to control one's actions? Again, this seems to hang strongly on one's point of view. If you see something upsetting, it's considered acceptable to be angry about it. But becoming angry simply from a visual stimulus is an example of not being in control of one's actions. Certain things we aren't in control of at all, such as hunger and pain, so having those factors influence your actions is considered acceptable. Again this is because other people have experienced the same thing. Even killing and murder become acceptable, if other people agree that it is. Soldiers and Police shoot people, often people that don't pose any immediate threat to their lives, because they are told to do so. They aren't crazy or considered homicidal because their actions are justified by others, but people still end up dead, so the results are the same.

A man dismembers corpses in his basement, that's clearly crazy, right? But the man at the morgue does the same thing daily for slightly different reasons, and it's rational behavior. Is it "Rational Reason" make the autopsy a sane action? Hard to say, as what people consider rational is still set by society more then by the individual. The Slasher or Lone Gunmen might have plenty of rational reasons to kill people, in their opinion. These aren't likely to be reasons acceptable by others though. It's only the reasons for killing that society accepts that are considered sane and rational.

Psychology can seem like society's overbearing attempt to control individuals, but that doesn't mean it's without merit. Plenty of people seek out help from others to help mold their actions into something more desirable, not just by society, but by themselves. Compulsive behavior, bad dreams, irrational fears, these are all things that people actually seek out help to overcome. But really, this kind of help has existed since the dawn of mankind. From churches and temples, to bars and fraternities, people have sought out the help of others to control their own actions. A person with extreme dementia might have sought out an exorcist in the past, to purge them of their mental demons. And even today, a frightening number of people self medicate their problems away at bars. Who hasn't sought the comfort of a Beer when life's troubles get you down? Or Television, another popular source of self medication.

But overall, this makes psychology far from a science. It's more the current culture indoctrination of the exorcists of the past. Just another way for people to drive away the demons in their mind, when peer pressure and substance abuse fails.

On a side note, why do the people that study psychology always seem to have serious ego and personality problems themselves? That's something I'm still studying...

What is power? I don't mean scientific power, like a Watt or Joule. I mean human power within society. Human power is measured by your ability to get what you what. You're ability to influence things and people at your choosing. Is raw strength power? Certainly not by itself. If you have strength but choose not to use it, you have no power. Power is measured not only by your strength, but your willingness to use it. A small man with little strength exercises alot more power then a large man with great strength, if that small man is willing to do whatever it takes to get others to bend to his will, even to the point of self destruction. A man, willing to throw his life away for something, gains immeasurable power.

Of course, money is a large factor to power, as well as personal influence. But at the end of the day, your ability to get others to throw their lives away to suit your will is still the truest measure of power. You don't have to pull the trigger on the gun yourself, but somebody does, and this measures your power. Be it governor, dictator, or president, they all measure their power and influence based entirely on their number of men they can use to enforce their wills on others. Police Officer or a Soldier, power is still expressed through violence, or at least the potential of violence exercised on your behalf. This is what makes civilization possible.

But let's take this out of a global view of power, and back down to a personal level. This is something I've put a great deal of thought into, because women are attracted to power. The reason is simple enough, women want their children to have the best possible start in the world, and a father of great power will make that possible, as well as add his influence to her own. Of course, in their younger years, women often fail to recognize the greater power of money and influence, over that of raw strength and personal violence. A simple bully, willing to throw his life away over minor disagreements with others, has what appears to be power. Of course, in the long term, this anti-social behavior leads to perpetual poverty and, sometimes, prison. So this power is actually very limited and weak. What becomes apparent to most women, with a few years of experience and maturity, is that the more powerful man is one whom controls others *without* direct violence on his part.

But power as a whole is still very anti-social. Power requires you to crush others hopes and dreams if they are contrary to what you want. You don't have power unless you can bend others to your will. So even a business man, without any history of physical violence, still needs to exercise a form of social violence against others in order to have power. He needs to crush his competition, eliminate their ability to compete, and destroy their lives in ways far more lasting then just a black eye. If he doesn't, he doesn't really exercise alot of power. Because of the competitive nature of Power, if you don't exercise power, then power is exercised over you. You either control others, or you ARE controlled by others.

This leads to one continuing flaw of humanity; Only the most ruthless and moralless gain much power. But where does the peaceful leader stand in all of this? How does somebody like Gandhi factor into this situation?

The peaceful leader can only exist in conditions where the people he is standing up against lack the will to exercise violence. Gandhi is a good example, because of the inherently passiveness and good nature of the British people. If Great Britain had truly been a violence and heartless people, then a spray of bullets would have put down any insurrection in a heart beat. There were many men of Britain that did have such resolve and would exercise such violence to maintain their power. But these men required the support of the people of Britain to continue, no matter what they did, and those people lacked that kind of resolve. The people of Britain were progressively becoming more passive. They didn't have the will to commit vile acts in order to maintain their power, as they once had in the past. Improving living conditions and social activists made them soft. They grew sick of the endless bloodshed. So Gandhi was able to use the morality of the British people as a tool to undermine their power, and eventually achieve victory. Again, power is not only raw strength, but people's willingness to use it. And the will was simply not there to maintain Britain's hold over India.

Depending on others to back down in order to impose your will on them, or reject their control over yourself, is a noble means of pursuing power, but it's also highly flawed. There is no shortage of people without morality or restraint that would not hasten to commit vile acts in order to achieve their ends. And there are a small, clever, few whom manipulate the situation so they can commit their vile acts without violating morality in the eyes of others. They simply find means to justify their actions, or painting the victim as the aggressor. A small group of religious people in Waco Texas were exterminated, when they posed no threat others, nor actually did anything offensively. The justification of the American government was that they resisted, and the media helped to paint a picture of them as insane "cult" members. The government was then able to exterminate them without losing their moral stance, there by maintaining their power. Had the government not crushed these people, the power of "Law Enforcement" would have been rendered a serious blow. Again, power is maintained through violence. It is the only measure of power with any substance.

Coming back to my pervious point, Money is often considered Power. But the reality is that money is worthless. It only produces results as long as the power of those that print that money remain. If it wasn't for the guns of the police and army, that money would have no power at all. The strength and the unity of armed men, willing to kill on command, is what gives money it's power. The willingness to exercise violence is the only true measure of power. When two people disagree on something, and neither part is capable or interested in a compromise, it is the party willing and able to exercise the greatest violence that will get their way.

Of course, you don't actually need to hurt or kill anyone to have power. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Killing and harming people leads quickly to all kinds of repercussions. These can quickly undermine power, and resulting in far more lost then gain. Power is best used to intimidate. I suppose, to use a more popular modern term, this is Terrorism. The ability to inspire fear in others is how power is best exercised. The US government is a big user of Terrorism, by way of it's overwhelming military power and nuclear arsenal. This enables the government to exercise great power over the world, as well as maintain the value of it's money, as mentioned above. The ability to strike fear into friends and enemies alike is how power is maintained and used. When smaller governments and political groups use these same tactics, the US government is forced to crushed these threats to it's control with as much force as it can muster, simply to demonstrate that they are in charge and their power is to be feared above all others. The moral justification given after the fact are simply to maintain the general support of the population of the US, which has never been a particularly strong supporter of the violence, even if it's necessary to maintain power.

This is one strong disadvantage to a democratic government, is the constant need to justify the use of violence in order to maintain power. To this end, propaganda is essential to keep the public supporting the continued usage of violence. Again, power is not only a measure of your ability for violence, but your willingness to act. If a group like the US military is not willing to use their firepower to in order to threaten their enemies and friends alike, then it doesn't represent power. If a soldier backs down from killing a child with a gun, or blowing up an entire village to kill a handful of enemies, then it's true power is vastly reduced. This is the cost of power is always acts of evil.

There in lies the cyclical problem of the world. This is why wars never end. If you don't have power, you will eventually become oppressed by those that do. But in order to obtain and maintain power, you have to become ruthless about it. So, no matter how peaceful minded the people are, they are forced to due terrible things in order to have power, or be controlled by those that will. The only way peaceful people can continue to justify their actions is by self delusion. Usually this is the act of painting your enemies as truly evil, and changing facts to make your own actions look justified. And as the maintaining of power is a complicated and messy thing, it's unavoidable that these "peaceful" people are forced to do horrible things in order to maintain the appearance of power to others. This can even include killing their own people, just to demonstrate to the world that their government will not allow any form of opposition.

But bringing this all back down to a personal level again, the question I ask myself is, "Do I want power?". Power is a self-damning proposition, but it is the only means to get what you want from the world. How much would I sacrifice of my humanity to gain power? But then again, how much of my dignity would I sacrifice to others by allowing them to have power over me? This is the great balancing act of human existence. Do I harm others to gain control, or keep my humanity and by controlled by others. I'm afraid the answer is easy for the kinds of people that shouldn't have power. The more base and deplorable you are, the more power you are likely to covet. Isn't allowing evil people to gain power, itself, a crime against humanity? But can you really fight that crime by becoming a terrible person yourself?

In life, there are no easy answers.

Those who fight monsters should take care that they never become one.
-Nietsche

My loneliness is epic. I'm afraid it's unquenchable. There is no human being that can fill this intense need that dwell within me. My heart is an endless, bottomless pit. It swallow up all affections, destroys trust, and can't be filled. Love is a lost cause. My only choice is to face existence alone. If I can just shut out all desire, close my empty heart, maybe I can go on. I won't live, but I'll exist. As long as I can remain without hope, I can continue on. Fragile, volatile, and empty. Nothing will ever fill me. I will remain a hollow man.

The world of men has not always been such a peaceful place. I'm certain many people will balk at me saying this (assuming anyone DOES read this), but we live in quite peaceful times when compared to those of our past. A good example is the glorious civilizations of the past, like that of the Romans. Well, on the surface Rome was the pinnacle of human achievement, under that polished marble and bronze facade lurked a violent and blood thirsty people, who's capacity for carnage would terrify the mind of any modern man. Their idea of civilized politics always ended in somebody getting stabbed to death, beheaded, burned, poisoned, eaten alive, or countless other violent ends. And this was in the highest ranks of their society, so you can only imagine the constant threat of death that followed around everyone else. For all of their achievement, the Romans were rotten to the core as a people. Rome's destruction was ensured from it's inception, because it was built on lies and blood. The true glue that held Rome together was humanity's dream for something better, but it lacked the strength and resolve to achieve their such lofty goals.

But as we move forward, we see humans progressively pushing more and more towards justice and peace. There have been no shortage of set backs, but again and again something better was built on the ruins of destroyed hopes, until we reach the present. If the humans of the past possessed the same technology we have today, they would have destroyed themselves in an instant. Their capacity for bloodshed vastly dwarfs those of modern man.

I would hope that this movement towards peace would be a reflection of human evolution, but genetics fails to work so quickly. Also there have been too many instances where humanity has had the opportunity to regress. So what common thread has been pulling humanity forward? Religion. Buddhism and Hinduism in the East, Christianity in the West.

I'm certain more then a few people would decry this, in such pessimistic and anti-religious times. Religion's connection to politics, as well as morality, as made it the made it the lightning rod for rebellious factions of our society, such as those hoping for radical social change and the young. It is both labeled as ridiculous superstition, as well social oppression. And it's hard to argue these points, as it probably is both. But what does it repress?

Humans are a dichotomy of two forces. One is our biological mind, and the other is our logic. The biological minds cares not for good or evil, right or wrong, justice or terror, but instead is drive by moral-less base instincts. It is a creature capable of great compassion, as well as bloody violence. It's neither good or evil. It is our logical mind, the soul that makes a human a human. This is what demands something more. It's our logical mind that desires justice, peace, and a better future for our children. Unfortunately, the logical part of the human mind is just too weak to control the biological at this time.

Well some people possess the self control and determination to maintain control over their biological mind, most of the time, the vast majority of people find this very hard. It's not easy to justify NOT breaking the law, if nobody gets hurt. It's NOT easy for a man refuse the advances of a desirable woman, even if those advances would destroy a happy relationship with his existing spouse. There are many weak points in time, millions of small decisions that occur everyday, where there is no overriding, logical argument to defeat more bias human instincts. And those small decisions add up quite a bit.

For example, one man might bump into another and rudely walk away without a second look. This situation can quickly escalate into fighting, which often can result in permanent injury, or even loss of life. Loss of life can create the need for revenge and retribution, which leads to family or even community based feuds. If the violence escalates, large scale blood loss can occur. And this butterfly effect of violence is easily spurred on by bad economic times and emotional instability, which themselves can be brought on by other violent acts and social unrest. The compounding effect of violence, injustice, and anger can lead people to dissolve the ties of civility completely, leading unending violence, anarchy, and self destruction.

But just one moment of peaceful thought can hold back this tide of suffering. If there is just the tinniest pressure to remain in control at a moment of temptation for violence, this tide of self destruction can be stemmed. And just imagine what effect might be had if everybody had this tiny positive pressure on their actions every day, to avoid conflict and keep the peace, in all of life's tiny decisions. You'd get the reverse butterfly effect of violence, and have a society that constantly moves towards peace.

This the effect of religion. It is hope for something better then what really exists. Some could call it a self-delusion, and it might well be. But it's a anchor in times of conflict. It's a bit of illogic that helps the logical mind control the biological when reason fails.

People often look at religion as a barrier, holding them back from being truly free. And this is also true. It is a barrier for certain, and it does hold you back. But what does it hold you back from? Violence? Lust? Greed? Are these things people really want to be free to do? I'd hope not... but that's just a personal opinion, and not a point of discussion. The point is that people are correct to see religion has both a restraint on their actions, as well as illogical superstition. But it is both these properties that make it such a powerful tool in helping mankind achieve their true dream, which is a better world. It's not perfect, but in all of human experience, it's works the best.

Some people have used religion as a justification for violence, which is unfortunate. Conflict is a natural part of humanity, and in times of conflict people use any and all tools at their disposal, including hijacking faith, to achieve their ends. I personally find this deplorable. It isn't religion that creates conflict though, it's humans. People's desire for another man's land and wealth, as well as fear of being attacked for theirs, is what leads to all conflicts. This is the true basis for every war ever fought. Religion is just the bystander, caught in the crossfire. Religion becomes a tool strong armed into something that is quite contrary to it's original purpose. As the old adage goes, "The Winner of every War had God on their Side". It's sad that religion is always stolen by those in power to justify the means necessary to defeat their enemy. War is a soulless and amoral monster, that devours everything in it's wake. But religion has little, to nothing, to do with it. People's inability to take responsibility for their actions is what is truly to blame.