The Scariest Computer Company

Take a guess! I am sure many of you will have the same answer with me! I am sure many will also answer differently. My guess most people will think that Apple with its cult-like devotees. Others will think it is Facebook because it is the main threat to our privacy. Or the old hegemon, Microsoft, who still ruled the OS Market of desktop and still big as hell. Nope, they are not the scariest. You can guess now which company I am talking about right?

No contest. It is Google.

Yes, Google is even scarier than Apple, Facebook, & MS. Here is why:

1) Can you avoid Google?

I never buy or use any Apple product. Result: I save tons of money! Hurra!

I use Facebook all the time, but I can imagine I never use it anymore. On some busy days, I didn't touch Facebook for the whole day and nothing bad happens.

Oh Microsoft? 10-15 years ago it was impossible to avoid, but now you can use MacOS or Linux or Unix to avoid Windows; Open Office or Libre Office to avoid MS Office; Opera, Firefox, Lunascape, and many other browsers to avoid Internet Explorer, etc.

Try to avoid Google. Everyday I use Youtube, Google search, Gmail, Google Book, Google Scholar, and Google Translate. Millions used smartphones powered by Android. Millions depend on Google maps. NO FREAKIN WAY we can avoid Google in totality even only for a day.

2) Has Google failed spectacularly?

Apple lost its market share in the 1990s. Steve Jobs was fired during that era. More recently, Apple Maps sucks. Steve Jobs renaissance is great for Apple, but after his death, Apple surely lost its mojo, and I don't expect them to be as successful as his time. Not scary.

Facebook spend 1 billion Dollar to buy Instagram. Their business model is questionable at best. They only manage to make money recently. Not scary.

Microsoft Zune crash and burn, while Microsoft Windows slowly lose its relevance. Not scary at all.

Let's see ... GoogleTV failed ... that's it? Is there any other notable fail from Google? Not that I can think of! Wait, wait, I know, what you think, Google+ is Google's most spectacular failure right? Check #5.

3) Has any of them capability to watch your house 24/7?

Microsoft try to do that with their Kinect 2.0 in Xbox One. It failed spectacularly because of the massive boycott and protests. Google will try to do that. They just buy Nest Labs, you know, the company that makes smart thermostat that monior your house 24/7 and send the data to the internet. No one protests so far (How can they protest?). That's only make argument #1 even scarier.

4) Has any of them buy a military robot company?

Yes, that sounds just like Terminator's Skynet, but that's a fact. Google bought Boston Dynamics, a military robot maker. They are the only tech company not only with the capability to monitor everything, but now with the potential to enforce their control over everyone, including the government.

5) Has any of them build "The Matrix"?
What about Google+? Google screwed-up big time there right? They are far from defeating Facebook, and Youtube users screamed about its intrusion in Youtube right? We actually get it wrong. Google+ is not really geared to defeat Facebook. It is totally geared to create one umbrella online identity. They want to control your online life. In short, I am totally agree with one Guardian article that says Google + is "The Matrix".

So sorry if I just scare you shitless, but hey, better be aware of this danger now! Awareness is the first step in solution right?

Melissa Bachman and Hunting

US TV presenter, Melissa Bachmann posted her hunting photos in South Africa. Then, tons of people are screaming about that. Some in the comment section of any article about that even wish her dead. Thousands sign a petition to ban her from entering South Africa.

First, let me start with a disclaimer: I HATE HUNTING. I am not interested in shooting animals! I never, and will never ever hunt anything to spend my freetime!

How to pay the bill?

At the same time, I know that running a National Park is extremely difficult and expensive! Especially in Africa, where tons of heavily armed poachers roam freely. At the same time, millions live in abject poverty nearby the park. At the same time, local governments there ... okay, no need to say anything about them. That means, a national park in Africa is far more expensive and difficult to run than a national park in a 1st world country. The situation is of course a little bit better in South Africa, but it is definitely far worse in other poorer African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, etc.

That means, national parks in Africa needs to pay more bills. They need to buy, install, and maintain miles of fences. They need to hire, equip, and pay lots of park rangers with guns to deter poachers. In many (or all?) African countries, they can expect less helps from their government. The park needs every single cent they can get! And surprise, surprise, hunters pay thousands of Dollars for the hunt! Thousands of Dollars that can be used to pay their bills! Check this list from South Africa as an example of hunting fees: African Sky

Criticizing Melissa Bachman means deterring the hunters to hunt in general, specifically in Africa. Stopping those hunters from hunting means stopping thousands of Dollars cashflow to the national parks. That will make the conservation far more difficult than today's condition, to say the least.

Overcrowding
Then national parks also have overcrowding problems: too many animals inside the national park.

What? That sounds nuts, how come there are "too many endangered animals"? The problem is, national parks have limited space. Animals, especially big one, needs space to provide food and water for them, to provide roaming area, in general: to support them, that means the limited space of national park can only support limited numbers of animals. Small herbivores like antelope and warthog can be controlled by the carnivores, but what about a top predator like lion? Or enormous herbivore with no predator like elephants? Once they are comfortable (the goal of any national park) they will breed, their numbers will grow exponentially. Too many elephants will devastate the grass and trees, killing small birds and rodents, and start a domino effect on the ecology. Too many lions will devastate the herbivores, starting another domino effect. So, what is the solution?

Relocation -> Moving the surplus animals to other place. It is difficult and expensive. The animals can be stressed and die because of it. Plus, for some animals, there are not enough demand, i.e., no place to be relocated.
Contraception -> Limiting the number of birth. This is another method. It is not as difficult and expensive as relocation, but it only solve the problem in the long run. National parks need immediate solution to solve this problem right now!
The last option is of course killing the surplus animals. If you expect that every killing done by veterinarians, you can also expect that the park receive far more bills. If you expect the ranger to shot the animals, then we return to the initial problem, plus unlike hunters, park rangers don't pay the park for the kills.

That means, license hunting is a solution for overcrowding! Let those hunters kill the extra animals, designated by the park! That means hunting actually solve two problems with one shot!

No wonder the national park defends the hunters. Good!

Conclusion
In the end, it boils down to two options:
1) Stop the hunters, depraving the national park of the fund, and take from them one tool to solve overcrowding problem, therefore endangered the whole park, the whole ecosystem, and killed many animals.
2) Let them hunt and kill some animals, let them pay for what they have done, therefore supporting the park both financially and ecologically.

Yes, that means "animal lovers" have to choose between two evils, but that is just the facts. Life is not always easy, we have to take tough, difficult choice. C'est la vie.

Suggestion

Of course those options are the current option. I have the 3rd option, but this is the hardest one.

Here is my suggestion to "environmentalists" or "animal lovers" who love to equate those hunters with Lucifer: donate thousands of Dollars to replace them BEFORE you scream with a bullhorn. Not only now but routinely like the hunters do. Oh, you need to pay even more as a compensation for any overcrowding. Devising a cheap-humane solution for overcrowding will also be very helpful.

Oh, you can't because you don't have money? You don't know how to solve their problem? Then, SHUT UP, and stop obstructing the conservation! Yes, it is counter-intuitive to say that hunting may save more animals than animal lovers, but that is objectively what happens here since hunters pay the conservation bill, while environmentalists scream to stop them! 

What? You don't like people killing animals for fun? I thought protecting the animals is more important than our ego? The fact stands: those hunters pay for conservation and help them solving the overcrowding problem while the animal lovers work hard with love to stop the hunters! Hey, I got news for you: love alone doesn't pay the national park bills! Love alone doesn't solve the overcrowding problem! So sorry to point this out, so sorry to prove objectively that your hated "animal killers" actually help more than you do, but painful truth is far more useful than comfortable falsehood.

By the way, I am not surprised with this nonsense. Private ranches in Texas are the only hope for scimitar-horned-oryx survival. They got their money from the hunting licenses there. Guess what,they experienced this bullcrap. What can be a win-win condition between survival of a magnificent species and hunters is ruined by some holier-than-thou treehuggers. 


Last words, I think this quote is fitting to close this writing:
"The truth will set you free ... but first, it will make you miserable!"

Other article:
Elephant overcrowding problem
Lion overcrowding problem

Freedom and Responsibilities

After the US government shutdown, the fight between liberals and conservatives intensifies!

But seriously, they are not really different. Here, I will put 2 examples where both sides deep down is actually basically the same:

1) Example one: military conscription/Draft

Most Liberals-Hippies join Libertarians from the right in this case: SAY NO TO CONSCRIPTION! Say yes to 100 % volunteer army! Freedom from the military! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of these hippies want to join the military? Their idea about collective security is: "Let other die to protect this nation state! I can spit on the military all the day, while receiving no penalty for being a security parasite!"

2) Example two: universal health care

This time, most conservatives join Libertarians: SAY NO TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! Say yes to 100% free market & charity (read: voluntary) based health care! Freedom from socialism! Oh, by the way, have you noticed that none of them want to help fellow Americans in health related financial trouble? Their idea about health care is: "WHAT? I have to pay more so other can have the chance to survive horrible diseases? SCREW THEM, LET THEM DIE!"

Extra Example: The Libertarians!

And finally of course you also have the Libertarians who are the disciples of Ayn Rand, whose idea about humanity is "everyone is a an egotistical-heartless bastard. I am only better in the sense that I am aware of this fact." They logically cheer up deaths! Hey, more deaths means less OTHER heartless bastards, that means less competition, and more benefits for ME! MORE FREEDOM BABY!

So, AMERICANS, stop all the fighting! You are all jerks, speaking about freedoms while in essence you want to act as irresponsible as possible. So, let's sing kumbaya together and celebrate your jerkiness and irresponsibility! 

God Tropes, Video Games, and Other Stuffs

You know, there is a vast conspiracy to perpetuate the grip of religion among humanities. A conspiracy to strengthened the grip of the clergies. Video games are part of it.

God Tropes in Video Games

Listen to me, how many times you play video games where in the end we discover that God is exist in some form? How many video games concluded that there is no afterlife? No even worse, most video games actually is ABOUT the fight against or for God, and about the afterlife.

This is an evidence that video games conspire
against not only atheism, but also secularism!

Here, let me list some examples:

• In Asura's Wrath, not only we play as a Demigod, the existence of "Naraka" or "Hell" is an important plot point.
• In God of War, we fight Olympus Gods, and become God itself.
• In many, if not most, RPG games, we fight in a quest to fight a demon-God, or fulfill "destiny".
• Even worse, in Civilization V, the states actually CREATE religions! That means they 100% indoctrinate the player to support theocracy! Don't let the social policy "secularism" fools you, the state still build the shrines, temples, mosques, cathedrals, etc. Can you believe that, public assets is used to finance construction of religious centers?
• Some most recent popular video games doesn't address this issue at all. For example, God and afterlife is irrelevant in Call of Duty or Battlefield series. But don't let them fool you! Absence of evidence is not the same with evident of absence!

Those examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Q.E.D., the whole video game industry conspired to repressed atheism.

Whining

Okay, step back, what do you think about my writing? I bet you thing that is just plain RIDICULOUS or STUPID or BATSHIT INSANE, or all of that. 

I can hear you complain "DUDE, CONSPIRACY THEORY IS BULLSHIT!!"

I can also hear you complain "Dude, stop being a whiner."

Hell yeah!

I wrote that piece by emulating Anita Sarkeesian approach. You know, "Everything is patriarchy conspiracy to undermine women" approach. Or should I say "I am a hammer therefore everything else is a nail" approach. I just switch patriarchy with religion, and women with atheism. 

Dear Ms. Sarkeesian, stop it. You, basically, are WHINING that the patriarchy is repressing women. Your whining actually empowered one of the bad stereotype of woman: all women are whiners. This stereotype is strongly connected to the trope you discuss: women are weak therefore need to be saved by men.


Badass Women
Your whining actually distract the public from badass women. You know, women whom you should put more attention to, in comparison with video games. Women like Hawa Abdi from Somalia who faced gun touting Somali militias. Women like Lyudmila Pavlichenko from Russia, who terrorize her countrie's invaders with her snipe. Women like Rukhsana Kauser who actually turned the table on some misogynist terrorists who tried to brutalize her family.

Those badass women prove that women are strong, intelligent, and able to rescue men. You don't help changing social stigma of your gender with your Youtube whining. Please, stop it, for your cause's sake.

Oh, playing the video games yourself (not only posting other's "Let's Play" video), or AT LEAST give some attribution to the original creator, will also help your cause tremendously. Stop hurting your case further.