The Perfect Home for Supervillains and the Zombie Apocalypse Alike!

When preparing for worst case scenarios, a lot of money is needed to properly excavate and fortify a new fortress. Thanks to the disarmament of many nuclear missiles, it is now even easier! You can get your very own silo, complete with thick iron doors on a nice plot of land, starting at around $300,000! Why spend time and money trying to make your own fortress, when someone has kindly done it for you.

I always found the idea of owning a silo amusing, since then you would be protected nearly anything... and I guess have a nuclear ICBM previously occupying part of your place is kind of cool too. But then I realized it would be like living in a basement, but with less light. For those that believe the world is ending, are scheming to take over the world or wish to protect themselves from the zombie apocalypse may find comfort in the thick walls. If they are designed to protect you from the Russian missiles, I am sure a few zombies won't be much of the threat. Once your stuck there, then things will be far less exiting unless you decided to convert the silo into a rock climbing wall, or fill the bottom with water and make it a pool to dive into.

I think I will put of buying a silo and let the villains and paranoid have a chance to get them. Once the novelty wears off, it would be far less exciting unless you have a real use for them. Although as a zombie apocalypse looks more likely, the amount of these being sold, such as these http://www.missilebases.com/properties will be harder to come across. So if you have high hopes for that or are developing your own zombie infection, they would be a great investment, but otherwise just leave them for the villains and their evil schemes.

Piracy and Digital Rights Management

For those of us that don't have a TV or missed a show when it was aired, the next best way to watch the show is online. There are a few ways of getting them:

1) Buy a download through sites like iTunes or Amazon

2) In the US, some sites (like Hulu) will stream the show if you watch a short commercial midway through

3) Torrents

4) File sharing networks/streaming from a sharing site

If you are willing to pay for a download of the show, the problem that comes up is Digital Rights Management (or DRM). Although it was meant to protect the show from being shared on file sharing sites, the consequence of that is that you can't share it with Anyone. So for those of us who want to buy a show to help support the company (or for those who didn't realize you can stream shows for free) and share it with our family or friends, we can't. So if I was to buy a show that me and my dad watches, he has to buy the same show or find it somewhere else to get it for free if he does not want to pay a second time. I fail to see how this would encourage people to continue to use this method to watch shows. This also means that if multiple computers are used, the computer often has to be "authorized" such as what is done on iTunes, to allow the media to be played. So while the company is hoping to make more money by having more control over who is able to view the content and to keep it from being shared over the internet, they are also losing paying customers at the same time.

So in order to encourage people to buy their show, they add restrictions to them?

On the other hand I do not mind watching a short commercial in order to stream a show, such as what is done on sites like www.hulu.com , but the problem is that you have to live in a certain area in order to see them. While on Youtube watching a 15 second ad is a long time to wait for a 2 min video, watching a 30 second ad for a 20+ min show I do not find unreasonable. This has begun to catch on more and more in other countries, such as CTV.ca in Canada, but is still uncommon enough that many shows cannot be watched this way.

Now on to the area where copyrights are usually infringed, and that is in the world of online file sharing and torrents. Often once a the production company discovers that a show or movie is being shared, they request the host site to remove it. There is usually little consequence for the person that posted the media, but production companies have been lobbying governments to add new laws so the people that post these can be fined. There are more restrictive laws that are attempted to be pushed through governments, such as Bill C-11 in Canada which adds more digital locks to media or the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States which would allow the production companies to block and fine the sites that have copyright infringement. I have read through them myself but not in enough detail that I can probably make a valid point here.

So as consumers slowly move away from traditional media sources such as TV and radio and move more into the online world, the way media is received by consumers and profited by companies changes. While the main source of income was, and still is, advertising. The way the companies are trying to earn more money is still changing. When companies like Hulu started to try to get companies to post their content online, it was a difficult process that production companies were reluctant to get involved in, but now is becoming more normal. If they find other ways to earn money online, many of these restrictive laws may not have to be put in place which will help consumers as well as help companies keep a positive image. Although I am against many of these new laws, until alternate solutions are found they will be attempted to be pushed ahead.

Tragedy of the Commons

For one of my university classes, I had to read an article about the Tragedy of the Commons which happens if enough people take more than there share of a common resource, an easily sustainable resource will get depleted. This works for things like air pollution in cities (how can 1 gas guzzling SUV really cause that much pollution?) and littering in parks.

Although the article was originally discussing how people need limit the growth of population all around the world, much like China is doing, so we don't exceed the Earth's carrying capacity even more, the same idea how 1 more child or 1 more car cannot affect anything applies. People have always tried to come up with technological solutions to fix our problems when sometime the solution that has the fastest acting and largest impact is to change behaviour. Although making cars more fuel efficient has greatly helped with air pollutions, if people were to stop driving and were to use bikes or mass transit the impact would be significantly greater.

While a couple countries that have dictatorships use oppressive force to change people's habits, for many other countries the market price of a good is a large influence. While a few may drive smaller cars to help cut back on air pollution, the largest influence on reducing driving is the increase in gas prices. What used to be a small cost to get around places and was largely unnoticed except for a few times in recent years such as the oil embargo, the rising cost of fuels has had a much larger impact on getting people to combine trips for shopping as well as carpooling and just avoid driving (myself included) because it would cost more than to be wasteful.

One person can make a large big difference. Many people do not vote in elections since they think that 1 person cannot change anything. Sometime just a few votes can make the difference of who is in charge.

While 1 individual may have little power, but a large group of individuals that believe in the same thing can change the world.