change

'First, Do No Harm' in the context of society gives me, "I wish to create a world that I don't have to apologize for." That's impossible. Something will always be screwed up, but minimizing those screw ups can lead to a better world. When applied to just about everything, it's a good guiding philosophy to approach anything with. The idea is to improve upon what is.

People who claim or aspire to some form of digital revolutionary status often forget that the methods by which they act define the world should they be successful - or fail. That sometimes means that there should be restraint. Sometimes that means that there should be patience. It always means picking the appropriate battle. It never means protest for the sake of protest - there has to be a tangible result that one wishes. And the key questions that should be asked is: "How does this make the world a better place?" The end does not always justify the means if the end is to have an ethical aspect.

Some examples:

• One cannot expect Free Speech or any other rights while taking those Rights from others, no matter how justified you may feel.
• One cannot install democracy by failing to practice democracy.
• One cannot expect tolerance if one has no tolerance.

If one is in a battle, picked or not, the way one fights that battle affects how all future battles, small or large, are fought. And that, in and of itself, affects whether the world is better or worse place.

If you have only a hammer, be aware that not everything is a nail. Be aware that building something of worth makes something of less worth less than relevant. Be aware that attempting to destroy something of little perceived worth does not replace it.

Be aware. If you want to make the world a better place, how you do it defines whether you will be successful or not. A terrorist makes a statement, a revolutionary creates a better world.

Driving down the Solomon Hochoy Highway, I get a call from another life - asking me what I'm doing. 'Driving on the highway'. I'm asked if I'm going to a conference in Hungary related to information technology.

I read somewhere, long ago - I think it was in Scientific American - that they had found that the drop of water that hits the surface does not mix with the water it hits, instead bouncing because of the surface tension. There were photographs, and I believe it was a blue drop of water bouncing off of red water - something that most people wouldn't find interesting, but something that is when it is considered. The drop that creates the ripple does not get absorbed until if falls back again - when the ripple has already started across the surface.

Change bounces on the surface tension of the status quo. Rippled might cause the surface area to increase and also the angle of incidence of the drop to the surface to change until the drop is absorbed. A secret life of a water drop. For a drop to have an effect, it does not have to become a part of the system... it must only bounce. And by bouncing, the status quo is changed enough for the change to be absorbed. This isn't something that I have studied in a laboratory, but I imagine that it is true after watching many drops of water closely over the period of my life.