Do we control technology, or does it control us?

Do we control technology or does technology control us?

ROBOTS TAKE OVER THE CITY!!!!!!!!!
Does that sound a lot like technology controlling the world? Now that is a bit exxagerated as technology can control us in more subtle ways. Take using the internet for research. What happens if the internet collapses and the fabrics of websites get ripped to shreds? Would you be able to get convienient research? We are sometimes, so reliant on technology if techology is not accessible, we cannot get anything done. Actually, technology can be even classified as simple things like knives, books, picture frames, and stuff like that. So we are in a world of technology, and it is impossible not to use any. Even basic wheels and plastic containers are technology, however primitive, so we are heavily reliant on technology. This is a small form of controlling. There is another scenario. In a way, technology is used to kill. Guns, machetes, nets, guns, grenades, bombs, guns are all technology. If technology advances way too quickly, new ways of killing, biological weapons, can all be found. So even though, we are able to control the growth of technology or technology itself, manifested in the forms of things, it is easily able to control us.

I am lying. True or False?

To this philosophy there are two ways of explaining, one the direct way and the other the Push-out-all-your-thoughts-that-do-not-make-sense-into-a-single-blog-prompt way.

So at first we will try the Push-out-all-your-thoughts-that-do-not-make-sense-into-a-single-blog-prompt way. (If you don't like meaningless explanations just skip this)

I am lying. True or False. Well, If I were to say it were true, then I would be lying as in that statement, I told the truth. But if I was in fact telling the truth, ignoring that fact, it means I am lying on that statement. But If I lied about me lying, I would be telling the truth which is contradictory as I am lying. So even if the statement is false that means I am telling the truth. But I cannot be telling the truth because I am lying. Which brings me to my next statement, about lies and truths If you are telling the truth about a truth you are telling the truth. If you are telling a lie about the lie you are telling the truth. So what does this say? If this statement is true its false and if it were false its true. So my final answer is... ah i forgot again. Never mind just move on.
____________________________________________________________________

An better explanation

First for starters lets look and think about the statement. When you look at a lie maybe something like we call Cinda (first thing away from register 26) horrible nicknames everyday which is obviously a lie. So if you say true you are referring to us calling Cinda horrible nicknames everyday and if you say False you are also referring to us calling Cinda horrible nicknames everyday. But with the statement I am lying the only thing you can refer to is the fact that you are lying. Since it refers to itself, it is called self-referential. This is also part of the paradox. Now the mathematical way. Now since this statement only deals with true or false lets make true a + and false or lying a - . since the statement I am lying is a - you can see how it continues. In math a - times a - is a + and a + times a - or a -times a + is a -. In other words:

- X - = +
+ X - = -
- X + = -

So saying true to this statement results in a - times a + which is a -. But - means lying so what you put as a truth comes out as a lie.
On the other hand saying false to this statement results in a - times a - which is a +. But + means truth so what you put as a lie comes out as a truth.

Weird isnt it. This sentence is a contradiction, or a paradox, more referred to as the liar's paradox. It is difficult to actually understand it.

Philosophy Should you criticise people or the opinions they have?

Should you criticise people or their opinions?

Criticism is both beneficial and bad to people. The beneficial part is, it gives you chance to improve. Why would there be three people as judges in Singapore or American Idol telling you all your weak points and telling you "you suck" blatantly? These judges have high standards, but also are giving tips to improve (although it seems like insults) . More relevant is RS, where the three judges critisize your work, in order to make it improve, to become the best or at least better. Critisizing people could make them change for the better too. When you get a job, criticism is important. It could even be part of your job. But to put it in way, criticism can give your boss think that you are good.

But also it has its bad points. critisizing people can cause them emotional breakdowns, lose their will to continue and perservere. It depends on how harsh you are. Well also it is wrong to criticise people's opinion as your opinion on that matter may be different but not better. Even if their views are more extremist (government protesters chaining themselves to trees) they may not be wrong (in your opinion) . In their opinion, you may be wrong!

So criticism wins 8 - 5 lines. Criticise away ! (Not on me I dont need useless comments or rants)

Perfect World

Perfect worlds are not possible. firstly, the way perfect is defined, it would be due to perspective anyway. All the itty bitty little details have to be liked by everyone, then everyone would call it perfect. But there are too many likings by different people, like when you ask a bunch of playground kids on their perfect world, one would go "Oh Oh I want the volcanoes to be made of chocolate!" " No! No, chocolate makes me dizzy, Sugar Peanut for mountain please!" "I'm allergic to peanut, what about a sugar mountain?" So we all have different definitions of perfect, and what are the chances of two, with all their choices of things and even position of them. Let alone the entire world, be the same??? Also, human nature is also to be better than the rest, greedy, selfish, caring only about ourselves. These characteristics could soon destroy us, so how would we be able to make a perfect world. Before a perfect world, there need to be perfect people. But I cannot say Im perfect, or anything I do is perfect, and along with perfect, everything has to be the same. I also cannot say others or their characteristics are perfect. There is always room to improve. Another point is, even if there were perfect worlds, can they actually be maintained? If they cant, they are not perfect. In Bhuddism ( I've read books) To become perfect and happy is to successfully detach yourself from any of lifes desires, and care for others before yourself. Even then you are not perfect. Perfection of the world is not possible.