Elliptical galaxies must have a lot of collisions as stars go about in perpendicular planes to each other. As there has to be a centrifugal force keeping the stuff from falling together right away, like in a vortex the spinning sets up a delay, and keep things from collapsing into each other, in the ellipsoid's vertical plane too, not just everything going about orderly in a horizontal plane.

As in is there a way to create absolute vacuum, pump out the electromagnetic field, or ether, or whatever you wanna call it? In the days of Toricelli they used to wonder whether absolute metaphysical void is philosophically possible, and the 760mm Hg mercury tube was their prime example of messing with such vacuum, and how it wants to suck on things, nature abhores emptiness, til someone came around and said no, it does not, what we got is atmospheric pressure pushing down on mercury, and vacuum not pushing down on it, and if you take your Toricelli tube up the mountain side, it will abhor the metaphysical void differently.

And the speed of gravity may indeed be infinite, if it propagates through a medium that's empty, even empty of electromagnetic vacuum. Does that sentence even make sense? It's like saying vacuum has mass per unit volume, that retards gravity, like, if you put electrically charged obstacles in the way of light, such as a zirconia crystal of a fake diamond ring, it will slow light down, so putting a lot of sand or earth or metal in the way of gravity slows it down too? Or does gravity penetrate mass unimpeded to the mass right behind it. We know an electric field propagates only with the speed of light, and speed of light is impeded by electric charges in abundance in the way.

Hidden variables are the simplest way to kill a probabilistic model of reality. Like every time I think of quantum theory, I think of the randomness of Brownian motion, how 900 trillion molecules are smacking the pollen under the microscope from the left, 900 million plust 53 from the right, and that 53 is heavy enough to make it move. But luckily, by the time we found the random Brownian motion of lifeless particles, we already had the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases, and its statistical rules, and the parameters, the rules, are not many in that model, but the actors are - 900 trillion of them at the same time. There may be a deterministic description to quantum theory, but you may have to come up with 900 trillion actors obeying simple rules, to accurately measure and describe at what localize point an electron wave function will decide to collapse on a screen from a double slit experiment. We have no way to measure 900 trillion different velocities and motions of things we don't even know what they are or whether they exist. By the way even into the 20th century there were prominent scientists, like Ostwald who denied the existence of atoms, and maintained that matter is continuous, and ascribed its success to just mere luck, and it will be a matter of time before we find something to disprove it as a valid theory, just like we abandoned phlogiston, caloric, vis viva, etc., but it's hard to hold such a view in face of an atomic force microscope today. We think atoms are real and Brownian motion is from 900 gazillion atoms smashing into each other at the same time. What stuff is there in vacuum, in emptiness, that acts like that? Vacuum, or complete physical void and emptiness, is definitely not empty, as far as I can tell. If it were, it would have a dielectric permittivity of zero, and the speed of light would be infinite.

Also, I seen a youtube video of a weird fluid, which under oscillations that resupplied the energy lost to friction, it grew tentacles, standing waves on its surface. Then you can ping ping these waves around.

I too am an elemtary bozo. And so are you.

Why combine the beams to see which path the neutrons took? Why not measure them individually? Because then you don't get the self-interference effects of the electron double-slit experiment. If you block either hole, it's easy to see that each electron wave-packet went through the other one. But if you keep both holes open, each wave-packet electron goes through both holes, and arrives at the screen in a self-diffraction pattern, with highs and lows in probability or abundance amplitudes. I.e., the modeling of the electron as a "particle", as a dot, as something limited in extent in space, is not correct, it does spread out, though I don't know if it spreads out to a mile, if that's the distance between the holes, or across the galaxy, it may be like a sound wave only spreads out to openings on a wall within a limited range, and the range, or amplitude of the unparticleness spread all over the place is limited to the nearby neighborhood, and not halfway across the globe, let alone the galaxy. But soundwaves get absorbed as thermal friction, while electrons live in an undecaying medium, and don't have a half life. So how far do the electrons spread out, halfway across the galaxy? With sound waves, in absence of decay, absence of friction, or light waves in absence of absorbance, there is an inverse square drop in amplitude vs. distance, and I assume this be the case with all waves, as the surface of a sphere is inverse square, it's where the term comes from, and such a rule represents conservation of something when it goes from a 1 cm radius to a 10 cm radius, if spherical, its amplitude as a wave drops as inverse square, but when confined to a reflecting waveguide, the aplitude is constant. Electron microscopy probably shows that electrons behave like other waves of sound, light, etc., and something is conserved, and they follow the inverse square law in a sphere, and a consant law if you can make a waveguide. So the electron self diffracts, and maybe these guys didn't have a neutron-screen to observe the diffraction effects, but a single neutron probe somewhere, so when they were expecting an increase in something, they measured a decrease, as the patterns get a little more complicated with diffraction, based on path length. They need a neutron "display screen", and even if they can't get 800x600 SVGA pixels, maybe 24x24 would be nice. That's a lot of neutron detectors. So even 2x2=4, 3x3=9 or 10x10=100 is better than just 1.

I think its the other way around, the dyed water has a ferromagnetic molecule whose color is sensitive to the applied magnetic field, but the distilled water lacks such a complex additive, and is not sensitive.

By the way, I forgot to add, that it amazes me how every galaxy is flat, or most of them are, and I can't really picture gravity keeping together a centrifugal balanced spherical galaxy, there is no way to have the rotations, and if there is, there'd be a lot of collisions. Like in outer space conquest by humans most of the space stations will have to get in line with the general flow of things, and stay in the flat orbit plane of the Sun, but just like Earth satellites, it's possible to go North-South as opposed to East-West in a geosynchronous orbit, as long as you don't collide. So why are galaxies flat? Why not just random spherically distributed debris going round and round, like we assume in the particle model description of how an electron goes round the atom, and the probability of finding it at any point. I don't like probabilities, I'm willing to trade for a 100 parameter deterministic theory describing quantum mechanics accurately compared to the few parameter probabilistic Schroedinger equation description, which is not as useful to me. Any takers on that deal? So anyway, how do we know neutrons are spherical? Are there such measurements? We have atomic force microscopy to show that molecular surface features are indeed spherical-elliptical, and not flat disk-like, like galaxies. Also the uniform bond angles in methane show that there is spherical uniformity in an atom. But it may turn out that neutrons are weird, and flat-like wave-soliton mixes, just like most debris around planets orbits as a spherical moon, but Saturn is different, it has a ring, that Maxwell conceptually derived, in his dream, not to be uniform continuity, but made up of debris. And so it is, we see it in the Voyager pictures.

There are wavepacket objects that can be knocked around. I forget, but I think the word is soliton, or something similar, a single wave-hump, or a wavehump plus some fast decaying amplitude fluctuations a couple wavelengths away, that travels, as if it were a particle. In order to understand quantum "particles" I think they need to delve into the math of ping pong-ing macroscopic single hump wave "particles" around - how they interact with each other, how to get a bounce out of each. Another thing that acts weird, as if it were a particle, but it's distributed, is a macroscopic vortex. Once you build up the intuition about these macroscopic "particles" that are simply a phenomenon of their medium - be it two vortices or two wave humps in macroscopic air or water, or quantum particles in the "ether" of vacuum - (I'm gonna leave this sentence hanging like this.) The math is really complicated with interacting vortices that bounce off each other, or wave solitons that bounce off each other, and conserve the terms of momentum, mv, energy, mv2, and I think angular momentum. What else?

A neutron having a magnetic moment means it has internal charge separation, and the sum of the internal charges is zero, but the "currents" of different charges are separated, such as the positive charges are flow in a small radius donut in the center, and the negative charges in a large radius donut around the small donut, or even if in the same donut (as in a copper donut wire you have both the positive and negative flowing in the same donut) at least at a different speeds relative to each other. If there are acually two donuts, not just one, then these two internal donuts may not be in the same plane, but say vertical to each other, and then the vector sum of the magnetic moments may act a bit more weird, if you can shift the relative plane of each donut differently with an externally applied magnetic field. It would be nice to know which ones are the magnetic field generators in a neutron relative to the lab's velocity taken as zero. In a copper wire we know it's the negative charge that flows, and the positive sits still. Is there a way to tell which one sits still inside a neutron, or what the speeds are? I think artifacts of such considerations might shed light on the devil is in the details of how they performed the experiment and what they actually measured and what actually happened, and it may turn out not to be a separation of the property of the wave from the wave, but some measurement artifact misunderstanding. And by the way I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, you could probably come up with a Schroedinger wave equation or Heisenberg particle matrix for macroscopic vortices or wave solitons, and then could take it to lower scales. Also Dirac's electron-positron pair rising out of pure vacuum is like a vortex and antivortex, or soliton and antisoliton arising out of the "ether" or medium of pure vacuum. And by the way some strange behavior of this "ether" might be deduced in how light travels in the Michelson Moreley experiment, and by the beding of starlight by gravity during a solar eclipse. By the way does light bend equally based on how its polarized vs. the gravitational field vector? A recent issue with a supernova explosion nearby showing two different neutrino peaks followed by a light peak that then stayed on continuously, brought up the idea that the difference in neutrinos might be polarization, as in birefringence in an anisotropic medium - which by the way splits a beam into two, not a spread spectrum like the prizm does with the rainbow. So this concept of ether was killed dead and deemed superfluous, but as all quantum phenomena are wave phenomena, and we can best understand waves by assuming a uniform medium that has properties x, y, z, w, etc., (gimme 19 parameters and I can fit an elephant with a mathematical curve, give me 20 and I can fit the tail too with high accuracy.) The less parameters you need the better, and if you can beat the 26 parameter string theory, with say explaining as much as it does with 22 parameters, that's a good achievement. In modeling the world you're approximating reality without ever truly describing it, as in Newtonian mechanics is pretty accurate, but the relativity adds extra precision under certain conditions, while maintaining backward compatibility, and even Einstein said that something else is gonna come around and approximate or model reality more accurately than relativity theory, but still maintaining the correspondence principles to it where relativity theory is accurate. That's why you keep your eyeballs open in experiment. Every theory is a mere theory, and we bow before the facts of experiment like God is speaking to us through them, we put the self away, and respect the external "dream", as in Plato's allegory of the cave, or Descartes "I think therefore I am sure about that, but I cannot trust the senses, I might be all dreaming this stuff, or watching a magician play tricks with my senses" to which Hume swings his wrecking ball of "but all your knowledge past that comes through the senses" and you have nothing better to trust as a source of knowledge and truth. And the Pope says, yeah, you do, it's called divine revelation, that does not come from experiment. You cannot trust any experiment about neutrons, you need to close your eyes and wait for the divine revelation to arrive about them. So anyway, we're dreaming the dream with Hume's trusting the untrustworthy senses like our eyeballs and digital measuring equipment, while we wait for the divine revelation, and in absence of that, we bow to the phenomena of the dream, the experimental resuts of the dream we all dream, and call reality. There is no reality, no materialism. There is only mind, and spirituality. That's one of the core hindu teachings. It's funny how quantum stuff always flirts with eastern religion's now you see it, now you don't, it's not yes or no, yin or yang, black or white, but both yes and no at the same time, called grey. A neutron itself, like an atom, is a mix of negative charge light yin and positive charge heavy yang, but they don't go roundabout at the same speed. Gotta be. How else can you usefully model it. It's not only how close a model is to reality that matters, but how terse it is, how mentally economic, as if it has 243,423,356,432,324,001 parameters very accurately describing everything in the world, in the dream, it's useless to my mind, because I'm simple minded, stupid, and need 3 parameter descriptions and generalizations, such as conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum. That's not too many parameters to keep in my head while trying to approximate and predict the reality around me with my mind. But sometimes something gotta give, and you gotta throw in more parameters, when trying to describe how vacuum behaves as ether whose various wave-states correspond to the different elementary particles, plus it obeys the Michelson-Moreley experiment, and also the gravity bend. There may be such a thing as absolute time in the Newtonians sense, and our clocks simply tick slower up on the tv satellites simply because they are made up of electromagnetic stuff objects that each individually obey the Michelson Moreley experiments and Lorentz contractions, including the general relativity acceleration contractions correspondence principle of gravity contractions, and they just tick faster simply because of that, while time goes on with the same speed, unrelenting, absolute,everywhere. There is no such thing as time, it's an invention, a parameter to describe my reality. In fact I wonder if extraterrestrial intelliget beings would all have the same concept of time, as we do. Is it flexible in their modeling of the world, or ridig and absolute. It doesn't really matter which way it is, as long as you force the parameters to fit the equations. It's like describing a curve f(x) with cartesian x, y series of points, where wave things like sine become complicated to describe, with many terms in the infinite expansion of the Taylor series, or describe everything with Fourier series, where simple particle humps become complicated many term things, but a steady sinewave is a single parameter simple object. And when you have to come from the wave perspective, starting with the unintuitive Fourier series description may be more efficient. I don't know how Fourier series apply to vortices, vortices might have their own series to simpy describe their behavior, and then the vacuum of quantum mechanics, with dielectric a permittivity greater than zero, may have its own, quantum series to simply describe its behavior, and you could describe non-wave, non-quantum things with it too, just like you can describe a square wave pulse with Fourier series, in a bend over backward way, by forcing it on with parameters. What is sought is a model that's usefully low on parameters, but you have to use as many as you have to. Einstein said a scientific explanation should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. We all want simple, but don't get stuck at too simple that won't fit. There is no way to describe an elephant with a curve with 2 parameters. Same way, describing the zoo or all the elementary particle wave-states of vacuum may need more than 2 parameters. I'm too dumb for such math, so I hope these guys get something useful for me to mentally consume, it sees like they need ideas and I try to help, and I hope they can gimme something better than, with less than 26 parameter string theory. Pretty please?

We need an overlord to top and reign in these loose corporate vagabond overlords, called a monarch, or king. The first king of the USA will shake things up and get everybody in line, and fix things up for good, if you only let him have a dynasty that lasts at least 300 years. Then his vision is set more long term than these 4-year or 2 term 8 year temporary corporate sluts who all they care about is stuffing their pockets or more like constituents pockets today, and they have no long term interest in what happens after they are no longer relevant, after leaving office. A king with a dynasty cares about what happens to his heir, first born son, and what he inherits from him.

Btw why they say ghosts are scary? I got pet ghosts all over the place here, and they make really good friends. They tell me all kinds of funny things and make me laugh all day. They come visit me from the nearby cemetery. That's like one of my primary concerns in looking for housing, what are the dead people like in the area, would their ghosts be friendly with me?

Or how about public domain? Microsoft and Apple would love to see public domain stuff they can pimp up in their stuff and sell it to everybody in the modified version. BSD is public-domain like, but why not call it public domain? I love public domain. That's how information - gossip, technology - is in a village, no cock blocks. It's like the next time someone offers me a "standard" intellectual property agreement disguised as a confidentiality agreement when I want to work as a free minded laborer on a shop floor, I'm walking off the job, unless they agree the stuff I think up is public domain, and they can't block me from thinking it, talking it or doing it somewhere else later. It means they can also do anything they want with it, and this would relate to what I come up with, not what they already claim as theirs. As I think that's what they worry about, you come up with something, and expect the world to be compensated for it as your intellectual property. Naw dawg, you can't shove an intellectual property down my throat with that excuse, worrying that I might claim and abuse the invention rights to something, so you confiscate them all, and stop me from thinking it again, because now these thoughts, these methods and technologies, these sequences of hand motions step 1 step 2 step 3, are yours. Intellectually speaking. I agreed and signed the rights over to them. Are you kidding me? How about we agree that nobody has it and we both have it at the same time? It's public domain, from the instant it was created. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do, with it, and I'll do whatever the fuck I wanna do? Are we cool on that? Freedom of mind is very important to me. I hate intellectual property agreements shoved down my throat, which is why I'll never be happy in a standard corporate world, no matter what the pay. Freedom of mind is very important to me, and it should be to everyone else.

At least he still has some spine left. Linux has been sabotaged for forever now. Last halfway decent thing I found was Lighthouse Puppy 4.1.2rc1 with Voyager and Mariner, (i.e. KDE addons), and the superficial appearance was deceiving of the great sfs layered file system it was running on. But Linux is a hopelessly complex mess now, bloated beyond belief, as far as I last saw, and because of the bloat, slow. Too many features. Too many new ways of doing old things, not backward compatible.

Linux might be better off starting a new project. Like making a good FreeDOS GUI. The beauty of DOS is that it's small, simple, and ready to die, pull the plug on it. Only 15 or 30 disk buffers, no bullshit disk cache ready to get corrupted. Bare to the metal, direct hardware access. The philosophy of Unix used to be to have small programs that do one thing, but do it extremely well, but then they come up with busybox that loses that philosophy, and bundles everything together. Lpr is turned into CUPS as a service, always listening on a port. That's overkill. Keep it small and simple at the core, and add features as needed. What's the tiniest kernel, as a stable, secure core to add features to, achievable with recent releases? 150 KB? I think not. The best Linux to tinker with I've found to be Basic Linux, running off of 2 floppies or hard disk, with rudimentary X windows, but even its compiler is messed up, it creates code that runs mind blowingly fast running Erastothenes' sieve, but craps out at very low numbers to what the amount of bytes in the C types it uses would indicate. It's like the only thing to trust is assembler, but that's too much work, that's what compilers are supposed to be for. Last time I had a stable existence and time to learn and tinker computer stuff enthusiastically, feeling somewhat secure, was 2001. My income to expense ratio was very high at that time, and that provides peace of mind. Now I'm getting x-rayed and gassed all the time to move into more expensive housing out of my own will, by people who derive a lot of income sittin' back and collectin' from the housin' market without having to do too much work for that money, when I'd rather move into housing I had in 2001, if I could find a secure one like that. I don't have many needs, though I accumulated a lot of junk. Junk always fills the available space for it. But just cuz I'd like to play with computer stuff, like Basic Linux, it does not mean I'm good at it, there are plenty of others that leave me in the dust in this kind of stuff. People that roll their own OS, like React OS, Solar OS, Free DOS, etc. It's like they want you to write good GNU/Linux software, and they are ready to pummel your shit in the ground, they are like let's fight, you can't create anything we can't steamroll and fuck up, in Linux, and I agree, I can't. Destroying is always easier than creating. And why Linux, or even Unix, on the desktop. On the server, yeah. There is something about old school windows like Windows 2000 or XP being standard that runs so many useful and already written things, it's almost not worth it to mess with new stuff, in a world where you are fully off line. And I'm preparing to be off line again for a long time, if not for good. Stuck in the past, knowing what I learned well and too old or just not interested to learn new things that do the same exact things but even less efficiently. What more can a computer do, than play sounds, video, pictures, spreadsheet, word processor, CAD and such, and a few games? All that stuff, like spreadsheets, was better developed in 2001 than it is today, as far as I can tell, the new versions are anal retentive in the ways you have to bend over backward to accomplish things that were really easy before. Except some new games with nice features, but I like the low tech old ones better, if there is time to kill. Like Railroad Tycoon 2nd Century. Anything newer is too eye candy rich and game play poor, or too complex in rules. These days I'm an on line gamer, on the Internet Go Server. Even dial up is overkill on bandwidth requirements of a good Go game. And you don't need a lot of eye candy to have a fulfilling gaming experience from it. It's hard to build up a gaming industry around Go, as it's a game mentioned in the Analects of Confucius 2000 year ago. It's hard to create intellectual property around it, other than some good books. And they are cheap, a few dollars, by authors who put a tremendous amount of work into becoming as good as they are when they write the book, so there is a lot of value in them, and not just anyone can write a good Go book, just because they want to. Same with software, there are very few talents around the world that are extremely talented, and everybody else is just noise in the signal to noise ratio. A decade ago Linux had a good core of very few very talented programmers. I'm not sure what kind of crowd Linus is in charge of herding now. Things just turn to mess by adding new features and ideas that seem good at the time. You should be very terse with the features, even when they are fully justified to be added. DOS follows such principles. Go is a great game with very simple features, but very rich possibilities. That's how computers should be, at the core, at the kernel, and the compiler level too. That used to be standard Unix philosophy. Do one thing, do it extremely well, and everything is an add on, that does one thing, and does it extremely well. No complicated bullshit that bloats everything, slows everything down, and leaves you in a complex mess like being stuck in sticky glue, like some mousetraps catch some mice, they get stuck in the glue and can't move or run away.

haha, that was very funny.. should have been: ask your baby momma, but this is Slashdot, for Pete's sake..

Any virus is a form of life, in that it is negative entropy, in an entropy tending universe. Life seeks to create order, and maintain order, oftentimes in a fight, at an expense of another life form. A virus, because it cannot sustain itself on its own, has no functioning cell or nucleus, it is a parasite, a predator of other life. A predators function in an ecology is extremely complex, but there is one rule to any long term successful predator or parasite, is that you don't exterminate your food supply, you don't overgraze, if you want to live long. But most unintelligent life is blind, because a lot of predatory lifeforms don't follow this principle, such as humans driving mammoths extinct, and almost the American bison, or buffalo, extinct, also lots of invasive species such as cats on small islands, they don't right away live in harmony and equilibrium with their ecosystem, but instead drive lots of things extinct while promoting their own self interest to the point of driving themselves extinct or to a collapse when their food supply collapses. Amongst blind parasites or predators you can count the folks of Wall Street, who made a shit load of money betting against the housing bubble(and that's not a crime, because that is serious risk taking by those involved, but not that serious once the signs of idiotic bubble vs. high paying jobs gone is obvious). Blind parasites are the folks of Wall Street who killed off or made completely dysfunctional union jobs that Archie bunker used to make a living on, when you didn't need no welfare state, everybody pulled his weight, guys like us we had it made, those were the days. And he was a responsible fucker, because as soon as he lost his job and food supply, his dick went limp, to the sorrow of his woman, who always wants it, more babies, more babies, more life, always want to fuck, that's how women are. With some exceptions though. But he reproduced in balance with his available resources, and it is on the shoulders of the male that the duty of limiting population growth out of control falls, because the woman, even if she doesn't want it, she can be made pregnant, but he cannot get raped if he has a limp dick, the mechanics make it very difficult, if not impossible to get a child out of him under dire economic circumstances. And even if he produced a stiffy, he could consciously not make a baby. Unions provided the middle class jobs to the bulk of the nation through the nations heydays, and there was an environment where a company breaking even, but paying all its bills plus the humongous union wages was acceptable, without turning much quarterly profit or dividends, or just minimal. Unions owned the companies they worked for, because they made so much money in them, they made sure their money supply was alive and healthy. They fixed problems where rubber meets the road, on the shop floors, and sustained an array of remote-from-where the rubber meets the road executives charting pretty graphs, doing overhead slide presentations, etc, as a luxury item, because the money was good, because in a stable job experience was high, competence was high, efficiency was high, and there was money to blow on such office people. Drawing a pretty chart or a statistical cause and effect analysis has nothing to do with the real world problems of hey this part is out of spec, and that thing there is stuck, and I can't get it unstuck, and maintenance is busy for 2 hrs, and I can run the machine at a high setting that lowers its lifetime, but still profitably because I can make the product, and if not, shut the machine down and wait two hours. These life and death decisions about profit can only happen by the competent worker. The office charting and presentation bullshit has almost nothing to do with making a quality product that the customer wants to buy, and make it cheaply for him, while you collect $25/hr and get to sleep 4 hrs out of 8 hrs on the job. I mean literally sleep. If the guy on the floor can't make the product, I don't care how expert and good the office people are, it's hopeless. Everything rides on their backs, and the more they get paid, the more devoted they get. I'm talking a pay where Archie bunker can sustain a stay at home wife, so he can sit in his stinky old armchair to recuperate for an hour when he gets home dead tired, and dinner's ready, and she interrogates him how work was. Behind every great man there is a woman pushing his buttons correctly, and pulling his puppet strings correctly. Her life was kinda hell always at home, living very sheltered, alone at home, but women loved to stay home if there were babies. And there were always neighbors, and tv, and radio, and paper, and Sunday church. And the kids get raised well, so tomorrow you have a good crop of competent workers again. Without a job she was OK, because being a mom educating kids is a full time job, and he, when he could sustain such a home, pretty much devoted his life to his job in ways that minimum wage temp agency workers can't comprehend. A dynamic job market is good for the economy. Yeah, observe with your own two the miracle of the dynamic job market, and unstable families around you. Baby momma. Baby daddy. What happened to wife, and husband? We can't afford such a luxury anymore. All because of the parasites on Wall Street demanding higher quarterly profits for their shareholders. Everybody can be a shareholder. There is this ad on line, with Warren Buffet saying anybody with $40 can make a lot of money on the stock market, maybe even a living. They should ban such ads. There are enough parasites already, and not enough prey to feed on or graze on. It all got off shored.

Unions were only provided to the bulk of the population while there was the communist threat from Russia, once that threat is gone, it's time to disenfranchise the population again, turning everyone back into serfs. The Great War, aka as WWI, is not over yet, the nobility is coming back, and coming back with a vengeance. The war of Independence of 1776, and war of 1812, the first invasion of the USA, the war about the land of the Free and the home of the brave, is not over. The nobility is coming back. And this time they have tools of never before - cameras on every intersection, GPS tracked cell phones with surveillance audio and video secretly always on in every pocket - the tools of mass control are tremendous now. And I look at it half sad, half happy, there is a good side to the nobility coming back, such as having government coffers that contain some wealth again. Hey dear politicians, the government coffers are empty, empty squared, empty plus plus. Quit pork barreling your way through the bottomless negative worth of the coffers, and try to have a treasury again, full of wealth. In a sense what the country is missing is an owner, who cares about his property. Aka a king, or monarch. And hey, there was this text somewhere that "the rain may enter, the wind may enter, but the King of England and his mighty army may not enter the ruined tenement" somewhere, even if that's naive wishful thinking. But I for one would welcome such an overlord, who leaves my ruined rain may enter tenement alone and allows me to prosper.