The Last Airbender Series: The Avatar Returns and The Paradox of Fate and Free Will

The concepts of fate and free will are tossed around in society. Fate is the notion that everything that happens happens for a reason, and free will is the idea that our decisions impact what happens in the future. Herein lies the paradox. How could the world be based on both fate and free will? If the world is based on fate, then the choices we make are already decided, therefore there is no free will. If the world is based on free will, then our choices affect what happens, therefore there is no fate. So it seems that there cannot be a world where fate and free will coincide. But Avatar: The Last Airbender gives us a new look on what we can consider fate and free will. It could be that fate is merely luck by another name, and what we know as fate is actually destiny. It is our destiny that is essentially a function of both fate and free will.

I seem to be taking a very mathematical approach to these concepts, but with good reason (I like math). But it does help elucidate these concepts. Let's look at fate, free will, and the end result of destiny in context of Avatar, and more specifically this second episode. It is implied that fate has brought Aang into Katara and Sokka's lives. Not everyone gets the chance to encounter any actual person enclosed in an iceberg, much less someone with such importance and power like the avatar. This is fate. Fate is this chance encounter with the avatar. But while Katara seemed willing to follow Aang and put her trust in him, Sokka was more skeptical. This is where free will comes in. When Aang is captured by Zuko, Sokka and Katara are given a choice. They very well could continue living in the Southern Water Tribe, or they could save Aang and help him become the avatar. Both decided to join Aang in his journey, even though they did not need to. Aang successfully showed that he could defeat Zuko and his army, so Sokka and Katara did not exactly add much in that equation. But they freely decided to join Aang. Even Gran Gran said that Sokka and Katara's destiny is intertwined with that of the avatar. Fate intervened and free will allowed them to change their destiny.

This episode does not consider the most important and troubling case of free will, fate, and destiny. That would be Aang. He was thrust into the position of avatar. But his case seems to be an outlier. Most people would experience these phenomena like Katara and Sokka. This shows that there is no fate and free will paradox, just a misinterpretation. Fate is not deterministic, but in my opinion, probabilistic. Fate is essentially luck. We consider fate as deterministic because fate is something we consider in hindsight, which puts it at odds with free will. There is no illusion of free will. There is simply free will. Fate gives us the options that free will chooses. This function acts as our destiny.

If You Are REALLY Bored...

I am once again contributing to another blog. My friends and I decided that it would be good to keep each other posted on the goings on in our lives. So check out summer2011family if you so choose. It's an interesting if not good read on the ennui that 7 or so regular college students face during their first summer away from each other since meeting in college. It's like the sisterhood of the traveling pants, but there are three guys and four girls and we are not sharing each others' jeans.

The Last Airbender Series: The Boy in the Iceberg and What Constitutes an Adult?

Adulthood. One of the major points in every person's life. Typically you would consider adulthood as a set point in your life. Once you reach this age, you have entered adulthood. When you see a child acting mature, he has not necessarily reached adulthood, but he is acting more adult. But is this true? In my opinion, adulthood is not a phase in life like your teen years, but rather state of mind. The reason you act like an adult is because you are an adult. But acting like an adult is also a very vague term. But if you look at the Avatar: The Last Airbender episode "The Boy in the Iceberg Part I", you not only understand what an adult is, but also how an adult is differentiated from a child.

In the first episode, we are introduced to four teenagers. They are Aang, the avatar, Katara and Sokka, siblings from the Southern Water Tribe, and Zuko, the fire prince. Though they are likely only four or so years apart, they have very different personas. Katara, Sokka, and Zuko all seem to be relatively more adult, though all act childishly petty at times. Katara gets angry at Sokka because Katara has been given all of the chores in the tribe, while Sokka plays soldier. But Sokka shows his mettle when he questions Aang's motives as he feels that he is harming the tribe. Zuko not only looks the part of a weathered adult with his scar but also acts the part with a surly and commanding demeanor. But their seemingly adult behavior is countered by Aang, a free spirit. The first thing he says when he gets out of the iceberg is "Do you wanna go penguin sledding with me?" This is a great example of childishness. Aang is not concerned about food or the division of work like Sokka and Katara, nor is he burdened with a quest for redemption like Zuko. All he cares about is fun. He is a kid, but Sokka, Katara, and Zuko are adults. The latter three are forced into adulthood because of the responsibilities that they inherited. But they are not only responsible for themselves, but for everyone around them. Sokka and Katara are in charge of their tribe, while Zuko is in charge of his ship. What is the difference between their leadership role and a leadership role at a school club or something of the sort? Their leadership role does not stop at the club. Yes, being a president of some fan club or academic club does give you responsibilities, but these responsibilities do not dominate your life. Being in charge of a tribe or a ship forces these responsibilities to be intertwined with your life. These responsibilities are no longer a part of your life, but your life itself. That is what I believe is adulthood. When you not only have responsibilities to others, but that these responsibilities are the most important part of your life. Aang does not have this burden. He escaped this burden by running away from his true calling as the avatar. He knows that he has to reach adulthood sometime, but he postpones this inevitability by having fun and not having a care in the world.

The difference between Aang and Katara, Sokka, and Zuko show what it means to be an adult. It is not merely the responsibilities you have, but the importance of them. But this episode shows how you can escape these responsibilities every once in a while. It is true that Sokka and Katara are more childish than Zuko, but that is because Sokka and Katara can escape their responsibilities. They have fun with Aang. But Zuko is forced to maintain these responsibilities, not because he can't escape them, but because if he does, the consequences are much graver to him than the consequences involved with Sokka and Katara. So I say now to postpone your inevitable ascent into adulthood and have some fun. Go penguin sledding if you have to. But remember that your responsibilities can only wait for so long.

The Story of a Story: How Different Forms of Media Affect the Impact of a Story

The story may be one of the most interesting human inventions in that it is strictly human. No one ever sees a duck standing in front of other ducks telling them the hilarious story about how he stole bread from an old man earlier that morning. People tell other people stories all of the time. When I tell my friend about my summer, I'm telling him a story. When I read a novel, someone is telling me a story. When I go to the theater and watch Super 8, I am being told a story. But each story is different. There are the obvious differences in medium, but what is important is not the existence of these differences but rather how these differences affect the interpretation, appreciation, and overall experience of the story.

Different media naturally lead to different sensory experiences. When someone tells me a story, I am clearly experiencing the story aurally. But there are times in the story where I might be visually involved by the storyteller's body language. But that visual experience is very difference than the visual experience I get when I am reading. When I read, I experience the story visually through reading the words. This visual experience is also different from a movie or television show. The story that I receive from these media are visual. But the visual experiences are different. When I hear a story from a friend, I am at the mercy of my friend's interpretation. I am allowed to interpret his story as funny or serious, happy or sad. But my opinions of the characters and my vision of the story is controlled by the storyteller. This is the limit of oral story telling. There is a huge handicap when considering interpretation. Even the appreciation of the story is affected by the storyteller. This is why storytelling is a skill. The storyteller not only determines how the listener interprets the story, but also affects whether or not the listener likes the story. A good story with a bad storyteller is thus a bad story.

But this does not occur when you read a book. When you read the book, you are given the details that encompass the story, but as the reader, you are free to interpret as you wish. You are not confined by the abilities of the author either. A reader can add what he wants to the story and often times, the book acts merely as a guide. Your appreciation goes only as far as your imagination can take you, and though that seems like a halfhearted endorsement for reading, it is true. Just consider why children read picture books. It captures their attention through many means, but I'm sure on of them is this assisted imagination that the pictures create. So when we grow older, we mature out of picture books and then use our own imagination to create our world of the book.

The movie is the most interesting because it immerses you in this childlike way, but still calls on you to interpret the movie. The movie does not require you to create your own world. The director does that for you. He not only gives you the image of the main characters, but also the setting. All of those worlds that you create as the reader are no longer necessary because the movie does that for you. It is an interesting phenomenon, but it has led movies to be criticized in that they hinder the imagination process. But they really do not. In fact, in some cases, the movie is improved because of audience's imagination. The most obvious and recent case would be the film Inception. This movie used one of the classic methods to force the audience to think: the cliffhanger. For those of you who have not seen Inception, here's a spoiler alert. The top never topples. This sent people into a spiral as to what happened, and this led to fan theories galore. But this shows that just because a movie gives you so much, it does not mean that it takes away from the experience. Though there are many movies that fall into the category of stellar or horrific, most movies do not have a consensus of whether it was good or not. This relationship between the movie and the audience is one of appreciation or criticism, depending on the movie. Unlike oral stories, films are not always hindered by a bad cast nor are the always aided by a great one. A movie with a bad cast can be as good (or as bad) as a movie with a good cast in the eyes of a viewer.

Movies, books, and oral stories all have their place in society, but that does not mean that they all convey a story in the same method. Each have certain detriments and unique traits that come with the media. Therefore, each has their place. Stories belong in everyday life. I don't need to write a book to tell you about this hilarious thing that happened in class. But books give you the ability to stop the story. You can stop a movie, but there seems to be more discontinuity than when you stop a book. Movies give you the collective experience. I don't usually read books along with other people, but it would be weird to watch a movie on your own. These methods each tell a story differently and in doing so they each fill a niche in society that the other methods could not do.

Why Do Actors Do Cameos?

We all know when they happen. You're watching a movie and then you see a familiar face. This actor may not be a supporting actor or even mentioned in the opening credits. But you recognize this face. But this actor does not stay for long, but he or she somehow leaves a lasting impression on you. In film, this is known as a cameo. Though the actor does not get first billing, this cameo is typically one of the things that you will remember from the film. But why do actors do these cameos? Do these actors get paid a lot for these cameos? I know in certain cases they don't. Sometimes they do it for free, like the case of Liam Neeson in The Hangover 2. This case also brings about another problem. Cameos don't always make it to the final film. As with the case of Neeson's tattoo artist cameo, the cameo was cut. So doing a cameo does not give you much monetary gain, and it may not even give you more screen time. So why do a cameo?

Sometimes, the cameo is done as a favor to the director, actor, or someone else involved with filming. That was the case with Neeson, who was texted by his The A-Team co-star Bradley Cooper. There are other famous cameos that happened because of some sort of relation to someone in the film. The infamous "I'll have what she's having" scene from When Harry Met Sally... is an example of a cameo. The woman who uttered this line was none other than the mother of Rob Reiner, the director of this movie. Edgar Wright's movies Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz also enlist the help of family members of both Wright and cast members like Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. It is even more common to see actors in cameos as nods to the director. Kevin Smith's movie Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back has so many cameos. There are cameos from George Carlin, Chris Rock, Matt Damon, Brian O'Halloran, Jason Lee, Jeff Andersen, and Ben Affleck, who all acted in previous Kevin Smith movies. Cameos like these both show some professional relationships between the director and these actors and they act as Easter eggs to truly devoted fans.

Sometimes, the cameo acts as an homage to the actor, the director, or the genre of movie. George A. Romero cast Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg as zombies in one of his movies because of their work Shaun of the Dead. Mark Hamill was cast in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back because of his affiliations with Star Wars. Kevin Smith even went so far as to break the fourth wall and tell the audience that his movie, already riddled with references, had yet another reference to Star Wars. Gus van Sant was also cast in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back as the director of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season, referencing his previous work as the director of Good Will Hunting. Leslie Nielsen, the king of the spoof, was cast in Scary Movie 3 as the president in a spoof movie, literally affirming his status as the best spoof actor of all time. Maybe the most infamous cameo would be all of Stan Lee's cameos in Marvel movies. The comic book revolutionary can be seen in almost all Marvel movies. Does he have a substantial role? More often than not, no. But the directors tip their hat to Stan Lee by allowing him to be in these movies. It is a deserving gesture to a deserving person. Would people still know about these people and their accomplishments without these cameos? Certainly, but the cameo is just another way to draw admiration for these stellar actors.

Sometimes, the cameo is there because it enhances the movie. In Zombieland, Bill Murray, after being talked about for what seemed to be forever by Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), finally shows up. He first appears as a "zombie", but he truly is alive. His turn in Zombieland put that movie over the top, because though it was funny throughout, no one could top Bill Murray. His cameo added to the hilarity of the movie. But cameos don't only add hilarity to funny movies. Sometimes they ground the movie even more. One example is Rodney Dangerfield in Natural Born Killers. The classic funny man seems to give the dark movie some more humor, but Dangerfield shows his acting chops by completely creeping out the audience as the abusive father of Juliette Lewis' Mallory Knox. The scene is devastating on its own, but it seems to reach new heights (or depths) by Dangerfield. Another superb example is Alec Baldwin's cameo in Glengarry Glen Ross. Baldwin is a spectacular actor, both drama and comedy, and he shows his ability to milk a script in this movie. Cameos like these are intended to better the viewing experience by adding something that any other actor could not do.

Of course, the issue now is what constitutes a cameo. Did Jim Parsons have a cameo in Garden State or did he have a cameo in Garden State because he is Jim Parsons? This question is essentially asking whether the cameo exists because someone played that role or whether the cameo exists because the actor is famous. Because there are many films where an actor may have only a small role, but they never call it a cameo. Does a cameo stand on its own? What I want to know is about the role of the number of actors in the scene. This could explain why henchman, though they have onscreen time, are not considered cameos, but extras. There is also a fine line between cameos and supporting roles. Pete Postlethwaite had a supporting role in The Town, but he arguably had a cameo in Inception. Does the cameo only count if the scene is brief or if the character only occurs once? There are many questions about cameos, but at least we know why actors do them. An actor takes cameos because it is an homage, a favor, or a vital part of the movie. It may be funny or serious. It may be relatively long or short. But they will always have importance for a movie goer and a movie maker.

Super 8 Review

Super 8, J.J Abrams-directed and Steven Spielberg-produced, is a truly great science fiction movie and a superb homage to some films of the 80s. In the plot alone, there are hints of great films like E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Goonies, and Stand by Me. But its greatness does not hinge on its ability to reference these films. As a science fiction film, it shows originality while it sticks with the cliches of a sci-fi film. It has a great story, interesting characters, and good action.

One of the best parts of this film was the characters and their actors. Like other 80s movies like Goonies and Stand by Me, it relies a lot on the young characters. What is so interesting is that even the minor characters seem to have their own personality. They have characteristics that typically drive a moviegoer crazy like a loud mouth or a weak disposition. But they were played to perfection by young actors. Moviegoers may only recognize Elle Fanning as Alice, the daughter of a petty criminal, and though she had an amazing performance, I believe that the standout actor is Joel Courtney as innocent-faced Joe Lamb. He deals with the emotions from death of his mother and the confusion from not only first love, but also fighting for this first love with his best friend. He uses his innocence so well, and for those of you that have seen the movie, you understand which scenes that I am referring to.

The story is also very impressive. I won't spoil the ending, but it deals with aliens. The suspense is built up well and each surprise is as shocking as it could be. My one problem with the movie is that it seemed to stall in the middle by adding too much emotion. But it seemed to move the movie forward, so I don't have that much of a problem with it. The story flowed smoothly and it developed the plot and the characters equally well. I thought that the relationship between Joe and his father, also brilliantly played by Kyle Chandler, was the most interesting. Both were clearly dealing with the death of a loved one, and neither knew how to deal with it. The acceptance, which works its way around full circle, of this passing by both the father and Joe is not only heart-wrenching but also exquisitely done.

This is one of the best movies of the year, and will be considered one of the best movies of the summer. It flowed perfectly from beginning to end. It scared you at times, and it made you root for the right people. It brilliantly paid homage to the 80s, especially Spielberg's movies, but it did not force it too much. The action scenes were directed perfectly. The cast was heart-warming and surprisingly genuine. The relationship between Joe and Alice and Joe and his father were developed very well. There was great chemistry between all of the actors. The story was great, the plot was great. It may be cliched, and it may be seen on almost every poster for Super 8. But in my opinion, and in most opinions, Super 8 is, for lack of a better word, super.

I Wrote a Novel???

So many of you may not know this, but I wrote a novel. It is not a great novel, and I did it for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). I had to write a 50,000+ word novel and this is what happened. Don't critique it too heavily, if you decide to read it. I just wanted to do this in high school, so I finally did it in college. Some disclaimers: this is based on real events and real people. It's kind of a memoir in that way. Disclaimer: there are a lot of profanities. It added words, so that helped. Here's the link. It's not a great novel, again, but it is a nice quick read. I'm not expecting much, just wanted to let my viewers know that I have poorly written a novel.

P.S. I also intend to do NaNoWriMo next year, so look out for that novel. In a couple of  years, I may very well be Stephen King!

Flawed Statistics: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Edition

So apparently I learned in economics class today that in the game "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" the "Phone-a-Friend" option is successful 66% of the time while the "Ask the Audience" option is successful 95% of the time. My economics teacher, whom I presume never watched "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", wrote this off as an anomaly in the logic of people. Why are these supposed experts so much worse at answering questions compared to a supposedly lower IQ audience? I will cover why this statistic exists and what was flawed in that reasoning.

The anomaly that arises seems to be that the audience is smarter than the people that the contestant chooses. This could be true. There could be a super-genius in the audience that you don't know and your friends may not be as smart as that person. But you are working against large numbers. You should expect an average IQ from the audience, and if you played your cards right, an above average IQ from the phone-a-friend. This still does not explain why the Ask the Audience option has such a high success rate. Well, this anomaly can be easily answered by anyone who watches "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" It is all about the difficulty of the question.

Any real Millionaire contestant knows that the audience is never as smart as your friend. They also know that the audience may not give one absolute answer. Even on easy questions, there are people in the audience who answer blatantly incorrect answers. Could this be a flaw in the system or a ploy by producers? Maybe, but that is a digression for another day. The audience is stupider, and any contestant would know that. So if you are stuck on the $2000 question, do you go to the audience, which has no set opinion and a lower IQ, or your friend, who will give you one answer and has a higher IQ? Any smart person would use the audience for an easy question. If the question costs such a low amount, you could expect that the question has a more obvious answer. Let the audience support your belief or give you the answer. But when it comes to the $64,000 question, who do you want? Most people would choose their friend. The fact that they are using a lifeline means that they are unsure about the answer. The audience would simply muddy the waters more. A friend, who is smarter and more decisive, would at least give you a hunch. If they are wrong, they are wrong. But they are not wrong because they are stupider. They are wrong because they had a more difficult question.

This leads to another problem. There are different sample sizes for the "Ask the Audience" and "Phone a Friend". If the audience is used more on easier questions, then they will be asked more often than a friend. Just because you use the audience does not mean that you will use the friend. Though it is true vice versa, that is typically not the case. So there are not only easier questions for the audience, but also more questions. This in turn means that there are harder questions and less of them for the friend. The friend could be right 95% of the time given the same sample size and question difficulty, but that is not the case on Millionaire.

Are there cases where the friend is stupider than the audience? Most definitely. Is that always the case according to a quick glance at the statistics? Also yes. But if you look at what is behind the statistics, it is very obvious that the analysis was short-changed. In this case, the observation beats the statistic. People observe that the audience is stupider than the friend, but the statistics disagree. But the story behind the statistics supports the observation. So if you are on Millionaire, don't ask the audience for help on the $1,000,000 question. Ask your friend. Or 50-50. Just never ask the audience, no matter how smart the statistics say they are.

Why The Exploitation of Division I Football and Basketball Athletes Will Likely Never End

It is no question that Division I athletes in football and basketball are exploited. They are unpaid, despite the large amount of money that both sports make. Their sports also are not funded proportionally because less popular sports get money from both of those programs. Looking at the salaries of the coaches, it seems that the colleges can afford to compensate their athletes for their efforts. There are other controversies in that both of those sports are dominated by black athletes, while the sports that are essentially free riding on their success are dominated by white athletes. But the exploitation comes from the fact that these athletes generate a lot of revenue, but do not reap any of the benefits. But if this exploitation were to end, it could be catastrophic and bring more trouble than the current situation.

One of the primary problems that would be affected by the removal of this exploitation would be that the already flawed collegiate ranking system would be overhauled. Each bowl game or every season of March Madness has some element of controversy. Certain teams deserved a bid that other teams undeservedly got. The choice for a BCS Championship contender is never always as clear as it was this season, and when that occurs, some teams will be left out. Non Big 6 teams are always shorted when it comes to playoff time. But when the players get some compensation, a stricter policy will need to be implemented. Take for instance last year. There are 6 different systems that help determine the ranking outside of  the coaches poll and Harris interactive poll, both more or less arbitrary. But last year, one of the systems had a flaw in the ranking, which did not affect the seeding, but it did mess up. And the system that messed up was the only system available to the public. So if the other 5 systems had a mistake, no one could know. But last year, it was the college getting the money, and to the college, the only thing that would be hurt is their pride. They can manage without the extra money from the revenue generated from the Rose Bowl or the BCS Championship game. But when you are giving money to the players, you are shortchanging them. The players are the ones robbed of the extra cash, not the college. This becomes a moral issue because these players are affected by the small difference of revenue between a small game like the Capital One Bowl and a big match-up like the Sugar Bowl. Right now, if they don't make the bracket in March Madness, they miss out on glory, which is unquantifiable, so we will live with that. But if they miss out on a payday, because of an arbitrary system, it is not fair.

Professional sports would grow into larger and larger international-based sports. An athlete that makes nothing for playing basketball or football in college would surely see the incentives, despite the risks, of going to pros. They go from making nothing to making at least $400,000 a year. But most athletes do this without completing their education, so if they don't make it in the pros, they have no backup plan essentially. But if athletes are paid for the services to the college, then they will see a steady paycheck in college versus a variant one in the pros. There will be players like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant who are talented enough to jump straight to the pros, but many other players would take that steady college paycheck every time. There are an overwhelming amount of benefits of paying college athletes. First you would end the blatant exploitation of these athletes. But it would prioritize education. If college athletes are being paid, then they would likely stay in school, so if their professional career falters, they have a backup plan. And since college athletes are being paid, they will not need to spend as much money on athletic scholarships, allowing colleges to reallocate the money into academia and research. But there is one massive con to this plan. This would completely ruin professional sports. There would be players like Rose and Durant who have the talent to jump straight to the pros without the issue of job security. But you have two dilemmas for other players without this security. You have players like Greg Oden, who though talented, are brittle. They would benefit from staying in college. If you are injured in college, you may miss out on your chance in the pros, but you can set yourself up to have a future in a profession outside of sports. But the other problem is that many players in the NBA did not have the talent to enter the draft out of high school. These are role players, such as energy guys like Udonis Haslem or sharpshooters like Kyle Korver or Robert Horry. There are defensive specialists like Tony Allen or Ronnie Brewer. There are career back-ups like T.J. Ford who can start, but are much more suited to help off the bench. These players are hit-and-miss and players expected to fill these roles may be better suited to stay in college and hone their craft rather than risk it all by going to the pros. This problem may not be as critical in the NFL where each team will always have multiple roles to fill or the MLB where the players can opt out of a contract or play in the farm system. But solving this exploitation problem will certainly draw some concern from professional leagues. They still have many sources to get new talent like international players and the National Basketball Developmental League, but it is not the same pool as the college system. Other special interest groups that would be angry at reducing the exploitation of these athletes would be the other sports programs. Take lacrosse for instance. Not many people watch lacrosse, even at Northwestern where they have one of the great dynasties in college sports. The only reason that they are still in existence is the revenue generated by the bigger sports. Lacrosse and other less-watched sports require the exploitation of these basketball and football players.

The most important problem is that it would affect the goals in the NCAA system. There are already problems in the NCAA, as documented by the Ohio State football debacle which led to Jim Tressel's resignation and the Cam Newton controversy. You can argue that now that players make money, they will not seek underhanded deals. But that is not true. Even though people make money, they will still seek to make more, especially if the player is talented. There is nothing keeping a player like Austin Rivers, the number 1 recruit of the 2011 high school class, from competing for a better price. A player like him could ask for more money because colleges are willing to give more. It creates the issue of equity in the NCAA. Should every player in the NCAA make the same? Probably not. Bench players and walk-ons do not deserve as much as a starter. But does your starting point guard deserve more than your starting center because of their talent levels? If this were a professional league, no one would disagree. LeBron James is a lot better than Mike Bibby so James should get more money. But does a player like Jimmer Fredette deserve more than his fellow starters because he is their best player? Is that the ideal that the NCAA wants to implant in their players? Colleges would also be forced to essentially bid on players. This would reallocate the money once again into the athletic department rather than academia.

Is the exploitation of football and basketball players bad? Yes, definitely. Do they deserve to be compensated for their efforts? Yes, certainly. But there is a difference between deserving compensation and getting compensation. There are ways to do this fairly and ways to do this efficiently. But as is the problem with many economic situations, it is difficult to find both an equitable and efficient way. So the big question is will the exploitation stop? In all likelihood, probably not. And that may be a shame, but that may be an inevitability.