Wednesday, December 29, 2010
We Want Zero Sum Pollution-now | Scienceray
We Want Zero Sum Pollution-now
Published by http://www.triond.com/users/Barry+Dennis">Barry Dennis</a>">Barry Dennis
December 28, 2010, Category: Biology
We’ve allowed business and commerce, government and institutions to pollute our air, food, water, and airwaves for a long time, and paid them doing so!
It’s time to get it right.
Image via Wikipedia
Image by The U.S. National Archives via Flickr
Let’s try this as a working theory.
No corporation, business, institution,commercial or government enterprise or other “citizen” has the right to change the environment and ecology in pursuit of profit, unless and until their processes become “zero sum” based; that is, restoring and/or improving the air and water used in their processes to the highest quality level, with the goal of zero pollution. Recycling all waste to highest value use through re-manufacturing into other products, or ensuring downstream use by others dedicated to that purpose.There is no inherent right for any commercial, industrial or government enterprise to be anything other than a zero-sum participant in the economy as regards pollution and the environment. If fact, they have a demonstrable duty and responsibility to affirmatively ensure that any of these operations of government or commerce operate ONLY as zero-sum participants, making sure that the quality of air, water and other materials generated through operations are BETTER after the operation of their processes.
If Citizens take the time to reason this through, they may see that giving anyone the right to pollute, or otherwise harm the ecology and environment in the pursuit of profit cannot be allowed for the sake of current and future generations. For hundreds of years government, industry and commerce have been allowed to ignore the effect of their operations on the health and welfare of others.
As long as Citizens are paying for the privilege of buying products and services, and supporting operations of commerce and government, the price will have to include making sure that participants in the economy operate under the zero-sum mandate.
To do otherwise is to further subsidize air and water pollution, food pollution, even radiation pollution.
Licenses and permits MUST include necessary agreements to “do no harm” to the ecology and environment, both internally in plant and commercial operations, and externally by making sure that all by-products are recycled to highest value, treated to equal-or-better than the intake (as in water and air) to the net effect of “Zero Sum,” meaning no addition, dilution or subtraction to the environment from the materials, resources, and processes used.0
Liked itTags: air, chemicals, citizens, Ecology, environment, food, health, Obama, pollution, water, zero sum
via scienceray.com
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Another “Aid Package,” Another Tax | Newsflavor
It’s ironic that the 26 Billion “aid package” to the states is mainly to protect the highest paid civil servants on payrolls with the highest city and state deficits, highest union and pension benefits, and by some standards the least deserving, compared to others with real needs for food, (this aid includes early termination of food stamp benefits for hundreds of thousands); shelter- homelessness due to foreclosures and evictions is way up, and others.
It is supposedly paid for with termination of tax breaks for corporations doing business overseas, and the above-mentioned early termination of food stamps.
Forgetting the obviously skewed vote-buying of teacher, police and fire, and civil service union and other special interest constituencies, it also prolongs the unnecessary economic imbalances that stop free-market, normal economic cycle corrections that have always led to better results in the future, by eliminating waste and improving productivity. (Question: When does most violent crime occur? Answer: At night. Question: when do most police work- day shift or night shift? Answer: Day shift.) See anything wrong with that equation?
The free market system works best in the private sector so when demand slows down,or revenues don’t support a given level of staffing or production, firing and layoffs occur. Unfortunate as they may be, they continue until demand picks up along with revenues.
Public Sector jobs like Police, Firefighters, and Teachers have become, in some cases overpaid, and in most cases so over-benefited, that they are breaking the bank in many states and cities, to the degree of a one hundred percent or higher salary and overtime premium ( for less education), more when ridiculous early-out, and overpaid pensions and easy-to-get disability benefits are included. ( Example:Cop is on 100 percent disability-at $75,000 year plus medical, yet goes sky diving, mountain climbing, golfing, fishes on his own boat, and more).
The free market system is not being allowed to operate as it should.
How much better it would be if this “aid” package were directed at small business creation and financing, which creates over 60% of all the jobs in the U.S., and funds from unused Stimulus Funds and TARP unused and already repaid funds were also included. Then, you might have stimulus that would encourage jobs AND repay the taxpayers..productively. As it is now, these funds are being re-tasked for programs and contracts that primarily benefit union and public sector jobs.
via newsflavor.com
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Guns. Love Them or Hate Them, We Need Them | Socyberty
Courtesy Wikipedia Images Baltimore Sun Main News July 30 Page 2. “Lawsuit challenges Md.’s (Maryland’s) Gun restrictions.” The article details a lawsuit by Second Amendment Foundation supporting Maryland resident Raymond Woollard as a person with legal “standing” regarding restrictions on Permits for Handgun carry. Recent Supreme Court decisions virtually barring States and Cities from unnecessarily restricting gun ownership of any kind prompted the suit against Maryland’s requirement that Woollard demonstrate that his Carry Permit was needed as a “reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.” Woollard had been robbed in a home break in, and his family threatened. The man who robbed him was convicted, and moved less than three miles away after his release. Wollard feared revenge among other reasons, and sought a Carry Permit. TRUE IRONY IS THAT RIGHT NEXT TO THIS COLUMN was another, larger in fact, about the burial and mourning events of a twenty-three year old Johns Hopkins researcher, stabbed (while on his cell ’phone with his mother)by multiply-arrested and convicted drug and assault felons.(The article didn’t note whether they were on probation, but should have). Would the twenty-three year old have defended himself with his own weapon, if he had a Carry Permit? What would we be saying if he had done so? Would Pitcairn’s parents, co-workers and friends have thought less of him for defending his life? Would we have offered that justice was served, or at least that a murder was prevented? The point is that our criminal justice system is reactive instead of pro-active, meaning that justice is served after the fact, if at all. (over 60% of assaults, rapes and robberies are never solved, and less than four-in ten of the murders are ever solved). Baltimore has the fifth highest violent crime rate per thousand population of all major U.S. cities, some with millions more in population. It seems that modern society is helpless in the face of crime. Frontier justice in the form of traditional and active self-defense is necessary, a premise which seems to be lost. If permitting and licensing (including proper training through authorized Police and gun dealers and Certified Instructors) were mandated for anyone seeking a Carry Permit (no restrictions except for guns and rifles maintained within a home or business), even included in a high-school senior curriculum, as part of the graduation process, it could help. It certainly would offer better results than the “basket weaving” and other “fiber-fill” courses schools now allow, and prepare people venturing into the real world with the means to defend themselves. Would there be mistakes? For sure. Would the results be a thousand percent less frustrating and demoralizing than reading about home owners and students, professionals and everyday Citizens being raped, robbed and murdered?For sure.
Image via Wikipedia
If you believe that survival is a Citizen’s right which is founded in the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable Right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for everyday Citizens, in the face of relentless crimes of violence, then having widespread Carry permits would force criminals to think twice, even three times about assaulting anyone. I, for one, would feel much better about having the opportunity to defend myself, than I would having loved ones and relatives read my Obituary and Murder article in the newspapers. Oh, and the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest” would turn today’s weak and uniformed into trained and ready to defend themselves and their property. That’s an outcome that might rid the streets of cities of violent criminals faster than our inept system of criminal justice could ever do. Certainly, the recidivism rate-re-offending violent criminals-would drop. Even if modern society and the justice system had every tool and resource available, which they have had, and whose cost continues to rise inexorably, we would still need to revolutionize the system into one in which Citizens can defend themselves, their family, and their home, and be treated with respect for doing so. The Founder’s considered Personal Rights and Responsibilities the foundation of the American Spirit and in fact one of the primary reasons for America’s creation. Self-defense fits the definition admirably.
via socyberty.com
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Iran Becoming Middle East Leader by Default | Socyberty
Arnaud De Borchgrave’s column of June 14 in Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/blogs/deBorchgrave/id-80?s=al&promo_code=A44C-1) is too encouraging of military intervention by far. He also notably offers that the U.S. military would be the one who plans and carries out the strike(s), rather than say, a coalition of NATO/UN or even Pan-Arabic forces(Saudi Arabia? Hint, hint). A military strike, however, must not only take out multiple nuclear facilities, it must neutralize Iran’s military counter-measures, and it’s retaliatory capabilities.
Iran has the capacity to strike in and across the Gulf of Hormuz, and throughout the Middle East at U.S. and friendly country military installations and energy structures, to say nothing of Israel proper, their declared target. Nuclear weapon capability magnifies the threat capability a million-fold.
U.S. action would be a Declaration of War; everybody knows it.
De Borchgrave’s analysis is compelling however, and the refusal of influential Arab states to mutually condemn Iran and assert strategic leadership defines part of the problem. On one hand Arab states respect strong leadership and want the respect of the world community at large. By only paying lip service, if that, to nuclear non-proliferation, even though it is in their best interest not to be placed in a position of being bullied by Iran, they will wind up being led to revolution and destruction.When, not if, Iran asserts it’s leadership through the threat potential of nuclear weapons, energy resources will then become serious weapons in the Islamic Fundamentalist threat to the West. Iran could insist that Saudi Arabia, under threat of a nuclear attack, cut off any dealing with the West. Similarly, Qatar, Yemen, the Emirates, in fact any energy supplier to Western or non-Muslim countries could be faced with no-win choices.
Were Iran facing a unified Pan-Arabic coalition of condemnation and sanctions, we might have a different story.
Factionalism and tribal traditions including religion, are still the underlying dynamic in the Middle East.
Continually painting the West and other religions as the feared outsider intent on destroying Islamic values and Muslim society, unifies Middle East overt and hidden opposition to any Western strategic efforts to contain Iran.We must understand that Iran’s religious leadership, Ayatollah Khomeni in particular, sees Iran as the seat of Pan-Arabic history and culture, with Islam as it’s unifying political”glue, ” leading to a potential new Islamic Caliphate, reminiscent of the glory-day eras that have occurred multiple times in thousands of years.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the control Khomeni exerts through his religious leadership, which in turn defines the difference between Iran and representative governments of the non-Muslim countries.With religion the unifying and driving force of the political structures of the Middle East, it is unlikely that we can find a solution to any problems, absent a real effort to help create and support a Pan-Arabic strong coalition, willing to see the modern world in secular terms, and not in either/or religious terms.
Religion sacrifices itself to logic, faith not being subject to reason. That dynamic alone prevents satisfying religiously-driven policy with rationality.It seems the only long term solution is to assist the Islamic-motivated and controlled governments in transitioning to secular governments, where reason and rationality have a least a chance to prevail.
So long as religious values drive governments and subvert secular values, there is little chance that existing conflicts within, and external to, the region can be managed to successful conclusions.
via socyberty.com
Thursday, July 8, 2010
FDA Stands for Foolish Drug Authorization?
I have begun to wonder-actually for years now-why the FDA continues to approve drugs whose side effects are worse that the symptoms they are offered to relieve. Or worse, have fatal side effects potential for even treating allergies, or hives, or even minor discomforts.
The labeling required and the Disclaimers in advertising are designed to put the public on notice of side effects, but beg the question of why in the first place. I seem to remember a time when drugs were developed as cures.
When was the last time you saw a cure offered?Ninety-nine percent plus of FDA approved drugs offered today are for symptomatic relief, not cures.
And yet the number of life-threatening diseases and the millions affected by them continues to grow. The drug companies have sidelined and under-emphasized most of their research into cures, preferring instead to work on high-profit drug development for relief of symptoms.
Erectile Dysfunction?– a wonderful series of products, multiple drugs from multiple manufacturers, helping millions of men have satisfying sex. All came out within a year or so of each other, virtually same day in FDA approval terms.
Sleeplessness? Same story, multiple drugs. Ever wonder how they all show up at the same time?
I do.
Do the drug companies get together and sit around a table and say. “Let’s try to do something about insomnia. Or, how about Erectile Dysfunction? My wife wants more sex.”Cancer? Oops, sorry nothing yet. That is, we have chemotherapy, radiation. But the underlying cause, discovery and prevention is just not there, and it looks like forever will come first.
Arthritis? Many billions for symptomatic relief, no cure on horizon.
Alzheimer’s? Some symptom relief drugs being offered or in trials, no cure yet.
Drug companies emphasize that high drug prices are required to provide money for research and development of new drugs. If that were true, wouldn’t there be years when R&D costs would cause losses? Yet for most drug companies, their Return on Equity, Return On Investment, Gross Profits and Net Profits remain higher than any other industry, when viewed over a consistent period for the last twenty years.
Tax policies, using your tax dollars, help immensely.Why is most cancer research being conducted or sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, instead of at drug companies on their own dime? A cure would mean Billions, even Trillions in sales.
Here’s what really gets me. Causes are pretty well known for most diseases, some cancers.
Is it more profitable for drug companies to treat symptoms over a lifelong period as in Arthritis, or develop a cure for which the period of usage and profitability are much shorter?
Here’s something else I wonder. Would we have all these diseases without modern technology and the chemicals and accouterments that go with our standard of living?
If X-Rays can cause cancer and radiation from many things can cause cancer, why is there no discussion about the proliferation of radio waves and TV frequencies, which are just a shorter form of X-Ray waves?
How? Radiation causes cell mutations and free radicals to interact negatively with your cells. When it happens often enough, you get the big “C” Cancer. Sunlight is just another form of radiation, ergo Melanoma, skin cancer.
Since it’s unlikely that radio and TV stations and satellites will stop broadcasting, the need for a cure becomes all the more pressing.
What do you think?
via healthmad.com
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Energy Independence at Home Now Possible at Reasonable Cost
What’s the “right” cost for home-based energy independence?
I don’t think anyone has a “number” that’s more than an educated guess, based on myriad assumptions. Mine are that a new home can be built energy-independent for an additional $40,000. An existing home can be retrofitted independent for $50-60,000. These estimates are based on quoted design packages and LEED U.S.government estimates.
As Solar prices continue to decline and technology improves, prices will decline further.
The new Fusion power technology already developed, but currently cost prohibitive for residential use, promised a “self-contained, discrete unit-based” tech that uses a wide variety of fuels for extended use and would allow a package installation just about anywhere for $25-30,000, able to oversupply household peak needs under the worst weather and usage conditions, at kWh costs competitive with grid-supplied power.
Commercial independence or green retrofits using solar will be expensive but decline in cost of operation over time; same with, and a better advantage for, the Fusion-based cells. $20-25.00 per sq foot would cover the cost of most commercial “green” energy independence. Independence refitter’s will also develop Independence leases that will provide the security of long-term maintenance and management Agreements to provide homeowners and commercial interests with “partner security” so that they feel comfortable with the investment, knowing there is reliable service when needed.
Somewhere along the line, people will have to evaluate the “tiering” of power costs, meaning paying more for highest peak-time value uses, like computing or air-conditioning, through peak-usage metering. This will actually happen for Internet usage in the near future, and for power over a generation.
Many, many vested interests have financial reasons for a Luddite and NIMBY mentality to resist change.
I might also use this opportunity to point out the need for starting to consider “end-to-end” recycling from ALL intake of goods and service to ALL output of goods, and water, and waste discharges.
Only when business and government are held to “zero-based” standards (everything you take in-air,water, resources- is used in your processes, and whatever is discharged is treated to Zero pollution contribution to the environment) can we claim to be responsible stewards of our environment.
No license should allow anything but zero-based operation in relation to pollution and contamination. There is no license that gives business, government, or institutions the right to negatively impact the environment. To do so is just a hidden tax on us, our children and grandchildren for generations.
Energy grid independence will happen gradually over time, starting mostly with new home builds in the $300,000 and up category, and retrofits of older more expensive, ecology-minded homes and owners.
Whether leased or included in the build price, alternative energy systems promise to achieve price competitiveness with grid-produced energy in the near future. Builder partnerships with local power grids that allow for recapturing energy values into the grid from independent owners, primarily through government-sponsored tax incentives, will help to create a momentum for this approach.
If the end goal is to reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy and develop U.S. based energy independence, even starting at the individual home level, alternative energy packages promise at least one way to “get off the grid.”
via gomestic.com
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Free Speech, Government Monitoring, Oppression by Taxation
You are right to be concerned, particularly since the line from representative government to Big Brother keeps getting closer and thinner all the time. The need to use technology to assist national security is paramount, however.
The real concern is “who watches the watchers.”
That is the job of our Representatives and Senators. I would offer that when you have no fear of your Speech being used against you, even if it’s monitored for security reasons, you are OK.
However, if your Speech becomes circumspect, your communications, particularly regarding political opinion and expression, become guarded solely because of the fear that government will use your Speech against you in some way, then real or not, that fear needs mitigation through constant independent overview on behalf of the Citizenry.
That affirmation includes a process of “auditing” actions taken by government regarding any individual as a result of monitored Speech, and the reporting thereon to the public.
My own fear is that by the time we discover that the government has acted against those who oppose it, it will be too late.
To paraphrase, “If the government can knock on your neighbor’s door in the middle of the night, how long until you hear a knock?”
The current controls on communications monitoring seem to be within the needs of security, SO LONG AS THE REPORTING AND MONITORING ARE CAREFULLY MONITORED THEMSELVES AND INDEPENDENTLY REPORTED.
It might also help to remember that in regards to all these things, that the Founders intended the Second Amendment regarding the ownership of guns to provide for self-defense. So long as every American has a rifle and guns, it is unlikely that any government would attempt a “hard coup” to install any other dictatorship.
There are other ways to oppress Americans, some of which we are experiencing with our current government.
It’s simple really. The lifeblood of a consumer-based economy is commerce; buying and selling by business and consumers. The fuel that drives this process is income. Taxes subtract from the income stream-the fuel needed to support the economy and prosperity-and reduce people’s and business’s ability to succeed. If you want to help the greatest amount of people, reduce taxes.
via newsflavor.com
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Free Speech. Phoenix Suns ("los Suns"), Oil Spill, Euro Bailouts
Home » Opinions » Free Speech. Phoenix Suns (”los Suns”), Oil Spill, Euro Bailouts
Free Speech. Phoenix Suns (”los Suns”), Oil Spill, Euro Bailouts
Published by Barry Dennis on May 18, 2010 in Opinions
Tags: Arizona immigration, Bailouts, BP Transocean, constitution, energy, Financial Bailouts, free speech, Halliburton, illegal immigration, Obama, Oil spillArticle Tools
Liked itSubscribe to RSS
News Muse Views of recent items. Where are the opinions of the people who matter; those who pay.
I was asked to Comment on the Phoenix Sun’s players putting Los Suns emblems on their uniforms to protest Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law. Here is my response.
I consider this as Protest Speech and as such an individual right, and a responsibility. That means to me that as a Citizen you exercise that right individually, outside of the audience that a corporate sponsorship provides. To me, using the visibility of a sports team is an unfair promotion of a perspective that takes advantage of the system, and certainly is not the majority view of the fans, and perhaps not the league owner’s either.
However, that individual’s right, as an individual, to call a Press Conference, make a poster and stand outside on the street, try to get personal interviews(but not wearing a Sun’s uniform for any of these “speeches”) is perfectly OK.
Speech is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY. Any attempt to take advantage of stardom or notoriety is wrong. That the media collude in this is just another example of misunderstood reading of the Constitution. By giving more weight of publicity to this type of speech merely because of the fame of the person offering it, while not providing “balance” in the valuation of the importance, or lack thereof, in the content, media does a disservice to the Citizenry in general.
The Founders intended that individuals and groups have the personal right and responsibility to exercise free speech; in writing, in person, by post and otherwise. Nowhere does the Constitution provide for Corporate Free Speech that I can see. And, a corporation is an artificial “construct” of law, not even mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a Citizen in relation to speech rights.
The Supremes were wrong in this regard.
My view is that the Phoenix Suns players are wrong as well, and so is the team and the league for letting them. Again, with the strongest possible emphasis, Free Speech is an Individual Right and Responsibility. The Suns can and should speak individually, as Citizens; it is their right and responsibility. The second they put on a uniform to do so makes it wrong and unfair.
I might also note that the school administrator who used a girl’s sports team in a public school to make a personal political statement about Arizona’s Immigration Law was equally wrong and took advantage of her position to offer “speech’ in a way that should not be allowed.
Confusing speech rights with the advantage offered by fame and under the “color of authority” that an umbrella of corporate, governmental or institutional sponsorship may confer is just un-American…and un-Constitutional.
Image via Wikipedia
On the Oil spill and BP and the other players.
Boycotting BP; other punishments
There appears to be more than enough blame to go around.
From the MMS government agency, to the combination of factors, aka “perfect storm,” when things seemingly inconsequential in and of themselves cascade into a against-all-odds result.
While I absolutely believe that those responsible, even peripherally, should pay for direct and related costs, and damages if determined, as was the case with the Exxon Valdez in Alaska.
But boycotting? Not for me.
More stringent enforcement of regulations, perhaps loss of drilling rights for a period of time if such penalties were to be instituted, and other remedies to encourage more attention and “fail-safe” planning, to be sure.
But, the safety record of these companies in the Gulf seems pretty good, accidents do happen , no matter the planning.
We just need to be sure that proper safeguards are taken. We actually need more drilling, not less, for oil and gas.
We just need to provide the proper positive, and negative, incentives to be as careful and prudent as possible.On the Euro bailout and U.S. participation:Euro bail out proposalsThey have to help them out, and the U.S. is too. They only see the immediate consequences of cascading failure among the Euro countries. As for me, I would like an alternative that makes the marketplace the boss, and if some banks fail, that’s when the government nationalizes them, protects the depositors, wipes out the ownership of the errant managers and decision makes, and …wait for it…here it comes…after nationalization and new management, spins off the shares to the public, each and every citizen, who can them assist in raising capital. It’s interesting that is almost precisely how Japan handled Japan Postal, which handles almost all the savings accounts in the country, and is contemplating privatizing the postal service. Good for them. Euro countries and the U.S. should consider doing the same. Real free-markets work better when the Citizens are the primary investors.Read More:
1 Comment
Posted May 18, 2010 at 5:23 amI agree you!I like your blog very much! thank you ,I have learned a lot. cheap cell phones Thanks for your share! I like it very much! China Wholesale I agree you! wish them happy every day! mobile phoneenjoy a high quality of life, New Mobile Phones you are welcomed to the following worlds: cheap cocktail dresses Thanks for your share!I have learned a lot. cheap cell phones wholesale Beautiful children,a happy family. cheap cell phonesThanks for your share! Cheap Wedding Dresses I like it very much! thank you ,I have learned a lot. cosplay costumesThanks for your share! I like it very much! cheap cosplay costumesthank you ,I have learned a lot.
Post Comment
via newsflavor.com
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
RNC Infighting Not Helpful
I think a closer look at the upheaval(too strong?) disagreements within the RNC might be based on traditionalists vs. more moderate and centrist thinking. The Republicans, with the help of the Tea Party, have an opportunity to take control of both the House and Senate, but they can blow the whole opportunity by struggling
for control of the RNC, which is what I perceive is going on. I met and interviewed Steele in Maryland a few times, and I found him forthright, affable, and smart.
Steele, on the other hand, can't be changeable; he must enunciate clearly the principles and policies that are the backbone of Republicans-and Tea-Partiers (no diminution of gravitas intended).
Oh, and one more thing; stop being the spokesman for 'No" and be the proponent of "Yes"-free market solutions for our social problems; business-modeled health care, zero emission pollution and waste baselines for industrial and power production, with carbon taxes on CO2 and pollution emissions, creating revenues for tax credits for remission/cleaning/and new zero-emission production.
A user-fee-based tax system since we are a consumption-based economy. (Were it not for the huge deficits and government over-spending we could have a National Sales Tax of 13-14% -or less if we get spending under control-and eliminate the income tax).
Free-market solutions transparency for banks and financial institutions through increased reporting, higher levels of equity capital, limits on leveraging assets and adherence to "prudent man"-type investing policies; spinoff or sale of government "assets" not needed for Constitutional purposes, and more in that vein.
The reason for picking Steele in the first place was the need for a "new face" of Republicanism; that hasn't changed.
Was Steele a Politically Correct choice? You betcha!
Was he a good choice? Same answer.
Republicans sometimes manage to direct their armaments in the wrong direction and shoot themselves in the foot, or the ass; the first being an accident, the latter on purpose.
Being positive with Solutions will only gain the support of the majority; the marketplace will convince the Electorate of the rightness of offering free-market solutions which are properly constructed and presented.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Search Engine advertising expansion
So, if I have this right, Search is an excuse for advertising.
Customer use of Search is the justification for expansion of advertising designs, right? The Products and Services, the data and knowledge that user's Search for is the entry into their Buying Process, right?
The "monetization" of Search, through PPC and Display ads, and the monopoly established by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (together over 85% of Search Traffic) add up to what?
A better experience for Consumers?
I don't think so.
It isn't that current Search and Browser Programs aren't good, they're "sufficient." that's all, driven by the need for universal access and simplicity in delivering Results to Search Inquiries. They're not the best choices, they are the only choices.
Customer use of Search is the justification for expansion of advertising designs, right? The Products and Services, the data and knowledge that user's Search for is the entry into their Buying Process, right?
The "monetization" of Search, through PPC and Display ads, and the monopoly established by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (together over 85% of Search Traffic) add up to what?
A better experience for Consumers?
I don't think so.
It isn't that current Search and Browser Programs aren't good, they're "sufficient." that's all, driven by the need for universal access and simplicity in delivering Results to Search Inquiries. They're not the best choices, they are the only choices.
But they could be much better
What happens when SWOA (Search W/Out Advertising) gets some traction?
If Google, yahoo, Microsoft and others are the Libraries, and their Search Algorithms are the Librarians, how do we make them an "honest broker," a truth-directed and neutral trusted advisor when their objectives and ours differ?
What happens when SWOA (Search W/Out Advertising) gets some traction?
If Google, yahoo, Microsoft and others are the Libraries, and their Search Algorithms are the Librarians, how do we make them an "honest broker," a truth-directed and neutral trusted advisor when their objectives and ours differ?
Everything from Moon Phases to Keyword and Keyphrase manipulation, over-weighting of sources, traffic generating programs by SEO companies, and a host of other factors determine the "organic" (the natural selection process) results of Rankings presented in a Search.
Non-organic Search, known as Paid Rankings, dominates Search Results presentation; just analyze any Results page to see what is presented First.
Does being First or in the Top Five influence Users "clicks?"
You bet your Online Purchase it does!
There should be a better way to deliver a service with so much potential for Consumers, and Business for that matter, that meets their needs, without the "pay to Play" potentially influencing the results you see.
I'm not suggesting, as some do, that Search should be FREE; in fact Search IS Free- BUT Advertiser-supported. Therein the demonstrated conflict.
I am suggesting, even hoping, that in a dark dorm room somewhere, in quiet workspaces, a converted garage, somebody is working on Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Search that not only knows how to find the precise Answers, but is guided by empirical knowledge of You. Who, What, Where, When, Why, How. An "overlay " that intelligently predicts the Result you need, and delivers it, even "vets" the Results for credibility as it delivers them, based on criteria you have established, and the type of Search you undertake. Your AI, (mine would be called Leonardo (DaVinci), would know the difference between, "Locate Holly on GPS map" and "Find Steakhouse in Downtown Baltimore, Display Results." Or, "Find Home health Blood Pressure Software for my AI." Or, "Find Maryland Maps that Display active Oil and Gas well locations." "Place house in Standby, activate Security when I leave."
"Leonardo, Program Kitchen to prepare a Caesar Salad."
Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself; wishful thinking.
Language skills will grow in importance to enable better word and phrase usage in assisting to define a Search or Inquiry, as will the AI's skill is translating what you said you need to a Result you can use.
And, these search programs could be either advertiser-supported, or subscription-based as part of, say, your ISP Agreement.
Much is still happening in Search Engine development, and will happen.
New products and services like Internet Cloud Computer Service-based, Health, AI-assisted Education and Cloud Commuting Programs that will change our lives in ways we have only just started to consider, and change for the better, as well.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Google Adsense is terrible
Below is the error message I got from Google after the Fifth EXACT FOLLOWING of their instructions.
Talk about driving somebody crazy. Worst is that they won't acknowledge the problem, and every Forum post on Google about this problem is the same-there ate LOTS!- and still....nothing.
Helllloooooo?!?! Carol Bartz??? Are you there? Is anybody? Google really doesn't care about this, it's not a profit center.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Lots and Lots of Bubbles
With all the talk about problems in the banking and investment industries, the insurance and real estate industries, I have my own “bubble” definitions:
Health Care: 16% ($2.2 Trillion (that’s Trillions with a Big “T”T folks, and growing) of American GDP. This is a Bubble by a factor of 2 at least. No one economic segment can represent that much of an economic system unless it is seriously out of line. unconstrained by normal free- market forces of competition, “technology disruption,” and more. Health is ripe for a combination of cures and corrections, but only if we allow a redefinition of the relationship between the individual physician and the User.
This means that by inserting technology, disruptive technology, into the equation, a new Medical Business Model can be generated. One in which some of the high-cost diagnostic and well-care procedures can be automated through technology, made more efficient and productive, freeing the more expensive doctor’s time for the “value added” portion of the system, where the rote-ness of diagnosis and procedures is made more efficient, more productive through re-structuring. We already have enough wireless-enabled diagnostic instruments to initiate early stages of Cloud Health Care AT HOME. Imagine the savings just in well-care.
Education: We have similar problems and cures available in Education, where the mechanical parts of education can be “technology disrupted “through AI- assisted educational software programs that free a teacher and restructure their role into mentor/coach, a much more productive arrangement.
U.S. Education Expenditures for 2008 were $1.1 Trillion dollars (that’s Trillions with a Big “T” folks), 7.4% of U.S. GNP, a cost much too high for the “value received” and reducible through technology-assisted education. (See my article “They can ALL Be Geniuses”)
Thepoint in all this is that there are bubbles beside financial and real estate bubbles. Segments of economies that get misaligned through conscious (legislated monopolies, unions, Luddite attitudes towards technology) or unconscious (media misdirection, usurpation of Value Structures) and restructuring over time find market forces sometimes initiate changes that are totally unforeseen with sometimes very bad consequences. Reluctance to plan for and accept technology -based changes allows resources, technology and human talent to be thwarted from the natural proclivity towards “better” that a truly free market produces.
Oh, and the biggest “Bubble” of all? Government. 2009 Government Expenditures were 21% of GNP, some $2.1 Trillion dollars (that’s Trillions with a Big “T” folks!) by far the biggest bubble. The American taxpayer has become the politician’s “piggy bank.” and, in fact, long ago emptied the piggy bank, and is now borrowing at an ever faster rate than ever before.
We may be looking at the bright light of extinction as a society, or at least “considerable negative modification of living standards,” and the Doctor has just walked into the room and said, “She’s circling the drain.”
We simply must allow the changes that “disruptive technology” can effect for the better in health, Education, Government and at Work.
And while we’re at it, we have to consider the “negative leverage,” the potential threat that growing dependence on Computer Technology, the Internet and related products and services can bring to bear; suddenly and overnight create unforeseen problems that are magnified by the speed of our Communication Systems, and the symbiotic nature of technology in our economy.
via socyberty.com
Friday, January 29, 2010
Comment to Steve Rubel Lifestram on Facebook trying the phone marketplace
Scary. What's next? Knowing when you run out of Large Condoms?
An order form for Pepsi Home delivery? Giving you the GPS location of your girlfriend? (Actually, that's already a Mobile App).
I just don't think that you can say that the Facebook "Universe" is all that.
If there are 180,000,000 Facebook accounts in the U.S. and over 320,000,000 worldwide, when is the "tipping" point when you are everything to everybody? It's one thing to Downstream an advertiser message to an algorithmically selected subscriber, it's another to "wear out your welcome."
And, what about the market of 126,000,000 (well, take out 60 million 1-12 year olds) who don't have Facebook, or 65,000,000 non-Internet users?
My point is, thinking that Facebook could re-invent the appliance marketplace defies the logic. yes, they could make headway. Yes, they could get a market share. But to what end? To own 60% of the Mobile marketplace? Never Happen..Never. Competition wouldn't allow it.
In fact, I'd bet my last dime that if they try, a newer, better, "AKA Facebook" will appear.
Oh, and is Google just going to give up trying to "own" a lot of the traffic? Is Convergence and AnyThing, AnyTime, AnyWhere (AAA) going to go away?
Be the best at what you know, lead in a venue where you are the top brand; you can't be all things to all people, the Brand Dilution diminishes your Brand Value and Loyalty.
An order form for Pepsi Home delivery? Giving you the GPS location of your girlfriend? (Actually, that's already a Mobile App).
I just don't think that you can say that the Facebook "Universe" is all that.
If there are 180,000,000 Facebook accounts in the U.S. and over 320,000,000 worldwide, when is the "tipping" point when you are everything to everybody? It's one thing to Downstream an advertiser message to an algorithmically selected subscriber, it's another to "wear out your welcome."
And, what about the market of 126,000,000 (well, take out 60 million 1-12 year olds) who don't have Facebook, or 65,000,000 non-Internet users?
My point is, thinking that Facebook could re-invent the appliance marketplace defies the logic. yes, they could make headway. Yes, they could get a market share. But to what end? To own 60% of the Mobile marketplace? Never Happen..Never. Competition wouldn't allow it.
In fact, I'd bet my last dime that if they try, a newer, better, "AKA Facebook" will appear.
Oh, and is Google just going to give up trying to "own" a lot of the traffic? Is Convergence and AnyThing, AnyTime, AnyWhere (AAA) going to go away?
Be the best at what you know, lead in a venue where you are the top brand; you can't be all things to all people, the Brand Dilution diminishes your Brand Value and Loyalty.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Gold pricing, demand and the Hype
At $1300 per ounce we're talking $17.47 Billion (that's Billion with a Big "B" folks!). If the writer is suggesting that the entire run-up in gold, or even most of it is due to ETF purchasing, I suggest he look elsewhere.
At a minimum, Chinese and Indian consumers buy LOTS of gold in lieu of savings-so do their financial intermediaries.
In any case Inflation "believers haven't changed their position at all.
Add to this, the many new casual gold buyers ("sell your old gold?"- and the many new merchants -Captain what's-his-name from Law and Order- now Scott Winters, and others and it seems to me that the Gold hype is still working.
If that is the case, that 420 tons will easily find homes, and then some.
At a minimum, Chinese and Indian consumers buy LOTS of gold in lieu of savings-so do their financial intermediaries.
In any case Inflation "believers haven't changed their position at all.
Add to this, the many new casual gold buyers ("sell your old gold?"- and the many new merchants -Captain what's-his-name from Law and Order- now Scott Winters, and others and it seems to me that the Gold hype is still working.
If that is the case, that 420 tons will easily find homes, and then some.
World energy supplies
Here's the thing.
The world has only discovered less than 20% of the Energy that is to be found and developed. Almost every day there are announcements of new discoveries, all around the word.
Add to this the fact that only 65 countries (out of over 200) have even attempted any discovery research.
That every time we find out-of-the-way discoveries (Lake Maricaibo) it makes us wonder why more hasn't been discovered, and that geological evidence RIGHT NOW points to attractive prospects that may be more difficult to get to and develop, but hold many times the totals of world energy reserves known as of today.
Consider that even as populations grow and demand increases through industrialization of developing countries, Alternative Energy may have attained some momentum.
If so, the numbers point to a "tipping point" between Alternative Energy cost of development and "manufacturing" and a comparative cost for fossil fuels.
A shortage of fossil-derived sources can only lead to more demand for alternatives.
We are not so far from that tipping point, and that implies that momentum is shifting in favor of alternatives that will at least act as a brake on the prices of fossil fuels.
That has great implications for the Forecasts.
China's Control of Trade
Investors and Observers simply have to recognize that the "Rules" that China play by...are their rules.
Google's hacks and Censorship (Google's threats to pull out mean NOTHING), China's State Bank Investment Fund policies (China will shortly become Africa's largest multi-country investor), and more.
China's exterior investment policies are closely tied to China's Foreign policies.
"We have given China the bullets for their guns."
While the U.S. absolutely considers "commerce" an integral part of it's Foreign Policy in the sense of Free Trade, encouraging commerce as a "lever" on other government's policies, we are increasing the leverage of risk over us that other governments hold because of our trade debt obligations and currency values.
This can only end badly, absent a more forceful push for restraint by the U.S. on others, and we have seen how that works...not at all.
The Chinese are the best at two-faced negotiations and talks, and when pressed with threats, just respond twice as hard.
Our current policies are a "no win" situation; we have NO leverage over our supposed "partners" in the Security Council or in Bilateral negotiations-practically none.
We're helping our geo-political competitors in the (faint) hope of influencing them in the direction we want.
Since China's (and Russia's, Islamic Confederation States and ...and...) objectives are different than ours, this can't work.
We would be much better off with a China-like attitude about our external relations, "It's our way or the highway."
(no subject)
The FCC MUST look towards immediate separation of Content provision from Delivery Infrastructure.
This means the forced separation of Content like ISPs, Entertainment, Pay-Per-View and any and all Content from the "pipeline" now monopolistically controlled by Cable, Telco, and in some areas Wireless. This could include Spin Off's into non-affiliated companies, stock offerings that allow Cable to recoup their investment, but with unaffiliated and independent managements.
This means ensuring Competitive Access at reasonable and Competitive Rates, audited and Regulated as necessary. If the FCC does this without loopholes , the free markets will insure competitive pricing and the U.S. can begin to catch up to the 13-15 other countries-including some Third World countries- that are ahead of the U.S. in Broadband reach and speeds.
If Cable, Telco and Wireless resist, then the FCC should get the Justice Department to seek their breakup. Their monopolies are what have caused the U.S. to lag other countries, lose a competitive Internet edge in commerce (and the U.S. was the Internet inventor!), and now is holding back the development of services such as Cloud Education, Cloud Commuting, and Cloud Health.
This means the forced separation of Content like ISPs, Entertainment, Pay-Per-View and any and all Content from the "pipeline" now monopolistically controlled by Cable, Telco, and in some areas Wireless. This could include Spin Off's into non-affiliated companies, stock offerings that allow Cable to recoup their investment, but with unaffiliated and independent managements.
This means ensuring Competitive Access at reasonable and Competitive Rates, audited and Regulated as necessary. If the FCC does this without loopholes , the free markets will insure competitive pricing and the U.S. can begin to catch up to the 13-15 other countries-including some Third World countries- that are ahead of the U.S. in Broadband reach and speeds.
If Cable, Telco and Wireless resist, then the FCC should get the Justice Department to seek their breakup. Their monopolies are what have caused the U.S. to lag other countries, lose a competitive Internet edge in commerce (and the U.S. was the Internet inventor!), and now is holding back the development of services such as Cloud Education, Cloud Commuting, and Cloud Health.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Military Tribunal Real Solution for Enemy Soldiers
Image via Wikipedia
PLANE BOMBER SHOULD GET MILITARY TRIBUNAL
This and any and all Declared Combatants should be charged and tried in Military tribunals. This is a declared War, on both sides; they-Al Qaeda- declared first.
That this war is found, and fought, on non-battlefield domains makes it no less a war.
Why can’t this government and some politicians and the Attorney General accept this?
Is it politics? An attempt to justify weakness and lack of resolve with misguided and erroneously drawn devotion to “Democratic” principles?
Isn’t it enough that in addition to this Soldier’s declared membership in Al Qaeda, he acknowledged proudly his Al Qaeda-sponsored terrorist training in Yemen, as have others?
His chosen Field of Combat was an airplane; as others have so chosen.We are irrational if we expect to be able to choose the time and place of combat, other than when conducting military operations against soldiers and facilities we have discovered through intelligence.
Is this any different than when we discovered and bombed Iraqi airfields and military facilities? German Ammunition dumps in WWII? Vietnamese underground tunnels, soldier’s barracks, supply lines and training facilities?
We should manifest charges and hold a trial in a properly chartered Military Tribunal, and establish an appropriate POW facility. (Wait! I have an idea! Guantanamo! A legitimately chartered and managed POW camp, with Military Courts already in place).
Let me also point out then even though Guantanamo is a proper venue, we have already released Combatant Soldiers who have returned to their “battlefields ” of choice and have attacked the U.S. again.
We guarantee our lack of effective and a sustained strategy when we let our enemies dictate the choice of battlefields, and then thank them for their strategy by failing to make our appropriate and justified response a surety; a policy that enemy combatants will be handled as prisoners of war, tried when necessary for war crimes, and jailed or executed as appropriate.
If this “war’ lasts for 20 years, so will their jail sentence. After all, war prisoners in previous wars weren’t repatriated until the way was over.
Perhaps that will give some pause to their Sponsors and to their willing participation.
Although, now that I have said that, what makes me think that an unsuccessful suicide bomber would be somehow apprehensive about a life sentence if caught? After all, he was willing to pay a much higher price; his actual life.
Try enemy combatants wherever and whenever caught; if convicted, “suggest” that their country of capture, or their home country jail them until the war is over,or bury them if that is a result of their trial and sentence.
I am convinced that when Osama bin Laden and his AL Qaeda and terrorist brethren go to bed at night they say, “What were they thinking? If I get caught, what a great way to avoid real consequences.”
via newsflavor.com
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Al Qaeda Tax
The over Two Trillion in hard costs plus over one Trillion in “soft” costs U.S. Citizens have spent on Counter-terrorism efforts and increased security -military, Transportation, seaport security, Homeland Security (Border Security-ICE, TSA) and local costs since 2001 have, in reality, been a “Terror Tax” imposed at virtually every level of U.S. Society and Commerce.
There is no doubt that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and other terror organizations included this “tax’ in their thinking and planning for 2001 and beyond, as part of their terror campaign against U.S. and Western interests and Culture. Looked at that way, as another part of the terror campaign, the costs become even more distasteful; we must ‘pay” Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to maintain our security. And it seems we only throw more money at the problem every time there is a threat or an actual incident.
Add another Trillion for costs incurred by other countries in their Counter-terrorism efforts and it really adds up…way up.
The Trillion or so in “soft” dollars of lost productivity, through increased travel security and travel commuting time, the increased costs in Counter-terror Planning, Training and Equipment, pile fuel on the fire.
That we were unprepared for terror attacks may be a given, as evidenced by the results. No coordinated intelligence gathering and anyalysis, no coordinated or planned anti-terror infrastructure, and a general sense of denial of our vulnerability, our assumed imperviousness from this type of threat, were all prevalent at the time.
Osama Bin Laden may have done the U.S. a “service” by bringing America into the cultural religious wars of the twenty-first century, but that service is one we would gladly do without.
Those Trillions could have been used for tax reductions, energy conservation incentives, small business investments and incentives, modernizing educational through technology, and ..ahem! reducing the deficit. A fully engaged and productive U.S. economy with virtually fill employment generates more than enough revenue to balance the budget and reduce the deficit; a cost our children and grandchildren are projected to bear for generations. Interest alone on the national Debt amounts to $16,000 for each man woman and child over the next ten years, not including whatever we add each year.
How could we better use that money? One Trillion in tax reduction and small business incentives would mean up to six million new jobs, adding up to two and one-half Trillion to Gross National Product. One Trillion in education could have meant rapid deployment of Computer-assisted education at every level of schooling from K-12, including Cloud Education at home and in Charter Schools; additional school programs for poor and minority groups to start realizing the value of our Human Capital.
One half Trillion in “green” energy infrastructure and incentives including solar, wind and insulated high power transmission lines would lead to a reduction of millions of barrels of energy imports every day in just a few years.
Combined with “green” car designs of all types and Mass Transportation programs, the U.S. could reduce energy imports by one-half overall by 2020-2025.
If we used all of the “terror Tax” revenue for reducing our deficit, we would be much better off. Having additional revenues for tax reduction, small business incentives, education and energy conservation would benefit us all, and our economy.
Al Qaeda and terrorism have cost us much more than the “terrorism tax.”
They have cost us some peace of mind and personal security for ourselves and our families. Our family members , sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fight this war.
Maybe that’s a ”tax” we have to pay, but we’d rather not.
A last thought.
We need at least two, preferably three Counter-Terror Special Forces Brigades with complete mobility; able to get moving rapidly-overnight, land, supply and resupply as independent entities. Go where our intelligence identifies and targets groups, training facilities and the rest. That we have the capability but not the will power to find, isolate and destroy known locations is much more political than military. The military, even using some existing forces could undertake this task if so charged, But the politicians interfere.
The State Deparetment allows for hand-wringing about air space and sovereignty, when we should be offering our sincere apologies for the embargoes and financial restrictions, the withholding of aid and support to each andevery country that says one thing about our need to find and destroy terrorists, whether in downtown London, Khazakstan, Iraq, Pakistan or whereever. And interfering with our forces or the fight?
Well, that just brings out the Tiger’s Claws. You can’t win, so don’t try. Help, not hinder and you are our friend. Interfere and you should become dog meat in the literal sense.
We have too long allowed countries and politicians to call on the U.S. for every kind of assistance and support, while from the other sides of their mouths, by speech and action, they support terrorists, or convientently ignore them. We are considered, in the back rooms and political get-togethers of many foreign countries, to be weak and mis-managed.
Subverting the U.S. and the causes of capitalism and a free society have become the game of choice of many countries, who just can’t wait for our slips, our misfortunes, our troubles. Many foreigners are like drivers on a thruway passing a horrendous wreck (the wreck being the U.S.) and saying, “Boy, I’m glad that’s not me.”
Since we can’t seem to get most countries to support U.S. efforts, or those that do, do so grudgingly, let’s concentrate on our own interests, while we still have the capability to remove those who conspire to attack us.
We hear and see evidence every day that even those who ostensibly support the U.S. only do so until their interests may be threatened; then they thwart us at every turn, even while being two-faced to the world. China and Russia are perfect examples of this so-obvious behavior.
When Osama and his brethren say prayers, they thank their Gods for the ineptness and lack of intestinal fortitude we continually display. That we haven’t experienced much worse is a testament to what we have accomplished. We are neither as efficient nor as committed as we should and can be.
Every President from George Bush the First, to Clinton, to George the Second and now Barach Obama has said, “You can’t hide. We will find you and destroy you.”
Hasn’t happened. If I’m, paying Al Qaeda”terror taxes” I want results!
via socyberty.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)