At the risk of being called an idiot, here is an idea I have for gun control
Make civilian guns such that the guns operate only for the fingerprints burned into them at manufacture time
This will
-- prevent unauthorized use, or ANY use by person other than the owner
-- allow confiscation of guns not restricted by fingerprint easier and over time bring down the illegal guns
-- prevent any more illegal guns. Especially after all countries agree to enforce this
It's high time guns move from the "Windows" world into a "Unix" world where the privacy really matters
Monday, December 17, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
New kind of election
The way democracy is working is making no one happy. And people are only able to shrug and say, "can't do much about it, that's the way the system is"
What exactly is the problem with democracy?
- Nothing gets done. Power-hungry politicians are focused on their opponents, instead of on issues.
- Once a seat is secured, it is no longer worthwhile to fire the politician, so he continues and does as he likes
- During election time all that happens is major mud-slinging, and more politics
- No viable alternatives to the people in the power circles. High barrier to entry
Therefore I have dreamt up this new way, which is more right for the Information Age.
There will be no elections. Not in the conventional sense. Conventional election means more speeches, more debates, more advertising, more money down the drain, and the worst, more politics
People cast a "like" for the person who they feel has done a good job. A crowd-sourced "good job database" will be created, and people will select from and add to it, and similarly select from and add to the candidate database. They will match a person and a deed and cast one vote for the pair
No one will formally stand for elections. At the end of a term, maybe 5 years, the totals will be taken and the person at the top will be given the offer to be the top person. If declined, the offer will go to the second highest etc
The duration will vary for each kind of office. It will be longest for the top office, and lesser for the smaller positions
So, with this system only the persons actually doing good public service will gather enough "likes" to be able to qualify for office. Not the one who is the most shrewd politician
Term limits: Term limits must apply. We cant have the same persons in office forever. They will have to rotate. So if a leader is doing a good job, he will have the option to move to a different location and continue the good work so he gets elected. This way goodness will spread around and there will be more healthy competition for doing the good
No brainer, huh?
What exactly is the problem with democracy?
- Nothing gets done. Power-hungry politicians are focused on their opponents, instead of on issues.
- Once a seat is secured, it is no longer worthwhile to fire the politician, so he continues and does as he likes
- During election time all that happens is major mud-slinging, and more politics
- No viable alternatives to the people in the power circles. High barrier to entry
Therefore I have dreamt up this new way, which is more right for the Information Age.
There will be no elections. Not in the conventional sense. Conventional election means more speeches, more debates, more advertising, more money down the drain, and the worst, more politics
People cast a "like" for the person who they feel has done a good job. A crowd-sourced "good job database" will be created, and people will select from and add to it, and similarly select from and add to the candidate database. They will match a person and a deed and cast one vote for the pair
No one will formally stand for elections. At the end of a term, maybe 5 years, the totals will be taken and the person at the top will be given the offer to be the top person. If declined, the offer will go to the second highest etc
The duration will vary for each kind of office. It will be longest for the top office, and lesser for the smaller positions
So, with this system only the persons actually doing good public service will gather enough "likes" to be able to qualify for office. Not the one who is the most shrewd politician
Term limits: Term limits must apply. We cant have the same persons in office forever. They will have to rotate. So if a leader is doing a good job, he will have the option to move to a different location and continue the good work so he gets elected. This way goodness will spread around and there will be more healthy competition for doing the good
No brainer, huh?
Friday, June 15, 2012
Masterstroke: Some things impressive about the Obama campaign
Today Obama announced his Executive Order to defer deportation for the persons brought to US before the age of 16 and meeting some other criteria
This is one thing that various groups were either hoping for or fearing. And it was probably left for dead by regular people who didn't care
What strikes out to me is that the Order deferred the deportation for just 2 years, after which it can be renewed. Now, isn't that the way to ensure that the "Amnesty lobby" (not my coinage) sticks with him in this election? For, if they don't, and he doesn't end up winning, the next person is surely going to strike that down or expire it. Wow.
Why did he wait this long to do this? He may well have done it a few months earlier, last year, or even when his CIR failed. Why now?
It seems to me he deliberately waited till this time to do what he did, because
- if he had done for after the CIR failure, there was still time to do more, and not doing more would put his next election in jeopardy. Saved the tidbit for when the dog was nearly dead from starvation
- If he had done it last year or a few months back, he would have been widely criticized. The right Wing would have maligned him and it would have ensured much more vitriol in Congress going from there. The same wouldn't happen now, because they are all preoccupied with the campaigning, and they are all scared of the enhanced power of the Hispanic electorate in this year
This is ONE TIME the people (majority) are more powerful. During the first three years a handful of minority can do much damage because they have nothing to lose and the party in power has much to lose. During the fourth year the tables start turning and People briefly have the say. And once re-elected, suddenly the President is emboldened because now HE has nothing to lose, because it is his last term. The other side, however might feel the need to make up for their hacks played during the last 4 years. It is amazing how this sharing of power works at different spheres -- policy-making and temporally
Another thing was, how quickly they came up with the healthcare bill. The mammoth bill that few might have read and digested. I heard somewhere that this bill was first drafted in the 1990's. This seems very likely to me, or else how can one possibly imagine coming up with thousands of pages of legal verbiage within the span of a few days? And to think, they started off this business even when it was not clear that Obama would win in the election! In retrospect, I feel, the same would have happened had even Hillary Clinton won the Primary, and the man behind it would be again Bill Clinton.
There is something in common in the two examples above. Perfect timing. And this was obvious in SO many of their actions. A study in this series of executions would be a very valuable education to anyone. Wouldn't you like to have such power of doing all the right actions at the right times? Some day, they will come out with all their secrets, it is hoped!
This is one thing that various groups were either hoping for or fearing. And it was probably left for dead by regular people who didn't care
What strikes out to me is that the Order deferred the deportation for just 2 years, after which it can be renewed. Now, isn't that the way to ensure that the "Amnesty lobby" (not my coinage) sticks with him in this election? For, if they don't, and he doesn't end up winning, the next person is surely going to strike that down or expire it. Wow.
Why did he wait this long to do this? He may well have done it a few months earlier, last year, or even when his CIR failed. Why now?
It seems to me he deliberately waited till this time to do what he did, because
- if he had done for after the CIR failure, there was still time to do more, and not doing more would put his next election in jeopardy. Saved the tidbit for when the dog was nearly dead from starvation
- If he had done it last year or a few months back, he would have been widely criticized. The right Wing would have maligned him and it would have ensured much more vitriol in Congress going from there. The same wouldn't happen now, because they are all preoccupied with the campaigning, and they are all scared of the enhanced power of the Hispanic electorate in this year
This is ONE TIME the people (majority) are more powerful. During the first three years a handful of minority can do much damage because they have nothing to lose and the party in power has much to lose. During the fourth year the tables start turning and People briefly have the say. And once re-elected, suddenly the President is emboldened because now HE has nothing to lose, because it is his last term. The other side, however might feel the need to make up for their hacks played during the last 4 years. It is amazing how this sharing of power works at different spheres -- policy-making and temporally
Another thing was, how quickly they came up with the healthcare bill. The mammoth bill that few might have read and digested. I heard somewhere that this bill was first drafted in the 1990's. This seems very likely to me, or else how can one possibly imagine coming up with thousands of pages of legal verbiage within the span of a few days? And to think, they started off this business even when it was not clear that Obama would win in the election! In retrospect, I feel, the same would have happened had even Hillary Clinton won the Primary, and the man behind it would be again Bill Clinton.
There is something in common in the two examples above. Perfect timing. And this was obvious in SO many of their actions. A study in this series of executions would be a very valuable education to anyone. Wouldn't you like to have such power of doing all the right actions at the right times? Some day, they will come out with all their secrets, it is hoped!
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Research scams
How often do you come across research studies saying a variety of things? At the time of this writing (mid June 2012) there is a study in the news, that says that taking vitamin D and calcium supplements does not help older women. And another that says Omega-3 fatty acids don't help the brain after all
I did not read the two articles. The reason? I don't know how I can take them with any seriousness anymore.It seems they always say one thing today only to completely reverse their opinions just a few days later.
What is the reason for this inconsistency? Are not these studies properly vetted, especially when they contradict long-established theories? Where is the research community's sense of responsibility when publishing their claims in the media?
Are these studies merely for someone trying to complete their PhD? If so, what a nice way to begin a life of quack doctorship!
And to think of some of them --- I get the feeling, even I could dream up a theory like that. Now if only I were among the "right" crowd, that is entitled to publish their papers in prestigious journals.. and here is one more point: why is Research shielded from "outsiders"? Is it because they have not studied the topic, at least for grades? But look at what the people who "studied" came up with. Indeed, laughable
In my opinion, to have a paper vetted and published there should be no prerequisites. Only sufficient training in the scientific process, that includes all formalities, all formats, and ways to scourge information and access to books/other sources
Come on researchers, I challenge you! Do you have the guts to compete against the torrent of ideas from the general people? Do you really want to take Science to the new frontiers? I very much doubt, because you are all namby pamby self-preservers
I did not read the two articles. The reason? I don't know how I can take them with any seriousness anymore.It seems they always say one thing today only to completely reverse their opinions just a few days later.
What is the reason for this inconsistency? Are not these studies properly vetted, especially when they contradict long-established theories? Where is the research community's sense of responsibility when publishing their claims in the media?
Are these studies merely for someone trying to complete their PhD? If so, what a nice way to begin a life of quack doctorship!
And to think of some of them --- I get the feeling, even I could dream up a theory like that. Now if only I were among the "right" crowd, that is entitled to publish their papers in prestigious journals.. and here is one more point: why is Research shielded from "outsiders"? Is it because they have not studied the topic, at least for grades? But look at what the people who "studied" came up with. Indeed, laughable
In my opinion, to have a paper vetted and published there should be no prerequisites. Only sufficient training in the scientific process, that includes all formalities, all formats, and ways to scourge information and access to books/other sources
Come on researchers, I challenge you! Do you have the guts to compete against the torrent of ideas from the general people? Do you really want to take Science to the new frontiers? I very much doubt, because you are all namby pamby self-preservers
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Articles with no commenting allowed
The BBC is #1 as I note, who write pieces of various levels of interest, but gives no avenue for readers to comment. In contrast the Times Of India allows comments of all color and hue, and allows us to see what the masses have to share about the stories. Yes, this makes the comments section ugly sometimes, but a democracy embraces chaos. And it is out of this chaos that meaning ultimately arises
Another, more specific and recent example is of Bloomberg. In rebuking Greg Smith, the executive who resigned from Goldman Sachs and wrote a scathing op-ed piece on the firm's work ethic and wall street in general -- the article has no provision to comment. What are they scared of?
Decide of yourself (Opens in new window):
Here is the link to the rebuking editorial
Here is the link to the original Op-ed piece
Another side-note: I found it particularly difficult finding the original piece via google, and instead went to lots of other pieces on the original (parodies, etc) -- take home what you will, from that. The WSJ rebuttal also carries the link to the original, but available to paid members only. Sheesh, which planet are they coming from???
Another, more specific and recent example is of Bloomberg. In rebuking Greg Smith, the executive who resigned from Goldman Sachs and wrote a scathing op-ed piece on the firm's work ethic and wall street in general -- the article has no provision to comment. What are they scared of?
Decide of yourself (Opens in new window):
Here is the link to the rebuking editorial
Here is the link to the original Op-ed piece
Another side-note: I found it particularly difficult finding the original piece via google, and instead went to lots of other pieces on the original (parodies, etc) -- take home what you will, from that. The WSJ rebuttal also carries the link to the original, but available to paid members only. Sheesh, which planet are they coming from???
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
How space travel will be like
So lately we have been hearing a bit from NASA and others discovering/speculating about matters in the far deep... and invariably the distances pop up -- all in terms of light years
I am sure this throws off many people. Why indeed, should we worry about something we will NEVER see in our lifetime. (And how does it matter if the sun cools in 10 billion years, and so on about all things astronomical)
Well here's what I say. We WILL travel, and we WILL space-travel. And the space travel will be NOTHING like how it is projected in Star Trek/Star Wars/What have you. Here is how I think we will, at some point of time, (space travel,) and I get this from the recently publicized news about the works with the atom smashers, which they want to use to find out where mass comes from (whatever it means), and they want to smash the sub-atomic particles into even more pieces and discover the core of the core (ad infinitum) components.
So finally they will say: THIS is the Higgs Bosom. THIS is responsible for what we call "mass". Or they may say no such thing. Regardless, the direction they are headed, at least to me, it looks like they may one day be able to transform matter from form to form.. and practically reduce anything to its sub-atomic form and then back again. And my "theory" (if you will) starts from there
So since there is nothing faster than light, meaning photons, we will eventually learn to reduce ourselves into a form that can ride on photon vehicles and travel wherever we are beamed up. To boot, when we are re-constructed, we will retain our exact original form. There will be no aging, and we will be young and fresh as ever, even after traveling dozens of years riding on photons. And we will appear as gods before any unfortunate races that may exist throughout the universe.. and mankind will begin yet another chapter in barbarianism and violence at a scale yet to be imagined..
I am sure this throws off many people. Why indeed, should we worry about something we will NEVER see in our lifetime. (And how does it matter if the sun cools in 10 billion years, and so on about all things astronomical)
Well here's what I say. We WILL travel, and we WILL space-travel. And the space travel will be NOTHING like how it is projected in Star Trek/Star Wars/What have you. Here is how I think we will, at some point of time, (space travel,) and I get this from the recently publicized news about the works with the atom smashers, which they want to use to find out where mass comes from (whatever it means), and they want to smash the sub-atomic particles into even more pieces and discover the core of the core (ad infinitum) components.
So finally they will say: THIS is the Higgs Bosom. THIS is responsible for what we call "mass". Or they may say no such thing. Regardless, the direction they are headed, at least to me, it looks like they may one day be able to transform matter from form to form.. and practically reduce anything to its sub-atomic form and then back again. And my "theory" (if you will) starts from there
So since there is nothing faster than light, meaning photons, we will eventually learn to reduce ourselves into a form that can ride on photon vehicles and travel wherever we are beamed up. To boot, when we are re-constructed, we will retain our exact original form. There will be no aging, and we will be young and fresh as ever, even after traveling dozens of years riding on photons. And we will appear as gods before any unfortunate races that may exist throughout the universe.. and mankind will begin yet another chapter in barbarianism and violence at a scale yet to be imagined..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)