The Geek World Wants to Know: Is L.E.N.R. feasible?

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), table-top fusion, cold fusion... whatever you know it by has been lighting up the science and innovation websites over the past couple of years.  Scientists are now saying that it is possible, and a few have even replicated the experiment, and even fewer more are building LENR machines for commercial distribution.   Now with all of that said, why is there still doubt that it works and where is the plain speak break-down of the process?

I'll start by highlighting that I am not a physicist.  However, that isn't to say that I don't have a weak grasp of the ideas, and understanding (albeit limited one) of quantum mechanics and the standard model, nor am I unable to figure out an equation given enough time and data.  So where is the proof?

The end result being a relatively safe, low cost, low maintenance personal power plant that should fit nicely into any garage much like a water heater (spoiler alert) and provide us with more than ample electricity and/or heat for our lives.  I would hope that with someone on the verge of releasing LENR power to the world at an amazingly low cost ($1000 per home unit) that scientists in the field would have risen up to prove or disprove this theory, application, or invention...  however, the best we can get are big names from C.E.R.N. or competing companies to come in and explain that it's plausible but some thing "weird" is happening there.  That isn't much help when this technology is released and we are either:

Best case scenario:  An influx of large, cheap, easy, safe power is made ubiquitous.  Our economies will immediately go into a quick turbulent upheaval, and governments will be hard pressed to redefine energy policy globally.

Worst case scenario:  It's fake and a few hundred thousand to millions of people get duped by one of the best con artists of all times.  So why is this the "worst case" scenario?  One fact has been handed out, one truth where there needs to be many but one defining truth, fusion or some effect resulting in energy excess is happening.  If Andrea Rossi's E-Cat is a hoax then the detriment to this field of study will be near irrevocable, even during a time when many scientists believe it is feasible without knowing a mechanism with which to make it commercial.

So here are the "clarion call" questions the laypersons need answered:

Is there a reaction able of generating collectable, usable excess energy in the L.E.N.R. process?

Is it feasible, at this point in time, to make this commercial?

In your opinion (and we need a lot of opinions here) will we see this as a usable technology in a few years?

We need the introverts to speak up.  We need the subject matter experts in the field of physics to "break it down".

With declassified defense analysis reports from the U.S.  Defense Intelligence Agency like the one below is there any question as to why it is important to spread the news, either for or against, LENR? Defense Analysis Report on Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or Nuclear Effect

Also, for those just dipping into the discussion here's a crisp CBS interview with all points of view: More Than Junk Science

Drivers are the problem with driving.

If an airliner crashed everyday killing 100+ people the temptation to hop on a plane might melt away, however, our trust in ourselves and our cars is unparalleled.  Every year over 40, 000 people die in car accidents (that's 110 a day) and the more studies that are done the more it becomes an obvious truth, the drivers are the reasons for the glaring majority of the deaths.  We drive our cars with faith and ego and little, if any, prudence or respect.

There is no other activity so pervasive through our society that easily risks so many lives everyday, and we are more in-tune with perpetuating that practice than we are to our own safety, and life.  Doubt that assertion?  Why is there even one drunk driving accident... ever?  We tackle the daily grind of our commute with repetitive accuracy and then assert that we're fully aware behind the wheel.  Why then are accidents more prevalent between the hours of 5pm and 7pm than any other time during the day?  The results don't show that it's just the natural time for us to die, nor does it show that cars become less able to do their jobs at that time of day.  We kill more people with our cars during 5pm to 7pm at night because we're TOO busy to drive!  We speed to get home, we text that we're coming home, and many idiots (sorry you're just seriously retarded if you still drive under the influence) are driving home from happy hour. 

The guidelines for safe driving are easy, obvious, and well known but rarely if ever do people follow all of these simple rules, all of the time.  That last bit is the key. So here are the guidelines for those just finding out for the first time:

• Don't speed.
• Wear a seat belt at all times.
• Pay attention to the road.

 Let's look at these three (3) simple easy rules and see where drivers go wrong.

(NOTE: these are not in order of importance, they are all important and forgetting any one is just stupid)

Don't Speed.

Maintaining speed is a balancing act. Thirty percent (30%) of all fatal traffic accidents occur when someone speeds, so what is "speeding" and how do you know when you are doing it?  The proper speed on ANY given road during IDEAL conditions is the speed limit.  This IS NOT a guideline.  When inclement weather hits, you adjust your speed (slower) to accommodate.  The fastest you should be going in any lane is the speed limit.  Whoever tells you that there is a "fast lane" where you can go higher than the posted speed limit is retarded and steering your driving ability with their ego... that won't buy you much when someone is dead.  There is NO need to discuss drunk driving and speeding.  If you are driving a car drunk you already fail at life and deserve everything you get.  If you drink and drive stop reading here, you are already too dumb and too egocentric to fathom the rest.


Wear seat belts at ALL times.

Does this even need to be expounded upon?  Get in the car, put on the seat belt, do the rest, take off the seat belt and get out of the car when finished.  If you drive without a seat belt you are adding a great threat to your life and limb even at what most would consider "safe speeds".  Seat belts help you through an impact lessening most of the force...and it still hurts like hell!  Without a seat belt you are just asking for more bodily damage at lower speeds.

Pay attention to the road

This, now more than ever before, is a griping truth.  You use 3 senses to full capacity while driving (sight, hearing, touch), by not using all 3 of these to their potential on the act of driving, while driving you are not respecting the fact that your inattention can take someone's life.  I would ask you then, "If you could save one life of someone you loved, just by being attentive and responsible, would you do it?"  The resounding answer would be "Yes, of course."  However, we still have people everyday applying make-up, texting or talking on cell phones, fuddling with the GPS, eating a meal, and allowing every other distraction to get in the way.  Turn the phone off, put the burger down, and respect my life and your own.

How come these three easy, basic, simple things get put to the side everyday by millions of drivers and result in thousands of fatalities a year?  How come we continue to make these basic mistakes accounting for more death and tragedy each year than global wars?  Personal responsibility.  It is YOUR job to drive the car to the best of your ability and you can't do that if your first argument out of the gate was "... but look at the other guy!"  Lead by example and know that at least you are being safe.  The commute home is not a "race to the finish line" it's a dance with every other driver out there and if everyone knows the 3 easy steps there will be a lot less bumping into each other at the expense of our lives.

Our Abundant Planet: Seeing the Forest Despite the Trees

We live in a time when our troubles are melting away. We're going beyond tribal mentality, communal fear, and ushering in an age of technological advancement, ubiquitous education, and free (yes, free) energy and water, all to create a global unity we've never seen before.  We are beginning to meet the rising billion on the internet and soon there will be more unique voices helping tackle our problems and new flows of income from unexpected places.

If anything now is the time to be prepared for the changes coming. Free energy is already out there, if solar panels and residential wind turbines aren't enough to convince you there are new fusion(fusion not fission) advancements ready to go online, the E-Cat if it pans out, and many many more. Free energy equals free water, and that is happening now with Dean Kamen's SlingShot... this is a technology that is ubiquitous, cheap, and simple and actually costs MORE when it's turned off.

Over 2012 to 2013 we will reach 70% proliferation of cellphones over the populace of Sub-Saharan Africa. What we ARE doing now:

Replacement organs are being grown and used; bladders, esophagi, and skin. Within a year kidneys/livers/lungs, and heart... but why even bother with hearts? When we have another alternative?

Millions of new minds are joining the global community almost every day and by 2020 we're looking at 5 billion new voices on the internet. 35 dollar computers capable of nearly all desktop functions are available now, imagine where cellphones will be by 2020...is it even possible to track that type of advancement over a decade? Look at how far we've already come with these...and we don't even notice.

In-vitro meat is well on it's way to our dinner tables. We could reforest 30% of our world's surface just by eliminating the land we raise our livestock on. Our livestock and meat farming practices account for 70% of emerging diseases, with in-vitro meat we eliminate that altogether. Not to mention it's just meat, no need for saturated fat and the rest. We could use Omega 3 fatty acids instead of saturated fat, or none at all. We could make our meals healthy and still eat what we want, is there no end to our hedonistic sustainability?

Caloric Restriction is also soon to come by pill, and one pill is already handing out the benefits of caloric restriction.

Stem cell research is already applicable to help spinal cord injuries as well as anti-body interception to halt and cure regenerative diseases.

Hans Keirstead Futuremed Presentation Stem Cells - YouTube

These examples could go on for days. The point being, that we are NOWHERE near the post apocalyptic film scenarios our modern media would have us believe.  We have plenty of innovation here, as current technology, to handle our woes as well as emerging technologies that show us a path to a MUCH brighter future.

iPad3 Infographic: What's to Come and Why?

 We ran across this excellent infographic on the iPad3.  For those interested in infographics it's quite the read.  Thanks to Ask Your Target Market at aytm.com for making this up in anticipation of the coming news release for the iPad3 expected early March.

There are some really exciting changes expected and seeing where Apple gets their motivation let's see what current and prospective iPad3 owners have to say.

Source: AYTM Research

Subject Matter Experts: Everywhere

Thousands of Subject Matter Experts Speak out on Whitney Issues

It's true.  Just log onto Facebook or read the tweets.  Subject matter experts, never before seen are coming out of their shells to announce what really happened to Whitney, and to expound on what a tragedy it truly is.  It seems that whatever the current media hype is, there is a frequently tapped resource they use to propagate their stories, you.

Whether it be an anchor lady getting bit by a pit bull on her show, Whitney's death, or Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" bill, there are subject matter experts in almost every household.  People, by the droves, are chiming in on what they believe, not the facts, not actual real life experience, just what they 'feel' should be the answer.  The question is, are you really qualified to open that stink maker and talk about an issue?

Of course you are! It's your first amendment right! Hell, I wouldn't be typing this now if I didn't have the right to.  Everyone has the right to speak out about anything.  Now we delve into the filmy and murky waters of, "If I have the ability to do something does that mean I should?" Well luckily our nation, so far, has been led by people able to withhold this impulse, because without it we would probably have started a nuclear world war.  Our nations leaders have had the ability to do some pretty scary stuff but we have been granted a reprieve, so far, in that they haven't fulfilled the impulse to "just nuke em'!"

Doing what you have the right to do and doing what you have the ability to do are two totally different mine fields.  Hell, I have an English Lit degree, have been published 3 times and I still feel inadequate to the task many days.  Sometimes the news is so sensationalized I wonder why it even rates as news.  The one limiting factor I have is this; today we write as though the words pour out onto the screen are digested by the masses and then we forget about what we put out there, much like we would toss an unwanted piece of trash.  Once we move beyond it, we forget it.  But like trash, our rants, hopes, status updates, and the like are there to stay. 

We are trashing up our timeline for the future historians.  It is one thing to see a well written, slightly biased or unbiased article addressing a subject, and a complete other matter to see "OMG Whitney died!! ZOMG it was the mother, I knew it all along!!"  Is this really the legacy we are happy leaving for future generations?  Technology will continue to expand exponentially, at least for a decade or two more.  By the time our infants are posting their own status updates they will be much more informed and able to handle the massive amounts of media we have to express ourselves.  Do we really want them to see us as the whole nation that devolved into Yellow Journalism?

We've even become experts already at dissecting news casts and laughing at obviously biased outlets.  What makes us feel anyone treats our views differently?  The only thing we can do is make sure we stick with the facts and allow our biases to be changed through reporting and research.  

So what's the BIG deal with BIG dogs?

Warning: Graphic images contained in this article.  Not for the easily deterred or the young.

So What's The BIG Deal with BIG dogs?

Aww look! They are checking the flavor!

The arguments abound but it seems each side has issues when it comes to dogs, especially big dogs, but more specifically Pit Bull Terriers and Rottweiler Breeds.  Why are these canines getting so much bad press?  I'll look at this from a logical stand point and then showcase it from the "How obvious does it have to be?" stand point. What it all boils down to is that dogs bite.  They bite just about anything they can.  They do it all of the time and we think it's 'cute' until the fateful day it happens to us, or worse our children.

The worst arguments can be found when it comes to pit bull owners claiming the innocence of their beloved breed.  The dark truth comes from the fact that many reports on the brutality of the pit bull come from FORMER pit bull owners after an attack.  Let's take a moment to look at the relative data and skip over the anecdotal evidence. 

The Merritt Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 tracks the occurrence of dog attacks and maimings. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of deaths and 68% of maimings that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006)

Attacked by Pit Bull while on his bike.

Another good study is the "Breeds of dogs involved infatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998" released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008.  This study has come under attack for not representing a wide enough range of cases via their collection methodology, I think what few people understand is that MORE reports of cases aren't going to make this number go down, the best it could do is sprinkle the statistics better over the full course of dog breeds, making the numbers even more staggering. Dog Bite Related Fatalities (DBRF) only account for 0.0002 percent of all incidents where people are bitten by a dog!

Attacked by a pit bull after hearing a yelp from a pup.  This lady was nowhere near the pups in question.

The facts remain, a dog is not and CANNOT rationalize like a human, and yet we try to place our own idea of what a dog is "thinking" into our schema of how they should react. Dogs are animals.  Dogs are animals that have not evolved higher levels of reasoning.  If you doubt this please feel free to have your dog go to the store purchase a can of dog food, open it, and feed themselves.  We push our emotions onto our perceptions of our animals.  And why wouldn't we?  We've been doing it since the beginning of domestication, when we first reached out our hands and enlisted the help of the wolf for domestic energy needs.  But did domestication work?  Not really, what we call a domestic animal still relies heavily on their animal instincts and impulses.  A truly domesticated animal wouldn't bite, fight, or claw at an owner unless provoked by a similar action.  These dogs, however, are not biting, clawing, and rending flesh over a survival instinct but rather a territorial one.  The first and most important thing to remember about 'domesticated' animals is that they live extremely egocentric lives. 

Erin Dickenson after being mauled by two pit bulls on the way home from school.

Lets get back to debunking the popular arguments in favor of keeping dogs under loose regulation:

• About 40 children per year die from drowning in water filled pails.  A person in their lifetime is 16 times more likely to die in a water pail then be killed by a pit bull. - what this doesn't account for is that if pit bulls were as prolific as water pails you would be MORE likely to be killed by a pit bull.

• Approximately 50 children are killed every year in their cribs.  That's 25 times the number of children killed by pit bulls. - (a.k.a. 2 kids) Again if pit bulls were 25 times more present in homes with children you would find that number to be at odds with your beliefs.

• A child is 800 times more likely to be killed by a caretaker than a pit bull.  - I just can't say this enough, if pit bulls were everywhere a child's care taker is then there wouldn't be a population issue.

The issue isn't getting better either.  Political stymie and emotional endeavors hold dog regulations in check and this is the REAL issue.  Our population is expanding quicker then ever before.  Our predominantly rural society has changed into an urban upswing and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon.  If you can pull anything away from this please pay attention here.  Our population is expanding but we are not as exclusive as we were many years ago.  Dog attacks are going up each and every year because we are packing ourselves and our dogs into ever tighter spaces.  For us this is just something we process into our lives but for dogs this is not in their make-up.  They are able to encounter more people and in less space day-to-day now than they ever would have 100 years ago.  They are also more likely to be dissatisfied with less room to move.  We are advancing beyond what we can reasonably expect evolution to account for in dogs.

Exactly what triggers an attack is still unclear.  In this case it was handing out peaches.

As you've read this far you've likely noticed that I've left out dog owners in this article.  I'll address that now.  It is hard to hold only the dog owner responsible for a dog when the wide majority of dog owners have very little idea of how a dog actually thinks or to hold them responsible for a reaction that can happen within a millisecond.  It is easy for us to hold owners responsible because to us it makes sense.  We hold a driver responsible for the accident they cause, we hold a gun wielder responsible for the damage their bullets make, but we neglect to see that a dog, unlike a gun or automobile react and move under their own authority.  Hell we even spend hundreds of dollars taking our dogs to schools to hope that they can learn to not react they way their genes tell them to.

Any dog trained to attack or otherwise, if under the perception that it is being treated harshly (especially by a child) may bite a person.  Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog, be it by the owner, the environment, or a misperception of actual events. All dogs have the potentiality to attack, we even encourage this behavior in our cuddly pups, playing tug-o-war with a rope is drawing on their natural reaction of rending and tearing flesh from a carcass... but damn it is cute!

So, what triggers dogs to attack?  Simple answer we don't really know.  Obvious aggression or threatening behavior can be a trigger but so can selling peaches from a stand, slipping on ice while walking your dog, and even sneezing. It all lies within the perception of the dog, so as people cohabiting with dogs we are asked to monitor the possible perception of any dog we come in contact with to ensure it doesn't attack us... and then it still may attack depending on the unforeseen. A biased but clear case for pit bull triggers can be found at DogsBite.org - Triggers: What Prompts a Pit Bull to Attack?

One cannot look at an individual dog, state its breed, and then state whether or not it is liable to attack.  So why all of the pit bull hate?  Simple, pit bulls are the most likely dog to attack anyone.  Normally, dogs tend to stick with the hierarchical and  admittedly smart process of not messing with other animals bigger than themselves, this is actually why more attacks on children are reported.  However, the pit bull does not have this limiting factor in it's personality.  Pit bulls are just as likely to maul an adult as they are anyone else, they spread the love evenly and at a greater rate than most dogs attack just children.

The conclusion is somewhat obvious, dogs are animals.  All dogs have been shown to kill, maim, claw, rend, and hurt us.  The truth then is that big dogs hurt more effectively than smaller breeds, and the more we grow the more this will happen.  So this isn't so much a case of "Why is everyone picking on my <enter name of big dog breed here>?" , but rather a case of "Why aren't we making uniform policy against all dogs?"

Why are YOU Still Smoking? Really.

Sort of an addendum to my last article...

Why are YOU still smoking? Really.

You GO, Boy!

It's not because there isn't a better way to get nicotine.  I've found a better way, in fact tens of thousands of prior smokers have found the better way, vaping.  It is true that technology makes our lives better.  We see it everyday, so why is it we're so quick to cling to a tradition rooted in tribal communities.  Smoking today is the equivalent to burning leaves and twigs in a tent to get your trip on.

Using a personal vaporizer (an electronic cigarette) allows you all of the physical naughtiness of smoking without actually introducing 4,000+ chemicals into yourself and those around you.  All you get is pure unadulterated nicotine.  

An e-cigarette in use.  Oh how different it looks!

Lets address that too, many people are still under the assumption that nicotine is the ingredient in tobacco that kills you.  If you believe this you are wrong.  The side effects of nicotine on the average person are comparable to those of caffeine.  It is the result of the combustion on tobacco that provides the majority of the 4000+ chemicals that are attributed to smoking aliments resulting in death. SMOKE kills, firemen and women know this, our politicians know this, our healthcare providers know this, why don't you?

Caffeine and Nicotine - CNS effects

But wait, maybe I'm jumping the gun here.  Maybe you do know smoking kills.  You've been using it as an age old argument against marijuana use for decades--even though it has been used in edible form for 100's of years.  Well, now vaporizers for marijuana use are prevalent everywhere and users are healthier than ever.  Users have naturally begun switching to vaporizers, not due to any societal stigma, but rather because it's the healthier choice.  Given a choice and with cheap enough technology people opt for the healthier choice.  Who wants the choice that sends them into the ground earlier?

Marijuana Vaporizer

Plus, both nicotine and marijuana are largely recreational routines.  Shouldn't our recreational activities be more rewarding?  The benefits of vapor over smoke are staggering in terms of enjoyment.  Taste, no comparison, vaporized nicotine/marijuana can be almost any flavor you can imagine.  Odor, again no comparison, vaporized nicotine/marijuana can smell like any of your favorite treats.  Plus you won't smell like cigarette smoke.  Did we mention the health benefits?

• Increased lung capacity (easier breathing)
• Increased lung function
• Increased blood flow
• Stabilized blood pressure

... this list could go on for a long time.

Chances are you've heard of electronic cigarettes if you are a current smoker. Hell, I heard about electronic cigarettes over 4 years ago and I wasn't even looking.  So if you are still a current smoker, why the reluctance to change?  Is it just the change, because I can assure you from my own and thousands of others experience there is nothing to fear.  The experience is so much more enjoyable and rewarding. 

Homework research - Information on the effects of vaporization:

American Association of Public Health Physicians

Health New Zealand Ltd. study

Journal of Public Health Policy 

Electronic cigarette Wiki

 

Marijuana Is STILL Illegal: Now You're Just Being Silly America

Marijuana Is STILL Illegal: Now You're Just Being Silly America

Isn't There a Better Alternative?

There is just no way around it.  Marijuana is illegal and alcohol isn't.  How can a society be so blind to the truth that we make deadly decisions and die, while better alternatives exist? The facts are the real crux to this argument.  We know that alcohol is toxic, so much so that we've gone to great lengths to make laws that protect us from ourselves while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. We see each night the death toll rise from alcohol-related incidents via our nightly news broadcast.  We read about our neighbors, celebrities, associates, and even (heart-breakingly) our friends and family dying of alcohol consumption.  We hear the anecdotal evidence, and yet we continue to condone the use of alcohol.  I have to believe, I MUST believe that this is only a case of misinformation, because there is no logical argument, barring social engineering, that makes sense of a world where we promote a drug that kills tens of thousands each year while keeping a completely non-toxic alternative illegal.

Facts

• Deaths caused per year:

                        Alcohol induced - 23,199 (source:http://www.drugwarfacts.org)

                        Marijuana - 0

• Toxic deaths per year (deaths only from the direct consumption of a substance):

                  Alcohol - 331 (source: http://www.cdc.gov)

                  Marijuana - 0

• Ratio of a fatal dose to an effective dose (how much does it take to get drunk vs. how much it takes to die):

                        Alcohol - 10 (source: http://www.saferchoice.org)

                        Marijuana - unable to determine

"The acute toxicity of cannabinoids is very low. There are no confirmed published cases worldwide of human deaths from cannabis poisoning." (source: http://www.ukcia.org/research/AdverseEffectsOfCannabis.pdf)

           

• Number of patients admitted per year for dependence to:

                       Alcohol -73,000 (source: http://www.mercurynews.com)

                       Marijuana - less than 200

• Percent of rape and sexual assault attributed to:

                        Alcohol - 26.8% (Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov)

                        Marijuana - 0%

The Argument

There is no reason to keep marijuana illegal while we promote alcohol as the correct course of action for recreational use.  It is still amazing that given the choice, using marijuana or drinking a shot of alcohol, that alcohol pans out as the socially acceptable choice.  It's as obvious as a Jim Crow Law how wrong it is, but as with Jim Crow Laws people were willing to accept the ignorance of the law to adhere to the status-quo.

Unfounded opinion is what created the Jim Crow Laws just as unfounded opinion is what created our current (federal) marijuana policy.  It is hard in the argument, at this point, not to delve into a historical discussion of how marijuana became illegal, the best course then is to put the source on your screen and hope you feel the need to self-educate by clicking the link (Marijuana History)

Societal Pressure and Child Rearing

Even the wording used in the propaganda to enact our earliest Marijuana Laws sounds like it came right out of Jim Crow's memoir,

"... 'Marijuana Madness' is the belief to which the use of marijuana by colored people is said to cause excessive sex and violence, and threatens the safety of white women and children." (Source: marijuanatoday.com)

Other Notable Arguments that helped enact our CURRENT marijuana laws:

o       1920s: “Makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” —H.J. Anslinger, Bureau of Narcotics

o       1930: “Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.” —Hearst Newspapers Nationwide

o       1932: “Hasheesh goads users to blood lust.” —Hearst Newspapers

o       1935: “Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.” —Hearst Newspapers

o       1937: “Marihuana is the most violent drug in the history of mankind.” —Congressional Testimony, H.J. Anslinger, FBN

... and this is a truncated list.

Why do we promote our freedom and open-mindedness when we obviously have an issue making (or unmaking) the right choice?  If you had a gun that could kill 23 thousand people a year... well you would have a pretty good argument for that gun, but if you have a car that holds the same statistic, isn't it then obvious that you shouldn't buy that car?  Isn't it even more obvious when someone offers you an alternative that knocks that number down to 0 (or even nearer to 0)?

We were able to abolish the Jim Crow Laws because we knew they were wrong, we heard others echo our feelings, we saw the injustice, and we read the results of our inaction.  We continued to reform our laws and allow for minorities an equal measure to enjoy life and pursue liberty and happiness, so why did we stop before we addressed marijuana? It's just silly.

Oh, Homer *sigh*

Conclusion

This was a hard article to write.  It seems almost any approach  taken sounds widely biased.  I'm not particularly biased on the issue but the more I research our choice of recreational chemical I realize there are so many glaring double standards. It is often said, "We are not a society of critical thinkers" and every drunk-driver report on the nightly news reinforces this assumption.   

So why even bother? Why write an article that will clearly task society to use critical thought when most don't even know HOW to critically think?  It must be gumption, presumptuousness, and an inherent belief that critical thinking and solution-based problem solving are rooted in the human genome.  I believe... I have to believe, that America has had the wool pulled over its eyes.  If we, as a society, don't have the blinders on then we are lost.   

Critical thinking is not just some ghostly notion, or some novel approach to looking at issues. Critical thinking is the way we have survived and prospered throughout history.  Without this educational tool we will falter in the coming years, as our technology expands and our ability to communicate with other sides of the globe becomes as difficult as talking to someone in the room. At that point in time, is it really justifiable to cling to a social system that promotes a deadly poison as a recreational activity and keeps marijuana illegal?

Just changing your perspective to a informed perspective is enough.  This isn't a call to action, just a call for critical thinking. Just being knowledgeable is enough. At this point in time, in this day and age, ignorance is not an argument it is the promotion of a disease.

Autonomous Vehicles: No Longer a Shadowy Future

 Autonomous Vehicles: No Longer a Shadowy Future. What's Next?

Google driverless car, with a test fleet of autonomous vehicles that as of October 2010 had driven 140,000 miles (230,000 km).

Automation is here so to think that autonomous vehicles (AV's) aren't on the horizon, the very near horizon, is setting yourself up for failure.  The benefits far exceed the negatives:

• Elimination of driver restriction - Nearly anyone can use an AV
• Elimination of driver - An AV can drive itself without a circadian cycle (without sleeping)
• Elimination of parking scarcity - more space with less sprawl
• No more driving while intoxicated - You can still be intoxicated but you won't have to drive.
• Fewer crashes - and less lives lost
• More roadway

The list goes on for the positives of what this technology is bringing to the table.  I read something from a forum poster on a popular site who summed it up rather well.

"By looking fixedly at (the negative) side of the equation you can completely ignore the fact that, as the end result of centuries of those sorts of displacement, the condition of humankind is massively better then if those displacements hadn’t occurred." - Arpad

However, don't think it will take centuries to see the net benefit.  It is hard to believe someone in a history book will look back and sum it all up as Michael Schermer has done with many other aspects of life.  Instead we will see the benefits immediately.  With our ability to acquire and assimilate data through various methods (cloud compilations are only the tip here) we will be constantly reminded of how many fewer accidents there are, how many more people share mobility, and we will laugh at the tedium of actual driving.

We're looking at emerging technologies right now that overcome the hurdles set in place to make autonomous driving a reality. 

• A negligible (if any) increase in infrastructure and likely a decrease as we can do away with a LOT of the road signs.
• Working at or above human standards - over all safe
• Cheaper costs - as implementation increases the cost will decrease (We see this everyday, our current iPhones are as powerful as the world's best super computers just 10 years ago for MUCH less)

We've already accepted with little debate autonomous assistance in driving with assisted parking, back-up assistance, blind spot coverage... we're proving everyday that computers are enhancing our lives on the road.  Isn't this the next logical step?

From a personal point of view as a business owner--and of course I'm bias--I would rather see an autonomous drone vehicle schlepping cargo around on the road than a human, not only for that fact that they don't need to sleep and only rarely stop, but also to take that person out of that unhealthy and dangerous job.  At first that seems harsh but we've seen the impact long time driving has on truckers.

Within a year AV's will be as common or more common than our ever focused recon drones.  Within 5 years we will see wide impact of AV's being implemented, and within a decade AV's will be an issue of the past.  Perhaps the next debate should be what is the next hurdle of implementation, legal, moral, media, or something else?

Soccer Mom: Is Your Car a Pedophile Road Map?

Soccer Mom: Is Your Car a Pedophile Road Map?

Everyday I drive I see multiple S.U.V.s, Minivans, Trucks, and Cars vying for my attention with advertisements about their kids accomplishments and I ask myself, "Do they understand that they are making it even easier for their children to be victimized?" There are ways to promote your children's accomplishments without giving away information about your family, but let's look at the typical bumper stickers on today's family meat wagons and see what they can tell anyone, especially the criminally intent.

The back of your car says a lot about you and your children

The License Plate:

There isn't much you can do here but understanding what information can be derived from your license plate is essential to understanding how detrimental additional information can be.  This is going to be the first thing anyone looks at if they are gathering information on your family and their habits.  By writing down your license plate number a police officer, detective, collection agent, pedophile, anyone can garner an amazing amount of information from you such as; address, owner of the title, year/make/model.  With simple research and easily available web tools anyone can pluck that information after jotting down your cars plate number.

The "Proud Parent" Sticker:

"Proud Parent of a New James Elementary Honor student"

This is a bit more obvious as to what it entrusts the public with in terms of information.   Your child's school.  This is a great piece of information for a potential criminal, now they know where to look and who to talk to for additional information.  Can you imagine the impact that a simple phone call to an administrator from a school makes?  Any half savvy criminal can, especially over the phone, pose as a benign third party looking for information on a particular student.  The results of such a front are varied but at a minimum they will ensure that the child still attends the school and they can garner as much as: current address, current age, GPA, extracurricular activities, lunch time, and class schedule.

The Personalized Activity Sticker:

This is really just the nail in the coffin.  A sticker that reads something like "PeeWee All Stars Cheer Team - Kaylee"
Now we know the specifics of an activity that your child participates in and their first name.  If we compile this from the myriad of other information we've been able to garner from the back of these kid carriers at a minimum the average Joe can discern:

o         First name of your child

o         Where they go to school

o         The activities they participate in (and possibly what they enjoy)

Now someone with the smallest amount of interest and some free time can garner much more:

o         Last name of the family

o         Address

o         Household income

o         Hobbies and other interests

o         Times the child is unsupervised at school

o         A full schedule of the child's day to day activities

o         Names of siblings, relatives, friends

o         Home phone

... the list goes on.

There are, of course, people who are going to argue that this isn't the case but the real question you need ask is, "How much do I trust the DMV and/or my school's administration with my and my child's information?"

The best way to see if this is something that worries you is to take all the raw data from the back of your car and do your own search.  See what "Googling" your child's school, their cheer team, or even just their name will net you in information.  Call your school sometime and see how much information you can attain before someone checks your credentials, or if you're good over the phone see if you can get them to e-mail you information on your child--note: the trick here is familiarity and speaking with a purpose.

If at the end of your investigation you are left with next to nothing and you feel as though your child's information is still safe, then at least you put forth the effort to make that judgement.