Imagine for a moment that you and a friend are on a day hike in a remote area. You get disoriented, and can't find your way back to the car. After a few hours you are really lost, darkness is starting to fall, and you start to panic. You've long since run out of water, you have no food, you haven't seen anybody else all day, and you're not dressed for the cold night temperatures. Now imagine that you have an escape route. A way to tell people exactly where you are, and that you are in trouble and need help.
That is the kind of useful technology that Isaac Daniel hopes will save people's lives. Because of an incident with his 8-year old son being reported as missing, he has created a line of sneakers with a built-in GPS tracking. They allow you to push a button on the sneaker, and send a wireless alert is sent to a monitoring service. In some emergencies (such as a lost child or missing Alzheimer's patient), a parent or guardian can ask the monitoring service to activate the GPS remotely in order to find the missing person.
What's next? This shoe is meant for emergencies, but I imagine that in the near future we will have more of these types of products around for everyday use. So for example, you will be able to create a "virtual fence" area from which they can't leave without triggering an alert to you. So if you child goes outside the neighborhood when they are supposed to be at home, you get a text message. Or if they leave school grounds during school hours (possibly due to an abduction), you get instant notification. It is always better to know about a possible abduction right away, rather than waiting a few hours until the child doesn't show up on time. It could literally mean the difference between life and death.
Read the article on CNN.com
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Turn Garbage Into Clean Energy
Read the article on www.PopSci.com
It looks as though the concept of turning garbage into energy rather than dumping it into a landfill has finally come of age. These trash converters aim to use the principle of plasma gasification to turn just about any trash (including chemical weapons, metal, and concrete) into a synthesis gas, which can be used to generate electricity, and an obsidian-like glass which can be used as a building material. It takes electricity to start the reaction, but once the reaction is going, it produces excess electricity, which can then be used to power surrounding buildings or sold back to the power grid. We're going to need a lot more of these types of converters if we hope to take care of the world's energy and garbage problems.
It looks as though the concept of turning garbage into energy rather than dumping it into a landfill has finally come of age. These trash converters aim to use the principle of plasma gasification to turn just about any trash (including chemical weapons, metal, and concrete) into a synthesis gas, which can be used to generate electricity, and an obsidian-like glass which can be used as a building material. It takes electricity to start the reaction, but once the reaction is going, it produces excess electricity, which can then be used to power surrounding buildings or sold back to the power grid. We're going to need a lot more of these types of converters if we hope to take care of the world's energy and garbage problems.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Urban Road Race For Robotic Cars
Read the full story on CNN.com
This is the kind of technology I've been yearning for all my driving life. Sure, it is still many years off, but at least I can now have a glimmer of hope that it will be available to me in my lifetime.
Imagine getting in your car, telling it where you want to go, and then sitting back and relaxing, maybe taking a nap, or getting an early start on your day's work. You don't have to worry about getting in an accident because your car and every other car out there are driving themselves around, without the flaws of human judgment.
One potential downside? Maybe technology (coupled with ubiquitous ultra-high-speed internet) this will encourage people to commute farther to work. After all, if you can do a lot of your work, or anything else, while driving, the driving doesn't seem like so much of a waste of time.
Of course, some will say that this technology will ultimately become fairly useless, as the promise of affordable flying cars starts to look more like a reality (see companies like Moller for more info on the future of flying cars). The concept would be the same, as you tell it where you want to go and then sit back, but the challenges of navigating through roads in the sky will be much less difficult than navigating around on the ground.
But the idea of using your driving time to do something enjoyable or productive is so alluring, that we can hardly afford not to reach for it. So raise a glass to the computer chauffeurs of tomorrow. And hope he doesn't crash as often as the computers of today.
This is the kind of technology I've been yearning for all my driving life. Sure, it is still many years off, but at least I can now have a glimmer of hope that it will be available to me in my lifetime.
Imagine getting in your car, telling it where you want to go, and then sitting back and relaxing, maybe taking a nap, or getting an early start on your day's work. You don't have to worry about getting in an accident because your car and every other car out there are driving themselves around, without the flaws of human judgment.
One potential downside? Maybe technology (coupled with ubiquitous ultra-high-speed internet) this will encourage people to commute farther to work. After all, if you can do a lot of your work, or anything else, while driving, the driving doesn't seem like so much of a waste of time.
Of course, some will say that this technology will ultimately become fairly useless, as the promise of affordable flying cars starts to look more like a reality (see companies like Moller for more info on the future of flying cars). The concept would be the same, as you tell it where you want to go and then sit back, but the challenges of navigating through roads in the sky will be much less difficult than navigating around on the ground.
But the idea of using your driving time to do something enjoyable or productive is so alluring, that we can hardly afford not to reach for it. So raise a glass to the computer chauffeurs of tomorrow. And hope he doesn't crash as often as the computers of today.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Silent Supersonic Jet?
Read the story on CNN.com
Is it finally possible to make a "quiet" supersonic jet? The folks at Lockheed Martin's fabled Skunk Works think they've designed just such an aircraft.
With advanced design and technology, they believe they have designed a plane that can cruise at about 1100 MPH, while producing only 1 percent as much noise on the ground as the recently decommissioned Concorde. All this while obtaining considerable range (4,600 miles, Chicago to Rome), and some fairly fine luxury seating.
I for one hope that they succeed. I hope that this spurs the development of affordable and quiet supersonic passenger jets. For the last 50 years, passenger planes have gone the same speed. We have not realized any gains in the speed with which we travel through the air, despite 50 years of technology evolution. It is definitely time to move around the planet faster.
Is it finally possible to make a "quiet" supersonic jet? The folks at Lockheed Martin's fabled Skunk Works think they've designed just such an aircraft.
With advanced design and technology, they believe they have designed a plane that can cruise at about 1100 MPH, while producing only 1 percent as much noise on the ground as the recently decommissioned Concorde. All this while obtaining considerable range (4,600 miles, Chicago to Rome), and some fairly fine luxury seating.
I for one hope that they succeed. I hope that this spurs the development of affordable and quiet supersonic passenger jets. For the last 50 years, passenger planes have gone the same speed. We have not realized any gains in the speed with which we travel through the air, despite 50 years of technology evolution. It is definitely time to move around the planet faster.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Irresponsable Media
There have been many stories in the news lately, as there always are, about world events. But in recent weeks, one story has consistently made headlines more than any other.
It concerned the death of a woman named Vickie Lynn Marshall. She grew up in Texas, with several half-siblings, in a broken home. She moved in with her aunt, and failed miserably in school, never gaining more than an 8th grade education. She decided at the age of 17 to marry a 16-year old boy and then have a child. The two seperated a year after the child was born, and she started to work at Wal-Mart, and then as a waitress at Red Lobster.
She apparently didn't like working for low wages, and decided to become a stripper. But she got a "big break" in 1992 when she got in to Playboy Magazine. She married an old billionaire, who died 13 months later, leaving her a fortune. She had a daughter by some other unknown person in 2006. Later in 2006, her son, who was a recovering druggie, died at age 20 from a combination of drug-addiction medications and anti-depressants. She finally died this year at age 39, from as-yet unknown causes. Heavy drug and alcohol use are suspected as possible culprits, as having shortened her life.
By now, you may have realized that I'm speaking about Anna Nicole Smith. Just about anyone who has read the newspapers or seen the internet has seen countless stories about her death in recent weeks.
But why is the press (and through them the American People) so intent on dwelling on this particular life? Why is it that the press puts so much attention on a stripper who one could argue has done nothing constructive for the world? Many would argue that this was a miserable failure of a human being who got lucky enough to look good nude. Many would say that she never contributed anything to society, but that she in fact helped pull society downward, and destroy value more than create value.
The sad fact of the matter is that the media loves to dwell on people like Anna Nicole Smith, and get the public to dwell on it, because of the nature of lust and greed. The really great people of the world (of whom there are many), are rarely mentioned in the press. And even when they are, it is only a quick and fleeting story, printed once and then forgotten. How many Nobel Prize winners can the average American name? How many great, ordinary, every day people who sacrifice and help those around them, are mentioned on the news when they die? How many good examples are mourned by the media today, when they pass, compared to the bad examples who only destroy our society and everything around them?
Shame on the media, for systematically destroying our values, and our society.
It concerned the death of a woman named Vickie Lynn Marshall. She grew up in Texas, with several half-siblings, in a broken home. She moved in with her aunt, and failed miserably in school, never gaining more than an 8th grade education. She decided at the age of 17 to marry a 16-year old boy and then have a child. The two seperated a year after the child was born, and she started to work at Wal-Mart, and then as a waitress at Red Lobster.
She apparently didn't like working for low wages, and decided to become a stripper. But she got a "big break" in 1992 when she got in to Playboy Magazine. She married an old billionaire, who died 13 months later, leaving her a fortune. She had a daughter by some other unknown person in 2006. Later in 2006, her son, who was a recovering druggie, died at age 20 from a combination of drug-addiction medications and anti-depressants. She finally died this year at age 39, from as-yet unknown causes. Heavy drug and alcohol use are suspected as possible culprits, as having shortened her life.
By now, you may have realized that I'm speaking about Anna Nicole Smith. Just about anyone who has read the newspapers or seen the internet has seen countless stories about her death in recent weeks.
But why is the press (and through them the American People) so intent on dwelling on this particular life? Why is it that the press puts so much attention on a stripper who one could argue has done nothing constructive for the world? Many would argue that this was a miserable failure of a human being who got lucky enough to look good nude. Many would say that she never contributed anything to society, but that she in fact helped pull society downward, and destroy value more than create value.
The sad fact of the matter is that the media loves to dwell on people like Anna Nicole Smith, and get the public to dwell on it, because of the nature of lust and greed. The really great people of the world (of whom there are many), are rarely mentioned in the press. And even when they are, it is only a quick and fleeting story, printed once and then forgotten. How many Nobel Prize winners can the average American name? How many great, ordinary, every day people who sacrifice and help those around them, are mentioned on the news when they die? How many good examples are mourned by the media today, when they pass, compared to the bad examples who only destroy our society and everything around them?
Shame on the media, for systematically destroying our values, and our society.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Elections - 2006
Voters went to the polls to cast their ballots yesterday. I, for one, did not. I cast my vote on October 27th, during early voting. This is because I would be spending all of election day (6 AM to 9 PM) working as a poll worker.
Why did I sign up? Several reasons. First, I wanted to help out. I had seen that in several places in Utah there was a shortage of poll workers. I felt like I was in a position to help, as I am able to take time off work more easily than some, and duty-bound to do so. Second, I wanted to get an up-close view of the voting process. I've always voted in every election. But, like many voters, my experience consisted of going to the polls and voting, and then going home. I wanted to see the details, understand what is happening, and understand how robust our voting process is.
What was it like? It was a lot of work! I was one of 7 dedicated and hard-working poll workers in my location, setting up and running 10 new voting machines for the 3 precincts that voted at that location. I spent much of the day helping people to cast provisional ballots. That's where someone comes in, thinks they are registered in the precinct, lives in it, but isn't in the register. In such a case, we establish their identification and that their current address is in the precinct (using the ID or bills they get at their address), and then give them a paper ballot to vote on. These ballots will be looked at individually at a later date by the county, to decide if they count.
We did some rotating of jobs so that everyone did most jobs they wanted to throughout the day. We took people's names, encoded voting cards for them, explained the machines to them, helped them when they had problems, etc. Our compensation for 15 hours of work? $80. Here are some conclusions/impressions drawn from my experience yesterday:
TOO FEW PEOPLE VOTE - In our precincts we had 2716 names listed on the register. We had a total of 416 regular and provisional voters throughout the day. There were another 50 or so on a list we were given of people who were in the register, but who had voted early or absentee. That's a pretty low turnout if you look at it that way. But really, I think that the number of people in the register is too high. More about that later. I think we as a society focus too much on voting as a right and a privilege, and not enough on voting as a duty.
PEOPLE ARE VERY UNINFORMED - From my interaction with several hundred voters, it seems like most people are uninformed to one degree or another. Some voters knew most of the things they cast votes for. But many were totally oblivious. We had people who came in and got to the machine and asked us who to vote for. Of course, we couldn't help them decide that, but it was eye-opening. Many expressed vocally that they were here to do their duty (mainly the elderly), but didn't really know anything about any of the candidates, so they were just going to vote by party, knowing nothing about the candidates and almost nothing about the party. The number of business professionals that I saw come in was much lower than the elderly or the college students. Did these people vote early? Who knows. But I have a lot less confidence now in the voters' decisions due to the massive amounts of ignorance I saw at the polls.
THE PROCESS IS STILL CUMBERSOME - Despite the new voting machines, which I think were an improvement over paper, the process of voting is still very old-fashioned and cumbersome. As a voter you walk in and (if you haven't had to wait in line too long) soon meet a register clerk. This clerk asks your name and looks you up in the register. In 99% of cases you don't have to show ID. As long as you said that is your name, you can vote. You sign the register and move on to the poll book. A poll worker then asks your name and writes it down in the poll book. He/she then tells the register clerk which number voter you are for the day, and the register clerk writes that number down next to your signature. Once that is done, you move to the ballot clerk, who encodes a ballot card with your precinct number and hands it to you. At this point you can start voting. This process is much longer if you're not in the book and need to vote provisionally. This process is also, in my opinion, very easy to fool in order to commit fraud. Realistically, we can do all that and more with a computerized system and only 1 or 2 workers rather than 4 or 5.
POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD - The new voting machines are, I believe, much less succeptible to fraud. However, it would still be an easy matter to get names out of the poll books and have others vote there as someone else. Or, someone could easily vote in a district they no longer live in. The fraud potential is biggest where there is the most human and register interaction. The registers need to be updated more aggressively than they are now. We should all at some point be required to show proof that we are who we say we are, and that we still live where we do.
INCONVENIENCE - The new early voting is a nice upgrade to allow people to vote more conveniently. But I would like to see that kind of thing expanded. Why not expand the number of early-voting locations? Even if early-voting is only open for a week or so before the election, having several key early voting areas around the city would really speed up everything on election night, and allow a county to have fewer machines to worry about.
I still believe in the right of the people to cast their votes for what they believe in. But when I see the potential for fraud, the cumbersome nature of the process, and the ignorance displayed by many voters, I fear for what kind of decisions are being made by the people as a whole when they come to the polls.
Why did I sign up? Several reasons. First, I wanted to help out. I had seen that in several places in Utah there was a shortage of poll workers. I felt like I was in a position to help, as I am able to take time off work more easily than some, and duty-bound to do so. Second, I wanted to get an up-close view of the voting process. I've always voted in every election. But, like many voters, my experience consisted of going to the polls and voting, and then going home. I wanted to see the details, understand what is happening, and understand how robust our voting process is.
What was it like? It was a lot of work! I was one of 7 dedicated and hard-working poll workers in my location, setting up and running 10 new voting machines for the 3 precincts that voted at that location. I spent much of the day helping people to cast provisional ballots. That's where someone comes in, thinks they are registered in the precinct, lives in it, but isn't in the register. In such a case, we establish their identification and that their current address is in the precinct (using the ID or bills they get at their address), and then give them a paper ballot to vote on. These ballots will be looked at individually at a later date by the county, to decide if they count.
We did some rotating of jobs so that everyone did most jobs they wanted to throughout the day. We took people's names, encoded voting cards for them, explained the machines to them, helped them when they had problems, etc. Our compensation for 15 hours of work? $80. Here are some conclusions/impressions drawn from my experience yesterday:
TOO FEW PEOPLE VOTE - In our precincts we had 2716 names listed on the register. We had a total of 416 regular and provisional voters throughout the day. There were another 50 or so on a list we were given of people who were in the register, but who had voted early or absentee. That's a pretty low turnout if you look at it that way. But really, I think that the number of people in the register is too high. More about that later. I think we as a society focus too much on voting as a right and a privilege, and not enough on voting as a duty.
PEOPLE ARE VERY UNINFORMED - From my interaction with several hundred voters, it seems like most people are uninformed to one degree or another. Some voters knew most of the things they cast votes for. But many were totally oblivious. We had people who came in and got to the machine and asked us who to vote for. Of course, we couldn't help them decide that, but it was eye-opening. Many expressed vocally that they were here to do their duty (mainly the elderly), but didn't really know anything about any of the candidates, so they were just going to vote by party, knowing nothing about the candidates and almost nothing about the party. The number of business professionals that I saw come in was much lower than the elderly or the college students. Did these people vote early? Who knows. But I have a lot less confidence now in the voters' decisions due to the massive amounts of ignorance I saw at the polls.
THE PROCESS IS STILL CUMBERSOME - Despite the new voting machines, which I think were an improvement over paper, the process of voting is still very old-fashioned and cumbersome. As a voter you walk in and (if you haven't had to wait in line too long) soon meet a register clerk. This clerk asks your name and looks you up in the register. In 99% of cases you don't have to show ID. As long as you said that is your name, you can vote. You sign the register and move on to the poll book. A poll worker then asks your name and writes it down in the poll book. He/she then tells the register clerk which number voter you are for the day, and the register clerk writes that number down next to your signature. Once that is done, you move to the ballot clerk, who encodes a ballot card with your precinct number and hands it to you. At this point you can start voting. This process is much longer if you're not in the book and need to vote provisionally. This process is also, in my opinion, very easy to fool in order to commit fraud. Realistically, we can do all that and more with a computerized system and only 1 or 2 workers rather than 4 or 5.
POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD - The new voting machines are, I believe, much less succeptible to fraud. However, it would still be an easy matter to get names out of the poll books and have others vote there as someone else. Or, someone could easily vote in a district they no longer live in. The fraud potential is biggest where there is the most human and register interaction. The registers need to be updated more aggressively than they are now. We should all at some point be required to show proof that we are who we say we are, and that we still live where we do.
INCONVENIENCE - The new early voting is a nice upgrade to allow people to vote more conveniently. But I would like to see that kind of thing expanded. Why not expand the number of early-voting locations? Even if early-voting is only open for a week or so before the election, having several key early voting areas around the city would really speed up everything on election night, and allow a county to have fewer machines to worry about.
I still believe in the right of the people to cast their votes for what they believe in. But when I see the potential for fraud, the cumbersome nature of the process, and the ignorance displayed by many voters, I fear for what kind of decisions are being made by the people as a whole when they come to the polls.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
School Shootings - How will a summit help?
Bush administration hopes to quell school violence - CNN.com
People talk and talk about how to keep children safe when they are in school. Sometimes they even come up with a solution that will hopefully quell the problem. Often, that means metal detectors and/or security personnel, which costs the cash-strapped school districts plenty of money, leaving even less for the core business of teaching. But in all their talks of looking for solutions and answers, they never seem to understand that the entire premise that the current public education system is a huge hindrance to any good solution.
The basic fact is that if there was no "public" education system, as we have it now, but all we had was schools run by companies, there would be A LOT more security in place in a lot more schools, compared to what we have now.
Think of it this way: If you normal shop for groceries at Smith's, but you hear about a shooting at a Smith's somewhere, wouldn't you feel less safe every time you went to a Smith's and walked right in the door without so much as anyone giving you a second glance? Wouldn't you worry about the guy with the big coat, that maybe he's going to rob the place or shoot it up? Then after another Smith's shooting, wouldn't you seriously consider not going back to Smith's if you could go somewhere else?
Now let's say you see an ad on TV for Albertson's. They've seen all the shootings, and have decided that they want to put in place some serious store security. So they advertise it, tell you they have security, and that you're safe at their stores. Well, Albertson's is right across the street from Smith's. So why not go there instead, where you feel safer?
So, when safety is a concern in the business world, the companies that provide more safety enjoy more customers and more revenues. Those that don't lose money and/or go out of business. Well, in the world of public schools, it is as if we have only 1 company in the world that provides this service, and you have to go there. If they don't provide good security, you can't go anywhere else, because they are all run by the same company and all provide the same lousy level of security. Catch my drift?
So if we had school run by different private companies, and everyone got to choose where to send their kids, then security would be a SELLING POINT for these schools, something to attract more customers, not something that they can't do anything about, like today's public schools.
But since few people out there realize that a public education system is one of the 10 planks of communism, as Carl Marx wrote, we're not likely to move away from the socialist school system any time soon. So can we be more intelligent about how we design and/or operate our schools so as to improve security without spending inordinate amounts of the education budget? YES! Here are a few ideas:
Fewer Entrances - If you've ever been to a primary, middle, or high school, you probably know that there seem to be more doors into the school than you could ever keep track of. Well, the truth is that the school can't keep track of them. I think back to my High School, which was built in the 80's, and is probably pretty typical. It had literally dozens of entrances into the building, all of which were unlocked during school hours, and none of which were ever monitored. Anyone can walk in by these doors and have easy access to plenty of students. We need to design schools to have only a handful of entrances, all of which can be continuously monitored in real-time. You can always have a bunch of emergency exit doors if you need to, but regular entrances and exits should be limited.
Access Control - These building house our greatest asset, our children! We'd never think of storing piles of gold in our schools the way they are designed today. But we'll send our most prized possesions, our kids, to them each and every day without a second thought. We should be guarding our schools like they were Fort Knox! Ok, maybe that would be a bit overboard, but you get the idea. Why don't we have swipable picture ID badges for all kids at a school? They need to swipe it to get into the school (at any of the very few entrances), and they can then swipe them to verify they are in class (rather than taking roll), swipe out of class when they leave, swipe them to pay for their lunch (rather than a seperate card or cash), and finally swipe them when they leave the building for the day. This makes it easy to make sure that only those who are supposed to be in the school are in the school. And it keeps track of where students are (in class) or aren't.
Armed Security - At these secure entrance points you would have a few highly-trained armed security people in place. They would check those students who beeped going through the metal detectors and always be on duty to take care of security risks. They could respond instantly to any violence or intruders in the school.
Eyes and Ears - How can administrators run schools effectively and safely if they are deaf and blind? That's what they're effectively trying to do today. Schools should have a barrage of cameras and microphones covering every inch of the building so they can always know what is going on at all times, and can instantly reference back to the video and audio from any camera at any time. Knowing where dangers are in a school and being able to verbally warn people to stay away from those areas can be quite effective at saving lives. Much more so than running around trying to figure out what is going on and only getting a partial understanding of the dangers at best.
While these concepts could be helpful in securing schools, I still feel that private companies would do a much better job of running the schools than the current public system. But, I don't think we'll ever find out for sure.
People talk and talk about how to keep children safe when they are in school. Sometimes they even come up with a solution that will hopefully quell the problem. Often, that means metal detectors and/or security personnel, which costs the cash-strapped school districts plenty of money, leaving even less for the core business of teaching. But in all their talks of looking for solutions and answers, they never seem to understand that the entire premise that the current public education system is a huge hindrance to any good solution.
The basic fact is that if there was no "public" education system, as we have it now, but all we had was schools run by companies, there would be A LOT more security in place in a lot more schools, compared to what we have now.
Think of it this way: If you normal shop for groceries at Smith's, but you hear about a shooting at a Smith's somewhere, wouldn't you feel less safe every time you went to a Smith's and walked right in the door without so much as anyone giving you a second glance? Wouldn't you worry about the guy with the big coat, that maybe he's going to rob the place or shoot it up? Then after another Smith's shooting, wouldn't you seriously consider not going back to Smith's if you could go somewhere else?
Now let's say you see an ad on TV for Albertson's. They've seen all the shootings, and have decided that they want to put in place some serious store security. So they advertise it, tell you they have security, and that you're safe at their stores. Well, Albertson's is right across the street from Smith's. So why not go there instead, where you feel safer?
So, when safety is a concern in the business world, the companies that provide more safety enjoy more customers and more revenues. Those that don't lose money and/or go out of business. Well, in the world of public schools, it is as if we have only 1 company in the world that provides this service, and you have to go there. If they don't provide good security, you can't go anywhere else, because they are all run by the same company and all provide the same lousy level of security. Catch my drift?
So if we had school run by different private companies, and everyone got to choose where to send their kids, then security would be a SELLING POINT for these schools, something to attract more customers, not something that they can't do anything about, like today's public schools.
But since few people out there realize that a public education system is one of the 10 planks of communism, as Carl Marx wrote, we're not likely to move away from the socialist school system any time soon. So can we be more intelligent about how we design and/or operate our schools so as to improve security without spending inordinate amounts of the education budget? YES! Here are a few ideas:
Fewer Entrances - If you've ever been to a primary, middle, or high school, you probably know that there seem to be more doors into the school than you could ever keep track of. Well, the truth is that the school can't keep track of them. I think back to my High School, which was built in the 80's, and is probably pretty typical. It had literally dozens of entrances into the building, all of which were unlocked during school hours, and none of which were ever monitored. Anyone can walk in by these doors and have easy access to plenty of students. We need to design schools to have only a handful of entrances, all of which can be continuously monitored in real-time. You can always have a bunch of emergency exit doors if you need to, but regular entrances and exits should be limited.
Access Control - These building house our greatest asset, our children! We'd never think of storing piles of gold in our schools the way they are designed today. But we'll send our most prized possesions, our kids, to them each and every day without a second thought. We should be guarding our schools like they were Fort Knox! Ok, maybe that would be a bit overboard, but you get the idea. Why don't we have swipable picture ID badges for all kids at a school? They need to swipe it to get into the school (at any of the very few entrances), and they can then swipe them to verify they are in class (rather than taking roll), swipe out of class when they leave, swipe them to pay for their lunch (rather than a seperate card or cash), and finally swipe them when they leave the building for the day. This makes it easy to make sure that only those who are supposed to be in the school are in the school. And it keeps track of where students are (in class) or aren't.
Armed Security - At these secure entrance points you would have a few highly-trained armed security people in place. They would check those students who beeped going through the metal detectors and always be on duty to take care of security risks. They could respond instantly to any violence or intruders in the school.
Eyes and Ears - How can administrators run schools effectively and safely if they are deaf and blind? That's what they're effectively trying to do today. Schools should have a barrage of cameras and microphones covering every inch of the building so they can always know what is going on at all times, and can instantly reference back to the video and audio from any camera at any time. Knowing where dangers are in a school and being able to verbally warn people to stay away from those areas can be quite effective at saving lives. Much more so than running around trying to figure out what is going on and only getting a partial understanding of the dangers at best.
While these concepts could be helpful in securing schools, I still feel that private companies would do a much better job of running the schools than the current public system. But, I don't think we'll ever find out for sure.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Iran Suppressing Freedom Again
Here we are again, with Iran's President trying to rub out any ideas of freedom in the country by trying to silence those who may encourage free thinking. This is the very definition of a dictatorship, keeping the people thinking only what you want them to so that you can control them.
Friday, June 30, 2006
The "Wasteprint" Concept
Lately as I've thought about the resources that we use, and how we use them, I've come up with a general concept cloud of ideas that I've started to call my "wasteprint" concept. The concept includes some of the following ideas:
-There are many resources on this planet which we can and do use. Some of them are more scarce than others, and some more used than others. But what do we actually "use" and what do we "waste" instead?
-Although that question will probably be a bit different for everybody, I think there are some generally accepted forms of waste: Stuff that goes in the landfill, electricity that we waste (like leaving lights on when we don't use them for anything), using excess gas in our cars, heating and/or cooling our homes inefficiently, etc.
-All resources that we use have been made available to us by God, our Creator, by whichever name one chooses to call him. As such, I think He is pleased when we use them wisely and correctly, and saddened when we waste them or use them for evil purposes. As such, the less we waste, the closer we can be to God.
You can think of a wasteprint as a footprint of waste. Or, how much impact does my individual waste make on the world around me? I may put up a web site to explore and define this concept further, as well as to solicit input from others around the world.
-There are many resources on this planet which we can and do use. Some of them are more scarce than others, and some more used than others. But what do we actually "use" and what do we "waste" instead?
-Although that question will probably be a bit different for everybody, I think there are some generally accepted forms of waste: Stuff that goes in the landfill, electricity that we waste (like leaving lights on when we don't use them for anything), using excess gas in our cars, heating and/or cooling our homes inefficiently, etc.
-All resources that we use have been made available to us by God, our Creator, by whichever name one chooses to call him. As such, I think He is pleased when we use them wisely and correctly, and saddened when we waste them or use them for evil purposes. As such, the less we waste, the closer we can be to God.
You can think of a wasteprint as a footprint of waste. Or, how much impact does my individual waste make on the world around me? I may put up a web site to explore and define this concept further, as well as to solicit input from others around the world.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Celebs Teach Ingratitude & Theft
CNN.com - Daryl Hannah removed from tree - Jun 13, 2006
This story really does reek of ingratitude. If the facts in this story are all accurate, which may or may not be the case, then all of these people who are illegally using this man's land should all be thrown in jail as trespassers.
So the guy has left his land vacant for 15 years, and people have gone there to grow vegetables, for free mind you. In fact, the land costs him $25,000 to $30,000 a year to own. Does he pass that on to the people who use his land? No. Does this suddenly mean that they have a RIGHT to any of the land? NO!
These freakshow socialist celebrities (Daryl Hannah, John Quigley, Willie Nelson, Danny Glover, Joan Baez, Julia Butterfly Hill) want to take away some guy's stuff (his land) to give it to people who are continuously breaking the law by being there and are ingrateful for the 15 years that he gave them for free. They are pathetic.
They (the celebs) have plenty of money. If they really cared that much, they could purchase that land or even other land or buildings nearby and then turn that land or buildings (after demolition) into a garden. Put all those celebrities together, with all their money, their connections, and all their fund-raising potential, and you could raise a good sum of money to buy that plot or another. But no, they would rather FORCE some other guy to give up his right to the land he bought and owns, rather than put up some of their own time and/or money for it. Good role models, these celebs... teach everyone that it is better to STEAL than to legally own, if you think you NEED it.
This story really does reek of ingratitude. If the facts in this story are all accurate, which may or may not be the case, then all of these people who are illegally using this man's land should all be thrown in jail as trespassers.
So the guy has left his land vacant for 15 years, and people have gone there to grow vegetables, for free mind you. In fact, the land costs him $25,000 to $30,000 a year to own. Does he pass that on to the people who use his land? No. Does this suddenly mean that they have a RIGHT to any of the land? NO!
These freakshow socialist celebrities (Daryl Hannah, John Quigley, Willie Nelson, Danny Glover, Joan Baez, Julia Butterfly Hill) want to take away some guy's stuff (his land) to give it to people who are continuously breaking the law by being there and are ingrateful for the 15 years that he gave them for free. They are pathetic.
They (the celebs) have plenty of money. If they really cared that much, they could purchase that land or even other land or buildings nearby and then turn that land or buildings (after demolition) into a garden. Put all those celebrities together, with all their money, their connections, and all their fund-raising potential, and you could raise a good sum of money to buy that plot or another. But no, they would rather FORCE some other guy to give up his right to the land he bought and owns, rather than put up some of their own time and/or money for it. Good role models, these celebs... teach everyone that it is better to STEAL than to legally own, if you think you NEED it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)