Issue 537 How can we have more internet? February 27, 2015

Did you know we can have more internet?  That it can be cheaper and faster?  Well, of course you did, but do you know how?  It is actually simple, so let's begin.

Simple solution for more internet:  So apparently the internet needs Ethernet pipes and similar infrastructure to run.  However, government licenses who can actually make these Ethernet pipes, and other technology that supports the internet’s spread and growth.  Basically, a set of regulations is preventing other companies, including startups from laying more of this infrastructure down which would in turn give us more access to a faster internet including in places where internet has yet to exist.  So the government is in effect creating mini-monopolies and preventing competition by preventing newer internet service providers from even coming into existence despite the technology to make these pipes being so cheap and easy to make.  Can you imagine if Netflix, or Disney made their own Ethernet pipes and similar infrastructure?  They would no longer have to pay another internet service provider to carry their content.  With more internet, the time where we just get the specific three to five channels on our televisions that we watch regularly and the rest on demand can come true.  We can pay less for television this way, and have freer radio, and literally every show we want on demand.  Essentially, we would just pay for access to the internet with everything else becoming 100% free with respect to phone, television and other subscription services that we normally would have to pay for given the current status quo.  All we have to do is de-regulate who can do what and then it is a victory to small businesses who want to grow and us who want cheaper faster internet.

Conclusion:  Remember, the internet needs the ability to send information around for it to work.  That information tends to travel the path of least resistance, which means more infrastructure for it equals faster internet and more access.  As such, let us allow more businesses to do this work so that not only they benefit, but we do to.

Issue 536 Do Regulations Prevent Unemployment February 26, 2015

Well, I am here to say, yes it does.  Even though I am a libertarian, I have to admit that regulations can prevent unemployment, but they do at a cost.  Let's discuss.

Regulations slow progress:  Ok, the reason why regulations are able to stave off unemployment is because they slow down the creative and destructive influences of a free market economy.  So the reason why we do not have a better more comfortable seat belt is due to regulations setting a standard that everyone follows out of fear of being sued for breaking that standard.  The internet is not as free as it can be is due to the licensing of who can make Ethernet pipes.  How about the oil companies and fossil fuel fired power plants?  They are kept alive by regulations by artificially increasing the costs to study and implement safer and cheaper to make nuclear power.  These regulations partly exist for safety, but also to protect the established businesses that exist, but would be supplanted by the newer businesses and technology.  However, when regulations are slowly repealed these established companies have a better chance of adapting to newer technology and shifts in public attitudes.  As such, they are able to train employees in the new standards and technologies without fear of being completely left behind.  So slower progress due to regulations means more people can adapt to changes and thus they are less likely to lose their jobs.

Conclusion:  While I do not want people to lose their jobs, regulation if applied wrongfully creates monopolies of power for established businesses.  As such more regulations become established to keep the biggest businesses from having to compete with smaller upstarts that may usurp them.  So this is a double edged sword.  As such, regulations implemented strictly for safety are good.  However, any regulations no matter how well intentioned are bad as you are in fact preventing the creation of jobs thus stopping the employment of others to save the jobs of those who already have them.

Issue 535 Direct Taxation (the Banks) February 25, 2015

So we are all familiar with the income tax and that it is generally collected through our employers.  But when the crisis in Greece hit where they took money directly out of peoples bank accounts demonstrated that the governments of the world can take our money and the banks would not resist.  So what does this mean for the future of taxation and our money?

What I believe to be a trend:  I feel that government may stop concerning themselves with how much we earn from our jobs and instead be concerned with the total amount of money we actually have.  Reason being is that we are shifting to an all-electronic future where no other form of physical currency could really exist.  As such, governments can simply look at your bank accounts to accurately gage how much money you acquired that year and then take it out themselves.  Any deductions can be seen by simply having a program to analyze all your purchases and charitable donations and thus deduct them from the overall money that was meant to be taxed.  So in short, as you can no longer hide how much money is in your bank account, the government can just take all the money they see you have acquired based on whatever standards they see fit.  So no more accountants, filings, or any other expensive methods of tax collection, as a simple program would do the entire job for the IRS and similar tax collection bodies.  

What this means for US:  Well, we will no longer have any privacy with respect to what we buy.  The government will know how much junk food we buy, how many magazine subscriptions we have and anything embarrassing we may have bought.  In short, the government will be able to blackmail us with our purchases alone.  But this is not the worst part.

Our worst part is that all sources of money we get are now able to be taxed.  The $25 dollars we get from a birthday card, to a friend paying back a no interest loan.  All of that small stuff becomes income to the government.  A loan from the bank and even money gathered from inheritance no matter how small becomes taxable.  As such, the government will tax us on every penny we get no matter how small, because they simply can.  An all-electronic system invites this issue.  Tax havens could not even exist as the government will take the money out of any of your other accounts that are not in the tax haven, and can possibly take it out by force if you use that account to purchase a good from anywhere (yea they will hack it and take it) just to get what they think you owe.  You think the government is not that petty?  Think again.  Greece took 10% out of their own people’s bank accounts and prevented people from taking their money out to prevent that.  So as Greece as an example (a Democratic Country), we could be next.

Conclusion:  Yea, this is a worst case scenario.  But, it is a distinct possibility as we progress toward an all-electronic banking system.  There will no longer be hiding money under the bed.  So I write this for you my readers to be wary of what the future holds.

Issue 534 Retirement age increase February 24, 2015

So, it is being tossed around yet again.  The idea to increase the retirement age once again.  Let us discuss what is being considered.

At what age do they want you to retire:  Well, at current, the retirement age for social security for my generation is 67.  This is due to the change made by President Ronald Reagan for my generation and those that will come after.  This my dear readers was great as it made sure that at least my parents will get to see some of the money they put into the Social Security system.  But this is not enough for my generation.  In fact, those who retire early and collect at the earlier retirement age of 62 are harming the chances of Social Security still being there.  Also, although it is good I can't retire and receive Social Security till I am 67, it still does not increase the chances of keeping the social welfare program around beyond 2035 (an estimate based on the board of trustees who govern Social Security).  So the proposal that is going around is to increase the minimum retirement age to 64 with the same penalty, and the main retirement age to 70.   I don't think I need to tell you that this will ensure Social Security will be around a little longer as it has worked before.  Additionally, this will not affect people already retired or those within 20 to 30 years of retiring.  It will only affect those who have at least 3 or more decades before they can retire.  This ensures that these individuals both born and unborn can plan, and work in a way that will make it so they can live the way they want up until the new retirement age hits.  This ensures some level of fairness.  

Conclusion:  Social Security is a beloved welfare program that has been around since the late 1930s as a method to help people retire earlier so as to make way for younger workers to enter the workforce.  If you don't believe me, you simply have to read President FDR's speeches on the subject.  As it is such a loved program, people want to keep it around, and thus methods abound are being proposed, but ultimately not implemented due to fear of reprisal from the American Populace.  So I am here to tell you all that at least I am willing to wait that extra couple of years to retire, so that Social Security can last long enough to help the baby boomers live out their twilight years.  In fact, I would say get rid of the early retirement age completely so that more money can be saved, and then deny benefits to those making a specific level of income per year after they retire.  Those two things would benefit everyone greatly and we may even be able to afford to give those people with the least a little more money so that they can survive without having to resort to other welfare programs and the stress of applying and staying on them.  I want to protect our seniors, so I am willing to make the sacrifice.  Are you?

Issue 533 Downsizing February 23, 2015

Downsizing can be a great thing.  In fact, it is why people have looked into the small homes movement.  The fact is, downsizing equals cheaper living and thus it is perfect for those looking to retire.

Why retirees should downsize:  Let us face it, the cost of living just keeps increasing.  And you know what, retirees exist on a limited income for at some point the money stops coming in, or at the least in very limited quantities.  So what happens with downsizing is that living becomes cheaper.  Property wise, living in a smaller home, or even apartment, or smaller place in general means less taxes and maintenance.  So you could go from paying something like $8,000 a year in property taxes, to paying half that or less.  Those savings go a long way without even factoring in cheaper maintenance costs.  Smaller living means less energy to heat the home, and less energy to clean.  As such, that means more savings.  Also, slimming down allows you to pocket some of the value of the home you had been living in to temporarily supplement your income.  This is the cost savings aspect.

The impacts on your body are also good.  What I mean by this is that you need not have a big house to hold all your stuff.  In fact, downsizing means getting rid of excess stuff you know you do not need.  This can become a stress relief.  Also, smaller living means having to make less effort to get from point A to point B in your home.  As such, there is less wear and tear on the body.  We do not need a big home past a certain point as we no longer have kids, or roommates to live with.  In addition, the earlier you move the less stressful it is to do so.  So basically, it is less stress and less clutter which is healthy.

Conclusion:  Downsizing can be beneficial for those who are retired, whose kids have moved out, or just for those who feel their home is way too big for them.  What will result is cost savings and a more positive living arrangement for these people who decide downsizing is right for them.

Issue 532 Auto Enrolment for Retirement February 20, 2015

I was reading an article in the economist about retirement (though I myself am very far away from retiring).  People are not saving money and that is becoming a detriment to people when they want to retire.  So the Economist has proposed auto retirement as a solution.  Is this the right idea?  Let us discuss.

Why auto enrolment works:  The reason the economist supports this idea is because it boosts participation into the retirement programs by 40% (this is their numbers).  Well, that is a very big number.  Also, the economists pointed out that things like Social Security and other social welfare programs cannot keep up the pace if so many people were to retire without a plan.  So baby boomers and the like in America will strain the country's Social Security system and its welfare programs that will be used to supplement that income when money from Social Security is not enough.  So the people at the Economist see more people saving for retirement as the only solution to getting through a possible financial crisis.

Is it worth it?:  I know that retirement and financial independence from a government body is worth it.  I mean, 40% more people saving means less financial resources government will have to use to help people, and less people having to work longer or struggle with money later on in life.  But forcing people is something a government body should not do, and yet they do so with Social Security.  Then having businesses where you are employed do the same thing becomes unnerving.  I mean, it is saying you are too dumb to save money on your own.  Too stupid to plan ahead.  Blah blah blah.  Retirement is worth it in my opinion, but I opted in to save, but what about those who need a push?  

Conclusion:  What I have found is that learning what to do to invest in a 401K, into stocks, and other savings tools was very difficult to do.  In fact, I still do not really understand it all myself.  I learned what these things do from my parents, who while only about a decade away from retirement do not understand how it works really either.  They just know that they have accounts and stocks with other forms of savings which they hope will carry them through for as long as possible.  So auto enrolment is not my definition of a solution.  It is education.  Dumbing the learning down so that a dope like me can understand how it all works and figure out how much I would need to save to have a specific amount of money to last ten to 30 years when I eventually retire.  I want to be able to invest in the stock market, form a 401K or other financial savings tool without having to go to a broker.  I think that the reason people do not invest into saving for retirement is because that they do not understand how (in addition to not understanding why).  Therefore, give me a service or an education program that gives me what I asked, a simple and easy method to know and understand when and where to save so I can retire and actually take it easy.  I don't want to be forced to retire when it's inconvenient, but when it makes sense and is beneficial to me.  Education is the key that is my solution.

Issue 531 Digital Monopolies: Break them? February 19, 2015

A business monopoly is a business that has total control over a specific area of business.  A digital one, is the same concept, but just pertains to the internet.  In the past, these things we call monopolies have been deemed very bad and that they cause high prices, and other negative impacts on the economy.  Well, that is not really the case with internet monopolies, so let us discuss.

Why digital monopolies are harmless:  A digital monopoly is basically a digital giant like Facebook, which controls most of the social networking area of the internet.  Google controls searches and Amazon selling goods.  However, we are not limited to them to buying, searching or socializing on the internet.  Numerous others still exist like Myspace, FaceTime, Bing, Go Daddy and the like.  Despite being smaller, we can still use their services.  In contrast, the original monopolies on trains, oil and the like had true monopolies where no other services could compete.  In the digital landscape, everyone no matter how big is replaceable.  And in fact, because giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon are replaceable we know that they are not real monopolies.  They are just really good companies that the world has recognized and thus they will continue to be used so long as their services continue to be useful to the masses.  You see, all the internet giants can be supplanted by others.  Bing, or another upstart as a search engine could possibly one day take the leading role over Google.  And this cycle can happen to that replacement as well.  

But what about when they buy their competitors or upstarts you say?  Simple, the buying of competitors and upstarts is a good thing.  For one, it may introduce new services that we do not have yet to existing ones we use.  So Google may add the new service, but so will Bing, and others because if you have not noticed, they copy each other’s successes.  Thus, if enough good ideas are focused into one place outside of these giants, Google, Facebook and the like could be replaced.  What this also means is that the acquisitions sponsor more startups.  Some hope to create a useful service that will become just as big as Facebook or Google, while others create ideas that they seek to be bought in the first place.  As such, more variety is created with more unique possibilities for us consumers to enjoy.

Conclusion:  All roads lead to innovation.  The fact is, monopolies on the internet really do not exist, for costs to create something on the internet is very small (though keeping it going may not).  Right now, I am enjoying Google's' free blogging service to reach you, my readers, but some day, a better service may come along and replace Google, or even buy them if they become big enough.  As business constantly reinvents itself along with innovations on goods and services, those who remain stagnant will fall by the wayside.  It is the creative destruction of the market, and I look forward to seeing where it will lead the internet.  So no, do not break Google, Amazon, Facebook, or the others.  They are doing their part to create an even better internet.

Issue 530 Privacy and the Internet: Opt in switch February 18, 2015

There has been talk about how you really have no privacy on the internet.  More specifically, service providers and websites like Google, Facebook, etc., are selling your personal information to make a profit.  Some of you know this already, and some of you do not, so let us discuss.

Defining personal data:  So on the internet, personal data is not just your bank account numbers (which these companies do not sell).  Instead it is all the websites you visit and your personal preferences on the web.  So if you like anime, or cartoons they will know, and even how often you watch a particular show.  They will know if you do online banking by how often you visit a banks website to log in.  Heck, they will even know if you watch porn, and how often you search for your favorite porn star.  All this data is then bundled, and sold to other websites, and services which then customize advertisements or searches to meet what you like.  But, this disturbed people for obvious reasons, including the fact that this data is used to make a profit off of you.  

Thus the opt in switch:  An opt in switch is a proposal by some people to websites like Facebook and Google, so that people who want to maintain privacy can have it.  Basically, you would have to say ok for a website or web service to use your data and sell it.  Very simple idea, but with major impacts.

For one, these companies would potentially lose money.  Reason being, the buying and selling of data supports business operations.  This includes making, or altering websites to suit us, the regular internet community who may visit their websites or use their services.  So that search may take longer than normal, or you may miss that advertisement for that tool set when you visit a home depot site.  It is really hard to tell you my reader how different it would be for businesses to attract your business on the internet if an opt in switch existed.  They could not put your favorite actor, website or item at the top of a search list.  Literally, these websites and services could not offer as many deals, or specials as all that data we give them every day provides them with the ability to customize our internet experience to us.  Sure, they profit off of all this, but if they did not, they would not be able to exist in the first place.

Conclusion:  The internet is a public square, where all information is free to move around.  This includes our data on personal preferences, tastes, and what we may have just bought online.  An opt in switch does sound like a nice idea, but I personally do not know.  Is there any real disadvantage to allowing these websites and services share our information on how often we update a wish list on Amazon, or search Godzilla on Google?  The only real data I am worried about is my bank account, as I just do not want my really important data stolen.  As such, data of useless searches or fancies has no negative impact on me so long as these companies integrity remains intact.  And last I checked, they do really well keeping the really important information safe.  So no opt in switch for me, in my case, but I cannot speak for you.  Therefore if you think this is a worthy idea, then pursue it, if not, then Que Sera sera.

Issue 529 Bug farms February 17, 2015

Apparently there has been some talk amongst the people who are worried about a world food crisis and the effects farming animals has on climate change.  In an issue of National Geographic they did a two page summary of the advantages of eating bugs as an alternative food source and how farming them over say cows, reduces the environmental impact we humans have on the planet.  Let's discuss what I have learned.

Interesting facts:  Did you know that a full quarter of the world's population eats bugs as part of their diet?  Also, there are 2,000 edible species of bug on the planet that we know of?  Well, I knew the French eat snails, but this is a whole lot more than I thought.  In fact, bugs have a higher protein value than other animals.  However, the reason they are not widely accepted as a food source is because they are, well, real yucky looking.  I mean, have you seen a slug?  Ewww.  So the idea to possibly make them more acceptable to the rest of the world is to make them into pasts and powders.  So you could have a bag of flower that is 1/4 ground cricket.  Though that may be a decade or so off, because it has to be accepted by people first.  So education is the key.

Getting people to accept bug food:  So, the article pointed out some places where bugs are used that we probably did not even realize.  Bugs are used as animal feed.  This seems easy to digest, as the high proteins in bugs help the animal’s bulk up without the need for steroids.  The creepy critters are used to color lipstick and other things like alcohols.  So you may be rubbing ground beetle on your lips or drinking crushed spider in your favorite beer.  Also, they are used in medicine as well.  So we are already eating bugs and probably do not even realize it.

Farming wise, for those environmentally conscious people, the bugs take up very small plots of land to farm.  So there is less need to clear large forests for grazing animals as bugs do not graze.  Instead, you just need a barn with enough space for mass production.  As they are so small, they generate less greenhouse gases and they even eat organic waste such as garbage, which they convert to protein.  So these little guys can eat the stuff we cannot (like dead leaves, dead animals, and other waste).   This means that they are cheaper and easier to feed.  In short, that means a lot less money and the waste is removed and recycled back into energy for us to eat.  Basically, they are easier and cheaper to farm, than a regular farm while reducing the environmental impact on the planet.

Conclusion:  Does all this make me want to eat a cricket, or a beetle?  Not really.  That yuck factor does not have me sold.  Sure, I may try a prepared dish, like something with escargot (snail), but I am not ready for eating a chocolate covered ant.  So for now, I am going to sit back and watch to see what unique possibilities bugs will have on the world’s future diet.

Issue 528 3-D printed homes February 16, 2015

Did you know that 3d printers can also print an entire house?  And no, I’m not just talking about small parts, but the entire home itself.  Here is how it works.

Here is how it works (thanks captain obvious):    To start track is laid down on either side of the planned foundation.  The foundation, is already pre-constructed, so if there is a basement, the structural walls or temporary support malls for that are already put in place.  From there the giant 3d printer begins its work.  It uses the track to move across the property, or even over multiple properties to build one to several homes that have been programed into its system.  There's a nozzle(s) on the end of a boom that excretes the contents of multiple hoppers for various liquefied materials such as cement, copper wire, foam insulation and even glass.  Then just like a regular 3d printer the house or houses are built bit by bit with the robot 3d printer keeping to the design specks.  Wood is no problem for this machine either as by using sheets of plant fibers, gluing them and then cutting them can make a wood like material when necessary.  Wiring is done in such a way that they are insulated in the walls with outlets and other electronic equipment implanted into the building itself.  This eliminates seems, but designed to be accessed by future electricians for upgrades/changes.  Even plumbing is laid down via the creation of thick plastic or metal pipes via the 3d printer. Heck, not only can it print a kitchen sink, but also a fireplace too (and that is done with its liquefied rock ink to get whatever look you desire). All of this is additive type manufacturing, in which material is added and them either melted/hardened/glued into place.

Limitations:  The main limitation is that if the 3d printed home has a design flaw, then the machine cannot fix that (as in the design of the home that was programed had a design flaw).  Also, if energy requirements for the home go beyond what the original design called for, then you again would need some sort of outside help from an electrician to fix the problem (this is in reference to changes in electrical needs over time).  Home remodeling is the same deal.  Construction workers of all sorts will still be required to do such jobs.  On top of this, whatever the 3d printer does not do, a construction worker will.  So if the steps to say the basement are not built with the 3d printer due to a design limitation the 3d printer cannot as of yet overcome, then the workers will have to do it.  So any and all finishing touches that the 3d printer is not designed to overcome yet, or is incapable of doing will be done by workers.  Also, the printer needs a clearing to do a job so the track can be laid down.  So this prohibits its current use on uneven/jagged terrain on the side of mountains or dense forest.  So these too will be left to the skills of the construction worker.

Conclusion:  While still being fully developed and implemented, the 3d home printer stands to make custom built homes very cheap and efficient as it will reduce almost all costs from labor save initial setup and removal of the 3d printer, and finishing details on the interior and exterior of the home.  So we are seeing a revolution is housing mass production.  However, this thankfully does not eliminate the construction worker from the job.  Custom, detailed or other work will still need to be done by these skilled laborers.  So these workers may end up with niche jobs like custom aftermarket tiling, or home remodeling as opposed to constructing an entire home from scratch.  As such, construction workers will be supplanted in the housing market, but not lose their overall need.  I don't know about you, but I look forward to cheaper homes as it means more homes become affordable.  So I welcome this technological triumph with glee.

Issue 527 How to use a journal February 13, 2015

A journal is, for all intents and purposes, a tool for you to use.  It helps you remember things that you want to remember with a level of clarity that you otherwise cannot remember on your own.  But how exactly do you use one?  That is what I would like to answer in today's issue.

An everyday journal:  In this type of journal you write about what goes on in your everyday life.  From the mundane to the exciting.  It is all about you saying what happened and possibly expressing how you felt about it.  You can also use this journal as a tool to look back at how you changed over time, or to see if you feel like you are living a fulfilled life.  Basically, this form of journal (can be synonymous with Dairy) is what Anne Frank wrote which is now read around the world.  So you can emulate Anne Frank and write about the tough times, your interactions with others that you felt were positive or negative, or critique yourself in the hopes of improving yourself.  Overall, this is the typical journal.

Inspiration type:  This type is used by people who want to write down thoughts or ideas.  Musicians can write about sounds they wish to emulate, writers can make notes on story elements, or actively imaginative people can simply make up a story, character, or anything for that matter.  It is all about writing down what inspires you.

Goal/task driven:  For this type you dedicate the journal to a specific subject or task.  I have several of these myself dedicated to blog topics, newspaper articles that I want to share with you all, and basic information gathered from news and other sources.  I have met people who use such journals for work related activities, and others for career or future goals like their plans on when and how they will buy a house.   It is very simple but effective use of a journal turning it into more of a notebook rather than an actual journal.

Exchange Journal:  Here is a type of journal that is shared amongst a number of people (2 or more).  In this case, it is usually used by those who cannot meet up very often or for those who cannot share certain thoughts aloud.  Basically one person starts, and writes down an event or their opinion on something.  Then it is left to the next person to read that entry, maybe put their own reactions or opinions on that and then write their own event that they wish to talk about.  It is very similar to how people used to exchange letters or emails, but without the physical distance (though there may be social distance involved).

Conclusion:  The sheer number of subjects upon which to write in a journal is limitless.  In fact there really is no wrong way to use one.  You can write in it every day, or once a month, or just when you feel like something is worth writing down.  But these are the basic types that I have learned about and in some cases use to benefit myself.  So what about you?  Do you think a journal will be useful to you?

Issue 526 Life long prisons February 12, 2015

So what if we could house prisoners cheaply.  There may actually be a solution to that.  So here is the idea.

The idea:  Basically we are using the same concept as a gated community, but in this case to house inmates.  They would be sorted based on their crimes, with rapists and child molesters in a single community and murderers in another (the two crimes that usually deserve or get life imprisonment).  We would still get giant walls, and triple fencing with barbed wire, but inside there would be no guards.  Inside would be a series of tiny living spaces, similar to micro homes for each inmate.  So this eliminates bad roommates.  Yes they would get a kitchen and all the amenities of such a home, but this is by no means a free ride.  

They would be forced to feed and cook for themselves every day.  To feed them, there will be a hydroponics garden which they must use to grow and harvest food on a daily basis. Their own waste would be harvested to supply nutrients for the garden with additional nutrients added by outside means if necessary. Meat will be provided in the form of small animals like rabbits, squirrels, chicken and even high protein bugs.  Basically, cheap fast growing food in both animal and plant forms.  They will be given recipes and equipment to be self-sustaining.  

For education/recreation they will have access to an online reading library and free movies via a restricted access internet connection (equivalent to parental controls).  They will also receive any and all correspondence with family via the internet.  Anyone caught misbehaving will have the internet shut down or electricity as the entire complex will run on a smart electrical grid powered by solar panels and wind turbines with only additional power coming from outside when those sources are not enough.  Also, there will be a community room with gym equipment, and basketball, tennis and other sport functions.  

Any excess food grown can be given up by said prisoners to a repository so it can be sold to people to support the cost of running this type of prison. Small factory based facilities, or IT jobs will be made available for them to learn and do as well. In exchange, the prisoners then can get special privileges for performing such work/tasks (privileges are as yet to be determined, but special foods like steak, or hard to get items like cigarettes seem the best candidates)

Guards will be posted around said community and have barracks.  They will live and work at the gated prison in shifts of a month at a time.  Their primary duty is to monitor prisoners via cameras and microphones, and prevent escape.  Otherwise they do not interact with the prisoners at all.

Conclusion: This is obviously a concept from which prisoners take care of themselves in a self-sustaining community so as to reduce costs while teaching skills the prisoners need to get by in life if for some reason they get out of jail.  Obviously men and women will be housed separately and great care will be used to insure only appropriate cases go to one of these facilities.  The idea of course is still being developed by yours truly and I have no way to stop these people from murdering each other if they so desire, though the goal should be to create a form of dependency on each other to prevent that.  Also, to prevent anarchy, suitable losses of privileges would/should work to incentivize good behavior (loss of meat privileges, cutting off electricity to the dwelling etc.).  So will it work, who knows, but at least in this idea we would not pay for these people anymore with them doing all the internal upkeep and taking care of themselves and us just paying for the guards.

Issue 525 Micro homes and Apartments February 11, 2015

Slowly but surely micro homes and apartments are growing in popularity.  But why would such tiny living spaces have such appeal to so many, and what are the tradeoffs.  Let's discuss.

What does it mean to live micro:  These living spaces are literally a single bathroom, a living area that potentially doubles as a bedroom, and a galley style kitchen.  Typically you will be living in 80 to 400 square foot homes as opposed to 800 plus square foot homes.  So you will be living in a very tiny place.  This tiny living space can be applied to homes, apartments or even other forms of dwellings that intend to maximize space.  Typically a micro home will have a small loft that either acts as storage or a bedroom.  The living area and kitchen are typically squished together and another small room acts as a bedroom or an additional multipurpose area.  And of course there is a bathroom that usually has a composting toilet as there is usually no plumbing (if in a tree house or portable micro home).  Both apartments and micro homes have the capability of using murphy beds (fold out beds), fold out tables, drawers inside stairs (if they exist instead of a ladder), and under floor storage or pull down from the ceiling storage.  Beds if inside will either have storage underneath them in the floor or the frame, or host a series of drawers or cubbies.  Couches and benches (and sometimes chairs) will host internal storage as well.  Basically, these dwellings will make every use of space savings potential they can get.  Heck, even treehouses make use of the same technology so they too become a viable option.  

Advantages:  The biggest advantages is the cost.  These dwellings run very cheap and typically is the cost of a small car.  Apartments of this variety also run cheap while maximizing occupancy for low income earners in an apartment building (good for the landlord and those looking for a place to live).  Retirees seem to like this idea as they no longer have to pay a mortgage or pay a very small one.  In addition this living arrangement works for those scaling down.  Also, if you want to take your home with you, a good portion of these micro homes are portable in the same way as a trailer.  So cheapness, and scaling down seem to be the primary advantages.

Disadvantages:  Living like this is not for everyone.  Some people need large homes to fit all their stuff and cannot live in such cramped conditions.  Others may dislike the fact that they will have to scale down from larger grander homes, thus sacrificing memories (though many get through this by repurposing older items like pots into lamp shades, blankets into pillows and so on).  Overall space is the primary drawback and living in such a way can be draining to some (people may not like the idea of pulling their bed out of a wall or having to lift up the couch cushion to get items).  Hence why micro apartments seem to fit those who want tiny living and can get used to all the cubby spaces, but not those who want to avoid the possible work (composting toilets) that comes with it.

Conclusion:  So you have cheap comfortable living with the tradeoff of space issues.  Depending on who you are, this can be great for single people or couples whose kids have already moved out.  This also works great for college students looking to strike out on their own, but lack the means to buy a full blown home let alone a regular sized apartment.  So it would probably work for someone like me, as I like to think I can live small (despite all the books, models and other items I have stored in my 80 (8x10) square foot bedroom).  So if you think this is right for you, feel free to embrace your compact nature.

Issue 524 Homeless and the homes first approach February 10, 2015

So there is another (and possibly counter intuitive) approach to getting the homeless off the streets and into homes.  It is called the homes first approach, and I’m going to tell you how it works.  (Original source is "The Economist" November 15th 2014 issue).

How it works:  It is basically no strings attached housing for the poor.  Most homeless are apparently mentally ill, alcoholic or drug addicted with many possibly being all three.  The original staircase method required the homeless to quit drinking and doing drugs before putting them into emergency and temporary housing from which they were deemed if they were eligible to be housed.  But according to the article, this staircase approach had many refusing to sign up, and less than half make it all the way to subsidized housing.   

However, the homes first approach that was come up with by Sam Tsemberis, a professor of psychiatry at New York University, in 1992 which was called Pathways to Housing is different. To successfully facilitate and impact the lives of the homeless, those at most risk of dying in the street are put to the top of the list for finding homes.  From there the homeless were given homes in cheap/poor districts.  Medical care, treatment for addiction, learning to cook, learning to pay bills and other services were offered to these individuals, but none of these was required.  After 5 years 88% of the people in the program remained housed.  Since then it has been copied around the world in 200 American cities and in Denmark, Finland, while being tried out in Japan, Australia and Canada.  This international attention has resulted in it being called the "homes first: approach.  

Why it actually saves money:  Apparently long term rough sleepers "...are 15% of all homeless people, but use more than half of all public spending including on services, medical care, detox and jail."  In Denver, Colorado, its 300 heavy utilizers costs taxpayers $37,000 each a year, but putting them into a home with support makes them cost half as much.   The Canadian city of Calgary (the first Canadian city to use the program) saw an average savings of $30,000 per person in its more acute cases.  And the savings continue with the least complex cases costing even less or nothing at all depending on the support needs.  This also allows public services to be freed up for what they are supposed to do, like police officers fighting crime rather than arresting homeless people for trespassing or being a public nuisance.

Conclusion:  Well it is overall a successful program based on what the article presented.  However, while it has been shown to improve the former homeless individual’s quality of life and even their ability to function in a community, many still continue to abuse alcohol, drugs and remain unemployable according to studies. Also, finding cheap homes is still an issue as rents and prices increase with the only possible solution being a planned public housing development.   However, this saving money and saving lives seems to be worth the cost. So what do you think, as it saves money and helps the poor at the same time?  Is it worth the effort?  I seem to think so based on the evidence given in the article.

Issue 523 Are exams outdated? February 9, 2015

Here we are going to talk a little about education and its future.  In this case with the advent of computer based learning, have exams become outmoded.  Let us discuss.

The future classroom:  Whether it is in the home or in a traditional school setting children are relying more and more on computers to learn, study and overall be judged based on their performance.  In the classroom, children sit at a computer terminal where they watch tutorials, solve puzzles and other problems and then advance in their studies at their own pace.  Teachers are in the classroom to assist students having trouble to help them over equations and problems that they can now largely learn and solve by themselves.  It is also noted that students are no longer relegated to having to wait for their peers to learn something new.  Students thus are able to continue forward even if it is supposed to be beyond their grade level.  So what does this mean for the old fashioned exams that students would prepare for, for weeks?  

Exams are gone:  Truth is, with this computer based learning system taking over, exams become useless.  Exams are designed to measure mastery over one subject at a time, or multiple subjects at once.  However, with students going at their own pace and even skipping ahead to do work that normally was taught at higher grade levels, the exam becomes displaced.  Computer learning is even able to build upon each lesson and link subjects together more easily and thus learning via computer becomes mutually supporting.   With all this in mind, exams would have to be tailored to each student to work, which would cost a lot of money.  But with computer learning however, that exam is not required to measure performance.  In fact, computers measure the performance of each child which removes wasted time studying for exams and their associated week long scheduling which takes precious learning time away from children.  Children are monitored in real time and the computer can even bring in questions to courses to aid the student who was having trouble in a particular area until they gain proficiency.  So the exam is now outmoded due to the slow adoption of real time assessment and monitoring.

Conclusion:  Yes I know, big brother will be watching our kids and their progress.  But this computer learning approach that gives our kids a chance to go farther faster and at a pace that they are comfortable with has too many advantages to pass up.  And now, the exams and other tests become a waste of time and money which inherently removes one of the biggest wastes of money in our education system next to printed textbooks.  Even SATs' and other college entrance exams can be eliminated as the student merely has to submit their computer learning information to demonstrate how well they do in all subject areas at once and thus allows them to be compared with other applicants in an expedient manner.  So what do you say my readers.  Is this a good thing for education?  As it progresses forward we will just have to wait and see.

Issue 522 Altering time?! February 6, 2015

So here we ask, why do we have Daylight savings time in the United States?  Why 24hours in a day?  And why not use military time which seems to be an international standard?  Let us discuss.

Why do we tell time the way we do:  The simple reason is because ancient people figured it all out with math.  The seven day week which we originally got from the ancient Babylonians matched perfectly with the solar and lunar cycle which defines the length of a year.  From there the 24 hours in a day was designed to match up with this to perfectly calculate hour and minute per day in correspondence with the number of days of the week.   But, why do we even tell time?  Why is it needed?  Well, think about it.  What would our day look like without being able to tell time?  We could not set up times to meet accurately, nor be efficient on tasks for working and home life.  Sailors need to tell time so they can calculate their positions at sea or else they would be thrown off course.  Farming also would be inaccurate as time, days and months help dictate harvest times to maximize crop yields and prepare for winter months.   So telling time and what day of the year all revolves around our ancient admiration of the stars, and from that we base our lives and prosperity on this ancient and powerful invention.

What is not accounted for:  Daylight savings time is an American invention that was conceived by Benjamin Franklin.  The original idea was to minimize the use of candles for people waking up in the early hours of the mornings, and for nights where dusk fell early due to seasonal changes.  More modern reasoning has it so we can be more productive by allowing people to stay out later in the evening during seasons where the sun is out till late in the afternoon, and for seasons where the sun rises early or late.  That one hour being pushed back or forward gives us literally an extra hour than we would have had if we did not use daylight savings.  And it is an American exclusive.  As such I chalk it up to cultural reasoning with Americans wanting to be productive.

What is also not accounted for is the difference between American and the rest of the world’s methods of telling time. Americans in the United States use the base 12 system counting each hour twice, while the rest of the world uses a base 24 system counting the full 24 hours in a day.  Again this is cultural, and despite our military using the base 24 system here in the United States, the society with its clocks and other cultural norms still supports base 12 for us here.

Conclusion:  So we have a reason as to why we tell time the way we do.  It has to do with the way we measure a year using celestial bodies like the sun.  As to minor differences like daylight savings, and counting 12 hours at a time over 24, we chalk this entirely to culture and possibly some inventor attempting to improve our world.

Issue 521 The Auditing Office February 5, 2015

This is one of my own concepts that I have been developing overtime.  The goal was to simplify government with respect to monitoring where and how funds are spent.  So this issue is a re-hash of that idea, and my attempt to improve upon the concept.  Let us begin.

What it is supposed to do:

1) All auditing functions in the federal government become centralized in this one agency under the treasury department.  It eliminates the need for Presidents and the Senate to appoint and confirm auditors for each individual department which saves time and money.  As such, only two people would need to be confirmed, the leader and deputy of this new agency, with everyone else being hired out for the job by them or similar department.

2)  As part of the auditing process, these men and women of the Auditing office would pick and choose projects and agencies at their leisure.  This is meant to insure that each agency is completely unprepared for such an audit and thus forces them to keep their accounts and successes recorded on a daily basis in order to comply at a moment’s notice.  Overall, this ensures transparency and saves money.  (There will also be a method of punishment if they do not comply, save freezing pay, funds, or halting promotions, and transferring people out of the non-compliant agency or office).

3) The Auditing office would have the power to shut down programs they deem superfluous, redundant or wasteful if they do not meet a set criteria.  That criteria will be set by Congress and approved by the President, but if the Congress and or the President fail to perform such, the auditing office will do create their own.  The Auditing office can even shut down or reorganize or merge entire agencies, departments or programs as they see fit without approval of any other government body.   To ensure there is no corruption involved, or that the merger, or removal of program or agency is good, the Auditing office will have three teams evaluate the merits based on the evidence suggested.  Team A will look for reasons to abolish, or merge, while team B will try to refute team A's reasoning and justify the continued existence of a program or agency.  Team C will have the job of evaluating both team A and B's findings and arguments with them making the final decision.

4)  Within this Auditing office will be the Human Resources department.  It will conduct all the hiring, firing, promotions and transfers of the entire federal government.  In this department, they will evaluate each individual worker in the federal government to see their skill set, productivity, ability to work with others, and other performance factors to determine if they are worth keeping, or if they can be reassigned to a place they can be even more useful.

5) Another office in the Auditing office would be the Internal Office.  Here this office will perform the same tasks as listed in numbers one through four, but in this case applying it to the auditing office.  Basically it acts like internet affairs.

Possibilities of other powers:  

1) The office can audit elected representatives to look for corruption.

2) Any money saved from mergers, or elimination of programs, departments or agencies will be collected by this office, used to pay for their functions to keep them financially independent of the Congress (thus avoiding corruption and obscurity) save the Internal Office to keep egos in check.  Any money left over from expenses will be used to pay off the national debt.

3) The office can reduce funds going to a program, department or agency if there is a surplus going to said program department or agency and then use it to fund a different program, department or agency that is deemed worthwhile, but is considered underfunded.

4) The office will look for other methods and technologies to make the government as financially efficient and work efficient as possible.  As such they will also have the means of proposing methods of adoption (if those methods require financial funding) to Congress.  If said methods do not require financial support, then the Auditing office, after approval from the internal office may implement the method or technology in any way they deem fit.

Conclusion:  Overall, the idea is to simplify government, and make it cost efficient.  Congress seems inept at this, and we may not want to give such powers to the President.  So where do we turn, an independent panel or group we call experts.  As such, this is my proposal for an Auditing office.

Issue 520 Selling organs Post-mortem February 4, 2015

So at current most countries in the world make it illegal to sell organs (with Iran being the only exception with Kidneys).  But what if you yourself could not profit off of said organs?  What if the money went to your family instead?  Let us discuss.

Concept:  While many people are squeamish about selling organs, our bodies’ parts are worth a lot of money.  The reason why many people are against the profit motivation is because they think it hurts the idea that people voluntarily give organs away to the sick, and that to profit off selling your body in this way is just in poor taste.  So what if we lose the profit for the seller, and instead make it a beneficiary that profits instead?  Basically the person who volunteers to be an organ donor can check a box which would allow his/her organs to be sold at market value after death with a beneficiary(s) being able to reap in the money.  The beneficiary(s) of course would not know they would get money upon the individual's death from selling the body parts until the after the death of that individual.  Obviously the purpose of this is to protect the post mortem seller, and to enable the dead person to give at least one last financial gift to their family or other individuals.

Purpose:  Basically, many families struggle after the death of a loved one, and that may include financial struggle as well.  By allowing the organs to be sold to hospitals, charities or even to universities for either study or donation, the family of the individual benefits.  Also, recipients of the organs benefit as they can bypass waiting lists which would insure survival of many more people in need of an organ transplant.  Obviously, to protect from corruption and sale directly to individuals, only universities, hospitals and licensed charities could buy them and then trade them among themselves to insure the organ is used to benefit someone or science as a whole.  As such, less waste of both time and effort as organizations actively seek to buy and give organs to those who need them.

Conclusion:  While the premise of the idea is simple, in practice there are many obstacles.  For one, if an organ can be used for a transplant, can we guarantee it will not be used for science instead?  Will this increase the cost of organ transplants?  Is there a method in this that allows the transplants to pay for themselves? Also, does this method leave the poor without a chance of getting a transplant themselves?  And finally, the question of getting world governments to agree to this scheme.  There is much to be worked out, and yet no immediate answers.  So for now this is simply a thought experiment.

Issue 519 The Non-citizens should not be taxed!? February 3, 2015

Did you know that people who live here legally, but are not citizens pay taxes?  Yes, depending on the circumstances these people pay taxes even though cannot vote.  Let us discuss.

How they are taxed:  While resident and nonresident noncitizen individuals may not get deductions, they are in fact taxed on all revenue garnered in the United States.  So as long as you make money inside the United States, regardless if you are a citizen or not, you will be taxed.  Now the question is, does this make sense?

Why they should not be taxed on income/assets:  My logic is as follows, they are not citizens, and thus not able to vote for representation which would affect them financially.  So the fact that they cannot vote for a representative means they are being taxed without representation (which was one of the original reasons that the 13 colonies separated from England and became the United States).  While I do acknowledge sales taxes should be maintained regardless of citizenship, the fact is, these people are being forced to pay taxes to a country they have no allegiance to.  And thus I see it as unfair as it is to tax any individual who does not have the right to vote.  

Conclusion:  Some may think this unfair that non-citizens will not pay taxes while citizens do and vice versa.  However, our income tax code is fundamentally flawed and taxing people directly (if the 16th Amendment did not exist) should be illegal.  Personally, I feel that no noncitizen, or anyone unable to vote should be taxed via their income or assets in the United States whatsoever.  It would be better to just maintain a sales tax so that you get to decide how much money you want to give to the government every time you buy something.  I believe in fairness, and this to me in my opinion is not fair.

Issue 518 The Church as a bank? February 2, 2015

The concept here is simple.  Should the church take on some of the functions of a bank?  Let us discuss.

The idea:  What inspired me for this idea is the Knights Templar of the Crusades.  They actually acted as something similar to a bank and thus had vast sums of wealth to call on (this also made them a target and thus there overall extermination).  So in the modern concept, the Church would provide bank accounts to the people where there will be no fees imposed, no interest collected or earned, and provide loans that do not garner interest either.  Basically, it would act as a bank primarily to the poor, who lack the money or assets to open a traditional bank account at a normal bank (though people of higher incomes would be able to open accounts as well).  

Purpose:  The main goal is for the poor to finally have a safe place to deposit their money with little risk to that money being stolen (i.e. part of the reason banks were created in the first place).  Traditional banks charge fees just to take out money or put money in as a service charge, but a bank run through the church would not be able to do that.  Also, the church can provide loans that gain no interest and thus make it easier for poorer elements of society to pay back a loan and thus not go into debt (which exacerbates poverty).  Of course in return, no interest will be given to those with the accounts either as money in this case becomes a finite resource (there is no revenue earning opportunities which would allow such services).  Also, there is a possibility that because the account is run by the church, then the government would not be able to seize the money inside your account due to the separation between church and State.  Hence it becomes a form of tax haven as well which will in turn protect people’s assets.  

Goals:  For one, it provides another use for the church, in this case protecting people’s money.  It also allows them to use the funds in the same way regular banks use loans, but in this case to support the church and perform charity.  It will enable a form of protection for bank accounts as the church is not subject to market devaluation or influences like regular banks.  So they cannot shut down.  Also, with the church being everywhere they can mutually support one another if funds run low for any reason.  A final benefit and goal is to empower people's money.  In this case due to the vast amount of types of currencies that the church collects, they can exchange funds based on value at any given church location free of charge.  Not only that, if the value of say the Euro, or the dollar goes down, they can convert your money to the next strongest currency.  As such, the value of your money will always be maintained.

Conclusion:  Money is precious, but we put it into institutions that place the money at risk.  The church, while still risky in some capacities is still a safer bet than a regular bank and they will not charge you an arm and a leg to keep and take money out of your own account.  Heck, the church can even monitor your money for you and give you tips on places to find and buy your goods cheaper.  All in all, is this a good idea?  Possibly if handled correctly.  But if this idea is worthwhile, then let’s hope the church implements it soon.