Issue 92 Drones June 5, 2013

No I'm not talking about military drones. I'm, talking about civilian owned remote operated robots. These machines are the same variety that the military uses, but are allowed to be bought for civilian use.

Benefits: Some benefits to owning a robot that can fly is that it can literally go anywhere you need it to go. Farmers are interested so that they can monitor their fields from home and thus save time and money as traditional aircraft are expensive to use and maintain. These same drones can also be used to spread pesticides and other materials over fields. Fire fighters fighting wildfires can use drones equipped with thermal cameras to locate areas where the fires may still be smoldering. Reporters can get that bird’s eye view they always dreamed of at reduced costs. Fast food may even get faster as drones can be used to deliver your order directly to your home (no need for tips). The applications are endless so long as you can find a use for a flying robot. But none of this is really new as hobbyists have had model planes for years and they are now being used for enjoyment outside of recreation. What I have described however is only the advantages of aerial based platforms. Drones come in land and sea versions too. Who knows, we might even start to get them for space too (hobbyists keep on the lookout). A drone has a lot of advantages, but there is one sticking point.

Problem: There are two key issues. The first is issues with privacy. A drone can literally see over anyone’s fence or into a window (air based drones can at the very least). So it comes to question where do our privacy end and the public space where drones are allowed to operate begin. This is a legal question that groups like the ACLU are trying to answer to ensure that nobody losses their privacy rights to anyone. The other issue is terrorism and espionage. We do not live in a very safe world and drones can be turned into small flying bombs to rain hell literally from above. Same of course goes for sea and land based drones. Espionage is fairly obvious as drones used by the military are used for surveillance and just adding a camera to a model aircraft turns it into a spy platform. So expect some restricted airspace.

Conclusion: Technology has advanced very far. But as that technology has progressed, our privacy has shrunk by leaps and bounds. Drones, especially air based ones have numerous advantages and help cut costs for a lot of people with respect to certain industries and government institutions. Will laws stop people from abusing these devices? No, as people will always abuse technology. However, drones will soon find there niche in our society and of course by then we will have anti drone devices (celebrities) to shoot them down when they decide to look into your window, or we can just sue them. What ever works right?

Issue 91 Money: How it used to work June 4, 2013

The old system was backed by an actual value of gold and or silver. In other words, money was worth its weight in gold if not more so. But with the coming of national banks the system died. Here is how it used to work in the U.S.

State Banks: Originally each State in the U.S. had these chartered banks. They were private banks authorized by the individual States. These State banks were allowed to print their own money ("notes") and they had to guarantee the value by a gold/silver ("specie") reserve. Each of these banks would hold about 6 to 10 percent reserve to prevent a bank run if there was to be a panic and also allow them to trade there currency for its equivalent value in gold and silver (remember at this period in history, America's money was made form gold and silver). To ensure further survival and trust each of these banks decided how much they would exchange for the reserve each day (similar to the transaction limits banks have on our accounts each day).

How they new what had value: Each of the bank notes had value and the market dictated how much trust the people had in each bank. If the note was trading at more than 1% below value it was considered untrustworthy and people would not use that bank note. To ensure that people new the value of each note there was a single source of information "Dillistin's Bank Note Reporter." It reported the prices of all known money. Basically this system allowed banks and their notes to compete against each other. A bank note in this system was based on trust along with the banks ability to trade their notes back for its equivalent value in gold or silver.

How it died: When the national banks came to power, it taxed all other currencies by 10% creating unfair competition. Thus, it was cheaper to use the national currency and thus the other banks stopped printing their notes. Let it be known however, that this was not the end of the gold/silver standard. That occurred when countries began abusing the system by having loans paid back in another nation’s currency. Then the nation that was paid back would trade that currency for its equivalent value in gold and silver from the country they wanted to hurt. The result was the draining of a countries gold and silver reserves and impoverishing that government and hurting there ability to pay back their own loans.

Conclusion: The system was based on trust. Money competed against each other and this allowed choice in the market place. Some may be thinking that this system should never have worked, but money was easily exchanged between the banks in the same way you can trade in American dollars for Euro's if you are going overseas. I will not say that we should go back to this system. While it does have its own appeal I believe that the system in this modern era will have to be re-invented, in this case through online currency systems. Basically, we will have to wait and see what becomes of the money that we hoard in our accounts as governments allow it to become worthless with inflation.

Issue 90 Bad Patent law June 3, 2013

Through patent laws we are allowed to make a profit from our ideas before everyone else. However, if patent law is done poorly it can stagnant the flow of new ideas and products. So let’s dissect this problem.

How it used to work: Originally in the United States patents on inventions and discoveries were limited to 14 years. Copy rights were also limited to 14 years with one additional renewal for an additional 14 year monopoly on your ideas. Patent examiners also examined all patent applications to insure that all applicants’ ideas and inventions were actual ideas and inventions. This system allowed for people to profit off their ideas and then once the patent expired would allow the market to use those ideas as they please. Once expired, it was hoped that people would then take these ideas and improve upon them, thus sparking further innovation.

Todays: Today’s patent/copyright laws are longer. Authors now have exclusive rights to there works for their entire life time plus an additional 70 years. Corporations and their works (no actual author) have a 120 year monopoly. Patents only have a 20 year monopoly, but corporations can have such limits extended by lobbying congress for a "special extension". There is also what is known as "nuisance patents" that do not represent any actual new discovery but instead are used as bargaining chips between corporations.

Conclusion: What is needed is a return to the original system. Corporations are not people, but a group of people. As such, they should not be allowed to file a patent. The goal of patents was that of a temporary monopoly for people to profit. Then, once the patent expired, the world was to be allowed free reign to use that idea to spark additional ideas and inventions. Copyrights are only good so long as a book is popular. Most books don’t stay popular for very long and as such to limit the use of that books ideas or even characters for over a hundred years is pointless for most will forget the book even existed. There are exceptions, but those relate to specific works and genres. Then there is the "nuisance patents" which are not actual inventions. The patent office must be much more selective on what ideas pass muster. Why should we go back to being more restrictive you ask? Simple, as these patents are now about cosmetics. When Apple first brought to market the I Phone it was a smash hit. So competitors tried to make their own version. Problem, Apple had established a patent on the overall ascetics of the I Phone and sued. Luckily the judges realized that the products were not the same, both in design and use. As such Apple's lawsuit was overturned. Other similar incidents have occurred as well with other inventions such as with the Android operating system, and even the black berry phones. The suits are based on looks and not functional use or even how it works. This has led some judges to openly express their opinion that patents should not be given out for things like computer programming or the overall look of an item. Well it makes sense to me. So let’s actually go back to when ideas were readily available and there was less law suits. Let’s bring quality back to the patent and copyright system.

Source: Patent Abuse: How Intellectual Property Laws Got Out of Control from June 2013 issue of Popular Mechanics

Issue 89 Another approach: Patents May 31, 2013

I first heard of this idea in an Economist article. The idea was simple, sell the right to use a patent like you would stock on the stock market. Here is how it works.

Simple really: Basically you take your patent and offer it as an investment on the stock market. This literally opens up your patent to every one for there use. All a person would have to do is buy stock in it and they would be allowed to use that patent in an item they produced equal to the number of stocks purchased. The article gave a really nice example. If you design a superior type of tire and a car company wants to use it on their cars they would buy the stock. So one car needs four tires, thus they must purchase four shares in the stock. If they want to make a full production run of 100 cars with the tires they would have to buy 400 shares of stock equivalent to the number of the tires they want to make and use. As such, the person who created the item in the first place makes a profit.

Supply and demand: What makes this system even better is that if the stock goes up, so does the share price enabling the patent holder to make plenty of money. Of course the opposite is true as well, for if the stock goes down so does the amount of money the person makes. This prevents a patent from being too overpriced or even under priced. So basically supply and demand ensure that the no body is over charged or under paid.

Risk: The only risk in this idea is that you are basically putting your patent out there for all to use. But people who would just want to use the idea without paying up will still attempt to do so. Thus, legal hurtles will still be there with respect to protecting your patent from those who don't want to pay to use your idea or invention. However, such a problem already exists in the first place and people would have the right to sell their patents in the traditional way as well so as to maintain the patents integrity.

Conclusion: This concept eliminates the traditional licensing agreements that lawyers have to make allowing smaller companies access to these ideas which may in turn boost small businesses with better quality products. It insures that greedy patent holders never over charge and greedy corporations never under pay through supply and demand. Also, it gives an inventers idea much greater exposure in the market place and allows for nearly anyone who can afford to pay the stock price to use the patent. Sure the risk that your idea will be stolen is still ever present. However, if you think of how many people would have access to your idea, one that may even change the world, then is it not worth the risk. So shall we shake up the patent system and let everyone join in?

Issue 88 How fuel prices impact costs May 30, 2013

Fuels, we all need it to power our cars, our homes and all of life’s convinces. We would not have electricity to fuel the power in our cell phones without some other source of device to generate that power. When such fuel rises in price though, so does the cost of owning and operating life’s little conveniences.

Gas: Some probably think that if we stopped using oil then all prices would drop. Well that is false; we would in reality be exchanging one form of fuel for another. Ethanol, hydrogen, and even air has a cost. This is all due to supply and demand. More supply with low demand equals cheap fuel and thus cheap goods. High demand and little supply mean everything costing a lot of money. Interestingly enough, buildings require much more fuel than cars and thus produce a lot more pollution thanks to the amount of fuel needed by the power plant to produce electricity. Mind you that this does not always include heating costs. If you need oil or some other form of fuel to heat your home, then you not only pay for what you need, but the cost to deliver that fuel which includes the price to fuel up the truck that brings it to your home. Such costs can be mitigated by new forms of energy harvesting, but those technologies are developing slowly and the only thing that has pushed such designs to the forefront is the public demand for a cheap and renewable alternative to oil.

What if cars stopped using oil: It would be great if we could do that. By eliminating oil and switching to a much lower cost fuel it would potentially save people millions at both the pump to fuel their vehicles and also on store shelves as the cost of the fuel to deliver such items is added onto the price. Not only that, but some of those every day items are made from oil byproducts. This in turn reduces overall costs in manufacturing. But what about that new fuel the car or truck is using? Will it not go up in price as well? Of course it will. Anything bought and sold is affected by supply and demand. As such, vehicles that cannot adapt to new fuels quickly and easily will still remain costly to own and operate in the long run. Cars are probably the costliest and also the sole object that may be holding us back from switching fuels. Cars need specific types of fuel to run, and by putting in the wrong fuel you actually harm the engine leading to greater maintenance issues down the line. If a vehicle however, was able to switch fuels at will based on which ever one was the cheapest that day, it could save lots of money for both producers and consumers as costs will be driven down to the bare minimum to compete.

It is easier for homes: When it comes to powering homes, especially those primarily powered by electricity, it is far easier to switch fuels at the power plant. All the power plant has to do (depending on the plant itself) is to change to the cheapest fuel possible to generate electricity. However, I am only just discussing burnable fuels and not renewable fuels. There are other ways to make burnable fuels cheaper but this is the easiest in terms of reducing overall cost. At this point the problem stems from government regulations that may prohibit the use of different fuels.

Conclusion: Fuels are part of the supply and demand equation as they help to both expand and limit supply. Even if we go rid of fossil fuels and other burnable fuels at power plants, the costs to fuel cars would only have a short term impact. What I feel needs to be done is create a car that uses little to no fuel. They have systems that can make water from burned gasoline and the burned gases still have combustible gases inside them like butane. If they could also use that water to make hydrogen, and also recycle the unburned chemicals it would go along way to reducing fuel prices and chemical emissions from the atmosphere. If you really want to reduce the cost of goods at the supermarket, and other stores you have to have a cheaper fuel to reduce the cost of shipment that inherently increases costs. We need a car that can produce its own fuel, and such vehicles like the air powered come close to that. If we want all things cheap, we need to make the method of delivering our goods to the store cheap and that means fuel.

Issue 87 Did you know: Baby development May 29,2013

I learned about baby development in my AP Psychology class back in high school. I found it interesting and I thought I would share this knowledge in the hopes of aiding parents in raising there children. So here I go.

Developing the nervous system: When babies are born they are of course still developing. This is especially true for their nervous systems as they are for the first time being exposed to all sorts of new stimulus. As such, the simple act of holding the baby, touching their little fingers and toes aids in the overall development of the baby. Basically, touch your child so that the nerves in their body are stimulated and as such develop. The more stimuli you give the baby the faster they develop. They have even done experiments with monkeys where one was given a wire mesh mother and the other a mother clothed in warm cloth. What scientists found was that the monkey baby with the cloth mom developed not only faster, but was healthier as well. So in short, giving a baby your love and attention is a very good thing if you want your child to grow up healthy.

Speak to a baby, not gibberish: Have you ever said "goo goo ga ga" to a baby. Well don't do that! Babies are like a sponge with knowledge being the liquid. By speaking gibberish and even imitating the sounds of your child you are holding back their language and even their brain development. Just like touch, sound helps the baby’s nervous system develop, in this case for the purpose of being able to speak. Also, when speaking to the infant, try to make it so the can see your lips moving because the baby will in fact try to imitate you. This enables the mouths nerves and muscles to grow too even if the baby has yet to understand what they are imitating. Basically, talk to your child like you would any other individual and it will help your child develop faster and maybe even healthier.

Conclusion: I love children. I literally have a bunch of young cousins who when I see them, I can't help but hug them out of love. Of course they then proceed to maul me in a group to which there parents must yank them off. Needless to say it is kind of funny. As I love the kids in my family so much, I wanted to help parents with respect to their young children and showing their love and affection toward them. I am sure we can all agree that we want all children to grow up happy and healthy and thus why I write this tiny article here for you today. I hope you find it useful.

Issue 86 Public Libraries and the Internet May 28, 2013

Libraries, the place that many thought would be outmoded with the internet are still trying to hang on. To do so they are looking to lend books electronically. But even this is causing some interesting problems.

Publishers don't like electronic libraries: The reason is simple; it cuts into printed book sales. Publishers still like printing books in paper back and hard cover, but libraries cut into those sales. They do so by offering cheap and often time’s free access to the books once published via the internet. While yes, some publishers charge libraries to use and lend there books, there is still a sense of "cannibalism" within the realm of publishing.

Issues with electronic lending: Generally libraries guard the data of there borrowers end their reading habits, but with electronic lending digital traces are left which publishers will attempt to exploit. Thus, privacy is an issue. Libraries themselves could even exploit the data by selling it to make more cash. Only one advantage can be drawn that I can see, and that is a book version of "Pandora" that puts up similar music to what you normally listen to. In the case of books it will use genre and authors to help make useful suggestions for avid readers. But there is also an issue of the providers and their servers. Libraries don't use there own servers to lend books as they use an outside vender. If they try to switch, they may loose all those book titles that they can lend and may have to go through legal hassles to aid the new service to lend out the same books. It comes down to licensing law.

Overall advantage: Electronic lending does have its perks. It allows people to borrow books even after the library itself is closed. This means no more waiting in line for a book let alone for someone to return the book. Also, this allows for people access to information that would otherwise be hard to obtain as not all books are available on the internet itself save through an electronic lending system. In addition, while many may see this as a negative, hackers may break into the digital parts of the library and pirate all of the data. The hackers of course will win in the long run as libraries and publishers both will be forced to adapt to the new realities or literally die trying. Of course most libraries offer books free of charge so that issue will be minimized.

Conclusion: Libraries are here to stay. Some may not even be buildings, but rather online sights that lend out books and may even give a chance for people to buy the book itself (the electronic version). It opens up the market so that armature authors may publish a book through a library which may even turn into there big break. Advertisements are inevitable as some form of revenue will be required if the author is self publishing, as far be it for me to deny them the right to profit from their work. Even Amazon is getting into the act of lending out books along with movies and other media through their Amazon Prime service. Publishers have naturally pushed back by refusing to sell certain books to libraries, but that just means more room for the unlicensed and armatures to have greater exposure rather than be brushed aside for the more popular titles. How the library evolves is something we all cannot predict, but for me, I kind of hope that all the libraries in the world form a kind of network to provide titles from all over the world to the masses. An international library seems like a nice idea from my stand point.