Issue 343 Scrap Dining May 26, 2014

Last week we talked a lot about serious topics so I wanted to start off this week by being not so serious.  Right now there is a movement to not throw out as much food waste because much of that food is still usable (thanks Food Network).  So let’s go over some of these items that we don't realize are still good to eat.

Meat:  We throw out meat allot.  That meat still on the bone is still good to eat and can be taken off to make a great pot pie, shredded BBQ sandwich or other dish that requires shredded meat.  This includes that whole turkey at the Thanksgiving feast or that goose you cooked up for tonight's dinner.  But instead we throw it away where it ends up as rat food.

Sauces:  Have you kept that pasta sauce from last night’s pasta dish?  Well my father did.  He would collect the leftover sauce from the pot and store it as a base.  Then the next time he needed to make pasta, he would break out the base and then add just enough new ingredients to suit our meal at dinner time.  As such the sauce was never wasted.  This too can work for other sauces depending on shelf life.  Also, some of these sauces like soy sauce or duck can be used in other dishes to add another level of taste to a dish.  In the same way you can use flat soda as a sugar substitute in making a cake, you can use something like soy sauce in place of polished salt due to the salt content already in the sauce.  You just have to match the ingredient with the dish you are making.

Veggies and fruits:  Potatoes are an excellent example on recycling parts to make a delicious dish.  Don't throw out those potato skins when making mashed potatoes, but fill them with cheese and bacon for a potato skin snack. Orange peels can be grated to make lemon zest.  Pepper seeds can be crushed to flavor certain dishes.  Heck even peeps the marshmallow snack can be melted down to candy bacon (yea I know marshmallows aren't fruits or veggies, but they come from processed sugar >.<).  There are many things you can do to recycle parts of food that you may throw out for something else.

Conclusion:  Anything can be recycled so long as you know how.  Bacon grease and lard can be used to season a pan when making delicious foods.  Even fruits (after juicing) and veggies (leftovers from cooking) can be put in a processor to make a healthy smoothly if you like.  Literally, food parts and components can be used to make great cooking.  For what’s left that is inedible, be glad as there is the compost heap or even a grinder to make fertilizer for use in your own gardens.  Happy eating by preventing wasted food.

Issue 342 Protecting The Stock Market May 23, 2014

This is a hard one.  The stock market is not just infrastructure like a building or something on a computer to be protected from hackers and viruses.  It can also be manipulated by manipulating the prices of goods and services, by major buying and selling of stock, and even fear of risk itself.  So how do you protect this ultra-sensitive institution from a crash like the one during the great depression or the crash of 2007/8?

Protection?:  I am not a stock market expert.  Then again neither is Congress as they made that horrible law called Dodd Frank.  There is evidence that the processes that traditionally go on the market can be manipulated by just buying and selling as per normal.  And the fact is that it cannot be stopped.  Everything from currencies, natural resources, inventions and businesses are all invested in.  If someone buys a lot of stock and then sells it rapidly (and if the person, corporation or even country is well known) it could trigger a massive sell off by all other members trading on the market out of fear that they will lose money.  We unfortunately cannot protect from that as we may be able to control our own citizens and how we trade, but we cannot stop individuals from other countries.  So how do we fix this situation?

Mutual assured economic destruction:  We all know of the nuclear policy called MAD (mutually assured destruction).  However, they also developed a similar strategy in case of an invasion or non-nuclear conflict.  Basically the reason why the United States market crash affected the rest of the world is due to the ties between our stock market and the markets overseas. This was meant to be the solution that prevented such occurrences of economic or even conventional warfare attack as it would ruin the attacking countries economy as well. However, a rich country can position itself to reduce the damage while still destroying another country economically.  So what are we to do about this?  

Mutually assured economic destruction is still the answer, but it must be enhanced.  I believe that the market each day at 4 pm should actually never close (not just online but physically as well).  It is my belief that this will allow people to react immediately to any changes in the market including another crash (whether purposeful or not).  Traders can have an alarm set if any harm over a certain value happens to their investments which would wake them to counteract their losses.   In addition, I would allow insider trading to occur unchecked.  Reason being is that no one can really enforce the law in the first place and that as long as everyone is told publicly within a set period of time, then it should not matter who and when an individual reacts to that news.  This allows the damage to be reduced on the individual level by allowing faster reactions to market changes as they occur. 

Next ties between foreign nations and their economies should be strengthened as much as possible.  This will create an interdependence that will make any country think twice about an economic based attack.  For those countries that try to insulate themselves from economic crashes pre-attack.  A mechanism must be put in place to ensure that they suffer enough consequences for their actions that even if they wanted to further their attack via other methods that the suffering of their economy would prevent them.  What that method is, I do not know, but I do not advocate a financial penalty as that is too weak, as why would they even bother paying the fine.  Perhaps a more robust blacklisting of only those involved in the incident and only if wrong doing was confirmed (if they purposely made the crash happen).  Beyond that I do not know.

Recovery:  What is more essential will be the recovery after the fact. Right now America's economy is crawling back to its former glory instead of racing.  The reason is due to specific obstacles.  One is taxes on investments.  These taxes stagnate an economy making it harder for investors to purchase stock and for newer investors to invest in the first place.  Also, the government has even gone so far as to dictate, in certain instances, how certain businesses and individuals should invest and on how these businesses should perform their services which puts them at risk of financial ruin.  Government does not know how to run a business and thus should stop trying as all they are doing is risking that business failing which in turn negatively disrupts and harms to stock market.  Finally, licenses that hinder businesses opening should be made easier to obtain or abolished altogether.  These inhibit business growth which again harms and potentially stagnant the stock market.  Do these things and watch the market roar back to life.

Conclusion:  I apologize to anyone who knows the market better than I do.  Sure I am a novice (even as an investor) but insuring the safety of the market against fools who would crash it on purpose to suit their needs is something we must protect against.  I know not what to do against fiscally irresponsible governments like my own, or terrorists who manage to gain enough influence in the market to disrupt it using legal means.  All I know though is that there must be a way, and to do it we all have to work together (whether anyone likes it or not).

Issue 341 Protecting infrastructure May 22, 2014

Infrastructure includes, roads, bridges, tunnels, power plants and other energy generating sources, railroads and airports.  These various facilities facilitate the world we live in and make life as we know it possible.  However, whose job is it to protect these objects from possible attack?  Let us look at the pros and cons of government versus private yet again in the context of protecting the nation’s life blood of commerce.

Government:  Similar to yesterday, the government has the advantage of an unlimited money supply to make enhancements to protect our infrastructure.  They can fix it when it is damaged and maintain it when it is too expensive to repair by private company means.  However, that money spent is not always spent wisely.  Contract overruns, pulled budgets, and corruption take their toll. Also, despite having an unlimited money supply, printing all that money can cause negative economic consequences that could increase poverty.   

The government also has access to intelligence networks to prevent and preempt an attack from happening.  Not only does the government have access to its own intelligence network, but to other allied and neutral countries networks as well.  However, like with the Boston Bombing indecent, intelligence can be, and will be, ignored on occasion.  Thus, despite the sheer amount of resources at the government’s disposal to react, they may fail to act in the first place.

Additionally, unlike the private sector, the government has the judicial branch.  They can capture people caught in the act and then prosecute them.  However, private as of yet has no means of performing this delicate function of government.

Private:  Private has the advantage of it being small scale where they can focus on a specific facilities defense exclusively. As such, due to that focus it is not uncommon for them to innovate to maintain highly skilled and professional private security forces to act as guards and to develop security methods indicative to the particular object they wish to protect.  Government has trouble with this as they have a broader blanket approach to such things.  

When it comes to repair, the private sector innovates to ensure that things can get done quickly and efficiently.  They, who guard the facility, may not have to be able to repair the facility as they can have individuals hired to do that same task on their behalf as part of their job.  In their contract they can have a clause that even has them fortify the facility from things like electromagnetic pulse weapons and other forms of unorthodox attacks.  

Intelligence wise, the private sector has begun to get into the spy game in the same way they got into the use of mercenaries to protect certain assets.  Since the war on terror started under President George W. Bush, the private sector intelligence groups have been used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies to gather information on their behalf, especially when they are shorthanded when there is no focus or obvious threat from that country.

Conclusion:  In certain cases, the government is better, while in others private is better.  For instance a private security force with adequate intelligence from government and private sources can protect an airport, a nuclear power plant or a bus depot very efficiently.  On the other hand, a bridge or a tunnel is much harder to protect which typically leaves government as the de facto protector (as was the case of the Lincoln Tunnel indecent which NYPD's anti-terror team stopped).  On top of this, private is typically more motivated as they can be fired while the government can't.  Best example is with the TSA guarding our nation’s airports versus those in private industry guarding our airports.  The private sector security is rewarded for their good work and activities by the private company. The private company even designs exorcises to enhance quality and motivation even further leading to a better success rate on finding banned items in luggage than their government employed counterparts.  So you can see that there is a certain level of difference with respect to how well we will be protected and by whom when you think about it.  So it is all a matter of applying which group to protect what based on capability.  So yes, I am fine with a private company protecting a power plant and fortifying it from attack over the government which would be better suited to the offensives role of terrorist hunting.

Issue 340 Protecting the Net (whose job is it?) May 21, 2014

So whose job is it to protect the internet?  Truth is, the people of the United States are still discussing the issue. So let’s go over go over advantages to both public and private defending the internet that we have all come to rely on.

Government:  The main advantage to the government is that it has an unlimited budget to develop the systems needed to protect the net.  Groups in the defense industry like the National Security Agency (NSA) already serve to aid in protecting the net via various firewall and software programs.  In fact it was one of their primary jobs until Congress allowed for private companies to develop their own and sell their own anti-virus and protective software.  Now the NSA mainly serves as a spy agency to collect data via electronic means with the Air-force taking control of the defense of the net, but primarily does so for the military.  With the governments vast resources they can fund any program and institution to develop any program they need for the past, present and future threats the internet may face.

Private:  Private companies have a major advantage over the government.  For one they are on a budget.  Thus, despite their limited resources they can get an equivalent program to defend the internet much cheaper than in most cases than what the government will put forth (as corruption is sure to occur at the governmental level).  Also, while the government may rely on a single program, the private sector may develop multiple types of systems for their own protection which will frustrate hackers and foreign governments. Basically variety and cost saving are typically the main advantages here.

Conclusion:  In my opinion, both government and private companies have a role to play.  But both lack attack components (though the private sector is changing that somewhat).  So it really remains to be seen if either will have a settled role in the defense of the internet.  However, it is my opinion that the private sector provides so much more in advantages including variety, and flexibility of defensive abilities and development, that they will take the prominent role in the defense of the internet (including themselves).  For the government, they will revert here to a source of information sharing for any potential threats (though the private sector will have an overlapping role in this) and act as a funding body for the private sector for any new emerging threats that the private sector has yet to have a counter for (of course that is if the private sector has not already taken steps to counter the threat).  Overall the internet is a valuable resource for all commerce and its collapse will result in market crashes and the loss of all defensive abilities that countries like the United States has.  So we can only hope government allows the private sector with its superior advantages to take the lead, less the government is more concerned about their ego than the defense of the nation itself.

Issue 339 Missile Troops May 20, 2014

Missile troops are a concept that comes from the Chinese Military.  These troops as part of the military would play a completely new and defensive role in protecting our boarders and our interests abroad.  So let's discuss what they are and how it works.

Goals:   Missile troops have a few primary goals.  The first is active defense for both air, land and sea (plus space in the not so distant future).  So their targets will be enemy satellites, aircraft, ships, missile and stationary or moving land based targets.  In being able to strike these targets, they in their second goal must be able to do so as far away as possible (as distance equals safety for them and those they protect). Finally, as these troops are primarily defensive with some offensive capability, their final goal is to control access to certain areas thus corralling enemy action to specific areas and denying access to others.

How it works:  This new arm, or additional capability to a branch of service will integrate capabilities from all the branches of the armed forces and their infrastructure optimized primarily for stationary long term deployments.  In this way the primary medium for action will be forward deployed land bases insulated from attack by being underground.  Control stations will connect to missile silos via fiber-optic cables (which prevents the enemy jamming the communication signals) which are equipped with rotating magazines to shoot various types of missiles to allow variety in meeting the various threats they may have to defeat.  These troops may also be equipped with energy weapons to allow for unlimited ammo against their targets that are within line of sight.  

In addition, mobile land based systems may be created to further defense and allow for the protection of military bases abroad.  Naval versions of this system will be given to Cruisers or Destroyers to act as the defenders of the fleet with the only disadvantages to these more mobile systems being limited ammunition and power consumption.  

Obstacles: The main obstacle is the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty between the United States and Russia which limits the range of short range to medium range missiles by prohibiting missiles with any range between 500 and 5500 kilometers. This treaty would have to be abolished to accommodate this system to make it effective.  Another obstacle is the Army's organization.  It consists of three primary groups, maneuver, strike and supply.  This new organization takes capabilities from maneuver and a lot from the strike (artillery) portions of the Army which will cause resistance by these groups.  Other branches like the Air-force and Navy may also protest as portions of their capabilities are taken to support the creation and successful deployment of this new form of soldier.  Outside of these institutional blockages, this must all be budgeted for by Congress.

Solutions to the Problems:  I hypothesis that the treaty can be easily revoked by Russia if the United States asked.  They have their own strategic interests in revoking the treaty and it can be altered to simply restrict nuclear warheads of that range rather than all missiles in general. 

As to the institutional blockages by the other members of the military.  Most of the commands will be integrated into the new structure, but rather than create a brand new group (in my opinion), the Army's strike portion which governs the use of artillery can integrate these new capabilities into themselves.  By doing so, the overarching members of the Army will overrule the maneuver portion, and thus lessen the blockage by one of the most important groups in the defense of our nation.  In effect, all defensive and offensive land based systems will be integrated into the strike component of the army which will include specialized infantry equipped with specialized indirect munitions all the way through intercontinental ballistic missiles.  

To take care of the Navy and Air-Force, (I believe) they each should get their own role in this new system.  The Navy will act as sea going versions of this system to defend bases and fleet operations (though they already have this capability there is a chance it will expand further to include newer more powerful systems).  In the case of the Air-Force, they (if developed) will have satellite based versions of this system and also if feasible air based versions of this defensive system as well.  As this entire concept is supposed to work with area denial technologies like mine-warfare, fighters to intercept enemy air craft and missiles, subs and cyber warfare the Navy and Air-Force will gain or reorganize existing capabilities to use these functions as part of their support of this new group of soldiers.

Conclusion:  This new form of defensive system which obviously integrates many forms of new missile technology, newer energy weapons and (if my opinion holds) older and proven classic artillery with technological enhancements will streamline offensive and defensive options for the military.  It will streamline costs and logistics as a whole while improving the defense of the nation.  China has already created, adapted and deployed this new form of soldier.  So I ask, if this truly is a good idea with respect to national defense and cost savings, why are we not doing this too?

Issue 338 3D printers and the military May 19, 2014

It has recently been talked about using 3D printers on Navy ships to create remote/pre-programmed drones (robots).  But this may expand even further as the technology progresses.  So let us extrapolate on the future potential of 3D printers in combat (in this case for the Navy). 

Munitions:  The Navy has a need to resupply often at sea and of course they have a lot of rockets, bombs and other items that go boom.  So instead of storing those munitions on ship where they risk possible explosion or having to be transported to a safe port to be loaded on ship, the chemicals to make the explosives can be made on ship instead using a 3D printer.  Keep in mind that warheads for these munitions are attached right before takeoff if loaded on an aircraft, but this is not so for munitions stored in missile silos on Cruisers, Destroyers and similar water based craft.  So by manufacturing what is needed aboard ship, they may be able to reduce this vulnerability as the warheads can be attached right before combat.  The other components of the missiles and other ordnance can be stored and assembled on ship as well by a 3D printer.  Fuel and materials can even be harvested at sea to minimize need for resupply ships which are vulnerable, and it will also reduce need for recycling and refuse disposal on ship as these materials can then be recycled to make more weapons of war.

Tools and equipment: Just like munitions tools and equipment can be made in the same way with 3D printers.  Need a specialized tool, then it can be designed and manufactured right on ship using harvested materials from trash on ship and from the sea water itself.  Some equipment is so simple that they can be made with 3D printers.  As technology progresses, 3D printers can even print an entire computer or alternative materials can be used to make that same equipment.  Literally, as time goes on, the limit on what can be made will be based on the size of the 3D printer and how fast and reliably materials can be supplied to it.  

Conclusion:  To be honest, the limits on 3D printers are very small.  They will eventually usurp much of the traditional manufacturing processes already existing.  On top of this, materials that traditionally would be incapable of being used to make a computer may finally be able to be used as such based upon how well 3D printers convert the material into its new form.  For the Navy, a powerful and fully capable 3D printer may eliminate the need for resupply ships save food and fuel (fuel is questionable as well though based on how well the development of technology to get fuel from sea water progresses).  The main focus of the Navy or the military in general is to reduce the need for a supply chain that is vulnerable to attack and limits range and maneuverability.  So just by having this technology aboard a ship and using it to make replacement parts, tools and whatever other needs the ship has by using some stored materials, trash (or even human waste) and materials retrieved from the ocean waters, the Navy (and taxpayers) can save massive amounts of money, and improve the safety of our servicemen and women at sea.

Issue 337 Control (information) May 16, 2014

Information control is essential for any dictatorship or tyrannical government to control the hearts and minds of a people.  But what are the ways they do so?

White Propaganda: White Propaganda is propaganda that makes a country, a group or organization look positive or beneficial.  It can be used to make a losing side look like it is winning by manipulating perceptions.  This also affects the enemy (or dissidents) as it makes them feel as if their efforts seem useless.  So when a government spins information to make things look better than they really are it is white propaganda.

Black Propaganda:  The opposite of the white version, Black Propaganda is about demeaning the enemy.  It makes them less human and viler than they may actually be. So when the Japanese portrayed Americans as beasts and us Americans the same way it was a form of Black Propaganda.  This form of propaganda was used by the Nazi's to demean the Jews, the Gays, and the disabled as well.  Obviously this is all about portraying countries, groups or people in a negative light.

Censorship:  Censorship is where certain information is purposely withheld from public knowledge.  This can be done by the government, or even groups or people.  Here it is about preventing information that may counter the narrative being put forth by a government.  So any information that may display a negative light on the government, or make them look like hypocrites will be withheld.  Other forms of this may be used to ensure that particular morals are upheld.  Similar to how in the Cold War a censorship office in the United States prevented displays or information that was either "obscene" or purported the ideology of the Communists.  In this way, they could prevent the "corruption" of the people.

Disinformation:  The most powerful form of information control, it combines propaganda, censorship and an element of storytelling to control information.  So basically it is the creation of a believable story line and supported by the three aforementioned forms of information control (sometimes with planted evidence or information) in order to either make things look positive or negative, or to steer the population in a certain direction and away from what the group controlling the narrative deems undesirable.  For instance in WWII the Pope hid Jewish families in the Vatican, to hide them from the Germans.  But a disinformation campaign by Joseph Stalin's intelligence agencies portrayed the Pope as complicit to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews.  Truth was that the Vatican had so many Jews being sheltered that they were living on the Vatican steps and in the hallways.  But until recently with information slowly being declassified everyone believed the disinformation that Stalin had put out to turn people away from the church and lean toward atheism which the communist government espoused.    

Conclusion:  As you can see, information control is powerful.  It can mean the rise and fall of nations and reputations.  Any government, group and organization can pull this off.  Think of how little we knew about the stock market crash in 2007/2008.  They withheld information and used propaganda until they could no longer withhold the information.  Mudslinging during election campaigns is propaganda as well with a small dose of disinformation depending on how creative the opponent can be.  So all I can tell you is trust but verify for you are not getting the full story in school or from the media in the first place, but spinets of information that they can cram in.  So who knows how much more there is to a story or to history that we are not being told.  Always remember, to do your own research and break out of the box that these con artists want you to stay in.