Bush’s report, “Science – the Endless Frontier,” '
This is the discussion we have had from both left and right wing stances over these few centuries-----we have on one hand scientific genius driven as we say to pursue that objective no matter the consequences to 99% of society. Einstein knew this when he set the stage for the atomic bomb. Above we see a BUSH telling us we must head for ENDLESS FRONTIERS----does that mirror EMPIRE-BUILDING NEO-LIBERALISM? YES. Our STAR TREK TV series used this as their opening mantra----THE ENDLESS FRONTIER---this is global 1% empire-building speak and not the voice of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE who want a society allowing all to simply live stable lives with dignity.
WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS THAT FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA WANTING SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE IN PURSUIT OF ENDLESS FRONTIERS.
Can we have science exploring endless frontiers AND have a society of opportunity and justice for all 99% of people? NO----because endless frontiers exhausts all of MOTHER EARTH'S NATURAL RESOURCES ----making LIFE ON EARTH impossible.
Below we see an article written from a right wing stance-----it places the problems of today's ENDLESS FRONTIERS on the MESSAGE TO THE MASSES----not the goals. What we have today is CONSTANT SPIN trying to make the 99% think they will be part of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE DEEP STATE UTOPIA----when the goal is the opposite.
Of course SPOCK was that pragmatic nihilist not able to include human compassion ----and he always flashes FREEMASON hand signs----------------so, NO these are not the citizens to be deciding our economic and societal structures-----
'Star Trek's "Infinite Diversity" and the Endless Frontier
Richard N. Lorenc
Richard N. Lorenc
Monday, March 02, 2015'
Science: For Science’s or Society’s Sake?
Owning the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion
By J. Britt Holbrook and Robert Frodeman | Thursday, March 1st, 2012
What return do taxpayers get for their investment in scientific and engineering research? This seems a natural enough question, unless you happen to be a scientist or engineer asked to give an account of the broader societal impacts of your work. Since 1997, however, those who apply to the National Science Foundation, or NSF, for grant funding have been asked to do just that. In addition to making a case for the “intellectual merit” of their research, research project proposers also had to discuss their research’s “broader impacts” on society. Researchers have resisted NSF’s Broader Impacts Merit Review criterion since its inception, arguing that it was irrelevant, impossible to answer, or, most commonly, just plain unclear.
This resistance stems in part from the definition of the sort of research NSF is supposed to fund—basic research. In 1945 Vannevar Bush, who was coming off a successful run as chairman of the Manhattan Project, spent his political capital arguing that the federal government ought to support basic research. Bush’s report, “Science – the Endless Frontier,” defined basic research as research done without regard for its practical consequences. The term was essentially a more practical way of saying pure science—a term that had been in circulation at least since the late 19th century. The point was to conduct research that was driven by the researcher’s own curiosity rather than by any sort of external need. This is why the term of art is often “blue skies” research, named after the question “Why is the sky blue?”
This struggle between scientists looking to rebel against government efforts to restrict their freedom reminds us a little of the movie classic “Cool Hand Luke” in which prison warden Strother Martin engages in a running conflict with Paul Newman’s character, the inmate Luke. Luke has little interest in following prison rules, and Martin, in frustration, eventually lays down the law. Luke is told that he needs to “get his mind right” about how things are going to operate. Luke sees things differently.
Those of us who watch old movies will remember that Luke comes to a melancholy end. Of course, the relationship between Congress on the one hand and the NSF and individual scientists on the other is not the same as that of the warden and inmates. But one point does seem apt. Following a congressional mandate the updated merit review criteria issued by the National Science Board, or NSB, in December 2011 make it clear that the Broader Impacts criterion is not going away. Congress has, quite literally, laid down the law. Rather than continue to fight, the scientific and engineering community should look for ways to own the Broader Impacts criterion and make it work to their overall advantage.
The struggle to communicate how science benefits societySince its implementation in 1997, NSF’s Broader Impacts criterion has often been viewed by scientists and engineers as an onerous burden. The view was that the real work of science was captured by outlining a project’s intellectual merit—that is, outlining its impact on science for an audience of other scientists. Many research project proposers and reviewers considered NSF’s requirement that scientists discuss the broader impacts of a project on society to be irrelevant.
Congress, however, viewed things differently. In fact, a requirement for NSF to attend to broader impacts was written into the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Moreover, in response to the repeated criticism that the Broader Impacts criterion was unclear, Congress provided a list of “national needs” that the criterion could be used to meet. Rather than going away, as some scientists had hoped it would, a new, more prescriptive Broader Impacts criterion emerged.
NSF then decided to reassess the entirety of its merit, or peer, review criteria. Proposed new criteria were released in June 2011, with a period for feedback. NSB did receive some pushback—according to an entry on the Nature News Blog from December 13, 2011, the task force eventually settled on a “non-prescriptive, big-tent definition” of broader impacts:
Since 1997, the NSF has required all grant proposers to justify their requests not just on intellectual merit, but also on this notion of broader impacts. Yet researchers have found the requirements distressingly vague. Legislation passed by Congress in 2010 confirmed the importance of broader impacts, and also tried to be more specific, listing some of the activities that would count as having societal benefit. But when the task force’s May 2011 draft report dutifully repeated some of these examples, some critics worried that the NSF’s criteria would end up being too specific. [Task Force co-chair] Bruer’s team has since removed the list. “It raised problems about why some things were on the list and others not,” says Bruer.
In NSB’s initial June 2011 revision, potential benefits to society appeared to have been limited to the list of national goals provided by Congress. But some feared that in taking away the vagueness of the “benefit to society” clause, the proposed criterion would limit the freedom of proposers and reviewers to suggest and judge novel and creative ideas not included on the list. Although critics of the Broader Impacts criterion had consistently claimed that it was unclear or “distressingly vague,” NSB came to realize that a degree of vagueness is actually a good thing—it allows for maximum autonomy on the part of proposers and peer reviewers to provide their own answers to the demand for accountability.
A deeper emphasis on “broader impacts”On January 9, 2012, NSB released its final report, “National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions.” In the final revisions NSF’s Broader Impacts criterion does not merely survive—its status in the review process has grown. NSB’s revisions more explicitly integrate broader impacts with intellectual merit. They also require a separate broader impacts section in grant proposals and mandate a separate account and assessment of a project’s broader impacts in the grantee’s final report. In other words, the Broader Impacts criterion is approaching parity with the Intellectual Merit criterion.
Welcome to Broader Impacts 2.0, per the NSF:
Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
Note that not only is the new Broader Impacts criterion usefully vague, but it also explicitly requires that proposers (that is, not Congress) articulate a project’s potential benefits to society.
The final revisions also ask proposers and reviewers to address the same set of questions for intellectual merit and broader impacts—in areas such as the soundness of the plan for the proposed activity, the qualifications of the proposer(s) to carry out the proposed activities, and the access to necessary resources. Indeed, even the question of the potential transformativity of the proposed activities now applies to both intellectual merit and broader impact.
NSB’s integration of intellectual merit and broader impact means seeing the connections between things formerly thought to be separable. NSB’s new criteria recognize that in the 21st century, our disciplinary peers are no longer our only audience. Moreover, science funding is increasingly tied to the notion that basic research is a driver of innovation, which in turn drives economic growth. This will require an adjustment in the way we think about broader impacts: Scientists and engineers will need to begin to see that even basic research must take place in the context of the needs of the users of that knowledge.
It is obviously too early to say whether scientists and engineers will actually make the adjustment. By removing the list of national needs in the June 2011 proposed revisions and enhancing the usefully vague “benefits to society” language of the final version of the Broader Impacts criterion, however, NSF is allowing members of the scientific and engineering community the freedom and creativity to give an account of their own broader impacts.
Whether scientists and engineers will embrace this freedom or continue to resist such calls for accountability remains to be seen. If we are to learn anything from the past, however, unless scientists get their minds right about broader impacts, Congress will be happy to step in to resolve this failure to communicate.
Natural science has for a thousand years opened doors to knowledge to be used by any citizen to advance quality of life and survival. Industry advances quality of life for those able to afford---and as we know has reached the point of actually MAKING SURVIVAL impossible for all but a global 1%. The public policy stance on science and technology is WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PENDULUM TO SWING TOO FAR TOWARDS TECHNOLOGY. When Obama and Clinton neo-liberals pushed RACE TO THE TOP global online neo-liberal corporate education on our public K-12 schools we were told---DON'T WORRY----these technologies will AID our teachers and students---it will democratize access to education for all---and of course we shared posts yesterday of US states and their workplace vocational instruction with our children lined up all on laptop computers tied to online lessons written by a few global 1% people. It was important for global 1% white citizens here in US to place women, black , Latino faces out in front of what will enslave and kill women, black and Latino 99% of citizens here in the US.
Now, the global 1% and their 2% being brought to fill our US city centers do not care if WE THE PEOPLE THE US CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, OR BROWN are eliminated---they have their fiefdoms overseas with their 99% under lock and key----these global 1% simply want access to DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE GOALS AND THE PLANETARY MINING COLONIZATION NEEDED TO KEEP ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID GOING.
The only reason SILICON VALLEY is even training 99% of citizens black, white, and brown to be CODERS---ROBOTIC AND COMPUTER BUILDERS TODAY----is that technology to replace CODERS AND COMPUTER BUILDERS is not ready----they are working feverishly to create artificial intelligence to do all of that.
MEANTIME THESE ARE THE MOST MIND-NUMBING AND LOWEST PAID JOBS FOR GLOBAL LABOR POOL.
How Silicon Valley Pushed Coding Into American Classrooms
By NATASHA SINGERJUNE 27, 2017
At a White House gathering of tech titans last week, Timothy D. Cook, the chief executive of Apple, delivered a blunt message to President Trump on how public schools could better serve the nation’s needs. To help solve a “huge deficit in the skills that we need today,” Mr. Cook said, the government should do its part to make sure students learn computer programming.
“Coding,” Mr. Cook told the president, “should be a requirement in every public school.”
The Apple chief’s education mandate was just the latest tech company push for coding courses in schools. But even without Mr. Trump’s support, Silicon Valley is already advancing that agenda — thanks largely to the marketing prowess of Code.org, an industry-backed nonprofit group.
Code.org was founded in 2012 by Hadi Partovi, an early investor in Facebook and Airbnb, and his twin brother, Ali Partovi, himself an early investor in Zappos and Dropbox. The group first gained renown by using a viral video to stir up mass demand for coding lessons. Now Code.org’s goal is to get every public school in the United States to teach computer science.
In our tech-driven world, Hadi Partovi argues, computer science has become as essential for students as reading, writing and math. “Encryption is at least as foundational as photosynthesis,” he said.
Computer science is also essential to American tech companies, which have become heavily reliant on foreign engineers. Mr. Trump’s efforts to limit immigration make Code.org’s teach-Americans-to-code agenda even more attractive to the industry.
In a few short years, Code.org has raised more than $60 million from Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Salesforce, along with individual tech executives and foundations. It has helped to persuade two dozen states to change their education policies and laws, Mr. Partovi said, while creating free introductory coding lessons, called Hour of Code, which more than 100 million students worldwide have tried.
Along the way, Code.org has emerged as a new prototype for Silicon Valley education reform: a social-media-savvy entity that pushes for education policy changes, develops curriculums, offers online coding lessons and trains teachers — touching nearly every facet of the education supply chain.
“They have got this multipronged approach,” said Amy Klement, a partner at Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment organization started by the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, which has given $5.5 million to Code.org. “It’s unique and a model I would love to see replicated.”
But Code.org’s multilevel influence machine also raises the question of whether Silicon Valley is swaying public schools to serve its own interests — in this case, its need for software engineers — with little scrutiny. “If I were a state legislator, I would certainly be wondering about motives,” said Sarah Reckhow, an assistant professor of political science at Michigan State University. “You want to see public investment in a skill set that is the skill set you need for your business?”
Mr. Partovi, 44, said he simply wanted to give students the opportunity to develop the same skills that helped him and his backers succeed. He immigrated as a child to the United States from Iran with his family, went on to study computer science at Harvard, and later sold a voice-recognition start-up he had co-founded to Microsoft for a reported $800 million.
“That dream is much less accessible if you are in one of America’s schools where they don’t even tell you you could go into that field,” Mr. Partovi said.
Even so, he acknowledged some industry self-interest. “If you are running a tech company,” he said, “it’s extremely hard to hire and retain engineers.”
Code.org is now one of the largest providers of free online coding lessons and more comprehensive computer science curriculums. It has also provided training workshops to more than 57,000 teachers, Mr. Partovi said.
The rise of Code.org coincides with a larger tech-industry push to remake American primary and secondary schools with computers and learning apps, a market estimated to reach $21 billion by 2020.
Last year, Apple rolled out a free app, called Swift Playgrounds, to teach basic coding in Swift, a programming language the company unveiled in 2014.
Last month, Apple introduced a yearlong curriculum for high schools and community colleges to teach app design in Swift. Apple has also supported Code.org by hosting the group’s popular Hour of Code events in its stores.
Before Code.org emerged, the National Science Foundation, industry, and education experts worked for years to develop and spread computer science instruction in schools. In 2009, for instance, an engineer at Microsoft started a program called Teals (for Technology Education and Literacy in Schools) that places tech company volunteers in schools to help teach the subject.
Then Mr. Partovi came along with the idea of using a viral video to spark mass demand for the courses.
He began by persuading Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, and Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook chief executive, to appear in a short film promoting coding to students. In its first week on YouTube, the video, called “What Most Schools Don’t Teach,” racked up roughly nine million views. Within two weeks, Mr. Partovi said, about 20,000 teachers contacted him.
Mr. Partovi compared Code.org’s approach to those of start-ups like Airbnb and Uber. “Airbnb is disrupting the travel space, but they don’t own the hotels,” he said, adding: “We are in a similar model, disrupting education. But we are not running the school and we don’t hire the teachers.”
Mr. Partovi’s elite connections didn’t hurt.
One day in early 2013, he bumped into his neighbor, Bradford L. Smith, then a senior Microsoft executive, in a driveway outside their homes in Bellevue, Wash. Mr. Smith had recently published a Microsoft report calling for a federal plan to better prepare students for careers in computer science and engineering.
Mr. Partovi, for his part, was hoping to go viral with a message that coding could improve students’ job prospects. Teaching skills that may lead to higher-paying jobs “seems like the kind of idea that everyone in the country can get behind,” he said.
Mr. Partovi promptly invited Mr. Smith over to preview his celebrity coders video.
Microsoft soon became Code.org’s largest donor. Mr. Smith, now the president of Microsoft, compared their efforts to an educational initiative in the late 1950s. Back then, the Soviet Union had just won the space race by launching Sputnik, and the United States, in an effort to catch up, passed a law to finance physics and other science courses.
“We think computer science is to the 21st century what physics was to the 20th century,” Mr. Smith said.
Together with local groups, Mr. Partovi said, Code.org and Microsoft have helped persuade 24 states to allow computer science to count toward math or science credits required for high school graduation. Along with groups like Black Girls Code, Girls Who Code and Latina Girls Code, Code.org has worked to make the subject accessible to a diverse group of students.
But the movement has also supported legislation that could give companies enormous sway in public schools, starting with kindergarten, with little public awareness.
Last year, Microsoft and Code.org helped push for a career-education bill in Idaho that, education researchers warned, could prioritize industry demands over students’ interests. Among other things, they said, it could sway schools to teach specific computer programming languages that certain companies needed, rather than broader problem-solving approaches that students might use throughout their lives.
“It gets very problematic when industry is deciding the content and direction of public education,” said Jane Margolis, a senior researcher at the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Idaho bill read, in part, “It is essential that efforts to increase computer science instruction, kindergarten through career, be driven by the needs of industry and be developed in partnership with industry.”
When a reporter apprised him of the bill’s language, Mr. Smith of Microsoft seemed taken aback, saying he had not endorsed it. “Broad public education should not be grounded first and foremost in the needs of any particular industry — or in the needs of industry as a whole,” he said.
Mr. Partovi noted that Code.org had opposed a “more extreme” coding bill in Florida that would have required students to obtain industry certification. It has also opposed bills that would allow coding courses to count toward foreign-language credits in high schools, he said. Still, Mr. Partovi added, “We do think that tech companies have a role to play.”
The Idaho law took effect last year. One of its first results was a new program, developed with Oracle, to train public-school teachers how to teach students Java, Oracle’s popular coding language. Other companies, including the chip maker Micron Technology, were invited to help develop computer science standards for Idaho schools.
“Some people will believe that industry is going to be driving our education system forward, and that is absolutely not the case,” said Angela Hemingway, executive director of the Idaho STEM Action Center, which oversees the state’s computer science education initiative. “They are collaborative partners.”
OH, REALLY???? COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS!
Certainly, many students across the country, and their parents, are clamoring for computer science. But what if some other subject — say, data science (which involves computing) — turns out to be more important and broadly applicable for students’ lives, careers and communities?
The clout behind computer science has all but obviated a wider debate about whether, to better prepare students, schools might introduce an array of new subjects. It has also overshadowed discussion about whether students would be better off if schools modified traditional math classes to increase the emphasis on fields like statistics.
Mr. Smith of Microsoft said that tech companies and philanthropists were simply trying to give voice to an overlooked subject. “What we really need is a national conversation about the broad array of intellectual disciplines that will be fundamental to the future of American students,” Mr. Smith said. “It’s a broad array, not a single subject.”
Mr. Partovi concurred. “We have a lot of debate in this country about how to teach,” he said, “and not enough debate about what to teach.”
CODING AND PROGRAMMING are dead end jobs for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---when we are told by global corporations that our future will be constant INNOVATION and training for new jobs over and over and over again----what they are sharing is a temporary economic future----the goals are of course to have robotics building robotics----artificial intelligence being those CODERS AND PROGRAMMERS---so SCIENCE FOR SCIENCE SAKE leads to the destruction of humanity----and that is CRAZY.
Keep in mind---the CEOs of all these technology and innovative corporations are NOT THOSE TALENTED---they are OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% knowing only how to lie, cheat, and steal.
The 5% to the 1% recruited GREEKS AND FREEMASONS are simply those living for today-----SHOW ME THE MONEY -----no cares about children and grandchildren.
Who are those citizens pushing these ZERO SUM policies? Greater Baltimore Committee, global Baltimore Development, global Johns Hopkins and those 5% player organizations pretending to be helping the poor-----URBAN LEAGUE, NAACP, CATHOLIC AND BLACK CHARITIES----let's get rid of players living only for today!
3 robots build a chair: Turning machines into more human collaborators
'Since the dawn of factories, employers have tried to increase the efficiency of human workers by making them more machine-like. It's ironic, then, that a new algorithm enables robots to tackle problems in a messier and ultimately more human way'.
By Greg Nichols for Robotics | June 11, 2015 -- 10:32 GMT (03:32 PDT) | Topic: Innovation
Here's the scenario: three assembly robots are gathered around a pile of parts that can be combined to make a chair. The robots recognize how the individual parts fit together -- a foot screws to a leg, which screws into the bottom of the seat, etc. -- but they must come up with a plan to collaboratively assemble the chair themselves. They each have one grasper.
Next, the algorithm works out how a single robot working on its own portion of each step might transition to the next step it's involved in. If the robot has a suitable grasping position to transition to that step without dropping the object, the algorithm adds that component to its attack plan. If not, it postpones figuring out how to make that transition. The algorithm then approaches the postponed transition problems by considering which of the other robots might be in position to lend a helping hand.
So far, this is a clever but relatively straightforward approach to systems-level automation. But the key to the algorithm's utility in future manufacturing scenarios is what it does when it encounters any remaining transition scenarios in which no grasper is available to ensure an efficient transition between steps. In a traditional approach, the algorithm would begin backtracking through the steps of its plan, revising the previous steps to try to find a workable transition. But each revision introduces new complexity to the problem, which greatly increases the processing time necessary to find an efficient way forward. With just three robots, the computing time necessary to work out an efficient plan can be hours, even days.
The team's answer is wonderfully human. The algorithm simply tells the robots to drop what they're holding, move into a more optimal position, and pick up assembly from that point. It may seem simple, but this is a radical departure from current automation solutions, where the objective is absolute efficiency. By making a plan pretty efficient but not rigidly so, the algorithm can be applied to complex manufacturing problems that currently can't be solved automatically. Since the dawn of factories, employers have tried to increase the efficiency of human workers by making them more machine-like. It's ironic, then, that a new algorithm enables robots to tackle problems in a messier and ultimately more human way.
'I also became increasing aware of how entities wield power by clogging pubic bandwidth with mis-information. I pay little attention to global affairs these days and the world doesn’t seem to be much worse off for it, as far as I can tell'.
While global 1% are working feverishly to build ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID with a goal of taking ALL BANDWIDTH across the spectrum----WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% are playing around with social media------video media-----APPS-----all of which disappear in the near future---and when these internet mediums disappear---they take a generation of human interaction----POOOOF! As we fight to keep our US community and citizen history from being dumped and burned from libraries, government agency files-----we are allowing all our living to be on a temporary medium------my friends often lose their smart phones filled with digital photos taken over years----it is too expensive today to print all those photos so we lose all those memories as technology is taken BEYOND THE REACH OF 99% OF PEOPLE.
We fuss at citizens using all their money and all their energy online---whether personal chat----small business----online education-----allowing ZERO TIME to build solid brick and mortar businesses-----ZERO TIME building hard copy paper media-------ZERO TIME building after-school public education structures filled with arts, humanities, science, philosophy taught WITHOUT TECHNOLOGY.
WE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING CAPTURED BY CONVENIENCE AND VIRTUAL REALITY FUN ALLOWING ALL OUR REAL WORLD STRUCTURES DECAY----WHERE WILL WE GO WHEN WE CANNOT ACCESS TECHNOLOGY?
BUT SMART CITIES WILL HAVE UNIVERSAL WI-FI----------OH, REALLY???????
Is that what those lying, cheating, stealing global Wall Street pols and players telling us---sure, let's believe THEM.
Man, What’s Taking Up Your Bandwidth?
To be fully alive is to spend time feeling peaceful, tranquil, serene, alternating with feeling joyful, ecstatic and filled with awe. If this isn’t happening much, check you bandwidth and what you are devoting it to.July 30, 2017 by David Shaw
There is a limit to how many messages a man can attend to and process in a day. What messages are you attending to? What messages are you ignoring and why?
You may be attending to this article because you are interested in contemplating what messages might inform you on how to be a better man. This may be the reason you decided to devote some of your limited incoming data bandwidth to visit the goodmenproject.com webpage. If so, good choice.
This website is devoted to exploring new understandings of what it can mean to be a man in the 21st century. This exploration is accomplished, in part, through reading the stores of other men and writing about your stories of manhood.
It is becoming more and more common for men to filter out messages related to being a man.The thinking here is that gender specific messages are no longer relevant. That is any message directed at men on how to think, behave, emote, should just as well be directed at women and other people who don’t identify with the label of man or woman.
If you are working on employing this filter, your visit to goodmenproject.com may be motivated by an interest in debunking male messaged content. There is much to be debunked and much to support you with further developing this filter.
Some of my most powerful personal experience with goodmenproject.com have been experiences of adjusting my manhood filters to free up bandwidth by the act of writing posts for the website.
For example, I used to write about some of my associations with playing and watching sports with being male. In the course of this writing I lost almost all of my interest in sports, without feeling any less of a man for it. I had saved a great deal of bandwidth since early boyhood for things sports. I needed to pay attention to changes in players, their performance statistics,which teams they were playing for and so much more. I was highly motivated to avoid the shame of not knowing a basic sports fact should it come up in conversation with other males.
Some of the freed up bandwidth has gone to attending to messages relevant to my health and keeping up on what is going on with family members.
I wrote some reflections on the 2016 US Presidential Election. Keeping up with politics and political conflict was important to me as a man. I felt that being informed on local and global current events was a vital part of being a good citizen. As I wrote, I came into awareness that keeping up with current events didn’t seem to inform me at all as how to be a responsible countryman. I was once again motivated to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to offer an informed political opinion when called on to do so.
I also became increasing aware of how entities wield power by clogging pubic bandwidth with mis-information. I pay little attention to global affairs these days and the world doesn’t seem to be much worse off for it, as far as I can tell.
I have written about the tricks of advertisers and a growing worldwide interest in exploiting labor.I have become more uncomfortably aware of how much bandwidth I save for the contemplation of my consumer choices. I need to write in that subject some more sometime soon.
I have written some reviews of movies that are popular with men. In the process I have reduced by television to about zero and don’t care about what film will be available to a theater near me soon.
I have written about some of my experiences as a working man, which has helped me adjust to my health related forced retirement. I no longer identify as much with what I used to be able to do in the work force. ( I do identify writing for goodmenproject.com as playing an important role in my adjustment to retirement).
These and other reductions in what used to take up a good deal of bandwidth, have freed up space for messages tagged spiritual. Spiritual contemplation has rushed into fill bandwidth voids. I used to think of spiritual thinking and practice as something I wanted to get around to doing more of before I die, not as something that would come streaming to me unbidden.
Man, take an inventory as to what messages occupy portions of your bandwidth. You know what you spend too much time attending to. Just cut some of that out and pay attention to what takes its place. Now don’t be surprised when new crap snatches up bandwidth vacated by old crap. Just stop paying attention to the new crap as it rises. You will know the good stuff when it comes.
To be fully alive is to spend time feeling peaceful, tranquil, serene, alternating with feeling joyful,ecstatic and filled with awe. If this isn’t happening much, check you bandwidth and what you are devoting it to.
This article speaks of GLOBAL SMART CITIES-----South Korea/Singapore/Bahrain------all pushing GLOBAL 99% from what was analog---then digital -----now we are seeing greater and greater percentages of citizens pushed to WI-FI----don't worry about not being able to afford growing internet access rates ---there will always be that local cafe-----those trash cans with SMART METERS AND WI-FI lighting up all kinds of internet connectivity for WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%.
If we cannot see how we are being marched right off this digital communication and online business CLIFF----WE NEED TO WAKE UP.
GLOBAL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES AS SMART CITIES ARE BEING BUILT FOR THOSE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%----MINUS 99% OF GLOBAL CITIZENS.
'Wi-Fi is the default medium for connectivity today. It carries about half of all Internet traffic and 10 times more traffic than cellular. It will be a crucial factor in upcoming developments, especially as cities, sporting areas, and businesses increasingly leverage connectivity for engagement, computing, entertainment, and smart devices'.
As we watch global labor pool built these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA now installed in US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES we see how developing nations' global 1% have been pushing higher and higher percentages of their sovereign citizens into these global slave trade systems----global 1% trade these 99% of global labor pool just to get rid of sovereign citizens. That is what MOVING FORWARD does in US cities----it will flood our cities with a billion developing world citizens these global 1% are glad to see leave those nations and fill our US cities as MOVING FORWARD BUILDS GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES AND GLOBAL FACTORIES these few decades---these citizens have never been exposed to developed nation internet capacity-----all these social media---online businesses----so they will not miss these communications AFTER US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE SMART CITIES become only for those global 1% and their 2%.
WE CAN BE SURE A FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% BUILDING AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM DOES NOT INTEND TO ALLOW 99% OF PEOPLE TO COMMUNICATE.
'But concerns do exist for those cities planning to take advantage of Wi-Fi. The problem of bandwidth availability could impact the connectivity of the 4.5 billion Wi-Fi-enabled devices in use everyday'.
Wi-Fi and the Rise of Smart Cities
October 30, 2015 by Kevin Robinson, Wi-Fi Alliance
This article originally ran in TMCnet
Smart cities like Songdo in South Korea are being built from the ground up to embrace smart devices and constant connectivity. These smart cities connect everything – buildings, lights, meters, and streets – to the Internet through the power of Wi-Fi.
Songdo isn’t alone. Established cities like New York City and London are also making their move into the future by implementing public-private partnerships to extend the range, accessibility, and speed of Wi-Fi for their millions of residents. For example, New York’s LinkNYC initiative will replace old phone booths with 500 free gigabyte Wi-Fi kiosks, providing New York residents with a charging station, a touchscreen interface, and the ability to call anywhere in the U.S. for free. The citywide retrofit is setting the stage for a new brand of future smart city that will be powered by a universally accessible Wi-Fi network. Additionally, the trend is picking up speed as shown by recent investments by Google’s (News - Alert) Sidewalk Labs.
In New York, Songdo, and cities all over the world, it’s an unstoppable development. Wi-Fi connectivity and new smart technology is everywhere, changing how we communicate. As Wi-Fi adoption continues to permeate everything from gadgets to buildings, we are in store for a riveting time of innovation. Here’s a rundown of what’s happening today and what’s needed to make the future smart city possible.
Pervasive Connectivity and Designing the Future
Wi-Fi is the default medium for connectivity today. It carries about half of all Internet traffic and 10 times more traffic than cellular. It will be a crucial factor in upcoming developments, especially as cities, sporting areas, and businesses increasingly leverage connectivity for engagement, computing, entertainment, and smart devices.
But until now, the problem with ushering in the new era of smart cities has been creating ubiquitous, all-encompassing connectivity that is accessible and reliable. Urban settings have always presented unique challenges, with hundreds of personal networks competing to connect to the broader Internet and each other. That’s not to mention the density of population, devices, and structures found in a city. Fortunately, the issue will not last long as advancements in Wi-Fi begin to account for the specific needs of tomorrow’s cities.
Most recognize Wi-Fi as a way to connect to the Internet and advancements in Wi-Fi CERTIFIED technology have kept true to this promise. But these same advancements have also expanded Wi-Fi to replace the wires and cables for audio and video applications. Wi-Fi means users get an optimal connected experience irrespective of device or location. For instance, old building designs that depended on fixed lines and copper cables (remember the intercoms and conventional home phones of the past) are being replaced by completely wireless developments.
Wi-Fi CERTIFIED technology has evolved to accommodate all sorts of functions, from multimedia entertainment to Wi-Fi calling. For example, connectivity provided through the emerging Wi-Fi frequencies below 1gHz is being developed to extend the range and reach of signals through more materials, and is particularly well-suited for applications with low data payloads – think sensors and home control devices like thermostats. This is ideal for smart home devices and appliances that don’t require a constant speed connection and are located in harder to reach places, like kitchens or garages. At the other end, 60gHz transfers data at fast rates sensitive to physical obstructions. This is a great option for replacing the cabling within rooms for everything from home entertainment systems to home computer networks that require low latency, high bandwidth connectivity but are not segmented across a structure. In between the two, there are 2.4 and 5gHz bands, which are most common today for multimedia and Internet connectivity.
Future Problems or Opportunity?
But concerns do exist for those cities planning to take advantage of Wi-Fi. The problem of bandwidth availability could impact the connectivity of the 4.5 billion Wi-Fi-enabled devices in use everyday. But it’s not an insurmountable problem, and is only a small hindrance on Wi-Fi’s road to enable the smart cities and homes of tomorrow. The connected city will need a conduit for connectivity, and, despite the unpredictable factors that will continue to influence wireless broadband’s availability and limitations, Wi-Fi will be there to provide the seamless connected experience of the future via an expanding array of bands across the wireless spectrum.
Moreover, cities and businesses are overcoming the challenge of a limited wireless web by overhauling infrastructure through steps like widespread fiber deployments and ubiquitous access points to connect to the web despite location or device.
We are sure the INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF WI FI CORPORATIONS ----THE WI FI ALLIANCE IS LOOKING OUT FOR 99% OF CITIZENS. REALLY????
The statements and opinions by each Wi-Fi Alliance member
The worldwide network of companies
that brings you Wi-Fi®
LONDON has been these few decades that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE for only the global rich. Absolutely, LONDON as SINGAPORE are SMART CITY driven with all kinds of media telling WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% how liberating it will be to have WI-FI access wherever we walk or live-----know what? LONDON is well on its way to been that DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE SMART CITY----who will be walking those streets to get all that WI-FI tied to global corporate campuses?
LONDON is indeed filled with global 1% buying all of LONDON'S property long ago pushing 99% of UK citizens out ----NYC is well on its way to being that same totally global 1% and their 2% SMART FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CITY-----as too SAN FRANCISCO-----
All infrastructure being touted to allow maximum access to ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID tied only to global corporate campuses will be those global 1% and their 2% global executives. WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% if we are allowed inside the FIEFDOM WALLS---will be commuting two hours from communities without these online/internet access.
Move over Royal Family. London’s oligarchs are the new tourist attraction
9 February 2016
‘And if you look to your left you will see a house once linked to Rakhat Aliyev, Kazakhstan’s former intelligence chief, who died in police custody in Austria while awaiting charges of corruption, torture and murder.’ These apartments form the final stop in London’s new unmissable attraction, the London Kleptocracy Tour. The tour is a Beverley Hills-type guide around the houses of the colourful oligarchs of the Former Soviet Union who have bought up London’s super super prime properties with the help of the capital’s lawyers, estate agents and PR firms.
The tour takes in such obvious classics as One Hyde Park, Kensington Palace Gardens (the oligarchs apparently love the received kudos from being so near to the Royal Family as well as the no photography rule enforced by the nearby embassies) and Belgrave Square. Lesser known spots include an apartment overlooking the Houses of Parliament worth 100 times the annual salary of the serving Russian minister whose name appears on the title deeds. The tour also takes in a splendid listed mansion in north London, said to be one of the largest private residences in the city and estimated by estate agents to be worth over £100 million. Who would live in a house like this?
Unfortunately this is where the aforementioned PR’s and lawyers jump in to protect their clients. But what can be said is that figures from the National Crime Agency estimate that billions of pounds is laundered through the UK every year. According to the journalist Ben Judah, ‘London is the new capital of corruption in the 21st century.’ ‘It is a looting machine and British estate agents, hedge-funders and lawyers are the new valets to this corrupt thieving super elite,’ he tells the tour.
It’s not just the Russians; a couple of Nigerian ex-governors have found themselves in hot water over their unaccounted for London homes, but it is the Russians who do it with such panache. ‘I worked on a TV show called Meet the Russians,’ Peter Pomerantsev of the Legatum Institute told us. ‘We managed to find the London-based wife of a Russian steel tycoon who liked to have baths in champagne because it kept her skin fresh and who remodelled her apartment on a 7-star hotel she once stayed in in Dubai.’
While this might provide work for British vintners, decorators and television production crews it does come at a cost. The NCA points out that the flow of illicit funds into London is distorting the housing market, pricing Londoners out of their city. The effect of this transfer of wealth on poorer countries where the money flows from is rather worse. Judah estimates that one trillion pounds a year is transferred from poor countries to wealthy ones by corrupt elites. London property, into which tens of millions of pounds can be sunk by untraceable offshore companies with little official scrutiny, remains one of the best options for hiding it.
Most of the activists and journalists were positive that the UK is beginning to wake up to the scale of money laundering in London. Lord Rooker of the anti-corruption All Party Parliamentary Group told me, ‘David Cameron has done more than his predecessors to stop this. But if we can get companies in Jersey, the BVI and other offshore companies to reveal who owns them, then we are coming a long way to solving this problem.’ In the meantime, tour parties of gawking tourists taking photos outside oligarch’s bedrooms might be the first sign that Londoners are becoming less tolerant to the industrial scale of corruption going on in their city.
Why are all the Russian Oligarchs PERCHED in UK and US? Well, Gorbachev is that OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASON tasked with moving all that COMMUNAL USSR fake socialist wealth supposedly belonging to 99% of USSR citizens to those old world rich families. Russia's PERESTROIKA is today's US and European PERESTROIKA done by the same global 1% OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE FREEMASONS.
As we see the concentration of global rich in London----Singapore---Bahrain----mostly buying FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CITY CENTER PROPERTY----making way for installation of SMART CITY DEEP STATE CITY CENTERS surrounded by global corporate campuses and global factories with WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% lucky enough to work inside the FIEFDOM WALLS on the far side of these massive campuses. Those global labor pool living inside the FIEFDOM in global corporate campus dormitories----will be working 15-18 hours a day so will not be concerned with using INTERNET TECHNOLOGY-----
NONE OF MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID WILL BE FOR WE THE PEOPLE THE 99%-----LET'S STOP MOVING FORWARD---GET RID OF 5% GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS.
Russian oligarchs flock to Britain with billions to spend and a taste for luxury
Russia has an estimated 33 dollar billionaires and 88,000 millionaires, many of whom now call London - or Moscow2 as it is known among their select group - home.
This is our question for those global 1% being brought to us to be those global 1% and their 2% in US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----like Baltimore. India and Japan are two strong tech engineering nations----China, South Korea strong tech global factory manufacturing global 1%----
DO OUR GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% BEING BROUGHT TO US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES REALLY THINK THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN------IF WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% ARE TAKEN SO TOO WILL BE THOSE FOREIGN RICH.
We understand the dynamic of having a global corporation headquartered in Turkey with a CEO being that Turkish global 1%----filling that global factory with Arabic Muslim 99% of citizens being enslaved----but actually investing in real estate or building global corporate campuses-----WATCH OUT----OUR US CITIES ARE PREDATORY -----CITIZENS OPEN THE DOOR EACH MORNING TO SHOUT-------DON'T LOOT to Greater Baltimore Committee, global Baltimore Development, global Johns Hopkins and their 5% to the 1% pols and players.
IT WON'T BE JUST A TRUMP-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ARE THOSE FRITO BANDITOS
‘Pig, go back to India’: Indian origin CEO abused by Donald Trump supporter in US
Ravin Gandhi posted a YouTube audio on Thursday of a woman abusing him and saying: “You’re a f****** Indian pig.”
An Indian-origin CEO in the US was racially abused after he wrote an article saying he will not defend US President Donald Trump’s economic agenda after the violence in Charlottesville where white supremacists clashed with counter-demonstrators.
“I recently told the New York Times I was ‘rooting’ for certain aspects of Trump’s economic agenda,” Ravin Gandhi, CEO of GMM Nonstick Coatings, wrote for CNBC.
“After Charlottesville and its aftermath, I will not defend Trump even if the Dow hits 50,000, unemployment goes to 1 percent, and GDP grows by 7%. Some issues transcend economics, and I will not in good conscience support a president who seems to hate Americans who don’t look like him,” he said.
What followed were a string of racist attacks on email and Twitter and Gandhi posted a voicemail on YouTube on Thursday of a woman abusing him and saying: “You’re a f****** Indian pig.”
Continuing with the rant, the alleged Trump supporter can be heard scornfully saying: “Get your f****** garbage and go back to India, and sell it there.”
The woman also called the Indian American US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley a “Bangladesh creep” and said they will start taking down Buddhist statues.
Gandhi is not a Buddhist and grew up in Illinois’ Waukegan, the Chicago Tribune reported.
The audio has more than 7000 views, with a user pointing out that India wasn’t a Buddhist majority country and saying: “Why are racists so ignorant?”
“Even though my race is a complete non-issue in my day-to-day life, the sad reality is there’s a group of racists in the USA that views me as a second-class citizen,” Gandhi told the Chicago Tribune when he was asked why he posted the audio online.
A woman told this CEO to 'go back to India' after he spoke out against Donald Trump pic.twitter.com/fUQOXfhxpx
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) August 23, 2017The US president has been widely criticised for his failure to denounce white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klan members who took out a march to ‘Unite the Right’ in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month.
Reports say there has been a spike in racist attacks in the US after Trump assumed office.