Information Overload

I don’t have a smart phone—should I?  I like and I am fascinated by tech stuff.  Being able to extract information on any subject from virtually anywhere is a remarkable product of our rampaging technology.  Research any subject—to settle an argument, or just to be informed.  Shop for anything—really anything—that can’t be found in local stores; follow the stock market or the weather in Timbuktu (if that is of interest), and follow news headlines.  Some of the apps will do amazing things like identifying every commercial aircraft flying overhead or identifying every star and planet in view.  And there is the app of apps—popping bubble wrap cells!

But wait—don’t I do many of those things on my desktop computer?  (Youngsters might remember desktops--those old-fashioned things that look something like a TV set with a keyboard).  Yes, I think with my desktop, dumb phone and a few other devices I can do much of the stuff that a smart phone can do.  The difference is that when I get up from my desk and walk away, I am abruptly disconnected from the cyber world.  I’m in the other world where things exist that can be touched, felt, heard, etc.  Doing this is often a necessity for me—I need to escape cyber information overload.

Not that I’m opposed to smart phones in any way, but it would be a culture change to have that device with me all the time—just like a faithful pet following me around.  Still, I ponder how I might adapt to this new culture.

A Corporate Slave?

I was a corporate slave.  My 40 plus years of employment was mostly in the corporate world, but I didn’t know until listening to a lot of clamor recently saying that working full time in the corporate world is slavery.  (Of course although my confinement happened to be in the corporate world, it could have just as easily been in the public sector). Well, maybe I was a slave.  I was required to go to work every day and be there for a whole day!  All this for a few carrots—health insurance for me and my family, a pension and savings plan, paid vacations,….  But hey--they still owned me didn’t they?

I’m being facetious, of course.   A 40-hour work week is only 24 percent of the hours in a week.  Even accounting for commuting time, eating and sleeping, I had plenty of time for myself.  But more important, the time at work had continuity and challenge, so even though there were times of tough demands, the total experience over the years was one of satisfaction.  The company health insurance and sick leave warded off concerns about my family’s and my health care; the paid vacations enabled me to break from work and return re-charged and in good spirits.  And now that I am retired, the pension and savings enable me to live the “golden years” in comfort.

Sadly, I see too many cases of people working part time jobs, temporary jobs or contract jobs. .  Much of this is because of the weak economy and a way of people “hanging on.”  Employers, driven by the bottom line, are unwilling or unable to take the expense and/or the risk of making a permanent and full-time commitment to employees.  And it seems like some people are willing to accept the reduced lifestyle that comes from a part time job—or even two part time jobs.  That’s wrong; work should be long term and enabling the goals of the both employer and employee to be realized.  Work should be a career—not just a job.

How can that be achieved?  Laws to force full-time employment rightfully would be rejected like finding a dead rat on the doorstep.  A culture change is required.  Employees need to recognize the productivity advantages of dedicated employees and make business plans accordingly. Business school curricula should emphasize the benefits of fully empowered employees.  Employees need to demand full-time meaningful work—not be satisfied with the reduced life style that comes with part time employment.

A full time job should be liberation—not slavery.

Tax Blues

How often we hear this comment about taxes: “It’s our money that we earned and the government takes it from us.”  It would seem that a synonym for taxes would be “ripped off.”

I ask this:  If one rents, should the rent payment be called a rip-off? 

Think of taxes as a users’ fee for maintaining everything that has been brought to us by the blood, sweat and tears of those who came before us.   Roads, bridges and ports; a defense capability to protect us from without; a criminal justice system to protect us from within; a banking system to support the world’s greatest economy;  health and safety protection…..  Most people can add much to this list.

 So when people—politicians or pundits—say that the modest fee that we pay to maintain this incredible heritage is a rip-off, all I can say is shame…shame…shame.

Having said that (and I did in a recent letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News Press), we have a seriously broken income tax system.  Politicians on both sides say it, but preparing my income tax returns this year, I became convinced that they are right.  Even with tax software, there is unbelievable complexity.  Much of the complexity is in the opportunities for getting a deduction or exemption and then pages of limitations that keep us from being allowed these deductions or exemptions. 

A clamor for tax simplification has sounded and resounded in Congress for years.  But nothing ever gets done.  Recently, Rep Dave Camp (R-Michigan) presented a tax reform proposal that was soundly rejected by both parties.  It was as though someone had dropped a bag of something very smelly on the congress floor and our elected officials pushed and shoved to stay as far away from it as possible.

Is there a hope to break this partisan gridlock?  Some have suggested a viable third party (made up of dissidents from the two major parties).  How about that?

California water shortage--reprise

The year was 1864.  A visitor to northern Santa Barbara County, as well as many other parts of California, would be horrified by the sight of cattle carcasses by the thousands rotting on the black, barren ground.  Two years earlier a drought of drastic proportions struck the coastal and inland valleys.  Ranchers began selling their cattle in anticipation of continued drought and lack of grazing.  A glut on the cattle market followed as the grass for grazing disappeared.  There being virtually no demand for these herds, they were left to die and rot on the once-beautiful ranchos.

Fast forward to 1893.  After years of smaller droughts alternating with years of floods, a major drought hit again.  Accounts of the nine years which followed tell again of serious agriculture losses.  In the twentieth century, California’s population increased dramatically, creating demands for much more water than had ever been needed.  Steps were taken control water supplies.  Dams were built in major rivers to capture the waters; local and State agencies were set up to manage the water supply, although strong vested interests resulted in conflict about how to implement the controls.  Conflicts are not surprising considering the diverse users of water—humans, agriculture, industry, oil extraction and recreation. The State felt the constant threat of the next drought.

And it happened.  Starting in 1986, a five-year period of greatly reduced rainfall threatened our economy and lifestyles dependent of heavy water use.  During this period, concern increased yearly as the rainy seasons failed to re-fill the reservoirs.  In Santa Barbara we heard consideration of various solutions.  One was to bring water down from Washington state by ocean tanker; another was to tow icebergs from Alaska.  Cloud seeding was attempted.  In desperation, Santa Barbara decided to build a desalination plant, even though the initial cost and the resulting cost of water would be high.  Then, as Nature played one of its impish tricks, large rains began just as the plant was finished.

And here we are again—déjà vu.  This month there was a sudden awakening to the fact that we are again in a drought.  In fact, most of California has now been declared in either at D3 (extreme) or D4 (exceptional) drought category.  There will be attempts to control water usage, voluntary or mandatory, conservation and undoubtedly battles over allocation.  We hope that the proper steps will be taken to get us through this period until the rains return.

Considering the future.  Certainly there will be more droughts and our water wants will only increase.  My hope about this is that everyone--individuals and government and private interests--keep aware that water is a strategic national resource that belongs to the people, and respect it accordingly.

The New Stuff

A few years ago, I read The New New Thing by Michael Lewis, describing how the technologists and venture capitalists worked together (or possible at each others’ throats) to create that economy outburst known as dot-com.  Now, more than a decade later, the dot-com bubble has burst and the economy is stagnant.  So what did it all mean?

First, the technological capabilities remain, and should be a basis for further growth and jobs.  Secondly, many fortunes were made during the dot-com period.  Have those fortunes been reinvested in the next new, new thing—or slumbering in wealthy persons’ art vaults or in overseas banks?  Too much of the latter, I fear.

There are still new, new things there could be opportunities for investment that would advance the country’s economy and be a major job-creator.  Some examples:

Drone package delivery.  Amazon has proposed a drone package delivery system in which small packages could be delivered to customers by drone in a few hours or less.

Why, we might ask.  Who is not patient enough to wait a few days for his or her new merchandise?  There probably are some.  But, maybe, the use is far broader, extending to such things as manufacturing, medical facilities or car repair.  A few years ago when the Japanese were kicking our butts in manufacturing capability, they developed a concept known as just in time (JIT) for delivery of parts to the production line.  It eliminated large supply warehouses and double handling of material.  Might be one possibility.

Robotic automobiles.   Google has developed and demonstrated cars that are able to start, maneuver through traffic and park far more efficiently than most drivers do.  Given Americans’ love for the automobile and the feeling of being the “king of the road”, who would want such a vehicle?  But Google knows.  Reducing long-trip fatigue, enabling physically challenged persons to drive, etc are some possibilities plus more we don’t even recognize.

3-D printers.  This technology has been around for over a decade but is still developmental in the kinds of material, especially metals, that can be printed.  The possibilities range from artistic creation to small quantity fabrication to low-cost prototyping of production items.  If outsourced manufacturing comes back to the U.S., and I’m convinced it will, 3-D printing will be valuable.

Smart glasses.  Here is a natural extension of the smart phone.  Now, as demonstrated in the 2014 Consumer Electronic Show, a visual capability has been added.  The glasses have a tiny viewable screen near the eye and a camera capability for still photos and video recording as well as computing and internet.  A perfect step up from smart phones for the gadget-oriented.  But maybe much more.  A doctor recently performed surgery with one of these devices making it possible to view the patient’s x-rays without looking away from the operation.  Its potential value in police and fire protection is huge.

What do these devices have in common?  I think it is that their ultimate uses are not envisioned—not envisioned any more than the personal computer’s applications were when first introduced. 

In the early days of the personal computer and the internet, the entrepreneurs and technogeeks found how to reduce costs to make their stuff affordable for a wide market.  Venture capital sources flooded the promising entrepreneurs with money to make this happen.  Today, the technical geniuses are creating, but where are the venture capitalists?

Expanding--not limiting--Expectations

A recent article in Time magazine described a trend in lifestyles in which things are scaled down—low cost of living, low taxes and low government services and, of course, lower income.  It talks of living in micro houses, the size of a two-car garage, and “living off the grid.”  This article was written about Texas, and describes this lifestyle as “the Texas Model.”    I suspect that the trend is more widespread.

That isn’t the California model and I’m grateful.  Here we live high and spend more—sometimes outrageously.  We earn more and we have more government services.  But what else?  Throughout our history we have created, we have invented and we have innovated.  The movie industry began here led the world in film technology and artistry.  The aviation industry headquartered here was vital in war and in the country’s economic growth which followed.  Without the electronic advances made in Silicon Valley we would not have been able to put men on the moon or hand-held computers in everybody’s pockets.  We have pioneered in medicine (remember Dr. Salk?) and medical technology.  Our agricultural technology developed high yields and fed much of the country.  Our wine industry, young by European standards, has produced wines that rival those of the ancient vintners of Europe.

Indeed, the idea of increased expectations bodes well for the future.  This is my hope for the whole country in the new year.

Global Warming--What Do We Know?

For more than a decade, I’ve  followed information and opinions about climate change.  I’ve read a lot of denial and a lot of scientific data and projections which confuse me.  But through it all, one thing that to me is solid is the NASA measured data shown below.  It’s the holy grail of climate change science for me.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

The data points plotted for each year are the average over the whole earth and the entire year.  “Temperature anomaly” is the difference of data points from the average in the 1951 to 1980 period which is 15 plus a few tenths degrees Centigrade (59 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its fifth Assessment Report and, as expected, there is a flood of criticism from skeptics and deniers.  It is inconceivable that one can look at the data above and deny that there has been global heating.  Skepticism on future projections?  Maybe that’s different.

But I have my own criticism from having read the “Summary for Policyholders” sub-report.  I look at the recent part of the chart above and see a definite leveling of warming.  The five year average change has been level at about 0.56 degree for four years and can be expected to stay level or slowly changing in the future because of the data points since 2001 which cluster about this average.

The IPCC report, which publishes the same chart does not acknowledge a leveling of  warming, but acknowledges a reduction in the warming rate for the period from 1998 to 2012 as compared with the period 1951 to 2012.  It does not acknowledge the flat data during 2004 through 2012 or in the periods 1880 through 1920 or 1945 through 1975.  Why not?  Could it be that these data are akin to the family with an alcoholic uncle whom they wish could just be kept out of sight?

Part of the mystery of this slowing or leveling of warming is that the increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere is on a steady rise as shown in the report.  The two do not appear to be going hand in hand as was thought at one time.  This begs for a discovery of causes other than or in addition to CO₂. 

What about long range projections?  The IPCC report states that the computer models for long range prediction have been revised and there are now four different scenarios ranging from mild to severe warming.  That seems to realistically represent the uncertainty; unfortunately it gives zealots on both sides of the issue an opportunity to pick the model that they prefer.

  

Back to the graph above.  Does the leveling of warming in the last decade mean that the great god of cooling has defeated the great god of warming and that global climate change is a thing of the past?  It would be comforting.  We wouldn’t have to use those curly light bulbs any more and we wouldn’t have to feel guilty about leaving a change in the environment for future generations.  But given the temperature rise in the last century and the higher rate of rise in the 1980s, the possibility of future warming can hardly be ignored.

Climatology is an incredibly complex science.  I believe that climate scientists are on a steep learning curve—and must be true scientists, not influenced by political agendas.