Why paying properly is doing human right. Am glad realized should be more open about my own personal financial situation, as have been financially stressed in ways where I think sharing publicly helps me figure things out, and may help others. Where web has been a great place for me in stunning ways, where often talked a global attention reality, but more and more focused on the lack of revenue puzzle. Well lack of revenue, was a daily reality; while needing to eat, pay bills and have a place to stay is too, and not surprisingly ended up technically homeless. Put it that way to indicate was not on the streets homeless, where so many people tragically are, and struggle with the most basic things, like not just how to eat or keep warm on cold days and night, but how to find bathrooms. Where when they don't? Or can't? Can become a serious public as well as personal problem, like in San Francisco, where the subject is gripping the news there. When crap is a big problem for your city, maybe you're not doing human right. But am in Georgia, USA, which is in the Deep South and is the state where I grew up! Came back here from San Francisco back in early 2012 because figured was obvious to go back to more familiarity. Will not recap things talked out in other blog posts, but more recently will note, came to Macon, from a homeless program for veterans out of Dublin at the VA hospital there. And one of the FIRST things did, within first month got here? I contacted an organization better known by its acronym called VECTR, which is in Warner Robins, GA. Talked to someone who helped me with my resume, but I explained really wanted to talk my web things...like I have an open source product with annual downloads routinely at 100+ countries. Well she said I should come there and talk. I had no way...went to other things. Eventually DID get to VECTR though, when driven by a veteran who the Salvation Army had hired, as was living in a shelter. THAT person at VECTR who I'd previously contacted, so many months prior, had left by then. And they had no record of my resume. Ok. Easy enough to give new. But yeah, was STILL emphasizing needed talking out on this global thing with the web! Eventually was convinced maybe needed more school, and reluctantly signed up for a class on computer networking which would also importantly lead to a certification. Then was told the instructor wasn't available, and had been signed up for another course: heating and air technician. Let's digress. After American slavery there was a HUGE population of former slaves who were now looking to get work and get on with that pursuit of happiness we Americans prize so highly, am sure. But they'd been left out in the cold by the US federal government which left them at the mercy of the former slaveowners. And I don't think those folks were interested in doing human right, or in doing human beings right. We know they terrorized that population, intimidated them into not voting as much as they could, or wrote laws restricting, and not surprisingly, were NOT exactly about paying well. Deliberate underpay is a brutal way of human psychological torture, but requires: people actually take a job which pays beneath their skills. Population of people freed from slavery? At your mercy when you have none? Needing jobs? Well those former slaveowners would learn LOTS back then, working on them, with people under huge pressure to take any job offered. The psychological warfare techniques do, I admit, impress me. I study them too, you know? But back to subject of work. Well I have a degree in physics, am a software developer with an open source project used around the globe. Could conceivably be making millions but realistically at a base should be making six figures. But feel like need to figure out this web thing, you know? So liken it to getting a law degree, while law is still relentlessly evolving, but there are no law schools, so you have to research first, build your own curriculum, and then teach, yourself. Yeah I do like a challenge. Is actually going well, I think. But oh yeah, there is that lack of revenue. Back to my situation then as was a bit stunned. Heating and air technician? But was in a Salvation Army shelter where had been for MONTHS, and besides, was kind of curious. Decided would roll with it. So went into the heating and air course, not surprisingly was top student, got a scholarship, got a car and ended up on television. Fascinating. Then was talking to a LOT of friendly heating and air business owners, many of whom were very politely noting my physics degree from Vanderbilt University, like sensible people. I noted to a person at VECTR and got pushback. Tell them was a long time ago, she said. Today governments are finally recognizing the brutal human cost of deliberate underpay. But I have wondered about civil rights movements: how could not have focused on not allowing what is in essence part-time slavery by letting people pay you only for so much work, so the rest is FREE, so they pocket the difference? You're psychologically brutalized as you've been cheated. And maybe they come to workplace one day with yet another flashy new car, your pay helped them get. Black people in the US should be the LEAST underpaid population in the country, given the brutal history of this nation. But people have to be taught about all that, eh? So why wasn't I? That's ok, I figured it out on my own. Slavery was and is as modern slavery tragically exists, a parasitic human enterprise. Those slaveowners were human parasites who FED off the effort of human beings. Can assure you that parasitic humans do not do human right. Might help explain the relentlessness of labor laws trying to push employers not to do things like rape their employees? And how well has that worked, eh? Consider American entertainment industry and recent revelations. As have noted before, we need to face the legacy of American slavery. And yes, my search for revenue, continues. Still am figuring out this web thing. Is like am polishing up my curriculum, while pondering my only student, me, he's struggling a bit, while research continues as web—just keeps changing. Ok.
Showing posts with label Out of the box. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Out of the box. Show all posts
Friday, December 6, 2019
Doing human right
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Better when reality is checked
These days seems less remarkable to me to state that finding out web things of mine were pulling interest from more than 100 countries was disconcerting. For years struggled more silently in ways on the subject while have talked various ways on my blogs, like here.
Main thing is just seems so weird. And did not connect with what I knew or thought I knew of what are consequences around such a thing, how it happens, or what it signifies. Now I know that I just didn't know much that was true and problematically people lie a LOT in this area.
Like I discovered most of what I thought I knew about people often called celebrities--was a fiction. And a deliberate fiction for money-making purposes, which now am like, ok.
For me though the facts are where things matter especially checkable facts. Where have reached out for help, like as a veteran, and trot out something like being potentially known in over 100 countries and have had that information ignored.
Well I think the US Congress needs to get a clue and direct federal agencies to update to the 21st century, please. And specifically top to bottom all federal employees are to accept that objective factual reality when presented to a federal employee especially when that can impact the nation as a whole if ignored that can be grounds for termination.
Actually, I think it already is.
To me the main problem is: people who really are not listening to those they are supposed to help where am in a unique position to show how dramatic that can be.
That is very sad but consequences are very real, like with veterans not being helped in the best way.
Am in a much better mood as contemplate lessons learned and was good to go back to school as have done if only to remind myself of what I can do. Also struck me that learning technology around air conditioning and heating makes sense in a world where climate change may make such technology a matter of life and death. Someone like me needs to understand it thoroughly.
Where do I go from here? Right now am still in school but yeah, still need an income. And would happily work doing things like repairing home air conditioning, if only to stay away from the responsibilities of my position earned by the knowledge I have gained.
Part of me is like yeah, and another part of me is like, really?
Get stuck on that reality: can put up things that pull global interest and should maximize potential in good ways. Maybe now am less worried as well about other things where quite frankly, so-called celebrities were just freaking liars. Which is not to dismiss celebrity itself or ALL folks with the celebrity label.
Was just surprised by some checking of the reality found could do. And lots of times there definitely was a fiction created for promotional purposes. And in some cases, yeah felt was dealing with total fakery. But is an opinion.
Definitely am a fan of plenty.
Oh yeah, so how can someone reality check me? Is easy. So have multiple things that pull interest from over 50 countries. But these days my open source software project is the one thing that is routinely showing around 100. So far this year is only 98 countries though according to stats on SourceForge which I just checked.
How can you check me? On any search engine you can search: class viewer
If you go to the SourceForge site you should see downloads. Doing it myself I see 33 this week. Click on those stats and I see 430 downloads for quarter with 19% from the US. Click on countries and I scroll down to see that was from 65 countries. Time period is from July 15 through October 13.
So yeah, 65 countries in last 90 days. You can change the dates to do other things like I checked year to date to get that 98 countries.
Where reference much as is readily available information to the public and is where the total countries are most dramatic. The open source project itself is just a basic tool for Java developers which I put up on SourceForge back in 2004. Why is it still downloaded from so many countries? Guess is still useful.
Such simple facts, easily checkable, and what do they mean exactly? Well for any government worker you have verification of my global status. And if you ignore? What is wrong with you?
And why do you think you should still continue working for the federal government if because you ignore facts about me, you cannot truly help me? And THAT is your JOB?
We are in the 21st century now. Am past tired of having to deal with people who act as hostile gatekeepers because they work for our federal government yet refuse to properly acknowledge the web.
So they cannot help me.
There is just so much for me to learn have realized. Where really am kind of in a school for the web with lots of reasons to figure things out, where that has been true for well over a decade.
As gain more working knowledge of my particular situation and of the web can use in better ways. That is a clear goal for me.
James Harris
Main thing is just seems so weird. And did not connect with what I knew or thought I knew of what are consequences around such a thing, how it happens, or what it signifies. Now I know that I just didn't know much that was true and problematically people lie a LOT in this area.
Like I discovered most of what I thought I knew about people often called celebrities--was a fiction. And a deliberate fiction for money-making purposes, which now am like, ok.
For me though the facts are where things matter especially checkable facts. Where have reached out for help, like as a veteran, and trot out something like being potentially known in over 100 countries and have had that information ignored.
Well I think the US Congress needs to get a clue and direct federal agencies to update to the 21st century, please. And specifically top to bottom all federal employees are to accept that objective factual reality when presented to a federal employee especially when that can impact the nation as a whole if ignored that can be grounds for termination.
Actually, I think it already is.
To me the main problem is: people who really are not listening to those they are supposed to help where am in a unique position to show how dramatic that can be.
That is very sad but consequences are very real, like with veterans not being helped in the best way.
Am in a much better mood as contemplate lessons learned and was good to go back to school as have done if only to remind myself of what I can do. Also struck me that learning technology around air conditioning and heating makes sense in a world where climate change may make such technology a matter of life and death. Someone like me needs to understand it thoroughly.
Where do I go from here? Right now am still in school but yeah, still need an income. And would happily work doing things like repairing home air conditioning, if only to stay away from the responsibilities of my position earned by the knowledge I have gained.
Part of me is like yeah, and another part of me is like, really?
Get stuck on that reality: can put up things that pull global interest and should maximize potential in good ways. Maybe now am less worried as well about other things where quite frankly, so-called celebrities were just freaking liars. Which is not to dismiss celebrity itself or ALL folks with the celebrity label.
Was just surprised by some checking of the reality found could do. And lots of times there definitely was a fiction created for promotional purposes. And in some cases, yeah felt was dealing with total fakery. But is an opinion.
Definitely am a fan of plenty.
Oh yeah, so how can someone reality check me? Is easy. So have multiple things that pull interest from over 50 countries. But these days my open source software project is the one thing that is routinely showing around 100. So far this year is only 98 countries though according to stats on SourceForge which I just checked.
How can you check me? On any search engine you can search: class viewer
If you go to the SourceForge site you should see downloads. Doing it myself I see 33 this week. Click on those stats and I see 430 downloads for quarter with 19% from the US. Click on countries and I scroll down to see that was from 65 countries. Time period is from July 15 through October 13.
So yeah, 65 countries in last 90 days. You can change the dates to do other things like I checked year to date to get that 98 countries.
Where reference much as is readily available information to the public and is where the total countries are most dramatic. The open source project itself is just a basic tool for Java developers which I put up on SourceForge back in 2004. Why is it still downloaded from so many countries? Guess is still useful.
Such simple facts, easily checkable, and what do they mean exactly? Well for any government worker you have verification of my global status. And if you ignore? What is wrong with you?
And why do you think you should still continue working for the federal government if because you ignore facts about me, you cannot truly help me? And THAT is your JOB?
We are in the 21st century now. Am past tired of having to deal with people who act as hostile gatekeepers because they work for our federal government yet refuse to properly acknowledge the web.
So they cannot help me.
There is just so much for me to learn have realized. Where really am kind of in a school for the web with lots of reasons to figure things out, where that has been true for well over a decade.
As gain more working knowledge of my particular situation and of the web can use in better ways. That is a clear goal for me.
James Harris
Monday, July 16, 2018
Challenging facts and my reaction
There is a closer relationship have realized between people who produce content and the portals, like Blogger through which that content flows, because of the potential for information shared. Like am allowed to use Google Analytics here which is a Google decision. Of course Google owns Blogger and Google Analytics but still, is their decision what information they give me. Which is true also for anyone else that relies upon them.
And was around a decade ago found my worldview severely challenged by such information when web analytics for one of my blogs claimed had visitors from 125 countries/territories is how they put it back then, on Google Analytics. Was my math blog.
For curiosity sake, for all of last year was 59 countries, where now is presented that simply. And from those countries, tells me were visits from people from 442 cities, speaking 50 languages.
For further comparison, according to Google Analytics, this blog for all of 2017 had visits from 7 countries: United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Saudi Arabia
(If you know you visited here last year and are NOT from one of those countries you simply were not counted by it for some reason.)
Where were from 29 cities speaking 5 languages: English (US), Finnish, c (?), English (Canada), and French
So can notice how the language count can be a bit odd. Where I have no clue with one of them.
Way back was all very surreal to me. Part of me kept looking for answers from others, until realized how much am forced to be a pathfinder.
And that information is hidden unless I share it. Is shared between Google's company and me from Google Analytics. And have some stats from Blogger as well where can compare if I wish.
Even at 59 countries though that is global. And do wonder about that drop from past 125, but these get to be quiet musings for the most part or can chatter about them, like here. And yes, have a good sense now of why such an appeal with my math discovery. While also here which is more political there is primarily an audience that is English speaking and from my own country, the United States.
It is something to process: knowing anything of mine can pull such interest from so many countries.
Where that is not just a year or two, but is a continuing thing, year after year after year.
Back October 2011 posted my ideas for Core Middle Party, which I made up. With seven years from there this year coming up, am a LOT more calm than when wondered where that might go. These days talk as my own personal made-up not official political party. Helps me navigate American and global politics where turns out I need positions, routinely.
In the past there was much shock and anxiety for me, where was fear of the unknown and how to know? Much of my worldview was simply shattered. So much I thought I knew was not right or not applicable, and so much to learn with little guidance. For years muddled along trying to find some solid ground and have noted for a long time simply felt--unsettled.
It is amazing now how little there is from elsewhere. So much information I have from Google and also yes a few other sources like some social media companies, but so very little from other places or others. Have learned though to appreciate the quiet.
Are the numbers real? Yup. Google has no reason to lie to me, though have wondered at times. Others can get a sense of that reality as well from web search. Like for my math blog? Can usually just search: some math
Far as I know that is global.
Why so little about a global reality from others, like the press? Who knows. Ask them.
For years ran away from much of it, which I think was a healthy reaction and simply tried to work as best I can and maintain a living while I figured it out. But that became very difficult, where have talked about why in post about professionalism and showing up, as yeah is HARD to focus with such challenging facts.
With years now can shift from anxiety to reasonable fears where can have a better sense of where caution is prudent, and otherwise where have more freedom to do things. While work is still a puzzle, which pushes me to relying on community resources, where have discussed. Like talked in-depth around a recent eviction, and yeah there is pressure to figure things out.
Am a pathfinder which is comforting. There are answers that have not been available to me because they have not been figured out yet. While also I am global, and known or potentially known all over the world.
The revolution that is the modern web is VAST and am just one piece of that puzzle of what will bring. Where am very much motivated to figure out.
James Harris
And was around a decade ago found my worldview severely challenged by such information when web analytics for one of my blogs claimed had visitors from 125 countries/territories is how they put it back then, on Google Analytics. Was my math blog.
For curiosity sake, for all of last year was 59 countries, where now is presented that simply. And from those countries, tells me were visits from people from 442 cities, speaking 50 languages.
For further comparison, according to Google Analytics, this blog for all of 2017 had visits from 7 countries: United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Saudi Arabia
(If you know you visited here last year and are NOT from one of those countries you simply were not counted by it for some reason.)
Where were from 29 cities speaking 5 languages: English (US), Finnish, c (?), English (Canada), and French
So can notice how the language count can be a bit odd. Where I have no clue with one of them.
Way back was all very surreal to me. Part of me kept looking for answers from others, until realized how much am forced to be a pathfinder.
And that information is hidden unless I share it. Is shared between Google's company and me from Google Analytics. And have some stats from Blogger as well where can compare if I wish.
Even at 59 countries though that is global. And do wonder about that drop from past 125, but these get to be quiet musings for the most part or can chatter about them, like here. And yes, have a good sense now of why such an appeal with my math discovery. While also here which is more political there is primarily an audience that is English speaking and from my own country, the United States.
It is something to process: knowing anything of mine can pull such interest from so many countries.
Where that is not just a year or two, but is a continuing thing, year after year after year.
Back October 2011 posted my ideas for Core Middle Party, which I made up. With seven years from there this year coming up, am a LOT more calm than when wondered where that might go. These days talk as my own personal made-up not official political party. Helps me navigate American and global politics where turns out I need positions, routinely.
In the past there was much shock and anxiety for me, where was fear of the unknown and how to know? Much of my worldview was simply shattered. So much I thought I knew was not right or not applicable, and so much to learn with little guidance. For years muddled along trying to find some solid ground and have noted for a long time simply felt--unsettled.
It is amazing now how little there is from elsewhere. So much information I have from Google and also yes a few other sources like some social media companies, but so very little from other places or others. Have learned though to appreciate the quiet.
Are the numbers real? Yup. Google has no reason to lie to me, though have wondered at times. Others can get a sense of that reality as well from web search. Like for my math blog? Can usually just search: some math
Far as I know that is global.
Why so little about a global reality from others, like the press? Who knows. Ask them.
For years ran away from much of it, which I think was a healthy reaction and simply tried to work as best I can and maintain a living while I figured it out. But that became very difficult, where have talked about why in post about professionalism and showing up, as yeah is HARD to focus with such challenging facts.
With years now can shift from anxiety to reasonable fears where can have a better sense of where caution is prudent, and otherwise where have more freedom to do things. While work is still a puzzle, which pushes me to relying on community resources, where have discussed. Like talked in-depth around a recent eviction, and yeah there is pressure to figure things out.
Am a pathfinder which is comforting. There are answers that have not been available to me because they have not been figured out yet. While also I am global, and known or potentially known all over the world.
The revolution that is the modern web is VAST and am just one piece of that puzzle of what will bring. Where am very much motivated to figure out.
James Harris
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
When civilization advances
My ability to take for granted advancing human civilization ended with my own major discoveries. And one of my most important was back December 1999, when introduced a new mathematical discipline, which I did not fully realize at the time.
Even when started making major finds, where a very challenging one was revealed to the world in 2004 when a paper had written was published by an at first brave math journal, which then disintegrated a little while after. Why? I had shown that existing accepted mathematical rules allow fake math results. Of course I expected the rules to be changed!
They were not and that was about fourteen years ago now. So now you know, if you believe me, or knew if know of that story that mathematicians around the globe have not only deliberately ignored the next great advance in mathematics, they have also hidden a problem that lets them fake success.
But advancing of human civilization is simply not easy. And reality of intense battles in the battles over ideas is actually not terribly surprising. With my story of course there is a racial component where I like the latest scientific results that race is a social construct. We know it was convenient to a time when slaves were a problem for Americans who claimed to love liberty. Our very Constitution talks about men being born equal with a right to pursuit of happiness, where in our times it is supposed to be people in general, without the gender bias.
Deciding there was such a thing as race where certain races were inferior and simply sub-human so human rules did not apply was a convenient dodge, which has been debunked in our times.
Yet inequalities remain where I have traced out much of that system.
Much of it was created simply by deliberate underpay am now certain. Like when slavery finally ended the former slaves were forced to go work for the people who had enslaved them, who maybe not surprisingly didn't pay them properly. But I now surmise they learned from watching what happened. They also gained control, and also helped them get more rich by simply taking money that had been earned by workers instead of giving it to them.
Soon American business concepts included deliberate underpay, which swept the globe. Businesses learned to leverage information against workers as if were decent business practice to pay them what you could get away with, rather than focusing always on proper pay.
It not only is stealing and helps business people who do it get wealthy at the expense of workers, but it also crushes the human spirit, and can help contain entire human populations. Also somehow the baggage can last. Today if there were any group that should be furious if paid less than they should be? It should be American Black folks, like myself.
I am, if that happens. Though have allowed some after had my major discoveries, just to study it. Have seen weirdly how with others? There is a learned resignation which I believe was learned over 150 years ago.
And in other countries, workers get that new, with deliberate underpay which in essence lets them have a form of part-time slavery which profits quite a few companies including American ones. The great news is that as the web helps people learn how much they should make for their efforts, pay is rising, around the globe.
Yet that was just one thing. And my arrival with a new great advance which helps humanity learn more powerful things upset more than just defunct notions around a social construct concept. My story pushed against a system which also have found included lots of people besides those caught by racial excuse, including women.
With that system deliberate underpay was most vicious for certain groups who could be so targeted based on forces which had brutal strength at a macro level, and have posted on as magnified bias, where consider as a group effect.
So along with Black folks, women could be targeted for deliberate underpay, but also crushed out of success with a certain peculiarity. Even being pushed out of areas where had been ok early, like with computer science, and the film industry in non-acting positions. While there were also limits in any area where intellectual achievement could push against the status quo including, yes, mathematics.
So yeah THAT suppression system has been working against me. So I study it.
Now over 18 years since my major discovery with major discoveries already helping our planet, am gratified to be able to also get answers in other areas. Sure found something wonderful for mathematics, but also was able to give answers that can help people in other areas.
Advancing of human civilization is a wonder. And we know these stories are just part of the grand story which is that of the human species.
May we ever keep discovering. May we ever keep learning.
James Harris
Even when started making major finds, where a very challenging one was revealed to the world in 2004 when a paper had written was published by an at first brave math journal, which then disintegrated a little while after. Why? I had shown that existing accepted mathematical rules allow fake math results. Of course I expected the rules to be changed!
They were not and that was about fourteen years ago now. So now you know, if you believe me, or knew if know of that story that mathematicians around the globe have not only deliberately ignored the next great advance in mathematics, they have also hidden a problem that lets them fake success.
But advancing of human civilization is simply not easy. And reality of intense battles in the battles over ideas is actually not terribly surprising. With my story of course there is a racial component where I like the latest scientific results that race is a social construct. We know it was convenient to a time when slaves were a problem for Americans who claimed to love liberty. Our very Constitution talks about men being born equal with a right to pursuit of happiness, where in our times it is supposed to be people in general, without the gender bias.
Deciding there was such a thing as race where certain races were inferior and simply sub-human so human rules did not apply was a convenient dodge, which has been debunked in our times.
Yet inequalities remain where I have traced out much of that system.
Much of it was created simply by deliberate underpay am now certain. Like when slavery finally ended the former slaves were forced to go work for the people who had enslaved them, who maybe not surprisingly didn't pay them properly. But I now surmise they learned from watching what happened. They also gained control, and also helped them get more rich by simply taking money that had been earned by workers instead of giving it to them.
Soon American business concepts included deliberate underpay, which swept the globe. Businesses learned to leverage information against workers as if were decent business practice to pay them what you could get away with, rather than focusing always on proper pay.
It not only is stealing and helps business people who do it get wealthy at the expense of workers, but it also crushes the human spirit, and can help contain entire human populations. Also somehow the baggage can last. Today if there were any group that should be furious if paid less than they should be? It should be American Black folks, like myself.
I am, if that happens. Though have allowed some after had my major discoveries, just to study it. Have seen weirdly how with others? There is a learned resignation which I believe was learned over 150 years ago.
And in other countries, workers get that new, with deliberate underpay which in essence lets them have a form of part-time slavery which profits quite a few companies including American ones. The great news is that as the web helps people learn how much they should make for their efforts, pay is rising, around the globe.
Yet that was just one thing. And my arrival with a new great advance which helps humanity learn more powerful things upset more than just defunct notions around a social construct concept. My story pushed against a system which also have found included lots of people besides those caught by racial excuse, including women.
With that system deliberate underpay was most vicious for certain groups who could be so targeted based on forces which had brutal strength at a macro level, and have posted on as magnified bias, where consider as a group effect.
So along with Black folks, women could be targeted for deliberate underpay, but also crushed out of success with a certain peculiarity. Even being pushed out of areas where had been ok early, like with computer science, and the film industry in non-acting positions. While there were also limits in any area where intellectual achievement could push against the status quo including, yes, mathematics.
So yeah THAT suppression system has been working against me. So I study it.
Now over 18 years since my major discovery with major discoveries already helping our planet, am gratified to be able to also get answers in other areas. Sure found something wonderful for mathematics, but also was able to give answers that can help people in other areas.
Advancing of human civilization is a wonder. And we know these stories are just part of the grand story which is that of the human species.
May we ever keep discovering. May we ever keep learning.
James Harris
Saturday, February 10, 2018
Pondering concept of magnified bias
Was quite a few years ago decided had handled subject of race here on this blog, as to concerns about American racism, and point of it was to be done with subject. Yet also have realized as looked around our globe and in my own country was clear others felt was a continuing concern, and also wondered how well I had handled it for myself, to establish a stable foundation.
Then also found myself stunned like others as learned of relentless predations upon a lot of people, with the news focused much on sexual predation of women in the entertainment industry. While there has also been a lot about sexual predation of males there and in the fashion industry. And even more tragically, children across industries regardless of gender though back to entertainment industry, much was focused on male children as maybe easier targets. See documentary An Open Secret for my primary reference on that one.
Reality has been abuse without regard for gender, including then of course transgender people as well. Just feel like should mention directly.
Yet feel like we DO have a society which condemns assaults against its members, and as the news is poring out, there is effort made to address. But how could it be this bad? And how does relate also to previously brought up concerns with subject of race?
And found myself thinking about early humans who traveled in small groups.
Today we can often find ourselves thankfully in relatively small groups of friends or family, or maybe even co-workers. Where is not like that past when you survived together or more likely died if were alone. And to me? That's powerful training built into us, where modern reality is less so, life and death with your cohorts.
Often when group decisions are made, would find myself at times realizing certain things would be off limits as someone in the group had a tendency to maybe not like something.
But why so powerful? Well imagine in the distant past, and as the group of humans struggling to survive is in an area, one member raises an alarm...suddenly all are tense. They narrowly escape some danger I might only imagine. Group survives till next thing.
Even slight biases maybe not even consciously understood by a SINGLE member of a group of humans might I think be magnified by the group itself. So a group of people who separately are very egalitarian? Very open minded? And very much against any number of social biases? Together may be something different.
How does that relate to all the primary things mentioned? And am not a psychologist or any type of social scientist, but I talk things to understand. But groups of humans might tolerate things that no individual in the group would accept!
Like a group of guys who find they tend to only like action movies with male leads. Who separately may watch regardless of gender. Or a group of women who find they only prefer certain races, where race is a social construct by the way, when you look at their choices as a group, versus what they say or even do individually.
Or people who individually are against sexual assault, but when they get together and talk, you hear them trend to a different attitude where if questioned, they'd insist was joking, and not serious. Where also they can refuse to believe facts, as a group, even when overwhelmingly show abuse occurred. But if talk to individuals? Is believed.
Now consider millions of such groups just in one nation like the US. And magnify biases across these groups maybe even reinforcing each other, as these groups interact.
Have you ever had a conversation that just seemed ok with your friends? Which part of you thought was messed up? Have had those conversations myself. Now I do wonder what I was part of, when had no clue.
Is a theory. Figured was worth putting out here on the web. And again, am not a social scientist. Am a concerned human, looking for useful answers. So what is the answer?
Check the bias if you detect it. Just ask, questions. With real friends? Could simply be enlightening.
James Harris
Then also found myself stunned like others as learned of relentless predations upon a lot of people, with the news focused much on sexual predation of women in the entertainment industry. While there has also been a lot about sexual predation of males there and in the fashion industry. And even more tragically, children across industries regardless of gender though back to entertainment industry, much was focused on male children as maybe easier targets. See documentary An Open Secret for my primary reference on that one.
Reality has been abuse without regard for gender, including then of course transgender people as well. Just feel like should mention directly.
Yet feel like we DO have a society which condemns assaults against its members, and as the news is poring out, there is effort made to address. But how could it be this bad? And how does relate also to previously brought up concerns with subject of race?
And found myself thinking about early humans who traveled in small groups.
Today we can often find ourselves thankfully in relatively small groups of friends or family, or maybe even co-workers. Where is not like that past when you survived together or more likely died if were alone. And to me? That's powerful training built into us, where modern reality is less so, life and death with your cohorts.
Often when group decisions are made, would find myself at times realizing certain things would be off limits as someone in the group had a tendency to maybe not like something.
But why so powerful? Well imagine in the distant past, and as the group of humans struggling to survive is in an area, one member raises an alarm...suddenly all are tense. They narrowly escape some danger I might only imagine. Group survives till next thing.
Even slight biases maybe not even consciously understood by a SINGLE member of a group of humans might I think be magnified by the group itself. So a group of people who separately are very egalitarian? Very open minded? And very much against any number of social biases? Together may be something different.
How does that relate to all the primary things mentioned? And am not a psychologist or any type of social scientist, but I talk things to understand. But groups of humans might tolerate things that no individual in the group would accept!
Like a group of guys who find they tend to only like action movies with male leads. Who separately may watch regardless of gender. Or a group of women who find they only prefer certain races, where race is a social construct by the way, when you look at their choices as a group, versus what they say or even do individually.
Or people who individually are against sexual assault, but when they get together and talk, you hear them trend to a different attitude where if questioned, they'd insist was joking, and not serious. Where also they can refuse to believe facts, as a group, even when overwhelmingly show abuse occurred. But if talk to individuals? Is believed.
Now consider millions of such groups just in one nation like the US. And magnify biases across these groups maybe even reinforcing each other, as these groups interact.
Have you ever had a conversation that just seemed ok with your friends? Which part of you thought was messed up? Have had those conversations myself. Now I do wonder what I was part of, when had no clue.
Is a theory. Figured was worth putting out here on the web. And again, am not a social scientist. Am a concerned human, looking for useful answers. So what is the answer?
Check the bias if you detect it. Just ask, questions. With real friends? Could simply be enlightening.
James Harris
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Accepting the real behind the surreal
My story have concluded, is way weird. Back in 2008 do remember when the financial crisis hit, and was not touched. Was working at a large insurance company primarily doing data entry, and there were not cutbacks for us at that time. But could have been considered underemployed as with a degree in physics and ability to code, could conceivably have worked for much more.
Was in San Francisco having arrived the summer of 2005 in order to get work, and had happened quickly through a temp agency. And also most of my life have considered becoming a professional writer. The idea of the road less traveled has appealed to me often. Figured eventually might work for some tech company as a software developer. But was doing ok anyway, and enjoying the city.
Yet that blase attitude would change when a layoff did hit where was working, but still was not too worried, as was given a generous package, and started pondering what maybe should do with web things, which is where we get to surreal.
Was in San Francisco when web analytics arrived to my blogs, like here, when Google Analytics was opened up and was there around 2007 or 2008 found stats that stunned me. One of my blogs focusing on math had visits, according to Google Analytics from 125 countries. Another had visits from around 60, while this one was chugging along at only about 12, primarily English speaking.
For perspective, for ALL of 2017, checking for this post, Google Analytics tells me this blog had visits from 7 countries: US, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia
Now then, for same period my math blog Some Math had visits from 59 countries. And my kind of general interest blog Beyond Mundane had visits from 68 countries. Started a new blog to focus on making money so decided to call Seriously Commercial for inspirational purposes with visits from only 22 countries for all of last year.
Back in San Francisco when FIRST was looking at such numbers they just seemed surreal.
It IS weird. How do you process such information? Web arrived and new possibles arrived with it.
Am realizing am living in one of those possibles without much guidance.
There was no indication beyond Google Analytics data. And none of the indicators that I had always thought would be there as I quietly learned was a global presence. And there was just these numbers.
So yeah when I got laid off seemed like an opportunity to figure it out and make the money I knew I SHOULD be able to make, which is still a work in progress. However, maybe understand it better?
Can you imagine? You discover that at least according to Google that you have people from all over the world paying attention to things you write on blogs? And that's it? And you're like, but where's the money? Where's the celebrity? Where's ANYTHING ELSE besides these numbers?
At one point after years of puzzling...no point in elaborating. Let's just say I tried to check things just about every way imaginable. And still am working at it. Could have given more global but just focused here on blogs.
The money is the hard problem and is an important one!!! Of course. But the mental stress is worth mentioning.
Thank God wanted to be a writer most of my life. Writers often struggle making money. And guess what I found out?
The one indicator that finally pushed me to accept was real was when that ease of getting a job went away. And guess, even if I do not understand, businesses understand that having an employee with a global base of interest? Well that's the kind of business risk apparently most are not willing to take.
Can you blame them? More I ponder, less I do.
That draw though is fascinating. And has NOT been commercial. The range fascinates me so much will admit would tell myself--quit giving out country counts.
But that is so much the data but also those are people out there. All over the world. And even if not some commercial number that human interest has been rewarding should make sure to have in here as well.
So really just have one more piece of the human story, trying to find a comfortable place in the digital age.
James Harris
Was in San Francisco having arrived the summer of 2005 in order to get work, and had happened quickly through a temp agency. And also most of my life have considered becoming a professional writer. The idea of the road less traveled has appealed to me often. Figured eventually might work for some tech company as a software developer. But was doing ok anyway, and enjoying the city.
Yet that blase attitude would change when a layoff did hit where was working, but still was not too worried, as was given a generous package, and started pondering what maybe should do with web things, which is where we get to surreal.
Was in San Francisco when web analytics arrived to my blogs, like here, when Google Analytics was opened up and was there around 2007 or 2008 found stats that stunned me. One of my blogs focusing on math had visits, according to Google Analytics from 125 countries. Another had visits from around 60, while this one was chugging along at only about 12, primarily English speaking.
For perspective, for ALL of 2017, checking for this post, Google Analytics tells me this blog had visits from 7 countries: US, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Canada, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia
Now then, for same period my math blog Some Math had visits from 59 countries. And my kind of general interest blog Beyond Mundane had visits from 68 countries. Started a new blog to focus on making money so decided to call Seriously Commercial for inspirational purposes with visits from only 22 countries for all of last year.
Back in San Francisco when FIRST was looking at such numbers they just seemed surreal.
It IS weird. How do you process such information? Web arrived and new possibles arrived with it.
Am realizing am living in one of those possibles without much guidance.
There was no indication beyond Google Analytics data. And none of the indicators that I had always thought would be there as I quietly learned was a global presence. And there was just these numbers.
So yeah when I got laid off seemed like an opportunity to figure it out and make the money I knew I SHOULD be able to make, which is still a work in progress. However, maybe understand it better?
Can you imagine? You discover that at least according to Google that you have people from all over the world paying attention to things you write on blogs? And that's it? And you're like, but where's the money? Where's the celebrity? Where's ANYTHING ELSE besides these numbers?
At one point after years of puzzling...no point in elaborating. Let's just say I tried to check things just about every way imaginable. And still am working at it. Could have given more global but just focused here on blogs.
The money is the hard problem and is an important one!!! Of course. But the mental stress is worth mentioning.
Thank God wanted to be a writer most of my life. Writers often struggle making money. And guess what I found out?
The one indicator that finally pushed me to accept was real was when that ease of getting a job went away. And guess, even if I do not understand, businesses understand that having an employee with a global base of interest? Well that's the kind of business risk apparently most are not willing to take.
Can you blame them? More I ponder, less I do.
That draw though is fascinating. And has NOT been commercial. The range fascinates me so much will admit would tell myself--quit giving out country counts.
But that is so much the data but also those are people out there. All over the world. And even if not some commercial number that human interest has been rewarding should make sure to have in here as well.
So really just have one more piece of the human story, trying to find a comfortable place in the digital age.
James Harris
Friday, July 21, 2017
When distribution won
Lessons sharing knowledge of the past have been replaced by more potential where simplifying can be key to getting the best of the present. And with the web? Consider you reading this message which I can expect to have free distribution around planet Earth. But as importantly--YOU can do the same with something you might wish to present to others.
And many of you are so doing, as more and more people come online.
The ease with which we can distribute information, which is of course best when useful, is a sharp contrast to the past, where for instance to get political analysis, I would look to a few sources, as was far more limited in choice. For much might go to certain leading newspapers for that sort of thing. Or would consider certain magazines. And on the daily there were brief briefings expected on nightly news, or could look at a morning of content on Sunday talk shows, as discuss a very American experience which is what I lived--until the web revolutionized information distribution.
Today your political representative, rather than wishing on a press conference to reach constituents, or a newsletter probably signed on to by few, can send a tweet! Where that tweet can be a concise position, which is impossible for some news person to misquote. And yes, can be hard to put a position into a single tweet of 140 characters or into a few such, but that can push people to know their positions inside and out.
And everything else is still available. The news people are still working at delivering stories, though news organizations reportedly worry more and more about how they get paid, and the Sunday talk shows are still there as well as nightly briefings, though television struggles with holding on to viewers, as it must maintain relevance in a world where information flows freely from so many sources so people have choices.
I say it pressures all to be the best they can. From politicians pushed to be able to state positions they now know constituents probably WILL read versus in the past where maybe an interpretation through others might reach some, to news people pressured to get it right, with less leeway to interpret from personal bias, to politically active able to put their own messages out there, with same pressures.
Across the board with so much information available, people can check, and are checking.
Focusing on information distribution can help you figure out where you wish to be in the process am sure. Emphasis on that position is to look for a functional way to simplify.
And social media is most powerful as a conversation.
Conversation on social media is where political positions can be both presented and considered with reply from interested constituents. In the conversation, news stories presented can be challenged by parties represented as well as any people who know, or simply critiqued endlessly from almost anywhere, or anyone as people need their information to work well for their present day-to-day.
Sure some may simply work to disrupt the conversation maybe even simply for attention to themselves, but the need of the many is too great. We need to know, and people will work for what they need. And in our times? Information rules.
Sharing information? Helps us empower each other. And I think is a great thing.
Ease of information distribution has won the global conversation by enabling it.
And am so much happier with the potential to know more where before there was so much filtered through others on which I tried to rely. But also appreciate the work that is involved to get information I need, as to do so must learn to check sources! Must be able to cross-reference against multiple presentations. Must try to learn how you learn to understand how information can be manipulated.
It can be exhausting.
Knowledge takes work!
It can be mentally invigorating as well, but more importantly, can give a sense of being part of the conversation when so much additional change is happening. And based on how our country is set up the people of the United States have the duty and believe as a national community, have the knowledge--to govern the outcome as best we can for our nation.
The brilliance of the national conversation of course is not just a factor here in the United States but in nations around the globe where people are figuring it out, if they have free information distribution too. Not something to be taken for granted and not all have it.
But we do, and now is far easier for the people of the United States to discuss from coast-to-coast or wherever they are matters of importance with each other, and with others around the globe.
James Harris
And many of you are so doing, as more and more people come online.
The ease with which we can distribute information, which is of course best when useful, is a sharp contrast to the past, where for instance to get political analysis, I would look to a few sources, as was far more limited in choice. For much might go to certain leading newspapers for that sort of thing. Or would consider certain magazines. And on the daily there were brief briefings expected on nightly news, or could look at a morning of content on Sunday talk shows, as discuss a very American experience which is what I lived--until the web revolutionized information distribution.
Today your political representative, rather than wishing on a press conference to reach constituents, or a newsletter probably signed on to by few, can send a tweet! Where that tweet can be a concise position, which is impossible for some news person to misquote. And yes, can be hard to put a position into a single tweet of 140 characters or into a few such, but that can push people to know their positions inside and out.
And everything else is still available. The news people are still working at delivering stories, though news organizations reportedly worry more and more about how they get paid, and the Sunday talk shows are still there as well as nightly briefings, though television struggles with holding on to viewers, as it must maintain relevance in a world where information flows freely from so many sources so people have choices.
I say it pressures all to be the best they can. From politicians pushed to be able to state positions they now know constituents probably WILL read versus in the past where maybe an interpretation through others might reach some, to news people pressured to get it right, with less leeway to interpret from personal bias, to politically active able to put their own messages out there, with same pressures.
Across the board with so much information available, people can check, and are checking.
Focusing on information distribution can help you figure out where you wish to be in the process am sure. Emphasis on that position is to look for a functional way to simplify.
And social media is most powerful as a conversation.
Conversation on social media is where political positions can be both presented and considered with reply from interested constituents. In the conversation, news stories presented can be challenged by parties represented as well as any people who know, or simply critiqued endlessly from almost anywhere, or anyone as people need their information to work well for their present day-to-day.
Sure some may simply work to disrupt the conversation maybe even simply for attention to themselves, but the need of the many is too great. We need to know, and people will work for what they need. And in our times? Information rules.
Sharing information? Helps us empower each other. And I think is a great thing.
Ease of information distribution has won the global conversation by enabling it.
And am so much happier with the potential to know more where before there was so much filtered through others on which I tried to rely. But also appreciate the work that is involved to get information I need, as to do so must learn to check sources! Must be able to cross-reference against multiple presentations. Must try to learn how you learn to understand how information can be manipulated.
It can be exhausting.
Knowledge takes work!
It can be mentally invigorating as well, but more importantly, can give a sense of being part of the conversation when so much additional change is happening. And based on how our country is set up the people of the United States have the duty and believe as a national community, have the knowledge--to govern the outcome as best we can for our nation.
The brilliance of the national conversation of course is not just a factor here in the United States but in nations around the globe where people are figuring it out, if they have free information distribution too. Not something to be taken for granted and not all have it.
But we do, and now is far easier for the people of the United States to discuss from coast-to-coast or wherever they are matters of importance with each other, and with others around the globe.
James Harris
Friday, April 17, 2015
Reality check on government bonds
My understanding is that the primary way governments raise revenue for government services is with taxes, but also there is the issue in our modern world of government bonds.
One way bonds can be convenient for a government is if there is a sudden need for revenue, but it's not feasible to rapidly raise taxes on its population, so instead it issues bonds--letting its citizens loan it money, temporarily.
So what if some of those citizens loan the government money for continuing operations on a longterm basis, yet receive services?
Imagine some situation where the government instead, say, rose taxes by $1 trillion US instead of issuing bonds, then it would take that money directly from its people, where in a progressive tax system that means the wealthy would pay the bulk and just lose that money.
Money paid for taxes is just gone. When you pay your taxes, just say bye-bye to that money.
Instead, let's say the wealthy loan the government that $1 trillion US, and get the services anyway, so now they didn't lose the money! The government owes them for services it provided to its citizens, including them.
So the government still provided the services! In one case they just taxed people to pay for them, while in the other some people got to loan the money in, meaning they can get it back!
See how that works? If it were taxed, they'd just lose the money, though they would also get government services in return. But if instead, they have a government run deficits, they can get it back!
Understand why the wealthy might prefer such a system?
But can it work forever? No. The government is providing services! Those cost money, which have to come in taxes, so it's deferring the costs to later generations, or the government will default down the line.
That means the total national debt rises. But guess who get most of the interest payments?
The wealthy who own the bulk of it. For instance most of the US debt is owned by Americans, so don't get distracted by which foreign power owns a chunk of it. Most of it is owned by American citizens.
That money is owed to them where to pay it the government needs to tax, where presumably they would pay the bulk of it, to get the money owed, yup, to them! Unless they can live to a ripe old age and die first, of course.
However, if you're some wealthy person who has your taxes cut down by a huge level, do you necessarily care who has to pay for services you received along with others?
I'm not wealthy, so I don't know if they consider that or not.
But, if money is your focus, I wonder if you'd care who has to finally pay for those government services you loaned money to the government to have, versus being taxed for them.
Government services have ballooned under this system. It's not clear to me, if it's fixable, as I see it as a problem. Conceivably we could balance budgets, and run surpluses until national debts are eliminated, but I'm not seeing evidence of a movement in that direction around the world.
Like, our politicians seem remarkably uninterested in making that happen, despite talking about it quite a bit, but um, anyone notice how many of them are rich?
James Harris
Monday, December 15, 2014
Non profit funding organizations?
Was reading through a recent post of mine again, where I tried to explain the disparity in money given for certain things by continuing with the notion of money as an IOU on a favor. But that was kind of a depressing conclusion to me, as it means weirdly enough that groups of people may naturally give more for a triviality than for something very important to them.
But it may not be as grim as I think. Of course there are important non profit organizations out there that DO get funding.
And fundraising is a big deal for lots of things and I really started thinking in this direction after watching Wikipedia make appeals for funds, and also the Mozilla foundation through its Firefox browser making similar appeals.
I highly recommend giving them money. They do an awesome job for lots of people.
However, I wondered: why couldn't there be fundraising companies that just did fundraising, who say could only take 5% or less of funds raised and had to distribute the rest to non profit organizations?
Then people who are just really good at raising money could specialize and maybe some non profits could quit worrying about raising the money themselves.
That's one of those fantasy ideas as I don't know if you could build a non profit web company around that idea.
A non profit whose only goal was to raise funds for other non profits? Has that been done?
If not, I think it should be.
It could be forced to be focused--only distribute to other non profits with no other distributions allowed, including no direct distributions to individuals.
At first I'm thinking there'd have to be lots of rules to keep it from being abused, but transparency is the most powerful tool: such a company would have to reveal all its distribution financials--who it gives money, and how much.
And along with transparency it would, of course, also simply have to comply with existing laws.
But total transparency is what would make it a 21st century web company. And that's what would give donors greatest confidence their money wasn't being misdirected.
Really like this idea and the post seems to be popular here, but wondering what to do next.
James Harris
But it may not be as grim as I think. Of course there are important non profit organizations out there that DO get funding.
And fundraising is a big deal for lots of things and I really started thinking in this direction after watching Wikipedia make appeals for funds, and also the Mozilla foundation through its Firefox browser making similar appeals.
I highly recommend giving them money. They do an awesome job for lots of people.
However, I wondered: why couldn't there be fundraising companies that just did fundraising, who say could only take 5% or less of funds raised and had to distribute the rest to non profit organizations?
Then people who are just really good at raising money could specialize and maybe some non profits could quit worrying about raising the money themselves.
That's one of those fantasy ideas as I don't know if you could build a non profit web company around that idea.
A non profit whose only goal was to raise funds for other non profits? Has that been done?
If not, I think it should be.
It could be forced to be focused--only distribute to other non profits with no other distributions allowed, including no direct distributions to individuals.
At first I'm thinking there'd have to be lots of rules to keep it from being abused, but transparency is the most powerful tool: such a company would have to reveal all its distribution financials--who it gives money, and how much.
And along with transparency it would, of course, also simply have to comply with existing laws.
But total transparency is what would make it a 21st century web company. And that's what would give donors greatest confidence their money wasn't being misdirected.
Really like this idea and the post seems to be popular here, but wondering what to do next.
James Harris
Friday, September 26, 2014
Brilliant, complex and disturbing, reality of Henry Ford
Back March of last year I put up a post where I noted the importance of Henry Ford and found myself wondering if I'd said enough about his controversial side. Reality is I didn't completely understand it myself, while I also under-appreciated a lot of what he managed to accomplish.
For instance, consider that Ford helped a lot to create a middle-class by raising wages against the opinion of just about everyone around him. He more than doubled the salary of his workers. Pause, reflect if you're an American worker on that one! Can you imagine if your bosses decided tomorrow to double your salary? Yet in later life he faced accusations of anti-semitism, and violent anti-unionism. Definitely a complex character who deserves the full picture.
Which I got thanks to PBS so this post is to link to what I saw:
Henry Ford . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
Today I'm more convinced than ever that fights over wages have the greatest impact of all when it comes to the health and vitality of the middle-class. Henry Ford was bizarre for his time--a wealthy man who fought everyone in his way who tried to stop him from sharing the wealth with his workers.
And consider, his move in that direction made him one of the most powerful and wealthiest of them all!
So what gives? Why do wealthy people fight against fair wages even against their own interests?
Good question. I've recently considered various issues around money, but will admit am puzzling over that one still. After all, the example of Ford shows that the naive self-interest involved in hoarding as much wealth to one's self as you can and fighting against your own workers as the enemy doesn't work as well as, well, doing what he did. Though in later life he clearly lost his way.
Maybe there is something about some wealthy people that makes them behave in a way that actually makes no rational sense, where they mindlessly hoard wealth against their own interests, and that of their society.
James Harris
For instance, consider that Ford helped a lot to create a middle-class by raising wages against the opinion of just about everyone around him. He more than doubled the salary of his workers. Pause, reflect if you're an American worker on that one! Can you imagine if your bosses decided tomorrow to double your salary? Yet in later life he faced accusations of anti-semitism, and violent anti-unionism. Definitely a complex character who deserves the full picture.
Which I got thanks to PBS so this post is to link to what I saw:
Henry Ford . American Experience . WGBH | PBS
Today I'm more convinced than ever that fights over wages have the greatest impact of all when it comes to the health and vitality of the middle-class. Henry Ford was bizarre for his time--a wealthy man who fought everyone in his way who tried to stop him from sharing the wealth with his workers.
And consider, his move in that direction made him one of the most powerful and wealthiest of them all!
So what gives? Why do wealthy people fight against fair wages even against their own interests?
Good question. I've recently considered various issues around money, but will admit am puzzling over that one still. After all, the example of Ford shows that the naive self-interest involved in hoarding as much wealth to one's self as you can and fighting against your own workers as the enemy doesn't work as well as, well, doing what he did. Though in later life he clearly lost his way.
Maybe there is something about some wealthy people that makes them behave in a way that actually makes no rational sense, where they mindlessly hoard wealth against their own interests, and that of their society.
James Harris
Monday, January 31, 2011
My take on American racism
Having grown up "black" in the American South as I grew up a black kid next to a farm in a small town in Georgia, in the United States, I have my own unique view on American racism, which is a subject on which I've given much thought.
Here I will present my own very peculiar and highly opinionated take on what most people in the United States think is American racism, which is wrong: they think I suggest that it is physical repulsion for someone because of their race.
Physical repulsion is key here to the wrong definition!
That's important as I've encountered American "whites" that I see as being very racist who claim they aren't! And it's like, they may put a hand on my shoulder as if that proves it! See? Not physically repulsed!--they seem to be saying.
But racism is not physical repulsion.
It's believing you're superior or that another person is inferior because of the color of their skin for the most part, as that is usually the biggest racial indicator that people use, though they also go with a variety of physical characteristics.
Surprisingly to some, scientists are not quite sure what race is, and a good introduction can be seen on, yup, the Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)
I've noted on this blog that I believe that racism is actually about class in the United States and is an attempt by some people to believe they're members of a nobility (without actually saying it).
Why? Because I believe, a lot of early American settlers came from England, and pretending to be nobility was kind of a bad thing to do, which could be punished. Americans are dead-set on not actually stating that they believe they are noble by birth, so American racism is a bizarre variant where they behave as if they are, while refusing to state they believe they are.
It is an attempt at a back-door into English nobility, in my opinion.
So yes, a white man who is racist can not only date a black woman, he might marry her! Because American racism is not physical repulsion. It is a feeling of innate superiority on the basis of "race". So a racist white man might marry a black woman because he feels he can dominate someone he believes is inferior. Just like a noble in Old England might marry a commoner. (Of course, women can find men who will marry them because they're believed to be inferior for lots of reasons of which race is just one.)
And a white racist can have black friends!!!
He or she simply associates with people believed to be innately of a lower class.
So why again the dodge? Why is American racism presented so often as physical repulsion as if that's all that matters?
Again, because America inherits a lot of its heritage from England, and pretending to be royalty is a major crime under feudal law!!!
Commoners are not allowed to pretend to be of a higher class.
In the South where I grew up Southerners would claim to be "gentlemen" and engage in a lot of pretend royalty behavior, which they would not admit was pretending to be actual English royalty in any way shape or form because that is forbidden under feudal law!
But that's what they were doing and still do when they engage in such behavior.
You see, they wish to be English nobles. They wish to be better than commoners. They wish to be royalty.
So they find some people to be beneath them and that is American racism, in my opinion.
So how racist then is modern American society? I'd say, not really.
Most Americans actually shirk from seeing themselves as innately superior to anyone, and really are not racist. But God help you if you run into one who is.
He may lie to you incessantly. She may calmly inform you that she is not racist and then just as calmly insult your intelligence to your face, because of your race. He may quietly inform you of bizarre things as if they were absolute facts.
My favorite such thing is the assertion that Asians do not like black people.
Living in San Francisco, I know quite a few Asians and haven't noticed much if any American racism from any of them.
But I'll end with a story that puzzled me for a while.
I was at a private party a few years back at a new nightclub that had been rented for the occasion. In the course of a conversation with a seemingly nice fellow where it's pertinent for the story to note that he was white, I realized he was becoming a bit agitated as he talked about having lived in Chinatown, and not getting along well with the Asian community there.
Inwardly I shrugged, not particularly caring, as I was half listening to him, but he got my attention quickly when he said to me like a confidant that he was sure I knew how Asians were, and that they really didn't like black people, even more than white people.
So yeah, end of that conversation, but what made the story fascinating to me for years was that I was actually eye-flirting with a beautiful Asian woman, which was why I was distracted while I listened to him! He'd not only reacted badly to try and convince me of the hopelessness of my interest I surmised later, he'd tried to smear the entire Asian race while so doing!
But why? Well, it occurred to me that it made him feel inferior for her attention to be on me, if he thought himself the superior male, by race, then he needed to convince me.
More than once in San Francisco I've been informed by whites that Asians don't like black people. Isn't that fascinating? In my experience, Asians seem to take you as you are, more than anything else, and to adjust based on how you behave--not the color of your skin.
Which is what we should all do, and I think, thankfully, most Americans do.
James Harris
Here I will present my own very peculiar and highly opinionated take on what most people in the United States think is American racism, which is wrong: they think I suggest that it is physical repulsion for someone because of their race.
Physical repulsion is key here to the wrong definition!
That's important as I've encountered American "whites" that I see as being very racist who claim they aren't! And it's like, they may put a hand on my shoulder as if that proves it! See? Not physically repulsed!--they seem to be saying.
But racism is not physical repulsion.
It's believing you're superior or that another person is inferior because of the color of their skin for the most part, as that is usually the biggest racial indicator that people use, though they also go with a variety of physical characteristics.
Surprisingly to some, scientists are not quite sure what race is, and a good introduction can be seen on, yup, the Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)
I've noted on this blog that I believe that racism is actually about class in the United States and is an attempt by some people to believe they're members of a nobility (without actually saying it).
Why? Because I believe, a lot of early American settlers came from England, and pretending to be nobility was kind of a bad thing to do, which could be punished. Americans are dead-set on not actually stating that they believe they are noble by birth, so American racism is a bizarre variant where they behave as if they are, while refusing to state they believe they are.
It is an attempt at a back-door into English nobility, in my opinion.
So yes, a white man who is racist can not only date a black woman, he might marry her! Because American racism is not physical repulsion. It is a feeling of innate superiority on the basis of "race". So a racist white man might marry a black woman because he feels he can dominate someone he believes is inferior. Just like a noble in Old England might marry a commoner. (Of course, women can find men who will marry them because they're believed to be inferior for lots of reasons of which race is just one.)
And a white racist can have black friends!!!
He or she simply associates with people believed to be innately of a lower class.
So why again the dodge? Why is American racism presented so often as physical repulsion as if that's all that matters?
Again, because America inherits a lot of its heritage from England, and pretending to be royalty is a major crime under feudal law!!!
Commoners are not allowed to pretend to be of a higher class.
In the South where I grew up Southerners would claim to be "gentlemen" and engage in a lot of pretend royalty behavior, which they would not admit was pretending to be actual English royalty in any way shape or form because that is forbidden under feudal law!
But that's what they were doing and still do when they engage in such behavior.
You see, they wish to be English nobles. They wish to be better than commoners. They wish to be royalty.
So they find some people to be beneath them and that is American racism, in my opinion.
So how racist then is modern American society? I'd say, not really.
Most Americans actually shirk from seeing themselves as innately superior to anyone, and really are not racist. But God help you if you run into one who is.
He may lie to you incessantly. She may calmly inform you that she is not racist and then just as calmly insult your intelligence to your face, because of your race. He may quietly inform you of bizarre things as if they were absolute facts.
My favorite such thing is the assertion that Asians do not like black people.
Living in San Francisco, I know quite a few Asians and haven't noticed much if any American racism from any of them.
But I'll end with a story that puzzled me for a while.
I was at a private party a few years back at a new nightclub that had been rented for the occasion. In the course of a conversation with a seemingly nice fellow where it's pertinent for the story to note that he was white, I realized he was becoming a bit agitated as he talked about having lived in Chinatown, and not getting along well with the Asian community there.
Inwardly I shrugged, not particularly caring, as I was half listening to him, but he got my attention quickly when he said to me like a confidant that he was sure I knew how Asians were, and that they really didn't like black people, even more than white people.
So yeah, end of that conversation, but what made the story fascinating to me for years was that I was actually eye-flirting with a beautiful Asian woman, which was why I was distracted while I listened to him! He'd not only reacted badly to try and convince me of the hopelessness of my interest I surmised later, he'd tried to smear the entire Asian race while so doing!
But why? Well, it occurred to me that it made him feel inferior for her attention to be on me, if he thought himself the superior male, by race, then he needed to convince me.
More than once in San Francisco I've been informed by whites that Asians don't like black people. Isn't that fascinating? In my experience, Asians seem to take you as you are, more than anything else, and to adjust based on how you behave--not the color of your skin.
Which is what we should all do, and I think, thankfully, most Americans do.
James Harris
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
My Healthcare Plan
On July 26th of this year after pondering healthcare for some time I produced the following tweet:
My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end
Here is a post explaining in detail the plan, which is tiered:
1. Preventive Care--the value of free preventive care for everyone is one of the least debated critical elements to a solid healthcare plan. The tweet notes that everyone is included.
2. Core Care--Health insurance companies get a lot of heat for trying to only insure healthy people when from their perspective that makes sense for profit, which is a huge issue which has created a lot of pain and misery.
This plan suggests that you can turn a negative around and see healthcare companies as being adept at figuring out people who are likely, or "expected" to get ill at some point, so that they can get help NOW, while allowing health insurers to still be for profit when it comes to the healthy, who would make up the Core Care tier.
So they are the insurables--those who are currently in healthcare plans now. For them, little would change except preventive care would now be guaranteed free.
3. Expected Care--Here those selected out as likely to become ill or who are currently ill who no longer are easily insurable under normal plans are now in a government paid for plan that is third-party administered by the health insurers.
So everyone gets the same health insurers, but those who are part of the Expected Care tier are third-party administered and the government pays for their care.
They pay premiums to the federal government, not the health insurer. If you're in Expected Care you get a bill from the federal government, not the health insurer.
Health insurance companies are then rewarded for figuring out which people are likely to get sick later and properly placing them in Expected Care because the government pays, and we're all benefited as they can get proper care as soon as possible. The health insurers now become part of the first line of defense for detecting those who need help!
But whether you're in Core Care or Expected Care you carry the same insurer's card and the only difference is with payment: If you are Core Care and get ill, your insurer pays. If you are Expected Care and get ill, the government pays.
4. Elder Care--Is the final tier handling issues specific to the elderly with an emphasis on quality of life at end. It is also a government paid tier.
-------------------------------
One critical feature of this healthcare plan is that it rewards health insurance companies for being businesses by putting their strengths to public good. For instance, an obese smoker with a history of hypertension in his family might find himself put in Expected Care, which could be a wake-up call in and of itself. But it also means he is at risk, and healthcare workers can focus on the specifics of that risk simply by noting into which tier he has been placed by the experts who need to get it right to survive.
If healthcare companies do a great job, then their profits come from the healthy--by them remaining healthy. Those with underlying conditions are not discriminated against, and have the same health insurance carriers, who for them are third-party administrators, with payment for claims coming from the government.
Some might still worry about discrimination against those ill or likely to get ill, but it has a built in protection.
To understand the beauty of this plan imagine healthcare insurers put all the people who are sick or likely to get sick into Core Care, and all the people who are healthy into Expected Care, then what happens?
They pay to their coverage limits at a much higher rate, while the government pays at a much lower rate as its Expected Care population remains healthier than expected, so there is a natural check-and-balance built into the system, rewarding for-profit companies for proper selection and punishing them financially for getting it wrong.
And that is the expansion of the 140 characters from the original tweet. It is exactly 140 characters as I needed every character I could use to get an entire healthcare plan in there.
James Harris
My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end
Here is a post explaining in detail the plan, which is tiered:
1. Preventive Care--the value of free preventive care for everyone is one of the least debated critical elements to a solid healthcare plan. The tweet notes that everyone is included.
2. Core Care--Health insurance companies get a lot of heat for trying to only insure healthy people when from their perspective that makes sense for profit, which is a huge issue which has created a lot of pain and misery.
This plan suggests that you can turn a negative around and see healthcare companies as being adept at figuring out people who are likely, or "expected" to get ill at some point, so that they can get help NOW, while allowing health insurers to still be for profit when it comes to the healthy, who would make up the Core Care tier.
So they are the insurables--those who are currently in healthcare plans now. For them, little would change except preventive care would now be guaranteed free.
3. Expected Care--Here those selected out as likely to become ill or who are currently ill who no longer are easily insurable under normal plans are now in a government paid for plan that is third-party administered by the health insurers.
So everyone gets the same health insurers, but those who are part of the Expected Care tier are third-party administered and the government pays for their care.
They pay premiums to the federal government, not the health insurer. If you're in Expected Care you get a bill from the federal government, not the health insurer.
Health insurance companies are then rewarded for figuring out which people are likely to get sick later and properly placing them in Expected Care because the government pays, and we're all benefited as they can get proper care as soon as possible. The health insurers now become part of the first line of defense for detecting those who need help!
But whether you're in Core Care or Expected Care you carry the same insurer's card and the only difference is with payment: If you are Core Care and get ill, your insurer pays. If you are Expected Care and get ill, the government pays.
4. Elder Care--Is the final tier handling issues specific to the elderly with an emphasis on quality of life at end. It is also a government paid tier.
-------------------------------
One critical feature of this healthcare plan is that it rewards health insurance companies for being businesses by putting their strengths to public good. For instance, an obese smoker with a history of hypertension in his family might find himself put in Expected Care, which could be a wake-up call in and of itself. But it also means he is at risk, and healthcare workers can focus on the specifics of that risk simply by noting into which tier he has been placed by the experts who need to get it right to survive.
If healthcare companies do a great job, then their profits come from the healthy--by them remaining healthy. Those with underlying conditions are not discriminated against, and have the same health insurance carriers, who for them are third-party administrators, with payment for claims coming from the government.
Some might still worry about discrimination against those ill or likely to get ill, but it has a built in protection.
To understand the beauty of this plan imagine healthcare insurers put all the people who are sick or likely to get sick into Core Care, and all the people who are healthy into Expected Care, then what happens?
They pay to their coverage limits at a much higher rate, while the government pays at a much lower rate as its Expected Care population remains healthier than expected, so there is a natural check-and-balance built into the system, rewarding for-profit companies for proper selection and punishing them financially for getting it wrong.
And that is the expansion of the 140 characters from the original tweet. It is exactly 140 characters as I needed every character I could use to get an entire healthcare plan in there.
James Harris
Sunday, May 24, 2009
But would anyone pay?
I've been promoting this idea of actually paying for content, like a really good news article, after you read it, as only then do you know that it's worth paying for, and I think a natural issue with the idea is, would the average person pay?
And I think the simple answer is, no. But this idea is not for average people.
I call it Pay Back Value, and it's simply acting on the web like one would at a high end restaurant--you consume first, then you pay.
However, there are two types of people in the world: those who would pay without threat of punishment, and those who would run out of restaurants without paying all the time if there were no such threat.
The ease of distribution on the Internet means that you can market to the first set, and not worry as much about the second as unlike with a restaurant where the food has a higher reproduction cost, on the Internet, there is little cost in reproduction (production costs remain high!!!) so limited loss from the theft!
Electronic distribution and reproduction is cheap--buying, preparing and cooking food is not.
Still you can get a herd problem where even people who want to pay, feel stupid about paying if there is a perception that no one else is paying or that most are not, so the idea actually gives you the ability to identify people who deliberately steal value, and credit cards can help explain how it works.
You get a credit card, right? But what if you have no intention of ever paying?
When will the credit card company know?
Ans. When they send that first bill and you don't pay it.
What if you pay part of it, or pay for a while just to build up credit and then quit paying?
Isn't that reason for credit card companies to never issue credit cards?
What are they thinking!!!
Similarly to credit cards, you let people sign up for something that gives them content without them incurring upfront cost, on the expectation that they will pay for what they value, and if they don't pay, you find out after some time, like a couple of months.
Then you can stop giving them the content.
I like using the New York Times as an example, as last time I checked they have people sign up now to see articles on the Web, but you can see them for free with no ability to pay later.
Say they institute this concept. People can PBV--pay back value. Like there's a PBV button on the bottom of the page after the news article or column, you can hit that button and pay a dime or something, or if it didn't seem worth it to you, move on.
No payment, no penalty.
Hypothetically as I have no idea what the numbers would be (but psychologists should be interested!!!) they find that 20% of their users pay back more value than if they bought the physical paper and do this month after month, 40% pay back regularly--I know I said above the average would not pay but these are Times readers!!! I'm assuming a higher class of people--and 10% pay intermittently, while 30% do not pay at all.
At their discretion they can block members of the 30% who do not pay from their site, for instance, if someone is reading article after article, day after day, and giving nothing in return, they might simply cut that user off.
Also they can look at the content people across the board are clicking on and buying or not buying, and using regularly paying users as a benchmark for the real value of the paper--kind of a mark to market with content--get an accounting of their losses from theft of content without paying.
For the first time, they can get a real monetary number compiling losses, and have the ability to weed out people who will not pay, and they can reward that top 20% who regularly pay, so most importantly, they regain the ability to reward their best customers.
Quite simply, only then does the Times become a business again.
Free is not a business model.
I have no doubt that paying later will eventually dominate the Web as it's how we do most of our buying in the real world. We rarely if ever pay upfront without being able to thoroughly check for quality.
So the remarkable thing is that the Internet is backwards!!! It's not that the Internet was so advanced that money doesn't work any more.
It's that it's a laggard to how people actually do most of their buying in the real world.
James Harris
And I think the simple answer is, no. But this idea is not for average people.
I call it Pay Back Value, and it's simply acting on the web like one would at a high end restaurant--you consume first, then you pay.
However, there are two types of people in the world: those who would pay without threat of punishment, and those who would run out of restaurants without paying all the time if there were no such threat.
The ease of distribution on the Internet means that you can market to the first set, and not worry as much about the second as unlike with a restaurant where the food has a higher reproduction cost, on the Internet, there is little cost in reproduction (production costs remain high!!!) so limited loss from the theft!
Electronic distribution and reproduction is cheap--buying, preparing and cooking food is not.
Still you can get a herd problem where even people who want to pay, feel stupid about paying if there is a perception that no one else is paying or that most are not, so the idea actually gives you the ability to identify people who deliberately steal value, and credit cards can help explain how it works.
You get a credit card, right? But what if you have no intention of ever paying?
When will the credit card company know?
Ans. When they send that first bill and you don't pay it.
What if you pay part of it, or pay for a while just to build up credit and then quit paying?
Isn't that reason for credit card companies to never issue credit cards?
What are they thinking!!!
Similarly to credit cards, you let people sign up for something that gives them content without them incurring upfront cost, on the expectation that they will pay for what they value, and if they don't pay, you find out after some time, like a couple of months.
Then you can stop giving them the content.
I like using the New York Times as an example, as last time I checked they have people sign up now to see articles on the Web, but you can see them for free with no ability to pay later.
Say they institute this concept. People can PBV--pay back value. Like there's a PBV button on the bottom of the page after the news article or column, you can hit that button and pay a dime or something, or if it didn't seem worth it to you, move on.
No payment, no penalty.
Hypothetically as I have no idea what the numbers would be (but psychologists should be interested!!!) they find that 20% of their users pay back more value than if they bought the physical paper and do this month after month, 40% pay back regularly--I know I said above the average would not pay but these are Times readers!!! I'm assuming a higher class of people--and 10% pay intermittently, while 30% do not pay at all.
At their discretion they can block members of the 30% who do not pay from their site, for instance, if someone is reading article after article, day after day, and giving nothing in return, they might simply cut that user off.
Also they can look at the content people across the board are clicking on and buying or not buying, and using regularly paying users as a benchmark for the real value of the paper--kind of a mark to market with content--get an accounting of their losses from theft of content without paying.
For the first time, they can get a real monetary number compiling losses, and have the ability to weed out people who will not pay, and they can reward that top 20% who regularly pay, so most importantly, they regain the ability to reward their best customers.
Quite simply, only then does the Times become a business again.
Free is not a business model.
I have no doubt that paying later will eventually dominate the Web as it's how we do most of our buying in the real world. We rarely if ever pay upfront without being able to thoroughly check for quality.
So the remarkable thing is that the Internet is backwards!!! It's not that the Internet was so advanced that money doesn't work any more.
It's that it's a laggard to how people actually do most of their buying in the real world.
James Harris
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Understanding Pay Back Value concept
Last Tuesday I introduced an idea that is meant to be a solution to a surprising problem that has emerged with the Internet, which is the extreme difficulty some people, like me, have had finding remuneration, or compensation for efforts that seem to generate value based on interest.
In order to come to my solution I went all the way back to the very definition of money itself and worked outwards from there using The New York Times as an example company for how the Pay Back Value concept works.
Now with several days to think about it, I'm more impressed with how natural a solution it is, and with how it brings back what you might call traditional values to Internet interactions, so I'd like to talk about how that occurs.
For instance I noted that with Pay Back Value or PBV for short, a reader gets to PBV after reading, say, a column by Gail Collins, and doing so would eventually charge, say 25 cents to their PBV account.
The reader gets to pay back value for an article where they recognized value after reading, or simply go on their way, giving nothing, but the Times would record when they DO pay back value and after a year, you might get a report and be surprised to find what your interests are based on what you paid for, showing what you truly valued!
Columns could have their own box office in a sense, which is the total PBV given to them, providing a real-time measure of a columnist's appeal. Newspapers could get important feedback on topics that readers are actually interested in, and the approach in a way is simply a la carte buying of the newspaper, which is the way things must work on the Internet as people have already shown they will not just blanket buy contents of an entire paper on the Web, which is why newspapers are giving away valuable information for free now.
But that is against the concept of money--giving away value for free--and it's breaking the newspapers, endangering the very value that people seek, so innovation here is driven by necessity. Advertising is not enough. That old system worked with the more captive audiences of television and radio, but the Internet is an active audience.
People routinely go past ads barely noticing them. (I know I do.)
But another value emerges with this system--people would have to sign up for the PBV, and don't have to pay if they do not see value, and they get the information for free still.
So what if they don't pay?
Not ever giving PBV says you don't see value.
If you never see value, then why are you reading day after day?
If in 6 months time a person never sees value but is clicking on article after article, and reading daily then they are stealing value.
You can now, suddenly and wonderfully, identify theft, like you can in the real world.
The action of reading does not show value in what is read, but coming back again and again to gain content, is a clear indication of seeing value!!!
Rarely or never paying is a contradiction, showing--theft.
I have little doubt that the PBV concept will eventually take over because of the value it gives companies and creative producers like myself, and the reality that it restores proper balance by giving value back to creative producers for value they have given, while giving information consumers, freedom of choice to pick value as they see it.
If that is true then PBV may be as big for the Internet as the invention of money itself was with past technologies, like shoemaking.
Of course the test of any innovation is whether it gets picked up in the real world, so now with the idea pushed forward, the question is, will it grab hold?
James Harris
In order to come to my solution I went all the way back to the very definition of money itself and worked outwards from there using The New York Times as an example company for how the Pay Back Value concept works.
Now with several days to think about it, I'm more impressed with how natural a solution it is, and with how it brings back what you might call traditional values to Internet interactions, so I'd like to talk about how that occurs.
For instance I noted that with Pay Back Value or PBV for short, a reader gets to PBV after reading, say, a column by Gail Collins, and doing so would eventually charge, say 25 cents to their PBV account.
The reader gets to pay back value for an article where they recognized value after reading, or simply go on their way, giving nothing, but the Times would record when they DO pay back value and after a year, you might get a report and be surprised to find what your interests are based on what you paid for, showing what you truly valued!
Columns could have their own box office in a sense, which is the total PBV given to them, providing a real-time measure of a columnist's appeal. Newspapers could get important feedback on topics that readers are actually interested in, and the approach in a way is simply a la carte buying of the newspaper, which is the way things must work on the Internet as people have already shown they will not just blanket buy contents of an entire paper on the Web, which is why newspapers are giving away valuable information for free now.
But that is against the concept of money--giving away value for free--and it's breaking the newspapers, endangering the very value that people seek, so innovation here is driven by necessity. Advertising is not enough. That old system worked with the more captive audiences of television and radio, but the Internet is an active audience.
People routinely go past ads barely noticing them. (I know I do.)
But another value emerges with this system--people would have to sign up for the PBV, and don't have to pay if they do not see value, and they get the information for free still.
So what if they don't pay?
Not ever giving PBV says you don't see value.
If you never see value, then why are you reading day after day?
If in 6 months time a person never sees value but is clicking on article after article, and reading daily then they are stealing value.
You can now, suddenly and wonderfully, identify theft, like you can in the real world.
The action of reading does not show value in what is read, but coming back again and again to gain content, is a clear indication of seeing value!!!
Rarely or never paying is a contradiction, showing--theft.
I have little doubt that the PBV concept will eventually take over because of the value it gives companies and creative producers like myself, and the reality that it restores proper balance by giving value back to creative producers for value they have given, while giving information consumers, freedom of choice to pick value as they see it.
If that is true then PBV may be as big for the Internet as the invention of money itself was with past technologies, like shoemaking.
Of course the test of any innovation is whether it gets picked up in the real world, so now with the idea pushed forward, the question is, will it grab hold?
James Harris
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Recommending Doctor's Diaries on Nova
Link above goes to: PBS.org profile on Dr. Cheryl Dorsey
Quote from the Source:
The quote is just the beginning of the page linked to above with an interview with Dr. Cheryl Dorsey, who is one of seven doctors profiled from the early days in medical school to later on in their lives in a truly remarkable series that offers perspective like no other into a field that is of massive importance in all our lives:
Doctors' Diaries on Nova at PBS.org
Watching the series is I think an extraordinary opportunity to feel good about the effort with which we live our lives as human beings, within the context of the bigger picture of why all our lives are often so challenging.
Ultimately I think the series is an excellent portrayal of the human condition through the lives of just some of the people we often count on the most.
Quote from the Source:
A DIFFERENT KIND OF HEALER
NOVA: Do you see a common thread between why you went into medicine and what you are doing now?
Cheryl Dorsey: I went into medicine because I wanted to help people and to be of service. Even though I don't practice medicine now, I think I still do those things.
Many of my colleagues who work with patients heal one person at a time or one family at a time, and that's incredibly important work. I just felt that I needed to choose another path, and that maybe my highest purpose was working on a more systemic and community level.
[Editor's note: The nonprofit foundation that Cheryl now leads, Echoing Green, provides grants to young entrepreneurs launching enterprises to bring about positive social change.]...
The quote is just the beginning of the page linked to above with an interview with Dr. Cheryl Dorsey, who is one of seven doctors profiled from the early days in medical school to later on in their lives in a truly remarkable series that offers perspective like no other into a field that is of massive importance in all our lives:
Doctors' Diaries on Nova at PBS.org
Watching the series is I think an extraordinary opportunity to feel good about the effort with which we live our lives as human beings, within the context of the bigger picture of why all our lives are often so challenging.
Ultimately I think the series is an excellent portrayal of the human condition through the lives of just some of the people we often count on the most.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Social reality and alcohol's importance
Link above goes to: Wikipedia, article on alcoholic beverage
An idea suddenly occurred to me for why drinking alcoholic beverages has continued to be so important to social realities--from meeting new people to diplomatic events.
And it's so obvious that I'm not saying it's new or not well-known but that I'm emphasizing it to myself as it is so huge, which is, social reality is that people lie about themselves, and present cloaks on their own inner selves because they sense there is something inside that is not to be presented publicly if possible, for whatever reason that might be.
And alcohol is useful for stripping such cloaks away.
Drink with a person and they tend to talk more, but if they get quieter then you learned something about them.
If they talk more, they are more likely to let slip ideas and opinions they might otherwise hold in check.
And if they refuse to drink, for whatever reason, you learn something as well.
Social drinking reveals information about people no matter what, whether they want it to, or not, even when they do not engage in it.
No wonder it has remained and I have no doubt it will remain as long as there is a need to hide things about yourself from other people, and for them to try and find out more about you, whether you want them to, or not.
An idea suddenly occurred to me for why drinking alcoholic beverages has continued to be so important to social realities--from meeting new people to diplomatic events.
And it's so obvious that I'm not saying it's new or not well-known but that I'm emphasizing it to myself as it is so huge, which is, social reality is that people lie about themselves, and present cloaks on their own inner selves because they sense there is something inside that is not to be presented publicly if possible, for whatever reason that might be.
And alcohol is useful for stripping such cloaks away.
Drink with a person and they tend to talk more, but if they get quieter then you learned something about them.
If they talk more, they are more likely to let slip ideas and opinions they might otherwise hold in check.
And if they refuse to drink, for whatever reason, you learn something as well.
Social drinking reveals information about people no matter what, whether they want it to, or not, even when they do not engage in it.
No wonder it has remained and I have no doubt it will remain as long as there is a need to hide things about yourself from other people, and for them to try and find out more about you, whether you want them to, or not.
Friday, November 28, 2008
An ounce of prevention in finance
Link above goes to: The New York Times
Yeah, if the best reforms are ever to be done, they have to be done while things are painful, and the realization is clear as a result that they are needed.
Past history guides us to the conclusion that whatever reforms are done now, in time, there will be calls to remove them and de-regulate.
So, if not now for the clearly needed reforms, when?
Giving the remarkable conclusion that as we fix the current financial crisis, we must also work to prevent the next one.
Quote from the source:
Op-Ed Columnist
Lest We Forget
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 28, 2008
The story of how we failed to see this coming has a clear policy implication — that financial market reform should be pressed quickly, and that it should not wait until the crisis is resolved.
Yeah, if the best reforms are ever to be done, they have to be done while things are painful, and the realization is clear as a result that they are needed.
Past history guides us to the conclusion that whatever reforms are done now, in time, there will be calls to remove them and de-regulate.
So, if not now for the clearly needed reforms, when?
Giving the remarkable conclusion that as we fix the current financial crisis, we must also work to prevent the next one.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Slow boot times
Link above goes to: The New York Times
Quote from the source:
Great article as I'll admit I'm increasingly infuriated by how long my computer takes to boot up, especially when I get to the point when my browser is open and I'm trying to surf the web and the stupid computer is still loading. What is it still loading then?
Clearly I have everything I need as my browser is open and I'm trying to get to sites so what is this other crap I'm paying for with my time that I do not need and do not want?
Maybe someone should get a class action lawsuit together against software companies that do operating systems for wasting our lives and get some monetary compensation for the time we're forced to lose because we have no options with these freaking machines which are increasingly so important.
I want my time back. So I think as a warning to tech companies, speed up these machines before the lawsuits. Please.
Quote from the source:
Digital Domain
30 Seconds to Boot Up? That’s 29 Too Many
By RANDALL STROSS
Published: November 2, 2008
Unhappiness with boot times is shared by many computer users, as reflected in much online discussion of the issue.
Great article as I'll admit I'm increasingly infuriated by how long my computer takes to boot up, especially when I get to the point when my browser is open and I'm trying to surf the web and the stupid computer is still loading. What is it still loading then?
Clearly I have everything I need as my browser is open and I'm trying to get to sites so what is this other crap I'm paying for with my time that I do not need and do not want?
Maybe someone should get a class action lawsuit together against software companies that do operating systems for wasting our lives and get some monetary compensation for the time we're forced to lose because we have no options with these freaking machines which are increasingly so important.
I want my time back. So I think as a warning to tech companies, speed up these machines before the lawsuits. Please.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Smelling mates and the Pill
Link above goes to: MSNBC.com
Quote from the page:
I've read about this issue before in Psychology Today and in that article (sorry no direct reference) it mentioned marriages breaking up when a woman goes off the pill because the couple has decided to have children, and she finds she suddenly cannot stand the smell of her husband.
Kind of makes me wonder how people supposedly fall in love on-line. After all, you really cannot smell anyone through your computer.
Quote from the page:
The Pill makes women pick bad mates
Ability to sniff out a compatible partner affected by taking contraceptives
By Jeanna Bryner
updated 10:17 a.m. PT, Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
Birth control pills could screw up a woman's ability to sniff out a compatible mate, a new study finds....
I've read about this issue before in Psychology Today and in that article (sorry no direct reference) it mentioned marriages breaking up when a woman goes off the pill because the couple has decided to have children, and she finds she suddenly cannot stand the smell of her husband.
Kind of makes me wonder how people supposedly fall in love on-line. After all, you really cannot smell anyone through your computer.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Arrival of the new ad?
Source: Mashable
Nice to know Google is still working on the problem of making money from YouTube, as I think the issue really has to do with the need for the arrival of choice and I came up with my own suggestion for a new type of ad, back in May.
Thinking more on it as I flesh out the idea it just seems so natural as a way to do advertising with video where you have a tab on the video, say in the upper left corner, like the tab on a browser that says something like "Advertiser supported" and to see the ad, the viewer has to, yup, click on the tab!
So if you don't want to see the ad, you just ignore the tab, watch the video and go on your merry way.
The viewer makes the choice.
Seem dumb?
Well, television advertising models I think still dominate the web where you push things on people which is the way television works as it's so passively experienced. In contrast the web is interactive and choice rules, so pushed ads work to some extent, but to me they're annoying, and I know I can just ignore pushed ads, and still get the content!
In contrast, newspapers traditionally are more like this idea as you get a lot of content until you turn the page and see an ad, or go all the way to the back to get classifieds, because, people have more choice with the paper in their hands.
So I'm not really asking for something completely new, but something closer to the newspaper ad model with a web twist as you can get a full video commercial--which had better be good!!!
Pairing a really good commercial with videos that get downloaded a lot is also just a good idea as that can help it go viral in a way that involves viewer choice.
As my belief is that people do not hate ads: they hate bad ads and ads being pushed on them which is what television and radio do.
So because of television and radio there is this notion that people hate advertising.
But I think they just dislike pushy sales tactics that are traditional in certain media, but unnecessary on the web, where choice rules.
YouTube’s “Sell Your Own Ads” Strategy: Desperation or the Future of Advertising?
June 9, 2008 — 08:48 AM PDT — by Adam Ostrow —
Google has added an interesting twist to their monetization strategy for YouTube: allow content producers to sell their own advertising....
Nice to know Google is still working on the problem of making money from YouTube, as I think the issue really has to do with the need for the arrival of choice and I came up with my own suggestion for a new type of ad, back in May.
Thinking more on it as I flesh out the idea it just seems so natural as a way to do advertising with video where you have a tab on the video, say in the upper left corner, like the tab on a browser that says something like "Advertiser supported" and to see the ad, the viewer has to, yup, click on the tab!
So if you don't want to see the ad, you just ignore the tab, watch the video and go on your merry way.
The viewer makes the choice.
Seem dumb?
Well, television advertising models I think still dominate the web where you push things on people which is the way television works as it's so passively experienced. In contrast the web is interactive and choice rules, so pushed ads work to some extent, but to me they're annoying, and I know I can just ignore pushed ads, and still get the content!
In contrast, newspapers traditionally are more like this idea as you get a lot of content until you turn the page and see an ad, or go all the way to the back to get classifieds, because, people have more choice with the paper in their hands.
So I'm not really asking for something completely new, but something closer to the newspaper ad model with a web twist as you can get a full video commercial--which had better be good!!!
Pairing a really good commercial with videos that get downloaded a lot is also just a good idea as that can help it go viral in a way that involves viewer choice.
As my belief is that people do not hate ads: they hate bad ads and ads being pushed on them which is what television and radio do.
So because of television and radio there is this notion that people hate advertising.
But I think they just dislike pushy sales tactics that are traditional in certain media, but unnecessary on the web, where choice rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)