On the Efficiency of E-Mail

Thought: How well does e-mail improve time efficiency, communication, and collaboration over the previously used mail, phone, and meetings?


In e-mail's defence, it has helped increase the number of the average person's regular contacts. However, it has had an adverse effect on the quality of relationships. It is so easy to keep a friendship going on 30 seconds a week, while this was not the case in the earlier mail era. However, this has cheapened long-distance friendships. They used to be something rare and valuable, and one knew that the friend truly cared about them, because of the effort required.
In e-mail's defence, it is now less time-consuming to carry out a specific conversation. However, because of this fact, more conversations are expected, less is done in each conversation, and when factoring in the time it takes to sort out junk mail, email is perhaps less time-efficient than thought.
In email's defence, it has increased the number of "telegrams" among citizens of the world. However, by using email, one loses nuance, facial expressions, and sarcasm. A comment that is not well thought out can have unseen consequences. Blackmail is easy, because everything is saved and one can forward snippets of conversation to an innumerable number of people. Communication is more casual, less thought out, and with more opportunities for unintended insult than had been the case before email. Communication has suffered, overall, as a result of online communications.
In email's defense, collaboration among various businesses, departments, and countries has been simplified. However, studies have shown that people are more likely to accede to a face-to-face request than to a written one, especially one via email. People can forge true friendships or business relationships at meetings or over the phone in ways unlikely via email. So, although collaboration has increased, it is likely more strained, working with nameless figures rather than with known entities.

The prosecution rests.

Oil, Gas, and Renewable Energy

Thought: With crude oil selling at an all-time high of $75.19 per barrel yesterday, what is going wrong?

First, to those who claim free market, I would agree, except the profits are funding the worst regimes in the world, the least democratic, and the only reason these countries don't change is because they are backed by obscene oil prices. At $20 per barrel, Iran has no funding for its nuclear program. At $30 per barrel, Saudi Arabia can't afford to support the families of terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza after they blow themselves up in public places. At $40 per barrel, Hugo Chavez wouldn't be as outspoken.

The problem in the United States is primarily one of demand. To curb demand in the United States, the most oil-hungry nation in the world, by far, prices must go up even higher. "But wait," you say, "you just said that high prices are bad!" The high price of oil is only bad if the profits are going to fund the oil nations. Therefore, the federal legislature must set a large gas tax, per gallon, in the vicinity of 1-3 dollars. This will cut down on demand, and will help eat up the deficit at the same time. Give people who make under 25k per year a new tax break on their income tax equal to a half of their gasoline expenses, and give people who make under 50k per year a break on the income tax equal to a quarter of their gasoline expenses, to curb hardship. To those who complain about the effects of high consumer gas prices on the economy, I respond that this will only put the United States' prices more in line with those that the rest of the Western world will pay. Furthermore, the tax will make the citizens of the United States more aware of the coming energy crisis. Needless to say, the billions of dollars in aid for the poor, impoverished oil companies must stop immediately.

A second method to curb demand is through manipulation of the auto industry. Legislation should be passed in favor of high gas mileage. One example would be to require all car companies to have an average of 30 mpg or higher on all cars sold, or face severe fines. The 30 mpg average would be increased by 2 mpg each year. This would force companies to try to sell more of their higher mileage cars, and research new ways to improve mileage. To help the auto industry out, this would be counteracted by federal subsidies of $1000 to both the seller and buyer of any car with mileage of over 40 mpg (this, too, would increase by 2 mpg each year). Thus, the sales drop in the truck and SUV categories would be accompanied by higher profits in the gas-sipping categories.

The solution is not drilling more in the Gulf, or in Alaska. These are temporary solutions, and will be much more valuable in a few years or decades when the rest of the world's oil begins to run out (or to "peak"). On the supply side, instead of producing more oil, the United States should try to produce more clean energy. Clean solutions need to be funded lavishly, and wind and solar energy need to be made cheaper, as these are the most renewable resources of them all. Perhaps solar panels could be subsidized, and homeowner property taxes could be reduced if the roof is paneled.

With lower demand, brought about in part through more efficient cars, and a greater supply of energy through the use of renewable sources, the world can be made a better place.

Big Political July 4th Howdy

Thought: Wow, these politicians are really good at pandering.

And, just in time for our Independence Day, the Repubs thought it would be a good idea to protect the flag by amending the constitution. A few pointers:
--it's the first amendment, folks.
--flag burning hasn't been in vogue since the hippies
--I thought the Constitution was supposed to be for important things...
--We already have flag legislation - this is not a Constitutional issue
--How would you enforce this Amendment? Would you tie people to the stake for daring to desecrate a symbol of our freedom not to be tied to a stake?
--How would you define flag? How can you stop kindergardeners from ripping up a piece of paper on which they had just drawn a rudimentary flag? If someone makes a flag with a slightly different shade of red, is it still a flag?

Washington, get real.

Iranian Solutions

Thought: The biggest threat to global security is currently Iran.

According to intelligence reports, they already have enriched uranium. Diplomatic solutions will not work, because the key to being a power in the 21st century is being a member of the nuclear club, and no other incentive or disincentive can counterbalance that reward. Ahmadinejad, the "President" of Iran, recently stated that Iran was not a child whom the Western World could tempt with candy to give up their nuke program, and who can blame him for this?

So the 6-billion-person question is who can stop Iran. The United States is suspect number one, but the citizens are war-weary, and politicians want to stay in office too much to bring troops to another country against the will of the voters. Russia and China each have too many economic interests in Iran, and political interests in anything that disrupts a uni-superpower world, to want to interfere. India can do nothing in the Muslim world because of Pakistan's nukes.I therefore turn to history. In 1981, Israeli F-16s and F-15s destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, after Begin had gathered enough intelligence to determine that it was to be used to create weapons-grade fuel. Had Osirak not been destroyed, Iraq would not have been set decades back in her weapons program.

Israel must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or she will be Iran's first target (our friend Mahmoud believes Israel, the "stain on the Islamic world," must be "wiped off the map"). She should use Turkish airspace (the Turqs can pretend not to notice). Although Iran 2006 is no Iraq 1981, and have 14 known nuclear reactors (according to wikipedia, so this is a lower limit), Israel still has a large enough air force to achieve this. The operation would also require additional support planes for refueling purposes, as roundtrip to Iran is too much for one tank of fuel. Even so, Israel has the best means, motive, and opportunity to take out one of the most dangerous programs of our time.