Friday, April 17, 2015

Sex in a Series

The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality states that "Women are more likely than men to feel that a poor sex life is an unfortunate, but separate part of the couple’s relationship. Men are more likely to feel that a poor sex life undermines the entire relationship."

While some of their research goes back to the late 1990's, it is difficult to believe the full breadth of this research.  Times have changed, in a variety of ways.  There is research that the physical strength of women is increasing more rapidly than that of men; but that is just a semblance of what changes are occurring in our society among women and men.

Just as womens' physical state is advancing so to is there thinking.  And this brings us to the topic in this article.

This is completely non-scientific in nature, merely an opportunity to share a few thoughts.

As times have changed regarding sexuality and the liberation of women's commitment requirements, sex for women seems also to have emerged in a whole new light.  Women are no longer locked down due to advances in the medical industry i.e. The Pill.  Other advances in the Day After product, also allow women to have more control over the outcome of pregnancy.  Controls such as these also play a role in what opportunities women have; in the workplace, among competitors etc.

Emerging on the other side, women of today could very easily feel differently about the role of sex in a relationship. Most importantly perception of a poor sex life with a partner has also evolved.  Television programs seem to be an accurate reflection about the more carefree nature of female sexuality, e.g. Sex In The City, promiscuity, and sexuality experiences for pleasure rather than commitment.  This is not a broad statement of the character of women today, but rather a suggestion that the opportunities for vastly different perspectives on how women are expected to behave is different.  Rather than this being a bad thing, it is really just a thing-- call it evolution of the woman.

With downturns in religious commitments, increase in divorce rates and a broader length of time women are remaining unwed, all seem to trend towards a more independently minded woman.  And it seems that the line between women and men's belief that sex undermines the entire relationship, might be thinning.

I welcome the change, not in terms of a value system of ones integrity but rather the equanimity between men and women.  Sure we are different physiological creatures wired differently psychology, but what lies over the horizon for society can only be great, a place where the other is challenged by the privileges of control.








Thursday, March 26, 2015

Germanwings / Lufthansa Solutions

One Possible Solution

Lufthansa Flight Solutions
There is a solution to the locked door. In the mid 1990s Electronic Data Systems, Hughes Electronics and GM developed OnStar; this satellite system could be used as a secondary backup for extreme scenarios such as with the Lufthansa/ Germanwings flight. This remotely controlled apparatus, would be engage by a pilot, face with the current situation of Germanwings. 

The pilot would carry an emergency warning mechanism that could transmit a signal to the radio control tower over the geographic area in which it is flying;  It could employ biometric recognition, issued by the airline carrier so that no one else could steal it and use the device.  With today's transmitters and nanotechnology, I believe this is quite possible.

Digital Globe launched one of the most powerful satellites in Aug. 2014; this device would seem to have the necessary power to engage in such a task. It is a fine line however as you risk infiltration (hackers) but a type of firewall could be developed and the main control would reside in each air traffic control tower under the NTSB. Nonetheless, there are potential applications for use of this technology.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Where to Begin, Climate Points

What is the matter with the planet, what is the matter with humans?  This is the subject of the last GENN) blog.  My goal is to keep L4A focused on writing about controversial matters that should be given critical thought.
article I will write pertaining to the environment on this blog.  Not to worry, all future articles will be published on Global Environmental News Network (

That being said, there are a few reasons for this shift.  First there is a great debate over what is causing climate change, and for some, whether or not climate change is real or myth.  This leads me to say initially, Greek Mythology, that is myth.  But my preference is to not stand on the soapbox, rather make a couple of important points.  Second the challenge is not whether or not climate change exists, but that we a humans have strongly held cultures stratified by the people we interact with causing us to believe one thing or another.

Several scientists and other researchers as well as universities have chosen to delve into this matter of cultural struggles among people-- they call it cultural cognition; it is in many ways linked to risk decision science.  I won't get too deep into this subject until a later moment in time.  Suffice it to say that our internal cultural battles often combat that of science.  In other instances, science cognition theory, asserts that individuals' rejection of climate change results from a type of disbelief due to the level of scientific explanation, knowledge and technical-- perhaps because they are overwhelmed.

Whether it is climate scientist (science factor) or ones' social in group (social cognition factor), the greatest challenge is to shift the way in which people think, to one that is persuasive in what they believe.  Herein lies the focus.

It will then be my effort, to help shift that people believe, not through generating threats or bullying scare tactics, but by offering cogent reasoning, examples, and dialogue as a means to engage individuals who oppose.  I find it necessary to befriend in order to engage opposing viewpoints.  You cannot become part of an in group as long as your cultural span is completely outside that of your opponents.  For this reason the strategies involving risk decision science and methodologies will be important.  There is no intention to mislead or haze ones perspective, nor threaten their cultural assertions, but appeal to what is most important as a way to open the doors of engagement.

Be Well

link

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Great Loser, Tragedy of Wall Street and Human Behavior

The Conundrum

Perhaps the most unfortunate behavior characterizing human (as a general blanket statement) is predictability.  Men often respond to high pressure decision-making with the same involuntary reaction they experience when getting an erection.  What is the president you may ask yourself?

Take one of the single greatest economic driving forces in the world; as a matter of fact you can drill down and look no further than the New York Stock Exchange.

Throughout the day tickets fly, monitors flash, people scream on the floor waving pieces of paper, pencil or pen in hand and the most up to date have a portfolio of electronic networks from personal smart devices or tablets.

As the bell tolls the adrenaline continues to flow becoming the venom of ones soul, the ticker board rolls as pennies, quarters, fractions and dollars, forcing individuals to react to strategic moves that will create the greatest advantage for their clients or themselves.

Holding an internal database of positions that need to be executed, lest they suffer, to perfection.  Scouring the floor, screens and monitors for immediate advantages.

The looser hold out for the deal they missed then in disbelief the wait and watch with piercing anticipation for the shoe to fall off the other foot; "but wait, that can't still be going up" they exclaim Shit!  They saw the numbers yesterday and recognized the pattern of consecutive escalation in price, the buy was still there if they would only have bought at opening bell.

Decidedly they wait...and "No not another climb!" yep, triple digit increase.  Their heart sinks as the number continue to go up on the buy-in, they missed out on.

Unable to bare the risk of a further missed opportunity and finally, after holding out nearly all day, just past lunch time and mid-day!  They buy.  Followed by a deep and nearly immediately plunge into the jackpot of failures abyss.  They not only missed the numbers, the bought at the wrong time.

The bell rings and for the clean-up, they purchase, using what remaining assets they have to mop up potential earnings for the next day.


Thursday, December 18, 2014

Water Writes (Rights)

Yesterday I was listening to an old CSPAN podcast of a Supreme Court water rights argument in the
case of Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado.  There are some interesting points that arise in the case as you listen to the SC Justices integrate the prosecution or petitioner and the defendants.

The Case
At issue is violation of both the Republican River Compact and known wrong doing, which seems to arise as a separate issue in my opinion.  Let me simplify this and get to the point because it is made out to be a typical overly complex litigation with meaning getting lost in the language.

These three states made a compact about use of the Republican River.  The violations go back over 10 years.  Nebraska had under estimated water use requirements and violated their use because they argue that the tools to estimate water needs was not accurate enough.  One of their models for the baseline analysis was the dust bowl era.  Seemingly that would be a valuable baseline for water minimums, and it is.  However as it turns out, that water minimum is not the lowest water levels that have been reached over the time since their compact.  Now you might be able to see where this is going.

Colorado is supporting Nebraska's argument, but Kansas is arguing that modifications in the compact are not allowable without acceptable revision (simplified here).  Further Kansas states that such revisions are a "threat" to their water rights; there is also no precedence for addressing disputes for violations of the Compact as can also be found in the Cornell review of that case.

Now there are other factors in the conversation but I am choosing not to go into those because I am not necessarily going in that direction.  As a last note Justices Ginsberg, Alito, Roberts and  Scalia-- as to my memory.

The bigger issue here is the value of water itself.  When considering the volume of water, it is one matter.  And clearly at risk is future violations and what exactly those violations mean going forward if there is not real consequence.  But also this should be an alarm for the real threat of water availability and scarcity.  As we encounter greater concerns over usable water an pollution of it from farms and other industrial requirements for water, how much influence do we as citizens have over this water.

As individuals we lack the power in most cases to even bring our arguments to the Supreme Court, yet our concerns are no less valuable.  Granted that we are getting use from the water that is stated in this case, but I am more concerned about the very nature of the argument that Kansas is making, which is how do we generate consequences for a dispute that satisfies an individual, let alone a state?

Oh!  I found it very interesting that one of the Justices (I believe it to be Justice Scalia) made a point of saying that if better ways of measuring water consumption from the River,  become available that doesn't necessarily meant that you are suppose to continually ask this court to make allowable revisions in the Compact.   Now it is my understanding that the whole point of law is to adapt when things are not accurately accounted for including human behavior relative to the greater good or violations of ideologies that were once though to be sufficient as in the case of civil rights arguments.

This is probably enough to marinate on but it does get you thinking about the importance of water and perhaps how we should elevate our awareness of what it actually means to and in our society.