Yes, you guessed it: for innovation, it frequently takes cross pollinating--migration of humans!

 Important, sorry I left it to someone reminding me.  You need frequently a bunch of thinkers on the same topic, e.g., music, feeding off each other's productivity--not just talk!--but actually producing something.

Think of the conditions under which Einstein produced his famous theories.  You got to have Einsteins of this world to travel to where they're all gathering for cross pollinating of ideas, methods, and things produced!

I've said enough for this blog.  It's too important to add to.

My opinion. 

Britain needs a battery industry for its EVs!

 The US is intending a home-grown semi-conductor industry.  Why not make batteries for the many cars envisioned to come off the assembly lines in England?  It can draw on the energy resources of the North Sea, certainly.

Project "Wake up Europe!" was needed and is doing the job! Germany, et. al has heard the call to arms.

 President Biden has followed the lead of President Trump in waking up Europe to the realities of their own responsibilities to their people to adequately defend themselves and stand united on major issues confronting Europe, e.g., climate change.  In particular, Germany has recognized its invaluable role to play in this endeavor by posing as a model for the rest, including England, to withstand the threats of war and the ravages of the planet.  It truly has been a re-awakening call to arms for preparedness to fight both nature and man.

Ms. Merkel did a marvelous job pointing to the illusions, perpetrated by the Russians, of Russia's concern in the affairs of Europe, when all they want from the EU is compliance with their aggressive posture through the Kremlin to dominate the world's politics.   The US, in carrying forth its role in the project "Awaken Europe," has been urging an increase in each country's military budget.  Chancellor Scholz has risen to the occasion by doubling Germany's military budget and strengthening its commitment to NATO.

Personally, I aver for something like NATO in the Pacific; and maybe there'll be something that coalesces into an organizational structure.  The US can't do what will need to bolster the Pacific defenses from simply its island bases. 

My opinion. 

  

Republicans are advancing the thesis that our Justice Department and the FBI are in need of oversight! Really?

 Now I can imagine a scenario in which there's plenty of need of law enforcement oversight: in non-democratic countries or where there is not allegiance to the "rule of law" principle in the administering of justice.  A case in point in the US: law enforcement officers who beat up on some civilian and think of some violation of conduct that would justify such conduct upon a civilian; then assert that violation was committed by an innocent but criminally abused citizen.  Such an incident should be the subject of judicial review.

And were the FBI were found to invent the application of a "rule of law" already on the books was applicable in asserting that x-person did the crime of stealing merchandise from a burning building, when that citizen x-person was thousands of miles away from the scene of the crime, then the incident should be the subject of criminal court review.

And why must the oversight be limited to incidents in which there is pro and con evidence of a citizen's being involved in its commitment?  The reason is because the question to be decided is only did the accused do it or was he involved in it?  The rule is not being challenged, surly, only its proper application in some instance.

Why so?  Because the system is actually working without much criticism!  We know how it works; and we know decisively that it is working, because of the manifold instances in which we believe it to work!

That is to say, there are a manifold of instances, constantly everyday, in which we act with confidence that the system is doing just fine--pronouncing "guilty" vs. "not guilty"!  And that is, there's little raising of valid objection to the jurisprudence decision on its basis. 

 

Cyber-Security: Military will likely teach the business world how to handle effectively!

I'm just listening to a discussion among federal lawmakers on how to strengthen defenses against cyber attack, especially on computer clouds.

They appear to argue that it's business that has a lot of know-how inform industry regarding the tricks of hackers.

I am led to believe it's just the opposite.  With the young kids in military uniform at the barick computer centers doing what they do best, they are likely coming up with experiments that net usable code to block those who want to hack into business systems for monetary gain--substantial, due the damage they can cause business enterprise databases.

The pointed question that the military is confronted with is, what will lure the youth to play around with the computer in ways that are beneficial to law enforcement and their counterpart in the professional security field.  Specifically, what should they tell those naive kids to do at the computer what will mimic how criminals override the checks and blocks already used in security systems meant to guard against intrusion.

They, the military, probably should make the field of cyber security attractive to recruits--both by salary pay scale as a computer nerd and in offering it as a career field while serving.  Indeed, there must be an urgent need for cyber computer security experts in business, I would imagine.  If so, the military could make a need appealing in their recruiting spiel.

And, if the military is doing all it can to promote this career path, then it might be the prisons that hold a ready reservoir of personnel to aid developing code and programs for blocking entry into the professional business systems.  

The idea I'm advancing is to put to productive use people with plenty of spare time who might be taught how to help in creating code on the computer to stop the theft of informational data on business and military systems.  Not that military recruits and members of the prison population aren't being attracted to spend their time on computers, only that there's need, I am led to believe, for countless more to be directed to spend their free time in a manner that might help society greatly!

Think of all those sailors on ships a-sailing with little to do!

         

Can China have capitalism without democracy?

Some controlled capitalism can exist, I think, in a communist country.

The problem is in non-democratic countries, innovation, a major component of capitalist structure.  The call goes out, once a major company seeks to entrench itself and stifle its competition that may come up with something better.  So, a particular company will be at the top of the competition only for a time; and then it is surpassed by a new technological shift that cannot be incorporated into the older style of a past leader.  And so, the major company's lights will have dimmed as the new rival gleams in competitive glory.

The successful company must come to assume itself possessor of the greatest possible solution to the old ways of doing things, but finds eventually that it proves to be also inefficient and costly, such that there is some other entrepreneur to improve the model and become the most successful and perhaps to remain monopolistic--for a time.

Remember, how some really successful company would buy out its competition that might prove to be even better than what the most successful has to offer in the marketplace?  Despite such attempts, some other "guy" genius would come up with a new methodology, perhaps something so new as to mean a technological revolution in its field, and subsequently, thus supplant what had cornered the market before it.

No, innovation is part of the capitalist scenario to advance technology from what is in current use, i.e., the innovation, followed by competition where the new and very different wins out over the traditional, and becomes the king of the mountain, until it, too, succumbs to some innovative, new process or product.  And, the capitalist beat goes on!

Poor Jack Ma's company.  The communist regime ultimately has tried to control his company and his mind!  He, too, must conform to the ultimate principle of letting his communist leaders take his profits and with it, run the country as they, the communists, desire it to be.  His money, which technically should be distributed in large measure among the stockholders of the enterprises he owns, becomes, by and large, the largesse in their bank accounts!  Essentially, Jack Ma didn't realize, he is working for his communist establishment that rules over every company in China.  His money--all of it, if these communists decide--is their money!

And were Jack Ma to think otherwise than that his money is actually the state's, he would be recruited into some Chinese thought-retraining camp, currently populated with Muslims (I understand).

   

 

   

What ties the Free World Together? Philosophy: democracy; Use of technology and organizational unity.

There must be commonality in culture.  Not everybody is doing the same, but it should be easy to go from one system a country deploys to another of another country!  That is so, one can readily be trained on this or that system.  There is continuity of methodology.  Look at how the Ukrainians must be able to use one or another weaponry with ease!  Just as it is a cinch to go from one country to another in the free world, so it is with ease one can adopt to another culture within the parameters of thinking and living in a technologically advanced democracy. 

The advanced nations must train and retrain and retrain again to establish such bounds of commonality of culture and achievement in progress--to which each society is committed to attain.  It is a world of peace and progress in the development of the human species to pursue a future in common for all mankind.  

Our common moral purpose in what we do: strive to make things better for ourselves and our world.