Google Voice has been around, and I've had a (free) Google Voice phone number, for a while. It's functionality is now integrated into Google Hangouts (video calls, text messaging, etc.). -so it might stay around. One of it's main uses is to have a place to consolidate your calls. You can give out this one phone number, and have that forward to different numbers (mobile, work, etc.), depending on who's calling. You can have a default, then filter calls by individuals, groups, time of day, etc. Calls from/at certain callers/times can be immediately forwarded to voice mail, or dropped. You can even transfer your existing number (for, like, $15) to make it your Google Voice number. Domestic calls can be made from your computer, smartphone, tablet, etc., from this number, for free. This part of it's functionality is not new. I can remember making computer to phone calls, now called Voice Over IP (VOIP), with a program called DialPad (circa 1999). Vonage is probably the best known VOIP provider, currently.
Why do I think it's cool? I like consolidating and simplifying my information/communications, for easy (and future) access. Text messages are integrated. They are free to send (and receive). They'll be saved, and easily searchable. You can set for them to automatically go to your GMail. Voice mails are saved. Voice recognition software (server-side) is used to transcribe these into text, which you can text search. So far, most of this is free. You'll pay for non-domestic calls. You also have to seriously consider the cost of Google having a little more access to your personal information. For me, I'm not sure how much worse this is from Verizon, T-Mobile, U.S.Cellular, AT&T, etc. having access to this. You can still bypass this by giving certain people the direct number to a phone. I do like that Google has started providing users a way to do bulk downloads of their data from their services: https://www.google.com/settings/takeout
So I'm seriously considering transferring my current mobile number (which I use as my "home" number), to Google Voice. Then I would have Verizon assign a new number for my phone.
Feel free to let me know what you think.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Elitism and Trade-offs
It makes me a little uncomfortable when someone calls another person or group "stupid". Part of this is probably a reaction to my being called, or thought to be, "slow" or stupid, in the past. But, rationally, I think it bugs me because it just doesn't seem to add up. Do some people just have an abundance of gifts or abilities, while others don't? I think a few authors would disagree with that. (1,2,3) I tend to think of intelligence as an accumulation of experience. If you've spent time in one type of experience, you've not spent that time getting another type of experience. It's a trade-off. You can, for example, be "smart" in math, language, etc., but "stupid" in emotional intelligence, behavior prediction, etc. Such experience might be grouped under the heading 'interactions with our external environment'. But the human body is part of the environment "we" (our conscious selves) live in. It's composition is mostly determined my our genome. So it's reasonable to think some people are "just built to be smarter". -just as some people are physically stronger, faster, etc. But there are trade-offs here, too. A person who is more muscular, is less efficient. There is a lot of extra muscle mass there, ready to move larger mass objects. But just sitting still, a muscular person will burn more calories, than a less muscular one. Of course, in the U.S., getting more than enough calories is not a big problem. But I've got to believe there is some trade-off with "natural" intelligence, too. If you are good at, or frequently focused on, one kind of thinking, are you ignorant of others? -and the brain requires a lot of energy. Are you grabbing extra nutrients to to feed that selfish brain, while others in the world are starving to death? (I'm being a little facetious, there) I do think certain body (including the brain) configurations and behaviors can be optimal in given environments at given times. -and I may still use the word "stupid", when I observe the same person, with their left turn signal on at a traffic signal's left turn lane (when it's obvious what you're about to do), not use their signal before abruptly stopping to turn left onto a small side road. But I don't think some people are absolutely superior to others.
So how is this related to elitism? I think elitism is allowed to exist because of our beliefs that some people can be so much superior to others. If we think that certain other people "are just idiots", doesn't that open the possibility that we can be considered "idiots" by dictators, kings, obnoxiously wealthy people, etc.? We must, on some level, think it possible that actors, athletes, etc. are better than us. We spend time and money paying attention to (worshiping) them, rather than believing (to the extent that we instead put those resources into ourselves) we could possibly be that great. I think many of us give up, and accept that we are not as good or powerful. I think of movies like "Frozen". It does depart from the tradition that a woman needs to be saved by a man (prince, or other). -Princess Anna is saved by 'sisterly love'. But it still holds the idea that the common people need to be saved by a special (royal) person, with special powers. I think, similarly, we wait for the government, or a new president/king/military leader, to rescue our world. -rather than believe we can rescue ourselves.
Even if some people are genetically or experiencially better positioned to cope with present conditions, I think we tend to exaggerate their worth. CEO's can make 380 times the salary of their average worker. We've allowed 1% of Americans to hold 40% of the wealth (4). I recently watched the movie "Money Ball". I think this could be an example of this phenomenon. The salaries of certain baseball players reflected that they were thought to be much more valuable than others. The Oakland A's had a fraction of the budget of a team like the New York Yankees. But when they focused their attention on the statistic of on-base-percentage (a necessary prerequisite for scoring), they found they could combine less costly players, to get better results. I assume I can deduce, here, that a player who costs, say, 5 times as much, is not going to get on base 5 times more. His value to the team is inflated. This A's team ended up shattering the record for most consecutive wins. When the Boston Red Sox, a team with a much higher budget, adopted this philosophy, they won the World Series for the first time, since 1918. Because of the resource trade-offs within a human, and between humans, the level of elitism many of us support is just not warranted. It unnecessarily makes us feel inferior, and become victims.
So how is this related to elitism? I think elitism is allowed to exist because of our beliefs that some people can be so much superior to others. If we think that certain other people "are just idiots", doesn't that open the possibility that we can be considered "idiots" by dictators, kings, obnoxiously wealthy people, etc.? We must, on some level, think it possible that actors, athletes, etc. are better than us. We spend time and money paying attention to (worshiping) them, rather than believing (to the extent that we instead put those resources into ourselves) we could possibly be that great. I think many of us give up, and accept that we are not as good or powerful. I think of movies like "Frozen". It does depart from the tradition that a woman needs to be saved by a man (prince, or other). -Princess Anna is saved by 'sisterly love'. But it still holds the idea that the common people need to be saved by a special (royal) person, with special powers. I think, similarly, we wait for the government, or a new president/king/military leader, to rescue our world. -rather than believe we can rescue ourselves.
Even if some people are genetically or experiencially better positioned to cope with present conditions, I think we tend to exaggerate their worth. CEO's can make 380 times the salary of their average worker. We've allowed 1% of Americans to hold 40% of the wealth (4). I recently watched the movie "Money Ball". I think this could be an example of this phenomenon. The salaries of certain baseball players reflected that they were thought to be much more valuable than others. The Oakland A's had a fraction of the budget of a team like the New York Yankees. But when they focused their attention on the statistic of on-base-percentage (a necessary prerequisite for scoring), they found they could combine less costly players, to get better results. I assume I can deduce, here, that a player who costs, say, 5 times as much, is not going to get on base 5 times more. His value to the team is inflated. This A's team ended up shattering the record for most consecutive wins. When the Boston Red Sox, a team with a much higher budget, adopted this philosophy, they won the World Series for the first time, since 1918. Because of the resource trade-offs within a human, and between humans, the level of elitism many of us support is just not warranted. It unnecessarily makes us feel inferior, and become victims.
Friday, January 2, 2015
Money is fake.
Money only has value because of our belief in it. We can't nourish, house, medicate, transport . . . ourselves with money itself. It is only useful as an incremental, anonymous IOU. It helps us keep track of what we owe others. It helps us exchange parts of things, without having to do full, even trades. Using money, we don't need do know who traded what, before the current transaction. In short, it is a useful accounting medium. It should not become more than that. We add unnecessary complication and attributes to money. I think this complexity diverts actual attention and resources from real problems. We feel like paralyzed victims of this thing called "the economy". E.g. "Things will get better for me when the economy picks up." We don't need our current central banking system, and fiddling with interest rates, to help us exchange resources with other people. We don't need people to play games with the timing nor affect perceived values of things using stock markets. In this age, we can take advantage of electronic currency transfer. -no more checks, cash, paper coupons, etc., etc. Cryptocurrencies (like Bitcoin, etc.) could be used to securely decouple currencies from unnecessary national governmental control. But we shouldn't have things like cryptocurrency mining. -yet another meaningless game, not backed by real-world resource value.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Cooperation: A tool; neither evil, nor sacred.
'Coordination of resources' is what I mean here. It is virtually meaningless to me, if a group says they will work together, or vote to do something, but there will be no commitment of resources. I believe the primary benefit of "working together" can be viewed in terms of economy of scale-like benefits. When someone says "the whole is larger than the sum of the parts", I just interpret this opinion or observation as a result of simply eliminating the inefficiencies of 'doing our own thing, separately'. Despite strongly valuing a full transition to electronic information storage/transfer, I always seem to refer to a "stapler" example. If two small companies merge, they can hypothetically share a stapler, rather than buy two separate ones. Because many resources are not continually used, by everyone, all the time, they can be shared.
So . . . cooperation . . . To me, it is powerful tool, rather than a moral view. It is a focus of energy, that can more rapidly affect change. It increases power. Power, in the physics sense, can be expressed as a rate of transfer (application) of energy. When you coordinate efforts, you can more quickly/efficiently direct energy towards a problem. -increase work on that problem. It seems that cooperation, itself, is both demonized, as well as lauded as a universal good. It depends whether or not you approve of how this concentration of resources is applied. If you disagree, or feel victimized by this, you might use the terms "monopoly", "bully", "evil corporation", etc., etc. If you are in agreement of how this tool is applied, you might hear "common good", "labor union", "public (or shareholder) interest", etc., etc. I don't think cooperative constructs (charitable organizations, business groups, governments, unions, etc.) should , themselves, be demonized or considered sacred. They shouldn't take on a life of their own, in a way that they tend to perpetuate themselves, regardless of their relevance to a particular problem they were initially intending solve. It is important to be conscious of the fact that cooperation is always applied to, or against, something. Humans are, by nature, social beings. We tend to coordinate into groups: cities, communities, etc. When we work together with our own species, we can end up working against other species, or the earth's ecosystem. i.e. global warming, overpopulation, extinction, etc.
I don't think cooperation should be mystified or demonized. It is a tool, with limitation. It should be used for outcomes most of us (aka "democracy") agree on. We shouldn't expect anything "higher" from it, and we shouldn't necessarily perpetuate a certain cooperative system, in full-force, if it's costs become higher than it's benefits.
So . . . cooperation . . . To me, it is powerful tool, rather than a moral view. It is a focus of energy, that can more rapidly affect change. It increases power. Power, in the physics sense, can be expressed as a rate of transfer (application) of energy. When you coordinate efforts, you can more quickly/efficiently direct energy towards a problem. -increase work on that problem. It seems that cooperation, itself, is both demonized, as well as lauded as a universal good. It depends whether or not you approve of how this concentration of resources is applied. If you disagree, or feel victimized by this, you might use the terms "monopoly", "bully", "evil corporation", etc., etc. If you are in agreement of how this tool is applied, you might hear "common good", "labor union", "public (or shareholder) interest", etc., etc. I don't think cooperative constructs (charitable organizations, business groups, governments, unions, etc.) should , themselves, be demonized or considered sacred. They shouldn't take on a life of their own, in a way that they tend to perpetuate themselves, regardless of their relevance to a particular problem they were initially intending solve. It is important to be conscious of the fact that cooperation is always applied to, or against, something. Humans are, by nature, social beings. We tend to coordinate into groups: cities, communities, etc. When we work together with our own species, we can end up working against other species, or the earth's ecosystem. i.e. global warming, overpopulation, extinction, etc.
I don't think cooperation should be mystified or demonized. It is a tool, with limitation. It should be used for outcomes most of us (aka "democracy") agree on. We shouldn't expect anything "higher" from it, and we shouldn't necessarily perpetuate a certain cooperative system, in full-force, if it's costs become higher than it's benefits.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)