Showing posts with label Stimulus Spending and Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stimulus Spending and Debate. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Tunnel Vision NYC
The world is a changing - - for every piece of physical infrastructure, someone is working on improving customer service with more/better information and thinking in terms of information on a small and mobile screen.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Russian Dash Cams
If you saw the meteorite hit Russia this week - - you probably had the same reaction I did. "Does everyone in Russia have a dash cam in their car?"
The answer is here.
The answer is here.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Harvest Automation
This is Harvey. Harvey does manual labor. Harvey does not need medical insurance, any vacation time, an annual performance review, worker's compensation insurance, or a cake on his birthday.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Law 11 - Learn To Keep People Dependent On You
Robert Greene points out the following in his book The 48 Laws of Power (1998):
To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.
Necessity rules the world. People rarely act unless compelled to. If you create no need for yourself, then you will be done away with at first opportunity. The ultimate power is the power to get people to do as you wish. When you can do this without having to force people or hurt them, when they willingly grant you what you desire, then your power is untouchable. The best way to achieve this position is to create a relationship of dependence. The master requires your services; he is weak, or unable to function without you; you have enmeshed yourself in his work so deeply that doing away with you would bring him great difficulty, or at least would mean valuable time lost in training another to replace you. Once such a relationship is established you have the upper hand, the leverage to make the master do as you wish. It is the classic case of the man behind the throne, the servant of the king who actually controls the king.
To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.
Necessity rules the world. People rarely act unless compelled to. If you create no need for yourself, then you will be done away with at first opportunity. The ultimate power is the power to get people to do as you wish. When you can do this without having to force people or hurt them, when they willingly grant you what you desire, then your power is untouchable. The best way to achieve this position is to create a relationship of dependence. The master requires your services; he is weak, or unable to function without you; you have enmeshed yourself in his work so deeply that doing away with you would bring him great difficulty, or at least would mean valuable time lost in training another to replace you. Once such a relationship is established you have the upper hand, the leverage to make the master do as you wish. It is the classic case of the man behind the throne, the servant of the king who actually controls the king.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Safety, Health and Welfare
Letter to the Editor for Civil Engineering - - The Magazine of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
This is in response to Timothy J. Noles’s July letter to the editor in which Mr. Noles addressed several issues relating to our declining infrastructure and fiscal responsibilities. Mr. Noles was fundamentally addressing issues raised by William F. Galli in a May letter to the editor.
Several points should be addressed with respect to both letters. The first is the rather minimalist approach to our code of ethics - - namely the singular quotation of safety. The fundamental canon is much broader in scope than just safety - - “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.” The interesting phrase is “ . . . welfare of the public . . .” Although broad, welfare in the context of engineering means a focus on the well-being and prosperity of the public. A cornerstone of our well-being and prosperity has to be an understanding of the forces and factors associated with our economic and financial welfare. If all we want to do is design the roads and bridges that connect sub-prime subdivisions based on “liar loans” with empty shopping malls, and desire to never enter the public debate on economic welfare and prosperity - - - we are doing the general public a huge disservice.
Sometimes we need to be reminded of the old lawyer who stated, “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Yes, we recommend and yes, Congress funds and yes, we design and yes, we build. But does anyone think for a moment that when we burn through one trillion dollars that the process has been strategic, systematic or transparent? When small congressional districts receive a disproportionate share of highway funds – has the welfare of the nation as a whole really been considered? Should civil engineers debate and discuss this? Clearly yes. Should we debate, discuss, and care about how and when $50 trillion of public debt and obligations gets covered and how it interfaces with our responsibilities of safety, health and welfare? Clearly yes. Should we be part of the debate over the need for the new fire station versus funding the pension of the retired firefighter? Clearly yes. Has the world changed requiring new ways of thinking, responsibilities, attitudes and debates? Clearly yes.
This is in response to Timothy J. Noles’s July letter to the editor in which Mr. Noles addressed several issues relating to our declining infrastructure and fiscal responsibilities. Mr. Noles was fundamentally addressing issues raised by William F. Galli in a May letter to the editor.
Several points should be addressed with respect to both letters. The first is the rather minimalist approach to our code of ethics - - namely the singular quotation of safety. The fundamental canon is much broader in scope than just safety - - “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.” The interesting phrase is “ . . . welfare of the public . . .” Although broad, welfare in the context of engineering means a focus on the well-being and prosperity of the public. A cornerstone of our well-being and prosperity has to be an understanding of the forces and factors associated with our economic and financial welfare. If all we want to do is design the roads and bridges that connect sub-prime subdivisions based on “liar loans” with empty shopping malls, and desire to never enter the public debate on economic welfare and prosperity - - - we are doing the general public a huge disservice.
Sometimes we need to be reminded of the old lawyer who stated, “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists of telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Yes, we recommend and yes, Congress funds and yes, we design and yes, we build. But does anyone think for a moment that when we burn through one trillion dollars that the process has been strategic, systematic or transparent? When small congressional districts receive a disproportionate share of highway funds – has the welfare of the nation as a whole really been considered? Should civil engineers debate and discuss this? Clearly yes. Should we debate, discuss, and care about how and when $50 trillion of public debt and obligations gets covered and how it interfaces with our responsibilities of safety, health and welfare? Clearly yes. Should we be part of the debate over the need for the new fire station versus funding the pension of the retired firefighter? Clearly yes. Has the world changed requiring new ways of thinking, responsibilities, attitudes and debates? Clearly yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)