My interests in economics and investing have always led me to follow with keen interest what the futurists have to say regarding coming technologies along with keeping tabs on scientific demographics. They tale very informative tales. Imagine the ripple effects.
With an eye always open for information in this arena, I came across the following article from Business Insider, where futurist Ray Kurzweil notes that artificial intelligence is only perhaps fifteen year ahead. This, of course, would be a game changer.
And while you are absorbing what Kurzweil has to say, there were two accompanying stories on the outstanding website Business Insider which gave insight
The first one I noted was the cheetah robot, described as an MIT project having been funded by the US Military.
Items cited in the piece which were utilized in the development were carbon fiber, Kevlar strips, sensors similar to those used in drones and video games. The ripple effect of the cheetah robot could enrich the lives of millions.
Another story I came across dealt with immigration and demographic trends, a darling of economic futurist Harry S. Dent. The author in this piece studies data gathered to claim there are indeed two Americas, but no divided by party or in the same way that dolt John Edwards used to go around mouthing off about. No, the findings from this data, which I find interesting but do not totally subscribe to, gives indication on how immigration impacts these two "America" in differing ways. Understanding the demographic trends is vitally important for economic and social forecasting.
Over on The Drudge Report, the following related stories were presented:
*We learn robots learn from watching YouTube. Investors are rushing to embrace artificial intelligence.
*About your job; it may not exist in the future. In a recent post, we noted how McDonald's was combating the government mandated rise in the minimum wage using these technologies.
*Investment robots, using computer based algorithm-led investing produced stellar returns, defeating most human money mangers. Computers do not get emotionally involved, or as they say, married, to their stock selections like you and I continue to do.
Are all these stories out today in the media appearing by happenstance? Or perhaps, does somebody know something we don't?
One thing I have been thinking about noting our dreadful economy and how the American dream for many seems to be dying, I wonder what, beyond returning to sane government, can help us return to high levels of prosperity available for all. Sure, a robust jobs market would be helpful, but you can forget about that until post Obama.
There is a common occurrence which seems to usher in advances in the standard of living for the citizenry, and it is nothing government created. It is a significant advance in technology. The railroad, the two cycle engine, the assembly line, the airplane, the telephone and the personal computer. Recently, nano-technology has changed the playing field for an exponential amount of players, and may soon play a huge role in the fight against cancer.
Singularity aside, we are on the brink of life changing technological advancement, and while some of it will be dangerous, the greater majority of these advancements will benefit all of mankind. I hope I own the stock of the leading companies poised to gain from these advancements, but I, like you, will benefit greatly anyhow.
After all, although many seek its demise and transformation, the freedom of America is still the last great stand on earth, and the birthplace of ideas, for where there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Showing posts with label Cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cancer. Show all posts
Monday, January 5, 2015
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Going Pink
All over the fruited plain, everyone is going pink! All for a great cause, a collaborative effort to raise money to fight breast cancer. This effort, based by the Susan G. Komen Foundation, is without question one of the most successful charitable fundraising this nation has ever seen. After all, who does not want to join the fight against breast cancer?
Everyone is in!
The Chevrolet SS pace car this past weekend for the running of NASCAR's GEICO 500 at Talladega Super Speedway was looking sharp, painted pink and making strides against breast cancer.
The Florida State University Golden Girls Dance Team, posing with the 2014 College Football Playoff Trophy, were looking lovely in Tallahassee this past weekend prior to the the most watched regular season college football game in over two seasons as visiting Notre Dame fell at the last second to Florida State.
When thinking pink and college football, who can not include the Oregon Ducks, who under the inspiration of NIKE founder and alumnus Phil Knight have over a 100 uniform combinations, sporting pink over the green and yellow combos we customarily see the Ducks wearing.
At my place of employment, and most likely yours, the company has presented numerous opportunities to have fun and raise money for this wonderful cause.Man, this is a great story.
Or is it.
Once upon I time, I was eager to contribute to this seemingly worthy cause. Like many other families, cancer has affected many of my relatives, taking the life of my Uncle in his thirties with other family members counted among the survivors.
However, I no longer participate in fundraising with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, as I have learned that a significant portion of the moneys raised end up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Once this became public, there was a significant backlash against the now named Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure.
Appropriately, in my view, part of that backlash included a decrease in the donation level. But not necessarily for the reasons you may think. Let us take a step back and review.
Susan G. Komen had annually made significant donations to Planned Parenthood, which is essentially an abortion mill disguised as a womens health organization. Abortion is legal, but many see the act as much more than birth control, but rather murder. Although I am against abortion, we won't debate that now.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of what has later become Planned Parenthood and a hero to Hillary Clinton, was really an evil woman. Thought to be advancing the rights of women, and perhaps there was some thinking in that regard, the central force in her social activism was eugenics. Included in her thoughts was that it was a worthy enterprise to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."
Masked under the premise of womens health, abortion was considered a vehicle to rid the nation of those who were unfit in the eyes of Sanger and her fellow progressive elitists. You see, Sanger and her crowd knew better than you, including who was fit enough to live and die. Imagine the arrogance.
In the world today, where an ill mouthed statement can forever label you a racists, it was indeed Sanger and is indeed Planned Parenthood that are seemingly assisting in the demise of the African-America population, as an article in The Washington Times notes the following:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.
Due to this, many potential donors hoping to defeat breast cancer have taken donations elsewhere, which led the organization to cease funding to Planned Parenthood. However, this action was seen as taking a stand for abortion and against womens rights, creating a bunch of anger among other supporters, which included resignations from high level executive within the organization. The Foundation, caught in a squeeze, acquiesced and once again began donations to Planned Parenthood.
As The New York Times reported, "The people at Komen, it seems, are pilloried no matter what they do".
Personal views are indeed the final straw here. I will no donate any of my hard earned dollars to an organization that openly funds an organization whose mission statement is to invest in "groundbreaking research, community outreach, advocacy and programs in over 30 countries". While I strongly support the effort to defeat all cancer, it is those donations to community health outreach, likely comprised of donations to Planned Parenthood, that I will not support.
Therefore, with the Susan G. Komen Foundation in bed financially with Planned Parenthood, they will venture on without a dime of my money. My money is much better allocated to supporting other worthwhile charitable endeavors.
Everyone is in!
The Chevrolet SS pace car this past weekend for the running of NASCAR's GEICO 500 at Talladega Super Speedway was looking sharp, painted pink and making strides against breast cancer.
The Florida State University Golden Girls Dance Team, posing with the 2014 College Football Playoff Trophy, were looking lovely in Tallahassee this past weekend prior to the the most watched regular season college football game in over two seasons as visiting Notre Dame fell at the last second to Florida State.
At my place of employment, and most likely yours, the company has presented numerous opportunities to have fun and raise money for this wonderful cause.Man, this is a great story.
Or is it.
Once upon I time, I was eager to contribute to this seemingly worthy cause. Like many other families, cancer has affected many of my relatives, taking the life of my Uncle in his thirties with other family members counted among the survivors.
However, I no longer participate in fundraising with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, as I have learned that a significant portion of the moneys raised end up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Once this became public, there was a significant backlash against the now named Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure.
Appropriately, in my view, part of that backlash included a decrease in the donation level. But not necessarily for the reasons you may think. Let us take a step back and review.
Susan G. Komen had annually made significant donations to Planned Parenthood, which is essentially an abortion mill disguised as a womens health organization. Abortion is legal, but many see the act as much more than birth control, but rather murder. Although I am against abortion, we won't debate that now.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of what has later become Planned Parenthood and a hero to Hillary Clinton, was really an evil woman. Thought to be advancing the rights of women, and perhaps there was some thinking in that regard, the central force in her social activism was eugenics. Included in her thoughts was that it was a worthy enterprise to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."
Masked under the premise of womens health, abortion was considered a vehicle to rid the nation of those who were unfit in the eyes of Sanger and her fellow progressive elitists. You see, Sanger and her crowd knew better than you, including who was fit enough to live and die. Imagine the arrogance.
In the world today, where an ill mouthed statement can forever label you a racists, it was indeed Sanger and is indeed Planned Parenthood that are seemingly assisting in the demise of the African-America population, as an article in The Washington Times notes the following:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance report revealed that between 2007 and 2010, nearly 36 percent of all abortions in the United States were performed on black children, even though black Americans make up only 13 percent of our population. A further 21 percent of abortions were performed on Hispanics, and 7 percent more on other minority groups, for a total of 64 percent of U.S. abortions tragically performed on minority groups. Margaret Sanger would have been proud of the effects of her legacy.
Due to this, many potential donors hoping to defeat breast cancer have taken donations elsewhere, which led the organization to cease funding to Planned Parenthood. However, this action was seen as taking a stand for abortion and against womens rights, creating a bunch of anger among other supporters, which included resignations from high level executive within the organization. The Foundation, caught in a squeeze, acquiesced and once again began donations to Planned Parenthood.
As The New York Times reported, "The people at Komen, it seems, are pilloried no matter what they do".
Personal views are indeed the final straw here. I will no donate any of my hard earned dollars to an organization that openly funds an organization whose mission statement is to invest in "groundbreaking research, community outreach, advocacy and programs in over 30 countries". While I strongly support the effort to defeat all cancer, it is those donations to community health outreach, likely comprised of donations to Planned Parenthood, that I will not support.
Therefore, with the Susan G. Komen Foundation in bed financially with Planned Parenthood, they will venture on without a dime of my money. My money is much better allocated to supporting other worthwhile charitable endeavors.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Healthcare Hoodwink
One of the top news stories of the day was new information regarding Breast Cancer, and as usual, I can see beyond the cloaking device at what is really going on.
First, the news. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force adjusted their stance recommending mammogram for women over 40 to only once a year for those over 50 reported the Wall Street Journal. In addition, they advised against physicians teaching women self testing techniques upon new information they are of little value.
Quoting the Wall Street Journal article, The task force, which receives funding from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but is independent from the government, last issued guidelines for breast cancer in 2002. "The task force isn't saying there isn't a benefit" to screening women in their 40s, but "we're saying the benefit is small," Dr. Petitti said. "The change really is a change between do it routinely and don't do it routinely." Women 40 and older who are free of any symptoms should talk with their doctors and decide with them whether to put off screening for a few years, she said.
Who is AHRQ you may ask? They describe themselves on their website as "The health services research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), complementing the biomedical research mission of its sister agency, the National Institutes of Health."
Although many articles are hitting private insurance on this one, including representatives of the Susan G. Komen Foundation as noted in the WSJ article, I find the opposite. As our government prepares to take over the health care industry, they are finding ways to cut costs. On such area appears to be by delaying testing of breast cancer through expensive mammograms.
In private business, cutting costs is a prudent measure. But in the case of your health battling the deadly disease of cancer, this type of thinking could cost you your life. Dr. BAHL, not a MD by any stretch of the imagination but having gleefully performed many breast examinations in my day, highly recommends that not withstanding the governmental noise, women check early and often! Save the Tatas! And perhaps, your life!
It seems to me that this is an example of where Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, through arms of the government, are already choosing a level in healthcare where winners and losers collide. Market forces, you and your physician should be the ones making these decisions, not bureaucrats, or as Sarah Palin accurately pointed out, death panels, with hidden agendas.
Speaking of hidden agendas in the health care abomination, Sean Hannity discusses the topic with SE Cupp and the very, very lovely Kimberly Guilfoyle. Take listen:
First, the news. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force adjusted their stance recommending mammogram for women over 40 to only once a year for those over 50 reported the Wall Street Journal. In addition, they advised against physicians teaching women self testing techniques upon new information they are of little value.
Quoting the Wall Street Journal article, The task force, which receives funding from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality but is independent from the government, last issued guidelines for breast cancer in 2002. "The task force isn't saying there isn't a benefit" to screening women in their 40s, but "we're saying the benefit is small," Dr. Petitti said. "The change really is a change between do it routinely and don't do it routinely." Women 40 and older who are free of any symptoms should talk with their doctors and decide with them whether to put off screening for a few years, she said.
Who is AHRQ you may ask? They describe themselves on their website as "The health services research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), complementing the biomedical research mission of its sister agency, the National Institutes of Health."
Although many articles are hitting private insurance on this one, including representatives of the Susan G. Komen Foundation as noted in the WSJ article, I find the opposite. As our government prepares to take over the health care industry, they are finding ways to cut costs. On such area appears to be by delaying testing of breast cancer through expensive mammograms.
In private business, cutting costs is a prudent measure. But in the case of your health battling the deadly disease of cancer, this type of thinking could cost you your life. Dr. BAHL, not a MD by any stretch of the imagination but having gleefully performed many breast examinations in my day, highly recommends that not withstanding the governmental noise, women check early and often! Save the Tatas! And perhaps, your life!
It seems to me that this is an example of where Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, through arms of the government, are already choosing a level in healthcare where winners and losers collide. Market forces, you and your physician should be the ones making these decisions, not bureaucrats, or as Sarah Palin accurately pointed out, death panels, with hidden agendas.
Speaking of hidden agendas in the health care abomination, Sean Hannity discusses the topic with SE Cupp and the very, very lovely Kimberly Guilfoyle. Take listen:
Thursday, June 25, 2009
BAHL's Babes: Farrah Fawcett
Even though we knew it was coming, it drew a tear to the eye to learn of the death of Farrah Fawcett, the original BAHL's Babe, from cancer. Like seemingly every other little kid, the poster of all posters hung on the wall in my bedroom and Charlies Angels was must see television.
Farrah, from Corpus Christi, TX, was also an athlete, often spending time on the tennis courts.
I was pleased to learn that the other Angels, Jaclyn Smith and Kate Jackson, had been visiting and helping Farrah through her trying time. Both had spent time over the past year with her and I think that says quite a bit in itself. Certainly, along with Nebraska native David Doyle as Bosley, Charlie's Angels was an enjoyable show back in the day.I first became aware of Farrah when she was Farrah Fawcett-Majors, as I was a big fan of Lee Majors in both The Big Valley and The Six Million Dollar Man, where Farrah has a small part in few episodes. Although she had been well known for her work on the commercial side, it was Charlie's Angels that made her a star, and with her head of hair which spawned copy cat styles across America, she will always be one of America's top sex symbols.
During her fight with cancer she displayed courage and strength and with her faith she traveled her final journey with class and dignity. God Bless You Farrah!
"She was an angel on Earth and now an angel forever." - Lee Majors
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE RACE TO CURE CANCER HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
