Top Billing! Global Guerrillas “Dronenet Series” – DRONENET The next BIG thing. , An open drone network vs. closed logistics networks, What a Dronet (a more compressed spelling?) can leverage and DRONENET How to build it
About five years ago I did some work for a defense contractor on the potential applications of drones ($$). One of the things I put together for them was a logistics system, using drones, for special ops teams. It was the perfect application for keeping dozens of dispersed teams supplied in rough terrain.
Flash forward five years and I heard a presentation by Matternetat a conference called Poptech. Matternet is a 2011 start-up that got some play at a “Solve for X” presentation at Google (solve for x is supposed to be a “think tank” for solving the worlds biggest problems). Essentially, they were pitching the same thing the defense contractor I consulted with was interested in, except for humanitarian uses. A logistics network that uses drones to overcome the problems of delivering supplies to small groups in harsh terrain (although the defense contractor’s drones and systems were FAR more sophisticated than the stuff Matternet is pitching 4 years later).
However, when I heard Matternet’s presentation it hit me that a closed network approach would miss the real opportunity. Here’s why….
Some people divide the ways we know about our world into two types, Science and Inquiry. Science typically refers to using falsifiable hypotheses to make predictions about the world. Inquiry refers to any deviation or alteration of this method.
For the rest of this post I’m going to talk about fields in which the objective is tocontrol, predict, and improve the behavior of some object (cancer cell, human being, State, whatever). That is the purpose for which the tool of science is most applicable.
Some people further divide Science into two types: Normal Science and Revolutionary Science. These terms from from Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Normal Science, in Thomas Kuhn’s original model, was capable of progress but governed by religious-like “paradigms.” Revolutionary Science, likewise in Kuhn’s outdated model, was capable of freedom but incapable of progress….
Michael Yon Online – Some Thoughts About The Kingdom of Thailand
….Some Red Shirts brought children into their camp even though bullets were flying. It was dishonorable to bring children into a combat zone. Images of children killed in war are branded into my memory.
Red Shirt leadership should have ordered that children be taken home. Press members should not issue a free pass to leaders who allow kids to be brought to combat. Any journalist who did not report on the children is professionally flawed.
This level of sustained and violent occupation would never have been permitted in the United States. The first time that a protestor fired an M79 grenade launcher in downtown New York City, popular opinion would have demanded that the police or the Army put them down.
Occupy Wall Street is annoying, for example, but we can live with it. If members of Occupy Wall Street fired grenades or an RPG, a final response would have been demanded.
Waging insurrection is not a constitutionally protected activity in any country. Peaceful protesting is protected in some countries, including the United States and Thailand.
Launching grenades is over the line. Dozens of bombings, grenade attacks, and shootings were perpetrated in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protest, including a small car bomb. In addition to the protests, a steady insurrectional campaign targeting symbolic targets was waged.
Red Shirt protestors used automatic weapons, 40mm grenade launchers, bombs, firebombs, and firework rockets, not to mention slingshots and ball bearings.
Many Red Shirts were courageous and unafraid of combat. I greatly respect Red Shirts for their courage under fire. Much was caught on video. I respect them though I believe that they should not have engaged in violence.
…. First: Progressives and those who sympathize with them are economically risk-averse compared with conservatives. As Charles C. W. Cooke recently pointed out, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are sometimes confusing in the American context, and that is certainly true in the case of financial risk, about which conservatives are not conservative at all. As an academic study published in the American Journal of Business put it: “As the economic political orientation of the subjects in our study becomes increasingly conservative (meaning they lean more towards an economically libertarian position as opposed to an economically socialistic position), they assume significantly higher levels of risk in their investment decisions.” Other studies find similar results.
There are many ways to measure financial risk tolerance, but consider this: One of the riskiest things you can do with your money is start a business, and entrepreneurs and small-business owners skew heavily Republican. The 2011 survey from the National Small Business Association found that 54 percent of the organization’s members identified as Republicans, while only 16 percent identified as Democrats; it is significant that more small-business owners identified themselves as independents in the survey than as Democrats….
Easily Distracted-A Mismatching of Frame and Picture
Gene Expression –When Rome fell civilization did decline
ForeignPolicy.com – The Art of Snore
The Telegraph – Is Slavoj Zizek a Left-Fascist?
Foreign Affairs– Chavismo After Chávez
Scientific American – Wisdom from Psychopaths