text:
case-study-Amazon.com
Baldeep Kaur
enregistrerEnregistrer case-study-Amazon.com pour plus tard
The Year of Less: How I Stopped Shopping, Gave Away My Belongings, and Discovered Life Is Worth More Than Anything You Can Buy in a Store
The Psychology of Selling: Increase Your Sales Faster and Easier Than You Ever Thought Possible
If You're Not First, You're Last: Sales Strategies to Dominate Your Market and Beat Your Competition
SPIN Selling: Situation Problem Implication Need-Payoff
Ca$hvertising: How to Use More Than 100 Secrets of Ad-Agency Psychology to Make BIG MONEY Selling Anything to Anyone
How I Raised Myself From Failure to Success in Selling
Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital
HBR's 10 Must Reads on Strategic Marketing (with featured article "Marketing Myopia," by Theodore Levitt)
From Zero to One Million Followers in 2019: Become an Influencer with Social Media Viral Growth Strategies on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the Secrets to Make Your Personal Brand KNOWN
Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald's
The Art of Closing the Sale: The Key to Making More Money Faster in the World of Professional Selling
Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping
Coaching Salespeople into Sales Champions: A Tactical Playbook for Managers and Executives
Smart Calling: Eliminate the Fear, Failure, and Rejection from Cold Calling
Shopify: A Beginner's Guide With Proven Steps On How To Make Money Online With Shopify Dropshipping Ecommerce
Logistics Operations and Management: Concepts and Models
Sam Walton: Made in America
Diary of a Currency Trader: A simple strategy for foreign exchange trading and how it is used in practice
The Haunted Bookshop
A Case Study Report On Amazon.
Give a background note on the company.
Answer: Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational electronic commerce company with
headquarters in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is the world's largest online retailer. Amazon has separate websites for the following countries: United
States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and China. It is also expected to launch its websites in Poland, Netherlands, Sweden and India. It also provides international shipping to certain countries for some of its products.
Amazon.com (Amazon) was one of the first online shopping sites launched in 1995. Since its inception, it has been consistently ranked as one of the best retail sites on the Internet and is regarded as the universal model for successful Internet retailing. In March 1998, Amazon was ranked among the top 20 Internet sites in almost all the major market surveys.
According to an analyst, "When you think of web shopping, you think of Amazon first." The Forrester Power Rankings in 2000, ranked Amazon as the best online shopping site. Amazon owed a large part of its popularity to its excellent customer service, which was due to its exemplary inventory management. It is one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet and one of the most recognized and respected online businesses. It has become the number one online retailer by steadily building its reputation and brand, beginning its operation in July of 1995. Moreover, it has expanded from its existing business of selling books to selling a wide variety of products such as DVDs, music CDs, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food and more (Wikipedia 2006). Similarly, Amazon aside from its domestically
shared market also set up four other separate online stores in the United Kingdom, France and Japan, thus shipping globally on selected products. Some of the key features which played huge role in success of Amazon.com areValue Proposition
Amazon built a four-fold value proposition that indicated its priorities in the establishment of the online venture. The four dimensions it focused on were convenience, selection, price, and customer service. The online venture was convenient as it was open for business all the time. The site was so designed as to keep the download time at a minimum. The site also offered its users various facilities such as reviews, e-mail notifications, reference from a previous search and product recommendations. It also provided the users with a wide range of product options, which they could select from. Amazon had an inventory consisting of millions of items which was roughly about 100 times that of a typical physical store. Strategic Alliances In order to expand in a rapid and a cost-effective manner, Amazon decided to partner with other companies. The main criterion used by Amazon for selecting a partner was the customer service provided by the company. During 1998-2000, Amazon acquired ownership stakes ranging from 17 to 49 percent in various online retailers- Greenlight.com, Living.com, Drugstore.com, HomeGrocer.com, Pets.com, Ashford.com, Gear.com, and Della.com. Amazon spent an estimated $160 million on acquiring stakes in these companies.
Amazon planned to do things differently for the 2000 holiday season. What were the reasons that led to the revamping of inventory management methods? How was inventory made more effective at Amazon?
In the holiday season of 1999, Amazon was determined not to disappoint any customer who visited its site for holiday shopping. So, they stocked the stores with every possible item that customers were likely to buy. In 1999, Amazon added six warehouses. On the whole Amazon
had ten warehouses. Because of this strategy Amazon had to face a lot of problems too while trying to manage large inventory. Each warehouse cost them around $50 million. Amazon s warehouses were a quarter-mile long and 200 yards wide stored millions of books. Amazon knew that a large number of piled up goods represented unutilized cash which could be used elsewhere in his business. In order to overcome this tedious task of inventory management, the company decided to do things differently in the holiday season of 2000.
Amazon managed to reduce the size of inventories even as the company offered more products on its site. This was made possible by managing the warehouse efficiently. Amazon made careful decisions about which the products to buy and where to buy them from. The company then had to decide which of the distribution centre it would send its products to and then know how to receive and track the product once it was in the warehouse. Amazon also decided to by its books, CDs, videos etc directly from the publishers instead of buying them from distributors. Amazon also maintained a good relationship with its vendors so that it could extract best deal from them.
In order to the inventory, Amazon refined its software. The new software helped the company accommodate inventory as per the demand in different regions.
Amazon also tried to cut down its expenses. It decided to outsource some of its routine activities so that it could concentrate better on its core activities. It partnered with other companies for shipping the inventory. So while the partners shipped the items, Amazon leveraged on its e-commerce expertise. It revamped the layout of its warehouses making it easier for the company to locate and sort customer orders. By doing this, it managed to save all expenses related to filling and shipping orders.
Improved inventory management helped Amazon record its first ever profits in the fourth quarter of 2001, after accumulating a deficit of $5 millions in the fourth quarter of 2001. This
profit was mainly attributed to its ability to reduce costs in stocking and shipping goods. Amazon had sales record 0f $1.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2001 which was a 15% increases over the sales recorded during the same period the previous year. In 2002 Amazon recorded sales of $3.93 billion which was 26% higher than the sales of 2001($ 3.12billion).
How inventory management was made more efficient at Amazon?
Amazon wanted to offer its customers a wide selection of books, but did not want to spend time and money on opening stores and warehouses and in dealing with the inventory. They however realized that the only way to satisfy customers and at the same timer make sure that Amazon enjoyed the benefits of time and cost efficiency was to maintain its own warehouse. Building warehouses and operating them was a very tough decision for Bezos. Each warehouse cost him around $50 million and in order to get the money, Amazon issued $2 billion as bonds. In 1999, Amazon added six warehouses in Fernley, Nevada; Coffeyville, Kansas; Campbellsville, Kentucky; Lexington, Kentucky; McDonough, Georgia; and Grand Forks, North Dakota. On the whole, Amazon had ten warehouses. Most of these warehouses were set up in states with little or no sales tax. Adaptation of Drop shipment model Drop shipping is a supply chain management technique in which the retailer does not keep goods in stock, but instead transfers customer orders and shipment details to either the manufacturer or a wholesaler, who then ships the goods directly to the customer. As in all retail businesses, the retailers make their profit on the difference between the wholesale and retail price. In 2001 Amazon decided to outsource its inventory though it knew that it was a huge risk. Amazon did not stock every item offered on its site. It stocked only those items that were popular and frequently purchased. If a book that was not too popular was ordered, Amazon requested that item from its distributor who then shipped it to the company.
In the company, the items were unpacked and then shipped to the respective customers. So, Amazon basically acted as a trans-shipment centre and ensured that the entire process of shipping from the distributor to the customer was done very efficiently. By 2003Amazon, s warehouse could handle thrice the volume they used to handle in 1999, while the cost of operating them decreased from 20 percent of Amazons revenue to less than 10 percent. In 2003 Amazon decided to slash down its shipping charges. Customers who visited the site were greeted with a pop up window announcing the company s decision to provide free shipping for those who bought two or more items in any combination from the sites books, music, or video stores. The company also decided to reduce shipping charges.
Though Amazon spent millions of rupees in marketing in order to get new customers it managed to leverage the amount spent because of its lower capital costs. Generally physical bookstores having a wide range of books needed to stock about 160 days worth of inventory. The distributors and publishers had to be paid 45-90 days after the books were bought from them, in this way Amazon used to get a month s of interest free money.
Why was Amazon apprehensive about outsourcing inventory management? Do you think it was a wise on its part to go ahead with its decision to outsource inventory management? Also comment on the company s idea of selling other retailer s products on Amazon.com.
Answer Amazon was apprehensive about outsourcing inventory management because maintaining large inventories for satisfying all customers was a costly affair; moreover a huge amount of capital was locked in the form of inventory which can be used for other purpose such as increasing distribution channel. Outsourcing inventory was a risky affair as when Amazon
managed its own inventory; it had earned the reputation of providing superior customer service, which was its biggest strength. According to our point of view it was a right decision to outsource inventory as maintaining a huge inventory was harming Amazon. Maintaining inventory at the cost of profit cutting was not a good decision. As we can see in the case Amazon did not fully outsourced the inventories it keeps things which were popular. It was a very good way to cut down its expenses and concentrate on core activities. For outsourcing it used drop- shipping model, though it faced a lot of problems like reverse logistics and multiple delivery then also it was profitable. The idea of selling other retailers products on Amazon.com was very profitable according to case. When in early 2001, Bezos came up with the idea of including the products of competing retailers and some used items on their websites. Amazon earned almost the same profit selling on commission as it earned selling on retail. An advantage of these features was that the customer could now verify the prices of Amazon s products vis--vis those of the other retailers. So the company did not need to advertise its low prices. By 2003, Amazon only handled the net orders, the companies handled the inventory. This service proved to be immensely profitable for Amazon.
Documents similaires à case-study-Amazon.com
manisha0791
faisal_csedu
Amazon Case Study
Salamat Ali
Strategic Management Case Study on Amazon
Abhishek Kumsi
SWOT Analysis of Amazon (2016)
Poulomi Roy
Internal Factors Evaluation Matrix of Amazon.com
Tayyaub khalid
20695369 Case Study Report on Inventory Management at Amazon Com
guptasalil111
Rakesh Kolasani Naidu
Case Amazon
Nirmalya Fadikar
Saad Memon
ade firmansyah
Mohit Shukla
A Strategic Analysis of Amazon.com
Ajay Manchanda
Amazon White Paper
Kevin Thompson
Final Amazon Case Study
mattcn530
Eze Pem
The Amazon Strategy
SapientNitro
Madhurima Barua
anuatomix
Amazon.com - Anannyo
naimul_bari
Investigation of Www.amazon.com,Www.fedex.com & Www.ibm
Raj Paroha
nabeelshahid
Rohan Nair
Amazon Com - Hidden Empire
Sharu Rams
Amazon Case Study Analysis
Krrish Krishna
24854038 Amazon Strategic Plan
chosu_riki7316
Amazon Compiled
aarti_jham
Liz Chan
Team 6, Amazon, Strategy
kaushikahmed
Somy Thomas
Plus de Baldeep Kaur
Human Resource Audits
Anita Sukhwal
CocaCola Marketing Strategies in India
Case Analysis of Nitish@ Solutions Unlimited
Copy of Learning Styles
04-NTBs
Populaire dans Consumer Goods
Sewing-A-Z.pdf
Youanna N.
Avl Pricelist
Victor David Gomez
belmont boot toppers
Identifying Defect Causes of Weft Greige Knitted Fabric
SakibMDShafiuddin
Cardinal Utility Analysis
kinshuk7566
SDM Project Report.
Guru Govind Mishra
Skinhead Homologies Pps
poppopioana
Popular Patchwork - December 2017
Lucia Carolina Velasco Lopez
aot part 3 run sheets
Marks and Spencer Ppt
Anchal Agarwal
Introduction of Lipton In Ecuador
Jorge André Reinoso
Prabhjot Singh
Linc Pens
Pallavi Dinesh Mhapankar
cynticat
American hustle Screenplay
Aditya RaghuNandan
The Correct Way to Implement Lean.docx
Hadee Saber
project on lackme
Ràjput Atul Singh
Little Woodrow's - Dallas lunch and dinner menu
Tiney Ricciardi
hello natural
Nitin R Gond
TYPES OF RESTAURANT
Hanin Ibrahim
Steve Hindy, Tom Potter-Beer School_ Bottling Success at the Brooklyn Brewery (2005)
umunera2997
Case Study on Jewellery Industry
Smeg016 Side by Side Whirlpool-GB (1)
Chanchal Persaud
Spreading Tables
Chetna Chugh
MORE LEVEL 1 DVD 1
Rocio Licea
Amul Lassi 2007[1]
Regional Sales Manager or International Sales Manager or Busines
Annexure j
Anonymous VoPJHGSDc
CH 1 (Understanding Marketing Management)
AsraAkram
20151119111134vitamin c assay


text: Background: Morbidly obese patients with obstructive sleep apnea are extremely sensitive to sedative premedication. Intranasal dexmedetomidine is painless and quick acting. Intranasal dexmedetomidine can be used for premedication as it produces adequate sedation and also obtund hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Materials and Methods: Forty morbidly obese patients with BMI > 35 were chosen and divided into two groups. Group DEX received intranasal dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg (ideal body weight) while other group (AZ) received oral alprazolam 0.5 mg. Sedation scale, heart rate and the mean arterial pressure was assessed in both the groups at 0 hour, 45 minutes, during laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Results: The demographic profile, baseline heart rate, means arterial pressure, oxygen saturation and sedation scale was comparable between the two groups. The sedation scores, after 45 min, were statistically significant between the two groups i.e., 2.40 ± 1.09 in the AZ group as compared to 3.20 ± 1.79 in DEX group P value 0.034. The heart rate, mean arterial pressure and oxygen saturation were statistically similar between the two groups, after 45 min. The heart rate was significantly lower in the DEX group as compared to the AZ group. There was no statistical difference in the mean arterial pressure between the two groups either during laryngoscopy or tracheal intubation. Conclusion: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a better premedication agent in morbidly obese patients than oral alprazolam.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Kimilili is a town and area in Kenya's Bungoma District. The area is occupied mainly by the Bukusu and Sabaot communities. Its proximity to the fertile slopes of Mt Elgon, on the Kenya-Uganda border, has made it a trading center for agricultural goods and services. The town has an urban population of 10,251.There are numerous non-governmental organizations in Kimilili, the two main ones being ICFEM and Omwabini, which have added much value to the town of Kimilili.


text:
Q: Javascript replace & changing sting from a vriable I have a URL https://example.com/fullimg.php?eid=1&pgno=&pdate=2022-12-24,
I want to create a next and previous button. If the user clicks on the next button he will redirect to pgno=1 means the next page. If he clicks on the next button again he will be redirected to pgno=2 and so on if he clicks next again he will be redirected to pgno=3 here the pdate is dynamic and changes every day.
I have tried this
      let url = window.location.href;
      if (url.includes("pgno=")) {
        url = url.replace("pgno=", "pgno=2");
      } else if (url.includes("pgno=2")) {
        url = url.replace("pgno=", "pgno=3");
      }
      console.log(url);
      window.location.replace(url);

Also I have tried this
      let url = window.location.href;
      if (url.includes("pgno=")) {
        url = url.replace("pgno=", "pgno=2");
      }
      if (url.includes("pgno=2")) {
        url = url.replace("pgno=", "pgno=3");
      }
      console.log(url);
      window.location.replace(url);

For both it's only executing first condition not the 2nd one. After clicking on the next button it's going to pgno=2 but after that when I am clicking next it's still reloading and redirecting to pgno=2
How can I solve it?
I have solved it, thanks to @Unmitigated
this is the function,
    function Next2() {
      let params = new URLSearchParams(location.search);
      // get the value of pgno
      let pgno = +params.get('pgno');
      // check if pgno is less than or equal to 12
      if (pgno <= 11) {
        // go to next page
        params.set('pgno', pgno + 1);
        location.search = params;
      }
    }

And here is the previous function
    function Prev1() {
      let params = new URLSearchParams(location.search);
      // get the value of pgno
      let pgno = +params.get('pgno');
      // check if pgno is greater than 1
      if (pgno > 1) {
        // go to previous page
        params.set('pgno', pgno - 1);
        location.search = params;
      }
    }

A: Use URLSearchParams to facilitate handling query strings.
let params = new URLSearchParams(location.search);
// go to next page
params.set('pgno', +params.get('pgno') + 1);
location.search = params;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Sometimes the past isn't really over even though you're done with it.
Lucas' life is good. He has friends, lives in a nice house, and owns a bookstore—which he thinks is the perfect job. He's missing love, though, and he's envious of his mated friends.
Carter left Chicago after his divorce. He needed a change, and Gillham is his hometown and a great place to raise his daughter Lilia. He's wary when he meets Lucas and they realize Carter's his mate, but he's willing to give love another chance. Lilia deserves a second parent—the parent Todd never wanted to be.
Lucas thinks everything is going well until Todd tries to wiggle his way back into Carter's life. He believes Carter when he says he's not getting back with his ex, but is that really what Todd wants, or is there more behind his attempts to convince Carter he still loves him? And if there is, to what end is Todd willing to push himself to get it?


text:
Q: How fast is Earth moving through the universe? As the galaxy is moving and the solar system orbiting the galaxy and the Earth orbiting the sun. So how fast is each object moving and what is the fastest we move at?
Do we even know how fast the galaxy is moving that is not relative to another galaxy (although I guess velocity has to be measured relative to something).

A: Solar system is moving at $368\pm 2$ km/sec relative to the microwave background in the direction towards the constellation Leo.

A: Velocity does indeed have to be measured relative to something. We can measure our radial velocity relative to any other astronomical object we care to, by measuring Doppler shifts. But if you want to know our velocity "relative to the Universe as a whole" rather than relative to any one object, we have to be a bit careful to define our terms.
Because the Universe appears to be approximately homogeneous and isotropic, it makes sense to define a "rest frame" at any given point. (The rest frames at different points are moving with respect to each other -- that's what it means to say that the Universe is expanding.) This "rest frame" is essentially the frame in which the stuff surrounding that point appears to be moving isotropically (the same in all directions). In practice, the best way to define that rest frame is to find the frame in which the cosmic microwave background appears the same in all directions (has no dipole moment, to be precise). Relative to this frame, the local group of galaxies is moving at about 600 km/s (Wikipedia gives precise numbers and probably citations that I'm too lazy to look up).
People sometimes worry about whether the existence of a preferred "rest frame" of this sort is in conflict with the principle of relativity. The answer is that it isn't. There are a couple of ways to see why. One is to note that the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics have no preferred frames, but particular solutions to the laws can have preferred frames. Another way of putting it, which I prefer, is that the "rest frame" we use in cosmology is simply the center-of-momentum frame of a bunch of particles (namely the CMB photons in our neighborhood). In other contexts, we're not surprised or worried by the fact that a bunch of particles have a rest frame, so why should we worry about it here?

A: The Earth is moving by 30 km/s around the Sun and relatively to the Sun. The Sun is orbiting the center of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, by the speed of about 200-250 km/s. Our Galaxy is moving relatively to the Local Group where it orbits and the Local Group falls toward the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies.
However, the latter two velocities are small relatively to the Local Group's velocity relatively to the cosmic microwave background, the closest approximation of "the right frame" that cosmology may offer you: the Local Group is moving by 600 km/s relatively to the cosmic microwave background. That's 0.2% of the speed of light.
At any rate, it's important to appreciate that all velocities are relative, all observers who are moving by constant velocities relatively to each other may use the same laws of physics (the principle of relativity), and the cosmic microwave background is so weak that it doesn't break the democracy between various reference frames in a significant way.

A: First you have to think about what you mean by space. The concept of how fast you are moving through the universe sounds like you are assuming an absolute space as envisioned by Newton rather than a relational space as promoted by Leibniz. So, as worded, it seems that you need an absolute background spacetime, which is not the case with special relativity. The space described by inertial reference frames in areas of small curvature is usually used as "background space" and, as Ted says, descibes an isotropic and homogenous space. Motion is only relative to other inertial frames, and if you choose a rest frame, you have to define one yourself.

A: Earth spins, Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the galaxy, the galaxy is moving and the universe is expanding. How fast is Earth moving through the universe? Speed has to be measured in relation to something, so where is the point of relation in the universe? If there is something like the center of the universe far beyond our observable universe, this could be used as a point of measure. We don't know if the center of the universe exist, but if it does, the whole universe could spin around its center and the centripetal acceleration could cause it to expand, and we could have accelerated expansion of the universe without this mysterious dark energy which is the most popular explanation today. If there is something like a Higgs field which make mass out of energy, this could also be related to the center of the universe. And if something like a universal God exists, he probably have a nest in the middle.
But even if there is such a thing as the center of the universe, it would be equally valid to say that the Earth is standing perfectly still while the center of the universe is moving. Then we are all standing still in the center of our own observable universe.

A: I don't buy into the idea that "one's speed at the equator is cancelled out because half the time you are spinning in the opposite direction" (in relation to the sun). You are still going 1040 mph, though it can be argued that this speed is cancelled out during half the day if the Earth is moing around the sun in the opposite direction you are travelling on the surface of Earth.. The Earth travels around the sun at 66, 666 mph. The Sun (our solar system) rotates around the center of the Milky Way at beween 420, 000 and 540, 000 mph. Finally, it is believed that the Milky Way is traveling or moving around a "local group" of galaxies at 2, 237, 000 mph. So, do the math. We are .making pretty good time even when we feel as if we're standing still. AND if we are in high-performance sports cars, that is just a little more math.


The AZ Wine & Dine will showcase Arizona's world-class culinary scene featuring premier chefs, resorts, restaurants, fine wines, craft beer and more! This year the event will be held at the Scottsdale Quarter in Kierland on Thursday, April 13th. Top chefs from renowned restaurants and resorts will offer culinary delights. Musical entertainment will be provided by Nate Nathan and the MacDaddy-O's to create the perfect evening out. It is set to be a memorable evening of socializing and sampling a variety of Arizona's most coveted menus!
The event is designed to raise the awareness of the quality of life benefits that Arizona's tourism industry provides its residents and a portion of the proceeds benefit the educational efforts of the Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association.
To purchase tickets visit eventinterface.com.


A comprehensive introduction to CMOS and bipolar analog IC design. Presumes no prior knowledge of linear design, thus comprehensible to engineers with a non-analog background.
Hans Camenzind wrote:This book is can be downloaded without fee from www.designinganalogchips.com. Re-publishing of any part or the whole is prohibited.
Imminent death has been predicted for analog since the advent of the PC. But it is still here; in fact, analog ICs have been growing at almost exactly the same rate as digital ones. A digital video disk player has more analog content than the (analog) VCR ever did.
The explanation is rather simple: the world is fundamentally analog. Hearing is analog. Vision, taste, touch, smell, analog all. So is lifting and walking. Generators, motors, loud-speakers, microphones, solenoids, batteries, antennas, lamps, LEDs, laser diodes, sensors are fundamentally analog components.
The digital revolution is constructed on top of an analog reality. This fact simply won't go away. Somewhere, somehow you have to get into and out of the digital system and connect to the real world. Unfortunately, the predominance and glamour of digital has done harm to analog. Too few analog designers are being educated, creating a void. This leaves decisions affecting analog performance to engineers with a primarily digital background.
Hence this book. It should give readers an overview of the world of analog IC design, so that they can decide what kind of analog function can and cannot, should and should not be integrated. What should be on the same chip with digital and what should be separate. And, equally important, this book should enable readers to ask the right questions of the foundry, so that their design works. The first time.
Academic text books on IC design are often filled with mathematics. It is important to understand the fundamentals, but it is a waste of time to calculate every detail of a design. Let the simulator do this chore, it can do it better and faster than any human being. An analysis will tell readers within seconds if they are on the right track and how well their circuit performs. Assuming that they have competent models and a capable simulator, an analysis can teach them more about devices and circuits than words and diagrams on a page.
The book presumes no prior knowledge of linear design, making it comprehensible to engineers with a non-analog background. The emphasis is on practical design, covering the entire field with hundreds of examples to explain the choices. Concepts are presented following the history of their discovery.


text:
Scientists discover 'ghostlike' octopus off Hawaii
Imran Mirza March 6, 2016 Scientists discover 'ghostlike' octopus off Hawaii2016-03-06T06:53:39+01:00 BreakingNews, International No Comment
Washington: Scientists have discovered a "ghostlike" octopus in deep water off Hawaii that appears to belong to a previously unknown species, researchers said.
A submersible research craft spotted the small, translucent octopus by chance around 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) underwater off Necker Island on the northwestern end of the Hawaiian Archipelago, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said.
"As the ROV (remotely operated vehicle) was traversing a flat area of rock interspersed with sediment at 4,290 meters, it came across a remarkable little octopod sitting on a flat rock dusted with a light coat of sediment," the NOAA's Michael Vecchione said.
"The appearance of this animal was unlike any published records and was the deepest observation ever" for this type of marine creature, he added, in a statement released on March 2.
The octopus — nicknamed "Casper the Friendly Ghost" on social media — was caught on camera by the Okeanos Explorer, which the NOAA uses to explore underwater geology and marine life in little-known parts of the world's oceans.
Vecchione said the newly discovered octopus has a single row of suckers on each tentacle instead of the usual two, but is "particularly unusual because it lacked the pigment cells, called chromatophores, typical of most cephalopods, and it did not seem very muscular."
"It is almost certainly an undescribed species and may not belong to any described genus," he said.
« Trump, Clinton win Louisiana on night of split US votes
Islamic State is losing; coalition to step up pressure: U.S. envoy »


text:
Tag: space
January 4, 2020 Gennady Stolyarov II Comments 0 Comment
As 2019 draws to a close, Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman of the United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, expresses hope that humankind will emerge from the "Crazy Years" and offers ten concrete resolutions for human achievement during the 2020s. This message was recorded on December 31, 2019, and is available for viewing here.
As 2019 draws to a close, let us bid farewell and good riddance to a decade which could, in retrospect be referred to using the prophetic Robert Heinlein term, "The Crazy Years" – a turbulent, conflicted decade during which, while glimmers of hope appeared on multiple fronts of technological advancement, society and culture have clearly declined due to the rise of incivility, tribalism, authoritarianism, identity politics, and mass breakdowns of sanity. It is no secret that I had hoped for humankind to have been farther along the path of advancement by now than it has actually come. The great conflict of our decade – between the marvels that have been built by the creative and rational higher faculties of the human mind and the biases, fallacies, vulnerabilities, and atrocities spawned by its darkest evolved recesses – between the Apollonian heights and the Dionysian depths of human nature – will carry on into the 2020s and perhaps beyond. To win this conflict, those of us who desire a brighter future need to advocate for more progress, faster innovation, greater rationality, higher standards of civility and morality, and a long-term outlook that seeks to cultivate the best in human beings.
As the winds of fortune shift, some of us individually will rise, and others will fall. This certainly was the case this past decade. In so many respects, for me, it has been marked by colossal achievements and improvements, but also tectonic shifts in my own life which were not of my initiative – to which I needed to respond and adapt and preserve what I valued in the aftermath. Reflecting back on the end of 2009, and comparing it to today, I realize that absolutely everything about the circumstances of my life is now different… and yet I myself am essentially the same. I believe that it is this core of myself, this fundamentally constant and consistent identity, which has carried me through the crises and enabled me to defy adversity and arise stronger every time – to pursue new endeavors and take on new roles while remaining the same essential individual, to learn from the empirical evidence before me while maintaining the same convictions and understanding of the good. The events of the 2010s have illustrated for me that, indeed, peace and stability in life must ultimately come from within – although it is not a matter of withdrawal into the self or mere self-affirmation, as some popular creeds would claim. Rather, it is the self that must devise and implement solutions to the crises of the day while pursuing consistent improvement in as many dimensions as possible, and preserving that essential core intact.
It is beyond our power to live a decade over again, but we can harness the best of its aftermath and turn the coming decade into a superior and more rational one. Some of us will create resolutions as individuals, and then pursue plans of varying degrees of specificity and likelihood of success. But perhaps it is best to consider the resolutions we would wish to have for humankind as a whole. It is all well and good, of course, to wish for progress and prosperity, but it is also well-known that the resolutions which have the greatest likelihood of succeeding are those which are accompanied by concrete indicators of fulfillment. Therefore, I propose the following ten resolutions for humankind during the decade of the 2020s, which will enable us to empirically identify whether or not they have been fulfilled at the decade's end.
Construct the next world's tallest building – because humankind must always reach higher.
Build a base on the Moon – because it is time to colonize other worlds.
Land a human on Mars – because it is time to expand beyond our orbit.
Establish the first fully operational seastead communities – because it is time for human habitation to expand beyond land and for jurisdictional experimentation to resume in earnest.
Have at least one person live beyond 120 years again – mathematically possible given that 10 of today's supercentenarians are 114 or older; it is time to begin to approach Jeanne Calment's longevity record of 122 years once more.
Cut all world nuclear-weapon stockpiles in half – more than this has been done before, and so this is really quite a modest goal, but it is imperative to reverse the trajectory of the current arms race. Complete nuclear disarmament by all powers would, of course, be preferable, to finally dispel the "MAD" cloud of annihilation looming over our species.
Compose 100 tonal symphonies – because it is time to rediscover beauty.
Develop medically effective cures for every type of cancer – because, really, it is decades past time.
End the decade with 50 percent of all vehicles on the road at level 2 autonomy or greater – because road deaths are a travesty and should become a relic of a barbaric past.
Experience at least one year in which no country is at war with any other, with "war" including armed insurgencies and terrorist attacks – because national, ethnic, religious, and ideological warfare needs to be relegated to the past.
Of course, there are many worthwhile objectives not encompassed above, and it is my hope that efforts to reach those goals will also advance in parallel. You may have a list of ten resolutions for humankind that differs from mine, but they may be compatible nonetheless. The overarching aim, however, is to restore humanity's much-needed confidence in progress, to emerge from the postmodern swamp of self-doubt and deconstruction and return to the heights of ennobling ambition and creation. Concrete benchmarks to track our progress can also serve the dual purpose of motivating people everywhere to undertake great tasks. A certain President has expressed the desire to make America great again, but I would venture to say that he has not selected the proper means for doing so. I challenge everyone during the next decade to make the world great again and demonstrate that the most impressive achievements and the most lasting solutions to our age-old problems are still to come. This is the message of transhumanism, and I hope that it can become the theme of the next decade – so that when I speak to you again at the decade's end, we can reflect upon the wonders that have been built.
Join the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party for free, no matter where you reside. Apply here in less than a minute.
Fourth Virtual Debate Among U.S. Transhumanist Party Presidential Candidates – September 17, 2019
Jonathan Schattke
During the Fourth Virtual Debate among the U.S. Transhumanist Party Presdidential Primary candidates, held on Tuesday, September 17, 2019, Johannon Ben Zion, Jonathan Schattke, and Matt Taylor, answered crowdsourced questions on character and leadership, radical life extension, health care, universal basic income, foreign policy, the U.S. federal budget, and various other matters. Watch this debate here.
This debate was moderated by U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II and co-hosted by Steele Archer of the Debt Nation show. See the original debate stream on the Debt Nation show (Part 1 and Part 2), including the pre-debate and post-debate shows held on the same day.
Please forgive the technical difficulties and the occasional audio lag arising from a weak and once-interrupted Internet connection.
View individual candidate profiles here:
Watch the Third Virtual Debate among Candidates Holsopple, Haywire, Forsythe, Kerecz, and Harris here.
U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II Speaks with Steele Archer of Debt Nation
Watch this wide-ranging discussion between U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman Gennady Stolyarov II and Steele Archer of the Debt Nation show, addressing a broad array of emerging technologies, the aspirations of transhumanism, and aspects of both broader and more personal economic matters – from the impact of technology on the labor market to how Mr. Stolyarov paid off his mortgage in 6.5 years. This conversation delved into Austrian economics, techno-optimism, cultural obstacles to progress, the work and ideals of the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party, life extension and the "Death is Wrong" children's book, science fiction, and space colonization – among many other topics.
The Importance of an "Industrial Space Elevator" to Transhumanism and the "Futurist New Deal" Platform – Article by Nikolay Agapov
June 23, 2019 Nikolay Agapov Comments 1 comment
Nikolay Agapov
Editor's Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) publishes this article by Nikolay Agapov to advance the goals of Section XVII of the USTP Platform, which states that "The United States Transhumanist Party holds that present and future societies should take all reasonable measures to embrace and fund space travel, not only for the spirit of adventure and to gain knowledge by exploring the universe, but as an ultimate safeguard to its citizens and transhumanity should planet Earth become uninhabitable or be destroyed." The construction of a highly economical infrastructure project such as the Agapov Orbital Lift would greatly reduce the costs of space travel and thus enable rapid exploration and development of space for the benefit of humankind and all sentient entities – thus also accelerating our transition into the next era of our civilization. As of this time, the USTP has not yet endorsed a Presidential candidate but welcomes activity from all of our Presidential Primary candidates to advance the USTP Platform.
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party, June 23, 2019
This article is primarily about the value to society of an industrial space elevator; which I believe could have already been built using a small fraction of the resources that have been spent on space tourism for a select few individuals. But before we begin, I would like to take a moment to talk about how "Space Age" goals do correlate quite strongly with the goals of "Digital Democracy" and the strengthening of your middle class more generally, that are described in Mr. Johannon Ben Zion's "Futurist New Deal" platform as a candidate seeking the Presidential nomination of the Transhumanist Party. I have been previously described in an interview for this site as an "Open-Source Business Developer," a term which is not a direct translation of the phrase that I used in the Russian interview, but it does describe this underlying commonality fairly well. By using "network technology" and allowing a larger group of peers to participate in the space industry, we'll create a system that is making better use of the funds and resources that it has allocated and perhaps more importantly, one that can and will evolve as a matter of course to serve humankind.
This open yet technocratic principle is also very well understood when it comes to more decentralized and more representative forms of government, and the funding of social programs that support the middle class, whether they are funded in the present day by largely public means or in the near-future by public-private partnerships.
In a great many economies with post-industrial elements including Russia – although it is quite far from the strongest of economies – it is widely believed that the birth rate is "dangerously low." So much so that future generations of adults, working people, are said to have to provide for far too many retirees – the idea being that this can lead to an economic crisis. To avoid the crisis of an aging population, developed economies are actively attempting to assist young families. In particular, the Russian government has provided many types of additional social services to young families that are not so widely available in the United States – for example, "Family Paid Leave", "Universal Healthcare Services", and other measures designed to encourage these vital family activities.
I believe that concerns about "under-population" are not entirely rooted in reality; the main problem that people who fear this population bust express is that the population of older people or pensioners, is becoming much larger than the population of young people, and while in 20th-century technology terms that would lead to a shortage of labor, we now live in the 21st century. Their fears do not take into account the ways in which all of our societies are moving towards full automation; a circumstance that is negating and will continue to negate these generational problems. However, the larger spirit and implementation of this partly fear-based set of policies is correct. Society and the economy flourish when people are free in their time and resources to pursue family life and small businesses; and these things are very strongly represented in the economic policies of the "Futurist New Deal".
In Russia, the government is also concerned about a lack of human development and lower productivity. At a recent open press conference, the Russian president announced a program for a sharp increase in overall labor productivity. Achieving this rapid growth in production is possible only through a massive influx of small, private enterprises, but they must have a high level of automation and be able to quickly recoup the funds invested in them and develop rapidly both in quantitative and qualitative terms. For this industries-wide sea-change to occur, you first need to create a conducive environment for all entrepreneurs. A democratization of laws and government is necessary for this purpose; but the Russian government in some ways continues to follow a strategy of rigid central planning and economic development through large state projects that have a high price and long implementation periods; this failing itself tends to make these modernization programs which are occurring under government control a rather dubious institution.
At the same time, Russia has a weak civil society and relatively low economic literacy, which do not foster developing entrepreneurial communities at the grassroots level – those not dependent on the government. I think that developing decentralized production in Russia, as well as in many developing countries, is easier through collaboration with innovators in the United States. The first networks of decentralized industry are more likely to appear in the United States, Western Europe, and China. After that, they will begin to transfer the rights to use their intellectual property worldwide, for a percentage of the profits. This is similar to the way 20th-century franchises have tended to work.
Beginning to make these barest kinds of preparations for the economic health of a society, it is not so dissimilar from focusing on better and more discrete goals in the world of near-earth development. Just as moving away from the rhetoric of "austerity" or nationalism allows you to identify problem areas more clearly, and correct them; the colonization of space by more collaborative efforts on the part of users – with more industrial and less fanciful goals in mind – will be a truly great boon to humankind.
I have begun to create social networks such as my "People of the Space-Era" and various working groups to this end; and I hope that the people of the U.S. Transhumanist Party, perhaps one of the most technologically literate cohorts in the world, will see and promote the value of this "open-source" approach.
Imagine if a new continent here on Earth were discovered and, rather than create trade networks with that continent, those responsible for dealings with this new land opted to take a lot of "selfies" there instead – and do little else. As the public, you might rightly ask yourselves when it would be an appropriate time to begin to engage in more practical expeditions. The simple fact is that an information society, any post-industrial society should be making better use of our connectivity and our technology than we are.
When the first flights into space began, people enthusiastically waited for the first experiments to be followed up by larger-scale developments or innovations, such as those aimed at the practical and permanent venture into space by our species; and all the while hoping for inexpensive reusable rockets, or these fundamentally different "rocketless" means of space transport to be developed. They waited with bated breath for the first extraterrestrial technological centers to be built, and after them the first extraterrestrial industrial enterprises should have surely followed. People waited for humanity to start taking real steps towards becoming a space civilization. Sadly the nation-states concerned used their astronauts only to maintain their standing in public opinion, and these state space programs remained at an earlier stage of research and experimentation.
If our society wants to move into the Space Age, it is time for all of us to take the initiative. Team up to work on new global programs such as the development of new industries based on digital production, consisting of miniature factories capable of making their own replacements to accelerate industrial growth on Earth. And later, in space, such micro-factories will themselves "multiply", and build an array of near-earth industrial infrastructure, without the onerous costs associated with high-speed travel, operating on principles of development and economic efficiency. Today it is possible to develop on Earth the beginnings of a society on a truly cosmic scale, through the tenacity of many of you space-travel-minded people. These ways of thinking and ultimately this way of life must be adapted to the conditions of a functional space civilization, not tailored to narrower nationalistic or "creative" ends. The most innovative supporters of space expansion must take on these roles as coordinators to create earth-based industrial and entrepreneurial networks vital to this development of new programs for the industrialization of space.
Such initiative would lead to far broader and more robust sets of satellites which would improve the experiences of today's device and IOT (Internet of Things) users and revolutionize this sadly untapped field of solar energy – which is inexhaustible and eco-friendly. The development of cosmic mineral resources, the most valuable of these being precious metals and rare earth elements will be supplied to earth with ease. Perhaps of less value, but still market-changing, those many resources that serve in the construction of consumer orbital enterprises and transport systems, and of course the more widespread industrial use of 3-D printing, minimizing the need for expensive cargo delivery from the ground, will become more commonplace in near-earth and earthbound building.
It is indeed possible to suppose that a decentralized civil society which is still overseen by "good-faith" public coordinators could also actively prepare better for the colonization of space than we are preparing today. For this to happen, the participation of nation-states directly is not needed, and even large capital investments would not be absolutely required; the network world of agile "citizen scientists" itself will become the best source of capital and resources. We need only initiative and personal energy to move past these 20th-century constraints.
One of the projects of these new rocketless transport systems, which I propose that we implement, is the "Agapov Orbital Lift" (A.O.L.). The A.O.L. is a simplified version of the space elevator which will remain in geosynchronous orbit but will not be secured to the ground by a tether. This design is relied upon, as it is far more effective than the "Stationary Space Elevator" which has a cable that reaches the earth. For the A.O.L. to work, there is a need for some rocketry, as the lower end of the cable will fly above the ground at a height of low orbit, but at a speed below the earth escape velocity of today's rockets, at 1 – 3 kilometers per second. The A.O.L, unlike competitor lifts, will be able to immediately give us tremendous breakthroughs in the modernization of space transport. This project is technically feasible since the earth connection cable is not needed, and so additional materials science innovations such as nanotubes or graphene tape need not be made a contingency of the first-generation A.O.L. Suffice it to say that materials such as carbon fiber, "Kevlar," "Vectran," or other polyethylene materials of a high degree of polymerization will be strong enough to suit these ends. These existing materials-science innovations are already wholly mastered by industrial producers, are widely commercially available, and have a cost that is not exorbitantly high for near-earth development.
Waiting for one particular breakthrough is just not worth it when high-strength materials of many kinds are constantly being produced and improved upon, and as we mentioned at some length in our interview, the A.O.L. will also be upgraded many times in the course of its productive life. At certain intervals, older tethers, battered by space debris, will need to be replaced with newer, stronger, and longer ones made with more durable materials. And so, in the course of operation, the A.O.L. system of lifts will in short order be transformed into a stationary one, an achievement which itself would allow for the complete abandonment of missiles in near-earth travel.
The counterweight to the A.O.L. will be the International Space Station (ISS), as its life as a space-science laboratory comes to an end. And as part of the elevator, the station will be able to continue its multifaceted work in an exciting new capacity as a component of a revolutionary transport system. The ISS as counterweight to the elevator would be an appropriation of 100 billion dollars in existing space infrastructure, and its use will couple state space agencies with private firms in a timeless public-private partnership. In addition, the ISS as part of the orbital elevator will be able to work as a technological platform for mounting satellites and various useful space objects, from relatively light payloads delivered to it by cables from suborbital flight. In doing so we will be responsible for the beginning of true space production.
In my previous interview with Presidential candidate Johannon Ben Zion, we discussed a figure of between 100 and 500 million dollars for the building of a first-generation, highly-automated industrial space elevator. I understand that many of your readers are skeptical of this design and these figures, and at the risk of repeating myself from earlier in this article, I will say here again what I did not say in that shorter interview published June 12th, which is that the success of such a project could hinge on the "network effects," the user-generated efforts in numerous interworking systems of networked organizations which are capable of consolidating the work product of industrial enterprises and small entrepreneurs on earth for the implementation of large-scale programs for the industrialization of space. We must spearhead this construction ourselves in order to turn the entire world industry into a springboard for the colonization of the solar system and not limit this to individual government agencies or scattered and not fully realized private space firms. In short, on this quality of being "Open-Source", which is again not the exact wording that I preferred to use in the original Russian interview, that phrasing certainly does get to the heart of the way in which this kind of effort should be different from previous private or public space-faring attempts.
Even in the weeks since that interview was conducted, new discoveries of underground resources on the Moon have been made, I believe that had previous lunar expeditions been more focused on making use of these resources, we would already have the industrial infrastructure between our planet and our Moon to be safely excavating these kinds of materials.
It would be unfair to describe private space industry as unconcerned with these improvements; incredible breakthroughs have been made in recent decades toward streamlining space-faring processes, making them cheaper and cleaner. That said, I believe that almost all of the people working in this business have a fixation with rockets and an almost total lack of interest in the equally practical transport systems that I have described. If these engineers really believe that the focus of space travel is to stick pretty flags in piles of dirt, or engage in publicity stunts where people who are famous solely for being wealthy celebrate their success by enjoying zero gravity for a few hours – my advice is that they should pursue another line of work because these "accomplishments" are not of such great value as we have been led to believe.
My design for a space elevator is meant to be a transition, using the existing infrastructure now in low-earth orbit to create a lift system capable of slow but steady industrial growth – within 3 to 5 years – using the kinds of robotics that industry has taken for granted for a few decades. To achieve this some adjustments will need to be made to the International Space Station so that its orbit is better positioned to support this lift system. When you consider the hundred or more billion dollars that have been spent on space stations which are now decommissioned, and I would argue have always been underutilized, the choice not to build a space elevator from them seems to me, frankly, a silly one. The very important point in this design, which I have already iterated but that was sadly not included in the truncated first interview, is that this spacelift will not reach completely to Earth, and vehicles will be required to shuttle payloads up to that point. But as the cost of operating these vehicles will be much lower – as the high speeds required of rockets today to escape Earth's gravity will not be necessary, the A.O.L. will nonetheless be of great value to industry.
There is no question in my mind that this tether design, which incorporates a few different interworking ultra-strong polymer blends, all of which are currently in widespread industrial use, will suffice for our materials needs. And I should point out once again, and it has been said many times before, that by first constructing this industrial lift, we will then very soon be able to build out its infrastructure and create parallel lift structures that will quickly improve industrial, and presumably consumer, uses.
With greater interest after significant return on investment from these industrial undertakings, we will very quickly see that this initial design was well worth the effort. I hope that the lack of focus on space tourism in our first-generation A.O.L. design will be seen by potential investors as an asset to both consumers and industry in the long-term.
It is not just nostalgia for my youth that drives my interest in this repurposing of existing space infrastructure like the International Space Station; we should give the ISS a second life; this is the best way to continue the work begun by those 20th-century visionaries who first sought to propel our civilization beyond our atmosphere. These state-sponsored space administrations and the public-private partnerships which today exist in service to space travel and research are not enough to undertake this repurposing. We need our "open-source" public efforts to become a kind of popular fascination, like the one seen in the 1950s "space race." However, even the number of users currently contributing to the SETI app would be an excellent start to collaborative design and build efforts that would benefit our repurposing and tether-building efforts.
Such seeds of public fascination in an enterprise can direct public initiatives, both investment and intellectual capital into enterprises no less interesting and potentially far more vital than the some of the mechanisms of today's Silicon Valley-style capitalism. Furthermore, this will give us a new arena for the development of information technology businesses in conjunction with these new generations of networks and satellite communications, which will make high-speed Internet far more accessible to the entire planet and will overwhelmingly strengthen the global information space of mankind, moving global civilization ever closer to the realization of a true "noosphere."
Finally, I would reiterate that the focus on the cost of an industrial space lift should not be on the hundreds of millions of dollars in the initial outlay – but rather on the many trillions of dollars that could be generated by making this bold step. The A.O.L. transport infrastructure will confer great economic effects by the creation of a global industry in near-earth development; and just as on land, where railways and ports do not always bring the largest of profits, yet they do underpin the life of entirely greater industries and regions, so will millions of inhabitants benefit by industries developing out into the many hundreds of billions of dollars.
I hope that you will all leave this conversation with a somewhat clearer idea of the purpose and design of my industrial space lift, the "Agapov Orbital Lift", and as well will consider endorsing Mr. Ben Zion and the "Futurist New Deal;" I believe that the architects of this plan truly do have your best interests as techno-optimists at heart.
Editor's Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) has not yet, as of this publication, endorsed a candidate for U.S. President. Therefore, the statement in the last sentence above by Mr. Agapov should be considered to be his personal opinion only at this time. Readers can view the profiles of all USTP Presidential Primary candidates and make informed decisions regarding which candidate(s) and which of their proposals to support.
Open-Source Business Developer Nikolay Agapov and Transhumanist Party Presidential Primary Candidate Johannon Ben Zion In Conversation: On Near-Earth/Space Development, the Orbital Ring, and the Design for the Agapov Orbital Lift
June 12, 2019 Nikolay Agapov and Johannon Ben Zion Comments 3 comments
Editor's Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party (USTP) publishes this interview between Johannon Ben Zion and Nikolay Agapov to advance the goals of Section XVII of the USTP Platform, which states that "The United States Transhumanist Party holds that present and future societies should take all reasonable measures to embrace and fund space travel, not only for the spirit of adventure and to gain knowledge by exploring the universe, but as an ultimate safeguard to its citizens and transhumanity should planet Earth become uninhabitable or be destroyed." The construction of a highly economical infrastructure project such as the Agapov Orbital Lift would greatly reduce the costs of space travel and thus enable rapid exploration and development of space for the benefit of humankind and all sentient entities – thus also accelerating our transition into the next era of our civilization. As of this time, the USTP has not yet endorsed a Presidential candidate but welcomes activity from all of our Presidential Primary candidates to advance the USTP Platform.
Read the English-language outline for the Agapov Orbital Lift, written by Nikolay Agapov, here.
Johannon Ben Zion: We live in different countries; we've never met! Should we talk about how we met?
Nikolay Agapov: Yes, Ben, having heard of your Arizona Transhumanist Party's "Orbital Ring" publicity push, I felt I would have been remiss if I didn't reach out to the Arizona Transhumanist Party and your U.S. Presidential candidacy with the Transhumanist Party, and offer to make a comparison and further study of the respective designs, my team's included. I like to tell people that I am an "open-source" business developer in this context, and an avid supporter of the near-earth industrialization, in contrast to "pure exploration."
I principally come from an educational background in economics with a specialization in business administration. I have made an extensive study of the global economic environment in the course of my international business studies and striven to understand and emulate the careers and novel methods of innovators like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs.
I have always been interested in the topic of space exploration and in the process of studying at the university, I began to develop extensive plans for near-earth industrialization with the relatively smaller-budgeted space agencies in mind, as Roscosmos now has, and also a focus on high attractiveness to investors.
In addition, I have often written of as well as developed several designs in the field of solid-fuel rocket engines. Making solid propellant rockets cheaper and more environmentally friendly with the ability to raise their efficiency to the level of liquid engines has been a central focus of my work.
After writing and developing in these areas for quite some time, I am convinced that space agencies and businesses are not nearly focused enough on outcomes or growth, which is why I have become an "open-source" business developer; network effects and "crowd-sourcing" effects in research and development must be better utilized if we are to quicken the pace of technological advancement.
The main goal of space businesses and agencies is the development of civilizational impacts of space-faring, the transition of humanity to the level of a true space-faring civilization. And all smaller projects should be viewed as merely steps to this larger goal.
It is not so much of an overstatement to say that modern space administrations in fact remain mechanisms of the state-run propaganda that arose during the period of escalation during the Cold War. Their goal is to maintain a certain prestige and visibility, through periodic campaigns and in the launching of scientific probes, etc. A "Space Age cynic" such as myself will view many of these endeavors as not always directly contributing to the aforementioned "transition to a space-faring civilization." As for the real, practical, space exploration, they have no idea how to develop it and do not strive for it.
As a result, I have completely updated my approaches to the industrialization of space, in the form of more networked or "crowdsourcing-ready" businesses and more results-oriented public agencies. Since I've read more recently of your "Futurist New Deal", I do hope that you will continue your commitment to near-earth industrialization as we first discussed.
JBZ: Well, yes, we absolutely will. Although our campaign is focused on domestic economic policy and e-governance issues now, all of our near-term undertakings are intended to set the stage for your "transition to a space-faring civilization," or a true post-industrial society more broadly.
Nikolay Agapov: My team has our own approaches to the development of space expansion and the end goal, the preparation for the colonization of space, a goal I believe best achieved through the creation of a permanent transportation system to our nearest neighbor, the Moon. The more than one trillion dollars that have been spent in the pursuit of space travel have not had this focus, been a rather poor use of funds, with a somewhat disappointing result all told. I believe that you yourself told me in our first conversation that the efforts of your space agency [NASA] were "the most expensive PR campaign."
JBZ: Yes, I said, "The most expensive PR campaign in history" and basically one with surprisingly little focus on tangible production outcomes, a concern I share with you. A popular, if a little operatic view of the history of NASA is one to which I do subscribe to a certain degree myself, at least in principle. It's a distrustful sentiment that really gets to the heart of most of this confused thinking on the NASA subject in a roundabout sort of way; the NASA "conspiracy theories" are largely rooted, I believe, in this feeling that this whole operation was a "Cold War" publicity stunt – a very expensive one – that didn't "build" much of anything, in structural engineering terms at least – although it contributed to the production of any number of groundbreaking technological breakthroughs argued for in hindsight as justification of the expense, and quite rightly argued considering the impact of those things – in spite of the lack of interest in "near-earth industrialization" by the parties in question.
Nikolay Agapov: I would say that the "Space Age" tropes that both derived from and guided these somewhat odd goals have themselves become codified, leading to impractical implementations (or as we've suggested above, a lack thereof) and also a "monoculture," where what began as nebulous goals, have become codified by science-fiction fanatics, films, and television – so that all interest, popular or industrial, is centering on rockets and journeys beyond our sphere which are very exciting – but a little ineffable as to their purpose relative to the building of things.
JBZ: Most of us at the Transhumanist Party are believers in technocratic solutions, even some beyond the 20th-century or early post-industrial models of today – and I am one of those. The principles of technocracy and automation-centered policy making would do quite a bit to solve these problems in private and public space initiatives.
Nikolay Agapov: Modernized countries share a technocratic approach to their organization.
JBZ: Yes, it's odd to me that so many in the USA view technocracy as an ugly word. I regard myself (and all those involved in the "Futurist New Deal" do as well) as an "economic populist", but I view this tendency to criticize technocracy as something to be viewed with skepticism, a "false populist phenomenon," that derives from what is sometimes called in the USA "know-nothing"-ism, a set of anti-science and low-information cultural values that poison, well, many, if not most, earnest efforts in public policy and the ordering of a civil society.
Nikolay Agapov: Yes, and your "futurists" would be doing the right thing in trying to counteract this other failing in thinking about technology and progress.
JBZ: How expensive would your space elevator be? What's the cost of the most expensive or extravagant elevator or orbital ring you'd like to build, since I know we've discussed a few with cost in mind?
Nikolay Agapov: Incorporating the existing but non-operational space stations described in my prospectus into the design, using a tether with a specialized design using Kevlar, carbon fiber, or polyethylene materials designs that could sustain the tether and a series of relatively small additional payloads, a little smaller than a human at first – as I've described in our prospectus.
JBZ: Yes, I was imagining a bunch of little "Roombas" scooting up there to the space station to then be boosted off to the moon and do some work.
Nikolay Agapov: Yes, these types of remotely controlled or semi-autonomous devices should be among the easier parts of our "work order" to fulfill. And as the system is judged to be stable, more tethers would be built, a number of these which are stable would perhaps allow for very low-cost space tourism, travel from Earth to the space station in a matter of days at that time shortly after the initial stabilization of the tether, but it is quite likely that other materials designs for tethers would be required, delaying the tourism part, which I regard as the smallest part of this undertaking compared to getting "robots" out in earth's orbit fixing and building existing and new infrastructure, respectively, and traveling on to do so on the Moon as well.
Using materials costs from the Eurasian markets and including the estimates of existing but underutilized space infrastructure and present-day tether materials (despite their payload limitations), I would put the total costs at 100 – 500 million dollars. This 500% variation in costs would be due to the uncertain nature of building in orbit and the problems with constructing and maintaining the tether, as well as market uncertainties for the materials needed.
JBZ: That's 100-500 million right? Millions, 1 and six zeroes, 1,000,000? Is that what you are saying?
Nikolay Agapov: Yes.
JBZ: That's many billions of dollars lower than any of the prospecti I've seen, some of which push up to a trillion dollars.
Nikolay Agapov: Building systems for space tourism would be a lot more than a few hundred million dollars, as those systems are built and rebuilt to higher standards, but by that time there will occur an immense economic impact from making better use of building in orbit or on the Moon and the ways that they would impact existing markets, with cheaper and better satellites, new energy developments in solar and other renewable energies, and the appeal and benefits of industrializing in earth's orbit and on the moon. As a result, those significant added costs for stronger elevators would be happily undertaken by those industries.
JBZ: I am still a little taken aback with this "low" budget. That is a number that Elon Musk, Peter Diamandis, or many of these guys could fund based on their companies' valuations just by diverting some portion of funds from other space companies.
Nikolay Agapov: Maybe. Your question about the most expensive project I can think of – I don't think is a serious one. The "most expensive design" is to continue building rockets if operating cost and environmental impact are no concern.
JBZ: Fair enough. Your prospectus states that you could have this design completed and financially self-sustaining in 3-5 years. Do you stand by that?
Nikolay Agapov: Yes and no. If the project was fully funded and international cooperation and many other political factors were dealt with independently – then yes, absolutely. I think that the cooperation of U.S. and Russian space agencies and associated corporations and entities may be enough to accomplish this.
JBZ: It would take a mighty fine group of statesmen and women to accomplish such a thing.
Nikolay Agapov: Maybe, maybe not.
JBZ: If such a project could be built so cheaply, why hasn't it been done yet?
Nikolay Agapov: I would answer "politics" more than "design", but I would also include with that concern, the lack of motivation and the focus on these "popular imagination" and "sci-fi-genre media-driven" goals we spoke of, resulting in the "rich guys with big rockets" and tourism over industrialization. Industry is a more controversial design principle because it is perceived as being more "invasive" or "less ecological", although in practice the opposite is true; rockets have been and still are much worse. Irony.
JBZ: The design like the one that I had been sharing with others was to build out an entirely new orbital ring with a "PBO", also known as "Zylon" tether and with a $10 billion total price tag. That's the "Low Cost Design for an Orbital Ring" by California engineer David Nelson, I believe, and published July of 2017. I should say it's possible he's a bit of a shy character; after a few attempts I've not been able to actually identify him (his writing has been republished, and Dave Nelson is an extremely common name in the U.S.) nor contact him for comment. It's also a design that requires a 10-plus-year build timeline.
Nikolay Agapov: I've read all about this design, and he's done a lot of good work, but I think we can do a lot better with a smaller, more industry-focused orbital ring. The option of using the decommissioned space station as a counterweight is a major selling point for us, but it, too, requires international and national politicking, as well as the business acumen of my organization and other private space companies.
JBZ: Therein lies the rub, but it starts with getting people excited and having these conversations outside of the typical bluster of these discussions as nationalistic or symbolic endeavors. If I had 100 million dollars, I would be investing that money into this today, and to that end I hope we can link to your outline at least, for our readers, here.
Nikolay Agapov: Yes, that is fine, but bear in mind the full prospectus is written in Russian, and this outline of concepts was also written in English, but there remain a few proofreading concerns, so please be patient. This outline at the time of its publication had not had the benefit of a translator, as this interview has.
JBZ: But feel free to comment and discuss with us,;we will be happy to engage with you. The function of such a thing is to answer questions and bring in new ideas and hopefully get a working space elevator built soon.
Nikolay Agapov: Yes, thank you for your time.
Wealth, Power, and the Prospect of Reversing Aging – Article by Arin Vahanian
May 18, 2019 Arin Vahanian Comments 0 Comment
Arin Vahanian
I often ask myself, "Why do wealthy and/or influential people seem to support spending billions of dollars on weapons and exploring outer space, when, with their massive wealth and resources, they could help reduce human suffering and dramatically improve the quality of life for billions of people?"
And this question takes me back to a discussion I had last year with gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, during which he recounted to me a meeting he had with an ultra high-net-worth (UHNW) individual. The purpose of the meeting was to raise money for aging and life-extension research, and the UHNW individual refused to donate to SENS Research Foundation, or even to get involved, stating something to the effect of, "It won't happen in my lifetime."
That response perplexed me. Here we had a very successful and intelligent person, who, rather than help ensure his own children (as well as others' children) could live a healthier and longer life, refused to do anything, for the simple reason that he did not believe we could make much progress on reversing aging in his lifetime.
While this is indeed a selfish way to look at things, it is by no means uncommon. In fact, I have been racking my brain recently, trying to figure out why the people who are best-equipped to do something about life extension and aging, do not do so (or do not do enough).
To be fair, there are a few wealthy and influential people who support research into aging and life extension, the most notable being entrepreneur Jim Mellon. However, they seem to be the exception rather than the norm.
Indeed, why do people like Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk, who possess incredible resources and influence, choose to spend money and time on attempting to colonize hostile, uninhabitable planets hundreds of millions of kilometers away, especially considering that they and their loved ones (if they are lucky to live long enough) will die of aging-related causes such as heart disease, dementia, and cancer?
While I cannot speak for the aforementioned people, I believe there are several reasons why people in a position of power or wealth refuse to do much about supporting research on aging.
The first reason is that aging and death have been considered inevitable. Indeed, even though we have been able to put a human being on the Moon, we have been unable to prevent a single human being from aging. Enormously wealthy and successful people tend to be quite pragmatic, and so I imagine that they would not want to fund an endeavor or be a part of something they believed had no chance of success. However, we have evidence that we are making progress on this front, or at the very least, that reversing aging and implementing life-extension technologies are worthy endeavors.
In fact, in 2005, MIT Technology Review organized a panel of world-renowned experts (including molecular biologists) and offered a $20,000 prize to anyone who could disprove the SENS research program and demonstrate that reversing aging is not worthy of consideration. However, none of the contestants were able to do so. On the other hand, there is no evidence that human life is sustainable on any other planets in our solar system (while human life is perfectly sustainable on Earth), and by most professional estimates, it would take incredible technological advancements and financial resources to even enable people to temporarily stay on a planet such as Mars. We should also consider the fact that there have been no studies performed on the massive changes that would occur to the human body as a result of living on another planet.
Thus, it actually appears more realistic to work on reversing aging than it would be to work on colonizing other planets. But even if we are not able to completely reverse aging, what if we were able to slow aging? Wouldn't it be desirable to have an additional five to 10 years of healthy life? Any progress we could make on life extension would be worth it, given that it would directly add healthy years to a person's life. One thing is for certain – doing nothing ensures that very little will change, and that humans will more than likely continue living this average lifespan of 79 or so years (with very modest improvements over time), with much of it in the later years being in sickness and poor health.
Another reason for the refusal to fund aging and life extension research may be a rather pessimistic one. It is entirely possible that billionaires and governments are hedging their bets in the event that climate change or some other scenario causes wide-scale suffering (the likes of which have never been seen before) and a potential destruction of the planet, along with the rapid extinction of the human species. If that were the case, and Earth was about to be destroyed, it would make sense to pour resources into colonizing other planets. However, I think the likelihood of something like this occurring, at least in the near future, is extremely slim. Further, we have much evidence to support the fact that the planet could sustain a larger population and that technological improvements, as well as renewable energy, and seasteading, can prevent such an apocalyptic scenario from occurring. In fact, despite the challenges we are facing in terms of sustainability, we are making good progress, and it seems unreasonable to me to give all of this up, throw in the towel, and chase a pipe dream of living on another planet (when the one we have now is perfectly suited to human life). Also, given that we have the technology to save our planet from being engulfed in chaos and destruction, but do not currently have the technology to live on other planets, wouldn't it make sense to save Earth first, rather than attempting to embark upon costly journeys to other planets, especially journeys that have little guarantee of success?
Yet another reason may be that many people, including those in a position of power, have bought into the idea of an afterlife. However, if we are completely honest with ourselves, there is no evidence that an afterlife exists, whereas there is evidence that we are making progress with reversing aging, even if that progress is arriving at a pace that is slower than we would have liked. With that being said, I would never want to deny anyone the right to believe in whatever they want. The question is, however, whether it is beneficial to adopt a zero-sum attitude to this matter. The fact is, believing in an afterlife and contributing to aging and life-extension research are not mutually exclusive. One can have any religious beliefs one likes, and subscribe to the idea that there is an afterlife, while also contributing to the beauty of existence here on Earth.
Finally, working on a cause such as reversing aging appears to not be as exciting as the prospect of exploring Mars, which is why people would rather update their LinkedIn (or Tinder) profile with "Entrepreneur" or "Swashbuckling Adventurer" or "Arms Dealer", even, rather than "Gerontologist". In all seriousness, though, I have always found the idea of exploring faraway lands, as well as other planets, to be exciting. But if human beings are excited about exploring the unknown, shouldn't we also be interested in exploring a process as complex as aging, especially given that there is much we still do not know about it? Also, the implications of making advancements in this field are huge. This is because the un-sexy work that gerontologists are doing will lead to us living longer, healthier lives, and so this very important work should not be ignored. In fact, it is a massive waste of resources to try to colonize uninhabitable planets at the expense of ensuring good health and longevity, when all of humanity battles with disease and death. It would even be more noble to focus our efforts on eliminating poverty (something that the Chinese government, for instance, has dedicated its efforts to).
I do not wish to dissuade anyone from exploring outer space, but neither should we avoid doing what needs to be done on our planet. I only wish to ask whether spending billions on space exploration is the best use of resources at our disposal, considering that there is still much work to be done here on Earth.
As mentioned previously, it should not be a zero-sum game. In an ideal world, we could dedicate resources to both aging research and space exploration. However, when the budget for NASA is $21.5 billion and the budget for aging research at the National Institute on Aging is $40 million, one has to start asking questions. Actually, one could argue neither budget is large enough, especially given that the U.S. Department of Defense budget is $686 billion.
Why do we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on missiles and bombs to combat a highly-exaggerated threat, when there is the absolute certainty that billions of people will suffer and then die, many of them prematurely, due to aging-related diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and dementia?
What makes exploring outer space so much more important than ensuring that billions do not die prematurely from aging-related diseases? Will picking up and holding red dust on a hostile, uninhabitable planet be more fulfilling than holding one's child or loved one in one's arms?
What does it say about our society when we are content to allow friends and family members to perish in undignified ways, while we dream about stockpiling as many weapons as possible, reliving fictional fantasies inspired by comic books and movies, and ignoring challenges here on Earth?
These are questions we must ask ourselves, and, more importantly, must demand those in power to ask themselves. At the end of the day, if we as a society are comfortable with the tradeoffs and decide en masse that dealing weapons and exploring outer space are more important than working on curing disease, reversing aging, and ensuring that everyone on Earth lives a dignified life, then we can rest assured knowing that we gave this most important of topics much consideration.
However, given the facts, I do not think we have reached that point yet. We have, however, reached a point where there is promise that we are making progress in fighting aging, and it is irresponsible and reckless to ignore these gains while entertaining fantasies of living on other planets. It makes little sense to try to live in a dignified manner on a dangerous, inhospitable, isolated planet that is not suitable for human life, when we are having difficulty living in a dignified manner here on Planet Earth (a planet that is perfectly suited to human life). The solution is not to dream about moving to Mars while leaving the elderly and unhealthy here to die. The solution is also not to increase defense funding, when we already have more weapons than we know what to do with. The solution is to help our brothers and sisters here on Earth live longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. And thus, this is a call to action for those of you who are in a position of power or wealth and who can dedicate resources to ensuring that your loved ones, and everyone else's loved ones, can live better.
One thing I would like to ask UHNW individuals and politicians is, what will you do with the great wealth, status, and power you have accumulated? Will you play golf and remark that "it won't happen in my lifetime"? Or will you actually do something to ensure that your children won't be doomed to a short life, during which they will suffer from debilitating disease and eventually die?
Arin Vahanian is the Director of Marketing for the U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party.
Happy New Years – Space Painting by Ekaterinya Vladinakova
January 1, 2019 Ekaterinya Vladinakova Comments 0 Comment
Ekaterinya Vladinakova
"Happy New Years" by Ekaterinya Vladinakova
Left-click on the image for a fuller view. You can also download this painting (3265 by 5000 pixels) here.
Happy New Years – indefinitely many of them! As we celebrate the arrival of 2019, we can find great inspiration in this painting by Ekaterinya Vladinakova. May we someday stand on worlds such as this distant cratered planet and observe nebulas like this one in glorious color.
Ekaterinya Vladinakova is an accomplished digital painter. See her gallery here and her DeviantArt page here.
What President Trump Should Focus on Instead of the Border Wall – Article by Alex Lightman
December 24, 2018 Alex Lightman Comments 1 comment
Alex Lightman
Editor's Note: The U.S. Transhumanist Party is home to many innovative thinkers who offer more forward-looking and far superior policy solutions than those pursued by either of the major political parties in the United States. This brief article by Alex Lightman, Campaign Director for the California Transhumanist Party, is an example of how even a few constructive, inspiring, big-picture ideas by transhumanists could revolutionize politics for the better and help us construct the next era of our civilization. What could Donald Trump be focusing on instead of his brinksmanship over an unnecessary border wall? Mr. Lightman explores the alternatives here.
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, December 24, 2018
I am stunned by this Presidency. If I were President of the United States, I would be obsessively focused on:
1. Space Migration – Setting up permanent bases and thriving colonies on the moon (for Helium 3, one shuttle load of which could cleanly power the entire US for a few weeks) and Mars (as a base for jumping off to other worlds and mining the asteroid belt).
2. Intelligence Increase – I would focus on raising average IQ from what I believe to be 87 to over 106, equal to the highest national average in Asia. IQ can be raised by 19 points within six weeks.
3. Life Extension – Average life expectancy in the US has dropped three years in a row after 114 years of steady increase that DOUBLED life expectancy. The USA ranks in the 25-50 range in key health measures, including infant mortality. I think a smart Presidency could boost average life expectancy by 5-15 years.
4. Acceleration of Innovation – just implementing the 200-page national innovation plan I was paid to write by the Obama White House would do this. It's ready to implement and there is nothing comparable to it ever tried by any nation in history.
5. Smart Green Augmented Cities – I can't understand why Donald Trump, real-estate developer, doesn't use some of the $20-25 trillion he has to play with during a four-year term to create a novel, brilliant, beautiful, state-of-the-art city that sets a new high standard and serves as an archetype and living laboratory for all future cities.
Instead, the Border Wall is where his head is.
If I were him, I would ask someone like me, "Why are the people from Mexico and Central America coming? What can we do to make their countries successful?" I spent $300,000 or so of my own money figuring this out, and I shared the results with Mexico's Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Energy, and Director of Sustainability, and they all said my plan made sense.
My point isn't that I am the only one with a plan. When you are the US government, you can hire thousands of people like me and have them come up with thousands of possible solutions and then implement these solutions.
Trump claims that his art form is the art of the deal. A deal that helped Mexico and Central America be successful would be easy to strike with Democrats.
Alex Lightman, Campaign Director for the California Transhumanist Party, has 25 years of management and social innovation experience and 15 years of chairman and chief executive experience. He is an award-winning inventor with multiple U.S. patents issued or pending and author of over one million published words, including the first book on 4G wireless, and over 150 articles in major publications. He chaired and organized 17 international conferences with engineers, scientists, and government officials since 2002, with the intention of achieving policy breakthroughs related to innovation. He is a world-class innovator and recipient of the first Economist magazine Readers' Choice Award for "The Innovation that will Most Radically Change the World over the Decade 2010 to 2020" (awarded Oct. 21, 2010, out of 4,000 initial suggestions and votes over 5 months from 200 countries, and from 32 judges). He is the recipient of the 2nd Reader's Award (the posthumous recipient announced 10/21/2011 was Steve Jobs). He is also the winner of the only SGI Internet 3D contest (both Entertainment and Grand Prize) out of 800 contestants.
Social innovation work includes repeatedly putting almost unknown technologies and innovation-accelerating policies that can leverage the abilities of humanity into the mainstream of media, business, government, foundations, and standards bodies, including virtual reality, augmented reality, Internet Protocol version 6, and 4G wireless broadband, open spectrum, technology transfer to developing countries, unified standards, crowd-sourcing, and collective intelligence, via over 40 US government agencies, over 40 national governments, and via international entities including the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Political credentials include a national innovation plan entitled "The Acceleration of American Innovation" for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, work for U.S. Senator Paul E. Tsongas (D-MA) and on several state campaigns and U.S. presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates (Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt), presentations to the United Nations, and advisory services to the governments of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, New Zealand, Australia, Philippines, Japan, China, Korea, and India, as well as to the U.S. Congress, the White House (via the Office of Management and Budget), the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Information Systems Agency, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Mr. Lightman is trained as an engineer at MIT and as a prospective diplomat and policy analyst at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Mountain in the Jungle: Habitable Exomoon – Painting by Ekaterinya Vladinakova
December 20, 2018 Ekaterinya Vladinakova Comments 0 Comment
"Mountain in the Jungle: Habitable Exomoon" by Ekaterinya Vladinakova
The terraformed surface of an exomoon – another illustration by Ekaterinya Vladinakova of the lush worlds that can be created as a result of our species' colonization of the cosmos. Let humanity venture forth to both discover and create such splendid new environments!


text:
Malinda's Table
Best Advice Ever
Leaving the Table
Leica and the Jews
Malinda Muzi
LEAVE OUT THE TRAGIC PARTS
Whence and Whither
The Jew Who Is Saving the World
The Witch and the Dollhouse
John and Jarrett: I Think I'm Gonna Be Sad
WHAT'S A DOG FOR?
THIS WOMAN'S HOME ON THE ROAD
STAY OUT OF CHINA
VAN MORRISON AND THE CHIEFTAINS
WHO ARE THESE TRUMP PEOPLE?
YOU KNOW THAT
THE LADIES MENU
ROBERT ISN'T HERE
SO WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING?
THE CORONA VIRUS FIFTEEN
IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THESE GUYS ARE ACADEMICS, OR IS IT?
About Malinda
Malinda@MalindaJoMuzi.com
Malinda Jo Muzi has been a college professor for more than 50 years. Her specialties include child development, lifespan development, and parenting. Her textbooks: Psychology: A Biographical Approach, The Child Through Time and Transition, and The Experience of Parenting has been used in college classrooms across the country. Her advise has been featured in Family Circle and Parent's magazine. Her recent book Your Kids, Their Lives: A Parent's Guide to Raising happy, Competent, Caring Children is available on Amazon in book or e-book format. Her novel, Invisible Loyalties, is available on Amazon.
> READ MORE About Malinda
A Thinking Woman's Blog
Regards to women everywhere. I have started Malinda's Table in hopes of sharing what I've learned over more than 75 years on the planet and more than 50 years as a college professor, psychologist, and author. This is not to be immodest but rather to present interesting, informative, and sometimes humorous bits of information to women who want to learn new things in subjects as diverse as history, relationships, children, books, food, music and the arts, and design. I've also included a section on people who have left the table forever but are worth remembering. I'm looking forward to a great response by intelligent women who sometimes have trouble being heard in our male-dominated society. So join me at Malinda's Table. Bring your thoughts and ideas. Pull up a chair and become one with us.
Mainline Times
All Events Will Be From My Backyard Until the Virus Passes
Please check back.
Who would execute a little old Jewish lady in the parking lot of Saks? When Miriam Lavin is found shot to death after a Friday night of shopping, the case falls to three police officers in Lower Merion, a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia. The lead investigator is William Sutor, a middle-aged, never-married police lieutenant of German descent, living with his father, a rabid anti-Semite. Sutor is assisted by Rhonda Robinson, an ambitious African-American detective intent on moving up in the predominately male, white force, and Colin McKendrick, a reluctant cop who hides his discontent under a macho exterior. When Sutor falls in love with the primary murder suspect, Jewish literature professor Melanie Marconi, their affair interferes with the pursuit of justice. As evidence mounts against Melanie, the conflict between personal and professional conduct threatens to unravel the case and destroy Sutor's career. Invisible Loyalties is a tale of family betrayal as well as one of friendship and love between people of different ethnic backgrounds and family experiences.
Copyright © 2021 Malinda Jo Muzi. All Rights Reserved. Follow me on


The Fundacion Paso del Norte is a Mexican Asociacion Civil established in 2015 to support programs that improve the quality of life of children, youth and families in the region by leading, advancing and promoting initiatives, programs and partnerships for health and well-being. The Fundacion established a fund in the Paso del Norte Community Foundation to facilitate gifts on both sides of the border - including an extraordinary $1 million challenge grant from the Hunt Family Foundation that will match fifty cents for every dollar raised for charitable organizations and causes in Ciudad Juárez.
The Fundacion Paso del Norte para la Salud y Bienestar is a Juárez-based nonprofit organization established in 2015 by the Paso del Norte Health Foundation to improve the quality of life of children, youth and families in the region by leading, advancing and promoting initiatives, programs and partnerships for health and well-being.
The Fundacion Paso del Norte is led by a 13-member volunteer board of directors and 4-member staff dedicated to the mission of the organization.