oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

Beloved Pharaoh. Born: June 3rd., 2003 – Died: June 19th., 2017.

A very special dog that will never be forgotten.

Like many other people, I am fascinated by the dark, clear, night sky. It appears to go on forever.

But this ‘foreverness’ is just our galaxy.

As is said in the following article: “…. if Earth were the size of a pea, the distance to Proxima Centauri would roughly equal the distance between New York and Sydney, Australia.”

The article shows how distant we are, how small we are, how irrelevant we are, in the vastness of the universe.

This article is republished courtesy of The Conversation.

ooOOoo

Could aliens ever visit Earth? An aerospace scientist unpacks the challenges of interstellar spaceflight

Kai James, Georgia Institute of Technology

On May 22, 2026, the Pentagon released a second batch of previously classified photos and videos showing what appear to be unexplained flying objects. These file dumps were the culmination of a process that was set in motion back in July 2023, when a group of government whistleblowers testified before Congress that the U.S. government was secretly in possession of extraterrestrial spacecraft and suspected alien body parts.

That congressional hearing marked the beginning of a cultural shift in which UFO reports are increasingly treated as a matter for serious discussion, both within the government and the scientific community.

But is this newfound legitimacy deserved? As an aerospace scientist who studies aircraft and spacecraft design, I approach this question using math, physics and the principles of engineering. To assess the plausibility of alien visitors, it’s necessary to understand the obstacles that an extraterrestrial vessel would need to overcome to reach Earth.

The tyranny of distance

There is no evidence of intelligent alien life in our solar system. So any extraterrestrial visitors would likely have to come from another star system within our Milky Way galaxy.

Proxima Centauri, the star closest to our Sun, is located 4.25 light-years (about 25 trillion miles or 40 trillion kilometers) away.

For perspective, if Earth were the size of a pea, the distance to Proxima Centauri would roughly equal the distance between New York and Sydney, Australia.

Even the stars closest to Earth are incredibly far away.

Since only a fraction of stars are thought to host intelligent life, the nearest alien civilization – if one exists – is surely much farther away than Proxima.

A need for speed

Given the scale of interstellar distances, it’s inevitable that any alien voyage to Earth would span many years and possibly several centuries. But as the time spent in transit increases, so does the risk of catastrophic accidents or system malfunctions that could jeopardize the mission. So it’s important to avoid an overly lengthy journey by traveling as fast as possible.

No object can reach or exceed the speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second). But well before approaching that threshold, engineering constraints begin to assert themselves. Limited fuel availability and the potential for structural damage will restrict the spacecraft’s peak velocity.

There is no universally accepted upper limit on interstellar flight speeds, but studies tend to converge around 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) – 10% of the speed of light – as a realistic cruise velocity. At this speed, a journey of 10 light-years will take approximately 100 years to complete.

Fueling the dream

Finding a way to accelerate the ship to its target cruise speed is the central challenge facing any would-be alien explorers.

Interstellar space is unforgivingly vast, but the emptiness has some advantages. The lack of atmosphere means there is no aerodynamic drag. So when the ship reaches its cruise speed, it can shut down its propulsion system and coast toward the final destination. Unfortunately, the lack of atmosphere also means there is nothing to slow the ship down prior to arrival. So ideally, the propulsion system would be used for both acceleration at the start of the trip and deceleration at the end.

One of the more exotic propulsion strategies employs high-powered laser beams to push the ship through space. The beam is projected from a stationary array near the travelers’ home planet and directed toward a thin reflective sail attached to the ship. The beam’s photons exert radiation pressure on the sail, propelling the ship forward.

This approach has a major advantage in that it requires no onboard fuel. But the amount of energy and infrastructure needed to operate the laser would be staggering. Also, beamed propulsion provides no mechanism for deceleration. At best, this method could be deployed as part of a hybrid strategy that uses a separate system for deceleration.

A more practical approach is to use rocket propulsion. Rockets generate propulsive force, also known as thrust, by expelling high-velocity exhaust in a rearward stream. By reversing the direction of the exhaust, rockets can also be used to slow the ship down.

Their main disadvantage is that rockets must carry their own fuel in addition to carrying the passengers, the habitat and other life-sustaining systems. The extra load necessitates even more fuel. In other words, you need fuel to transport your fuel. The result is a costly snowball effect that can cause the total fuel requirement to balloon to absurd proportions.

Rocket propulsion can be divided into three broad categories.

Chemical propulsion uses chemical reactions – typically combustion – to extract energy from the bonds between atoms. All human space missions thus far have used chemical propulsion. The problem with this method is that it accesses only a tiny fraction of the energy contained within the fuel.

Consequently, using chemical propulsion on a spacecraft with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require more fuel than all the mass in the observable universe.

Antimatter propulsion is theoretically the most efficient option. When antimatter comes into contact with ordinary matter, the two undergo mutual annihilation and 100% of their combined mass is converted into energy. This makes it possible to achieve the same cruise velocity – one-tenth the speed of light – with fuel accounting for less than a quarter of the ship’s total mass. This is science fiction-level fuel efficiency, which makes antimatter an attractive option for interstellar propulsion.

The downside is that antimatter is extremely unstable and difficult to make. To date, particle physicists have produced less than 20 billionths of a gram of antimatter. Moreover, these particles had lifespans lasting only fractions of a second and a price tag in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nuclear fusion offers a more viable alternative to antimatter. This approach harvests energy stored inside the nucleus of an atom using the same process that powers the Sun. With current technology, fusion engines remain aspirational, but they could, in theory, produce 10 million times more energy per kilogram than chemical rockets.

Still, a fusion-powered ship with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require fuel equivalent to 150 times the mass of the ship itself.

A delicate balancing act

These numbers assume that our extraterrestrial visitors have figured out how to efficiently convert the energy released by their reactor – whether nuclear fusion or antimatter – into thrust.

Just as importantly, they must be able to create optimized fuel tank structures that are ultra lightweight yet highly secure. Designing the structure of the ship, from the fuel tanks to the hull, would be one of the biggest engineering challenges of the entire mission.

Interstellar space contains a sparse smattering of hydrogen atoms and microscopic grains of cosmic dust. At 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s), dust particles would smash into the ship’s hull with the energy of a .22-caliber bullet. The bombardment of hydrogen atoms would produce a violent cascade of radiation that could erode even the most resilient engineering materials.

Surviving the onslaught would require no less than a flying fortress with complex magnetic shielding. This would increase the total mass of the ship, which further drives up the demand for fuel.

This example is just one of the hundreds of delicate design trade-offs that would plague any interstellar vessel. Each individual design requirement acts as a filter, reducing the number of feasible solutions.

Finding a single system that simultaneously satisfies all the requirements is analogous to shopping for a car online. With each new filter you apply – four-wheel drive, black exterior, less than 10,000 miles on the odometer – the number of available options dwindles.

When design requirements are in tension with one another – for example, requiring a structure that is lightweight but also supremely durable – the number of feasible solutions can drop to zero.

No single law of physics prohibits an interstellar voyage to Earth. But the combined effects of hundreds of extreme, often conflicting engineering requirements may render it physically infeasible.

It’s also possible that alien civilizations have discovered novel technologies that outperform anything currently known to humans. But like the examples discussed here, any such technology will inevitably encounter its own engineering hurdles.

The trillion-dollar question

Ultimately, engineering challenges are just some of the many barriers to interstellar travel. Any prospective alien visitors must also have sufficient cognitive ability, technological maturity, physical resources, collective desire and proximity to Earth.

That said, if the stars were to align and an alien vessel made it to Earth intact, it would trigger a torrent of burning questions: Where are they from? What do they want? What are they made of?

But the question that would go furthest in shedding light on the deeper mysteries of the universe is, “How on Earth did they get here?”

Kai James, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

Kai James poses the unanswerable questions in the last two paragraphs. And how about this statement: “Consequently, using chemical propulsion on a spacecraft with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require more fuel that all the mass in the observable universe.“

Penny sent me this post and I thought that I would be able to post it before now. However, it seems like the perfect item for today.

ooOOoo

How to Design a Stylish Home That Stands Up to Your Dog

Dog owners who care about décor know the daily tug-of-war between stylish pet-friendly interiors and real-life messes. A sofa that looks perfect can turn into a scratch magnet, clean walls collect nose smudges, and “nice” floors don’t always survive muddy paws, spilled water, or surprise zoomies. The heart of dog-friendly home design is balancing aesthetics and functionality without treating every room like a sacrifice zone. With the right mindset, pet damage challenges can become design boundaries that still leave a home feeling pulled together.

Make 7 Upgrades That Survive Paws, Spills, and Zoomies

If you’ve ever tried to keep a home looking pulled-together while living with a dog who treats the hallway like a racetrack, you already know the goal: durable choices that still feel like you. These upgrades focus on the high-impact trouble spots, floors, walls, entryways, feeding zones, and the yard, so your style holds up to real life.

1. Choose scratch-resistant flooring in the “runway” zones: If you can’t replace every floor, prioritize the routes your dog actually uses, entry → living room → back door. Look for scratch-resistant flooring with a tough wear layer, and use large, low-pile rugs (with a grippy pad) in corners where dogs pivot and launch. Keep nail trims on a 2–4 week rhythm to reduce micro-scratches, especially on stairs and landings.
2. Create a paw-and-mud landing strip at the entry: Give dirt and water a place to “stop” before it hits your sofa. Add a washable runner, a closed hamper for dog towels, and a hook or basket for wipes right by the door. A shallow boot tray works great as a water bowl “parking spot,” too, especially for sloppy drinkers.
3. Install a built-in dog feeding station (even a mini version): A built-in feeding station keeps bowls from wandering, helps contain splashes, and makes the feeding area feel intentional instead of cluttered. For a simple DIY approach, dedicate the bottom of a pantry cabinet or a mudroom nook and add a wipeable surface underneath. If your dog is a messy eater, choose deeper bowls and keep a small handheld vacuum nearby for daily 30-second resets.
4. Protect walls and corners with “invisible armor”: Paint scuffs and body-oil streaks happen right at nose height and shoulder height. Use a durable, wipeable finish on walls, and add corner guards or wood trim where dogs rub and turn. If you’re renting or not ready to build, a narrow console table along a high-traffic wall can act like a stylish bumper.
5. Set up a safe zoomie zone with flexible barriers: Instead of correcting your dog all day, manage the space. Use baby gates to block off carpeted rooms, kids’ toy areas, or the staircase when you can’t supervise. This is especially helpful during muddy season, post-bath chaos, or when guests are coming and you need a calm, contained zone fast.
6. Upgrade fabrics to “cleanable by default” seating: Treat your sofa like performance gear: tight weaves, washable covers, and darker or heathered colors hide fur and drool better than flat, light solids. Keep a throw blanket on your dog’s favorite spot and wash it weekly, your couch stays nicer without starting a daily battle.
7. Design pet-friendly landscaping for safe outdoor dog areas: Skip yard materials that can hurt paws or tempt chewing, and build a clear path where your dog naturally runs. Penn State Extension suggests flagstones or smooth gravel for pathways, which can reduce paw irritation and keep traffic from killing the grass. Aim for one easy-to-clean potty zone, one shaded “hangout” spot, and fencing you can trust, because outdoor durability counts just as much as indoor style.

Plan New-Home Peace of Mind: Ask About Structural Warranties

Those durability upgrades feel even better when your long-term protection matches the care you’re putting into the build. If you’re building a new dog-friendly home, ask your builder about adding a structural warranty or similar long-term protection, specifically, what’s included, how long it lasts, and how claims work. Solid warranty coverage for new builds can help safeguard the home’s underlying integrity if bigger issues show up later, which matters when everyday dog life adds extra wear and tear. It also helps protect the money you’re investing in pet-friendly choices like durable flooring and built-in features, so you’re not left feeling like you upgraded everything except your peace of mind.

Dog-Proof Design Options at a Glance

This quick comparison helps you choose finishes and features that look intentional, not improvised around your dog. Use it to balance durability, safety, and day-to-day convenience across high-traffic floors, outdoor boundaries, and feeding setups.

If traction and easy cleanup are your top priorities, start with flooring and add rugs where your dog sprints or turns fast. If curb appeal matters most, fence style and a discreet feeding zone can make pet features feel fully “designed in.” Knowing which option fits best makes your next move clear.

Dog-Friendly Design FAQs Homeowners Actually Ask

Q: Can a dog-friendly home still protect resale value?
A: Yes, when you choose features that read as timeless upgrades, not pet-only add-ons. Think durable floors in classic tones, washable textiles, and clean-lined storage that hides leashes and toys. Keep any pet-specific elements easy to remove or swap so the home still shows well to non-pet buyers.

Q: How do I keep my floors from looking wrecked in a year?
A: Start with prevention: trim nails regularly and place a textured runner where your dog launches into turns. Use felt pads under furniture and wipe up grit fast, since sand acts like sandpaper. A small “paw station” by the door can cut down on tracked-in dirt.

Q: What’s the simplest way to manage shedding and odors without losing the cozy vibe?
A: Choose low-pile rugs, slipcovers, and throws you can wash weekly, then stick to a quick two-minute daily sweep in high-shed zones. A lidded hamper for dog blankets keeps smells contained. Ventilate after baths and rainy walks so fabrics stay fresh.

Q: Should I build in a feeding area, or keep it flexible?
A: Built-ins look polished, but flexibility often wins for real life. Try a wipeable mat and a tray that can move for cleaning, guests, or a new bowl size. If you love the built-in idea, plan for extra width and a removable insert.

Q: Can my dog’s routine really affect how well my home holds up?
A: Absolutely, because calmer dogs tend to do less damage when they are bored or overstimulated. A simple step is choosing the best foods for your dog with your vet, since nutrition can influence energy and behavior. Pair that with predictable exercise and a designated chew zone to protect your furniture.

Make Stylish, Dog-Ready Design Choices That Last

Living with a dog can feel like a constant tug-of-war between a home that looks good and one that can handle real life. The calmer path is a mindset of integrating pets into home life, planning for paws, fur, and play while still aiming for stylish and functional living. When that approach guides confident dog owner design choices, harmonious dog-friendly homes become easier to maintain, not harder to enjoy. Design for the dog you live with, and style will follow. Choose one long-term pet-friendly design change to start this week, and let it set the tone for the rest of your space. A home that supports both of you builds daily ease, deeper connection, and resilience for the years ahead.

ooOOoo

That is an excellent set of recommendations, many of which would not have occurred to me. Neither to Jeannie, who has loads more experience of looking after dogs than I have.

So, thank you, Penny and I look forward to your next ‘guest’ post.

The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics

Book by Roger Penrose

Here is a summary of the book that is first, a very deep read, and, second, full of detailed mathematics that were beyond me. I just skipped those parts. However, it is an incredible book and one that has extended my knowledge in so many ways. I think that it isn’t going too far to say that it has amended my knowledge tremendously and I am so glad to have read it, even at the age of 81.

If you wish, you may refer to my thoughts when I first obtained the book, written down on April 14th.

ooOOoo

The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) by Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness involves non-computable processes, meaning a computer can never fully replicate the human mind, even if it can simulate its functions. Penrose uses Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and quantum mechanics to support his view, suggesting that consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain that are not algorithmic, and that a deeper understanding of physics, possibly involving quantum gravity, is needed to explain the mind. The book explores the “mind-body problem” and challenges the idea that all thinking is computation, proposing that human understanding can grasp truths that formal systems cannot. 

Key arguments and concepts

• Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Penrose argues that human mathematicians can see the truth of certain mathematical statements that a formal system (like a computer program) cannot prove, demonstrating a non-computable aspect of human thought. 
• Non-computability: He posits that certain mental activities, like mathematical insight, are inherently non-algorithmic and cannot be simulated by a computer, even a powerful one. 
• Quantum mechanics and consciousness: Penrose suggests that consciousness is linked to quantum mechanical processes in the brain, specifically involving microtubules, a theory he later developed further in Shadows of the Mind. 
• Critique of Strong AI: The book challenges the “strong AI” hypothesis that a sufficiently complex computer can achieve genuine consciousness, arguing that it misunderstands the nature of human understanding. 

Reception and legacy

• The book won the 1990 Science Book Prize. 
• It sparked debate and collaboration, notably with Stuart Hameroff, leading to the “orchestrated objective reduction” (Orch OR) theory of consciousness. 
• It remains a significant work in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, and the physics of consciousness, influencing discussions on the limits of computation and the nature of the mind. 

ooOOoo

Penrose won the Science Book Prize in 1990 for The Emperor’s New Mind.

I am not surprised.

These two, a male and a female, were resting close to the back deck. I had to be extremely careful in taking these five photographs.

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

As I have said many times before, I feed the deer every morning. They know, I’m sure, that they are loved by us. Two or three of them are waiting for their feed practically every morning. As soon as I go into the stables, to get the feed, more deer arrive and, typically, I put out the feed for between five and nine deer.

Perfect!

ooOOoo

Clear the Needle

Who is she,
if she does not even know herself?

Trajectories confuse
when forced
into linear containers..

Like the cosmos —
all spirals and orbits —
we spin and dance,

sometimes skillfully,
sometimes clumsily.

The vinyl record spinning,
fine dust collecting
on the diamond needle.

We must stop
from time to time
and clear it

so that we might perceive sound
more accurately,
truer to itself.

I have collected
more than my share
of detritus.

But I have never been granted
the grace of someone or something
clearing the needle for me.

It remains a reminder
to pause.

Stop the music.
Lift the arm.
Clear the cartridge.

Begin again.

ooOOoo

Not only was Bela’s poem perfect so, too, was the comment left on Bela’s site from Shakti that I am going to share in full.

Hi Bela,

I found in the verse a striking metaphor for the human condition. 

We spend so much of life assuming the music has changed, when often it is the dust on our own needle that has altered the sound. Memory, hurt, ego, assumptions, fatigue—each leaves its fine sediment, subtly distorting how we hear ourselves, others, and the world. 

The most profound act, perhaps, is not to keep forcing the song forward, but to pause with enough honesty to ask: what in me is creating this static? The verse’s quiet power lies in rejecting rescue—no one may come to clear the needle for us. Self-awareness, then, becomes both responsibility and grace. To stop. To clean. To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one

Shakti

“To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one“

As I said, a perfect comment.

Freedom,

Home, as in being at home,

Trust, as in the predominate feeling,

I AM OK.

Health, good diet and exercise,

Safe – I feel safe,

Love, I am surrounded by love,

Peace, yet another predominate feeling,

Calm, and yet another predominate feeling.

Think about these qualities

There’s an art to letting go.

oooo

I wrote this for Jean on March 22nd, 2026.

I ended it by writing that I loved Jean. Very much!

I hadn’t really thought of this before now. I am speaking of an article last Friday that was published by The Conversation.

A large part of me is very open to the ways that technology is helping me. I presume that I am far from being alone.

Here is that article that questions the way things are.

ooOOoo

Today’s bans on DIY repairs of everything from cell phones to tractors grew out of Hollywood’s fear of videotaping

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Miami University

If you have ever tried to repair something, realized that it was beyond your financial or technical means, and ended up buying a new one, you are not alone. Repairing electronics and household appliances has not been a real option in the United States for decades now, particularly for items that have proprietary software in them.

Absurd situations have proliferated. It can cost about the same to buy a new printer as it does to replace the ink cartridge. The U.S. Department of Defense cannot repair the weapons systems it purchases because the intellectual property rights remain with the manufacturer. John Deere, the farming equipment company, doesn’t allow farmers to access the software needed to repair their own combines and tractors because, while the purchase covers the physical machinery, it does not cover the software.

One consequence, in addition to cost and frustration for consumers, is environmental harm. The U.S. is the world’s second producer of electronic waste after China, to the tune of about 43 lbs (19.5 kg) of electronic waste annually per person. Only 25% of this e-waste is recycled.

The right-to-repair movement emerged in response, calling for people to be able to repair what they purchase, or have third parties do the repair work, without unnecessary financial, legal or technical barriers. Right to repair seems to be a rare area of bipartisanship in Congress. The Warrior Right to Repair Act – introduced in 2025 by a Democrat – and the Repair Act – introduced by a Republican – are two ongoing legislative initiatives to create a federal legal framework that would make it easy and cheap for American users to repair their devices. Both bills are fiercely opposed by industry groups.

As a scholar of American culture, I found through my research that the origins of the legal and technical obstacles to product repairs lie in debates in the 1980s over new media and copyright guardrails.

Hollywood and VCRs

The rapid rise and popularity of video cassette recorders, or VCRs, in the late 1970s transformed films and TV shows from transient experiences into tangible consumer goods. As I show in my book, “Videotape,” despite the potential for extra revenue, Hollywood was alarmed by the fact that users were now able to copy films on videotape, and tried to stop the technology. Today’s repair bans are part of that story.

The first U.S. copyright provisions were embedded in the 1790 Constitution. Over time, the law was amended to include new technologies, but at the core of future legal arrangements remained the initial intent: to protect the financial rights of creators while giving enough access to information for society as a whole to progress.

Until the second half of the 20th century, the American doctrine of fair use, which allows the unlicensed use of protected works under specific conditions, allowed judges to prevent copyright law from negatively affecting public interest. Organizations such as public libraries, book clubs, universities and news organizations benefited from this legal approach. The concept was codified into American law in the Copyright Act of 1976.

When the film studios took Sony to court to stop the production and sale of video recorders in 1976, they argued that Sony’s product encouraged copyright infringement. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that taping TV content for personal use did not violate copyright law, expanding the understanding of fair use.

The industry then focused on finding a technological solution to the piracy problem and on securing stricter legal protections for its products.

They identified the digital versatile disc, or DVD, as a safer alternative to the VHS tape. Initially, the DVD was a read-only format. It took a few more years of engineering before affordable recording was possible. Even then, the process was far more complicated for users than videotape recording. In 1997, barely one year after the video disc was launched, all of the Motion Picture Association of America member studios joined the DVD Forum, collectively adopted the new format and started to phase out films released on videotape. https://www.youtube.com/embed/46RDkiy5h3U?wmode=transparent&start=0 Manufacturers use several tactics to block consumers and third-party repair shops from fixing their products.

Copyright and virtual locks

Then came digital rights management. Collectively, the term refers to the battery of technological tools that the industry developed in order to control user access to content. These include encryption software and various forms of authentication or enforcement software that limit which types of digital activities users can perform. For instance, some mechanisms block the option to download or share a digital file.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, provided the broad legal framework that allowed these technological locks to expand far beyond entertainment, including to software. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act reflected a new alignment in interests between the entertainment and software industries. It increased existing penalties for copyright infringement online and criminalized any technology used to bypass technological locks. The law was adopted although at the time – and since then – critics warned that it could stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers.

Since 1998, more and more consumer products, from toys to dishwashers, use microchips and proprietary software protected by copyright. Because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, third party repairers cannot alter or bypass the proprietary software. If they did so, they would be liable for infringing the manufacturer’s intellectual property rights, as is the case for John Deere farm equipment. Some electronics are even designed to make tampering with the product impossible.

Manufacturers maintain that only they or authorized personnel can and should repair their products. These repairs are often quite costly. When getting a product repaired becomes almost as expensive as buying a new one, many consumers will choose to buy and throw repairable items away.

Rising resentment over repair bans

Technology tends to outpace existing legal arrangements. With over 80% of Americans supporting the right to repair, it remains to be seen when or if American law will catch up with the unexpected consequences of a law meant to protect the intellectual rights of the creative industries, but which is now hurting consumers’ pocket books.

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Teaching Professor of American Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

The end of that article points out that more than 80% of Americans support the right to repair and, I guess, that support extends far beyond the USA.

Indeed, a quick online search found that in the UK an organisation, Restart, had a website on the subject. Here is a little of what they said;

“The last few years have been really exciting for the Right to Repair in many countries outside the UK. Around the world we’ve seen people get access to more repairable and longer lasting products, cheaper repair options and better information about product repairability. As a result, repair is helping tackle climate change, reduce waste, lower living costs, support communities and create green skilled jobs in more places than ever.“

Then another search found out that the Eurpoean Commission had a Right to repair law in place. It was introduced in 2024. Here’s how it starts:

“The new rules reinforce the right to repair, aim to reduce waste and bolster the repair sector by making it easier and more cost-effective to repair goods.“

So, hopefully, Oana, the teaching professor at Miami University, can establish a new law that will give American consumers the right to replair their technology belongings.

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

I will see if I can take more nature photographs before next Sunday.

A Passport is a very important document. I have both a British and an American passport.

For most of my life there has been no World Wide Web (WWW). And being the age I am I do not pretend to know all the lastest advances in the WWW field. But my grandson is an avid user and, presumably, so are millions of other teenagers across the world.

Thus the idea of an Internet Passport is smart, extremely useful, and brilliant.

ooOOoo

The INTERNET PASSPORT Will Advance Civilization, Promote Democracy, Reduce Censorship, Save The Children And Fight Crime. What is There Not To Like?

Question: How could an internet passport, where the identity of an individual would be displayed, not improve security, safety of children, advance civilization, and even promote democracy if associated with completely constitutionally protected free speech?

The INTERNET PASSPORT would enable to control the age and granular exposure of children to the INTERNET. Presumably, the more than doubling of the suicide rate of girls is related directly to WRONGFUL INTERNET EXPOSURE. Not acting on the Internet Passport would be tantamount to complicity in the abuse and deaths of millions of girls.

If one enters a country, one is required by the authorities to produce a document called a PASSPORT informing them of our identity. Otherwise NO entry. The controls are stiffer if a child is involved, as they should: child trafficking is as old as humanity (and was outlawed by the European Queen Bathilde in 657 CE). So why not the same sort of control of who is entering, when entering the Internet?

A huge problem with the Internet has been too much access by children and access to age inappropriate content. Another bad problem has been the usage of the Internet by Organized Crime.

A simple way to prevent ILLEGAL INTERNET USAGE is to deliver INTERNET PASSPORTS. A law passed worldwide  would be impossible to access the Internet without an INTERNET PASSPORT  The passports would have a degree of security and control comparable to that of a passport to pass physical ports. I am sure China would have to approve.

Organized Crime, which profits from adopting the latest Internet tech faster than anybody else, will protest (and some politicians on its payroll will listen). It may be objected by individuals who claim to be good citizens, that the instauration of an INTERNET PASSPORT would introduce a worldwide police state. On a personal basis, I am very much against police states… If the policing goes beyond the law enforcement necessary and sufficient to make sure the constitutional laws are respected. But only then. I firmly believe that a substantial population is kept in check only through the knowledge of potentially efficient police action (I have been a victim of serious crimes more than a few times).

To make sure that the INTERNET PASSPORT does not bring a non constitutional dictatorship, PARRHEISIA and ISEGORIA which should be META CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ought to be enforced by arsenals of laws. 

Parrheisa and Isegoria basically ensure FREEDOM and EQUALITY of speech, not just by allowing them, and making them constitutional, but by making them CIVIC DUTIES.. Thus constitutional speech and expression and their dissemination would be protected…. Which is certainly NOT the case now.

The usual objections will be raised by the same ones who object to cameras: intrusion on private lives. But that is silly. My main outlet is wilderness exploration. If drones would follow me everywhere, I would feel safer. They can spy on me all day long, but I do nothing wrong, aside from calculated risk[1].

The argument, made for years by many of the world’s wealthiest individuals, like Meta’s Zuckenberg, has been a nebulous “People’s right to privacy”. There is no such a thing because the “Right to Privacy” gets ABROGATED BY THE RIGHT TO SURVIVAL (I learned the abrogation idea in my studies of Islamic law, ironically enough…) As the singularity technology evolves, so does the power of individuals: somebody evil could sneak in with, say, Ebola in a jar… But no doubt planning Mass Destruction would involve Internet usage and could be recognized by LAW ENFORCEMENT AI… As long as distinct sources can be identified.

***

Naturally this simple treatment of an Internet malady has not been suggested. Instead fake news media has insisted on applying censorship on sites they consider “violent”. But of course one of the main ways dictatorships achieve control is through censorship of (what they consider to be) “violence” (the coverup is that only the dictator can use violence to suppress what the dictator calls violence)..

Much of the “culture” that young people are exposed to today is violent and extremely divisive, instead of being informational and collaborative. Why? Well, the established plutocracy has always tried, for keeping in control, to divide (and conquer). The controlling plutocracy has always greater means to adopt the latest tech, as when Hitler adopted air travel and radio to get elected. So naturally, the plutocracy we enjoy adopted Internet control and directing it towards the children was particularly perverse.

Patrice Ayme 

[1] One of my fears is an accident which would leave me crippled and rescue would not arrive in time (I have occasionally been in absolutely gigantic landscapes with no one or no sign of human activity in sight; once in Nevada, a billionaire crashed his plane. Neither he nor the plane were ever found… It’s called Nevada for a good reason… Last year I broke an arm in the mountain consecutive to rock failure and subsequent fall; I took the decision to go down the mountain, waiting for rescue would have meant death from exposure. Being able to tell a drone to fetch rescue, or more precisely blankets and shelter would have been safer. Helis couldn’t fly.)  

***

[2] In 2026 CNN and other plutocratic serving media oligopolies pressured the UK government to shut down entire websites because those sites showed violence. Showing violence somehow causes violence according to CNN (does this theory make CNN into a terrorist organization?). Instead one should behave as if all was for the best in the best of all possible words. 

Paradoxically, the Internet Passport will force much greater democracy, because it could not be an improvement without Isegoria and Parrhesia. Those two are needed because the US First Amendment protects only aspects of free speech addressed to the government (and the situation is even worse in all other countries)…

Patrice Ayme

ooOOoo

Whether or not, governments across the world will implement these changes, this response to the online world we now live in, is terribly uncertain.

I regret that i am not holding my breath.