Satellite service for every cellphone?

Strategy Page reports on an interesting new technology soon to be available for standard cellphones.

In a major technological breakthrough an American firm, Lynk Global, conducted several demonstrations in February, before numerous industry experts, in which one of the three new Lynk LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites successfully enabled an ordinary cellphone in the U.S. to send text messages via that satellite 500 kilometers away to other another cellphone in the Falkland Islands (in the South Atlantic).

Standard earth-based cell towers have a maximum range of 35 kilometers and there are not enough cell towers to cover the entire planet. Lynk eliminates the problems an estimated 750 million cellphone users have each day in not being able to get a signal. Lynk can also provide cellphone service to over a billion people who live in areas without access to cell phone networks. Lynk is literally a cell tower in space that sends 2G signals to any cellphone below.

Initially, Lynk will provide a global texting service. As the satellite technology is improved voice calls will be available as well. Lynk does not make ground-based cell towers obsolete because these local cell towers can provide high-speed service needed to access most of what is on the Internet. Other firms have developed satellite-based Internet service but these require special, but small and inexpensive, equipment to access them. Lynk will work with any of the existing five billion cellphones. Lynk also takes advantage of the fact that most cellphone users prefer to use texting rather than voice calls. Access to the Lynk network will be sold separately although 30 existing cellphone service providers have already agreed to offer Lynk service as an optional feature of their networks. For two billion people in remote areas Lynk will provide a reliable and affordable to existing cellphone service.

For the military and emergency service organizations Lynk will be a lifesaver. In the aftermath of major storms, earthquakes and such a major problem people in the disaster zone and emergency responders have it reliable communications. Cell phone towers are put out of action, sometimes for months. Yet in the first days of such disasters communications are vital and a matter of life or death. Lynk expects to begin offering texting service by the end of 2020 as it puts more satellites into orbit. For Lynk, this service is seen as a $300 billion a year market for them and a boost to sales of cell phones to many people who never bothered to get one because they lived in an area without any service and not much expectation of such service being installed. While many of these remote areas are populated by people without a lot of income the fact that Lynk will work with any cellphone, including the many budget phones (under $100) or even cheaper (under $20) second-hand phones, they will be able to afford Lynk.

Lynk will also provide a missing capability that the military has been seeking. Troops often operate in areas where there is little or no cell phone service and for the last twenty years, the U.S. Department of Defense and other government agencies have been working to equip commercial cellphones with encryption and other features that make cellphones usable in a combat zone.

There's more at the link.

This will be great news for areas affected by natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.  Local cellphone towers typically go out of service for days or even weeks following such episodes, until repair crews can get to them and/or power can be restored.  If those in such areas have access to text messaging via satellite, to let their loved ones know they're OK or to send a message asking for help to emergency services, that'll be a real game-changer.  I wish we'd had it available during Hurricane Katrina, back in 2005.

As Instapundit often says:  "Faster, please!"

Peter

Constitution? What Constitution?

Police in Raleigh, North Carolina, have done themselves no favors by enforcing a clearly, unquestionably unconstitutional order.  Here are a couple of excerpts from a Twitter thread discussing the matter.

There's also the small matter of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina:  Article I (Declaration of Rights), Sections 5 and 7.  Italics are my emphasis.

Sec. 5. Allegiance to the United States.

Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

Sec. 7.  Suspending laws.

All power of suspending laws or the execution of laws by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and shall not be exercised.

In other words, according to North Carolina's own Constitution, that State's governor had no authority to ban public protests, because such protests (i.e. the right to "peaceably assemble") are themselves protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States.  What's more, there was no consent given to, and no prior authorization of, his order by "the representatives of the people".

That makes the actions of the Raleigh Police Department prima facie illegal and unconstitutional.  Raleigh PD, what happened to "protect and serve"?  You're protecting the bejeesus out of an illegal order!!!  In doing so, you're ignoring the Constitutional rights of your own citizens!

When I took the Federal law enforcement oath of office, I solemnly swore:

... that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

There was (and is) no expiration date on that oath.  It binds me still.  Did members of the Raleigh Police Department swear a similar oath, or make a similar promise?  If so, congratulations, officers.  You are now forsworn.

The same insanity is visible in Michigan, and California, and every other state where jackbooted thugs (in the guise of politicians and bureaucrats) are requiring their law enforcement agencies and officers to impose and enforce blatantly unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) orders.

The question is, what will happen to citizens who stand up for their Constitutional rights, and refuse to allow anyone to ride rough-shod over them?  I certainly will, if push comes to shove;  and I will not allow officers to treat me as a criminal when it is, in fact, their enforcement of unconstitutional orders and ordinances that is clearly and prima facie illegal.  Do I expect officers to acknowledge that, and back down?  I hope some will, but I'm sure many won't - because for many of them (clearly including Raleigh PD), to judge by their uncomplaining acceptance of such edicts, the Constitution is so much toilet paper.

That's what comes of ignoring and/or minimizing the importance of civics and US history in their education, both as children and as police candidates.  In particular, they've clearly never heard of Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court of the United States ruled:

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

. . .

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Marbury v. Madison therefore elevates the US Constitution, and that of North Carolina as well, over any edict by the Governor of that state, as well as any law passed by its legislature.  Would someone kindly inform Raleigh PD of that little fact?




Peter

Am I a prophet, or what?

Yesterday I wrote an article titled:  "Should we pay companies to move manufacturing out of China?"  In it, I suggested (bold, underlined text is my emphasis):

Aid can be given to help critical industries diversify production, so that it's spread across several countries in more than one region (thereby preventing loss of production in one country from shutting down manufacture of that product altogether).  Additional subsidies to bring at least part of that manufacture back to the USA might also be feasible.  They might not involve payment up front, either:  if the US government guaranteed the purchase of a given amount, or a given proportion of domestic production, that might be sufficient incentive.

Well, guess what?  Within hours of my publishing those words, Presidential economic advisor Larry Kudlow, who's also the Director of the United States National Economic Council, was interviewed by Fox Business.  At about 8m. 35s. in the interview, he had this to say:

A 100% tax write-off of all expenses involved in moving production from China back to the USA?  That's a good start, and demonstrates I wasn't far off the mark.  I have little doubt additional subsidies will be made available once our economy is firing on all cylinders once more.

I suspect a public avowal like that of support for manufacturing repatriation is unlikely to please China.  We'll have to see what their reaction might be:  positive, negative, or a combination.  They can crack down on US companies already there, or offer them incentives to keep their production in China, or both.  Which way will they jump?  One thing is for sure;  they'll put their own interests ahead of those of the United States.  That's a given.

Peter

Heh

A number of coffee shops have remained open in our nearby city during the shutdown, serving drive-through and take-out customers, and delivering their wares to homes and (the few open) businesses.  They aren't making huge amounts, but enough to keep their doors open, which I suppose is the best they can hope for in an economic standstill like this.  The variety of masks being worn by their customers is often good for a giggle.

That being the case, I had to laugh at Monday's "The Whiteboard" comic.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the comic's Web page.

"The Whiteboard" is one of my daily reads.  It's a lot of fun.

Peter

Many "preppers" weren't adequately prepared for COVID-19

Ferfal (his nom de blog:  his real name is Fernando Aguirre), who blogs at Survival In Argentina, also has a YouTube channel where he does regular podcasts and short "lessons learned" videos.  Here's one he posted yesterday, analyzing why many so-called "preppers" were caught short by the sudden arrival of the coronavirus pandemic.  He makes some good points, and highlights valuable lessons we can all learn.

Interesting and thought-provoking.  He has many other videos on his channel, which will repay your attention.

Peter

Should we pay companies to move manufacturing out of China?

I note that Japan is doing precisely that.

Japan has earmarked US$2.2 billion of its record economic stimulus package to help its manufacturers shift production out of China, as the coronavirus disrupts supply chains between the major trading partners.

The extra budget, compiled to try to offset the devastating effects of the pandemic, includes 220 billion yen (US$2 billion) for companies shifting production back to Japan and 23.5 billion yen for those seeking to move production to other countries, according to details of the plan posted online.

. . .

The government’s panel on future investment last month discussed the need for manufacturing of high-added value products to be shifted back to Japan, and for production of other goods to be diversified across Southeast Asia.

There's more at the link.

I don't know that it's a good idea to specifically subsidize a negative - i.e. for companies to move their manufacturing out of China, or any other country, for that matter.  However, subsidizing a positive benefit might be worthwhile.  Aid can be given to help critical industries diversify production, so that it's spread across several countries in more than one region (thereby preventing loss of production in one country from shutting down manufacture of that product altogether).  Additional subsidies to bring at least part of that manufacture back to the USA might also be feasible.  They might not involve payment up front, either:  if the US government guaranteed the purchase of a given amount, or a given proportion of domestic production, that might be sufficient incentive.

This might also be a useful lever to use against companies that put their profit ahead of all other considerations.  If they refuse to move their production, on the grounds that it'll cost them too much money, then let the government offer subsidies to competitors to enter that market and make what we need.  If smaller, faster-on-their-feet rivals see that they can benefit, they'll jump at the chance.  It might also be tied to President Trump's proposed investment in our run-down national infrastructure.  If contracts to rebuild (say) bridges, or roads, or railways, are linked to moving production back to the USA, or those contracts specify that only US-produced goods and materials may be used in those projects, that'll concentrate a lot of business minds.

Of course, this may lead to a whole new trade war.  China can be expected to cut its prices to the bone, if necessary with government subsidies to do that, in order to make it too expensive for companies to leave its shores.  Alternatively, it can try to buy up all the critical raw materials needed for production elsewhere, and insist that they'll only be released to manufacturers using them inside China's borders.  There are all sorts of countermeasures China can employ.  It might even start throwing its weight around in the military sphere (e.g. by threatening Taiwan, or stoking up the ongoing controversy over the South China Sea).  That would provoke crises that divert other countries' attention from moving production to putting out geopolitical fires.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Peter

Does marriage have value anymore, monetary or otherwise?

Aaron Clarey, a.k.a. Captain Capitalism, offers an intriguing look at whether dowries are something that may become part of the modern "marriage market" in the Western world, just as they were in the not too distant past (and still are in some other parts of the world).  I don't necessarily agree with his arguments, but I have to admit that he poses questions that require an answer.

If you don't know (or never knew) what a dowry was, it was a payment the father usually made to his would-be son in law to take his daughter off his hands and care for her into the future.  This was based on the premise that women did not work, would likely bear children, would stay home to rear said children, and would in a purely accounting sense be a financial liability to the family, earning no income.  And so, the would-be husband would be entitled, if not required, to some kind of financial recompense to take the financial liability of a woman off the hands of her father.

Fast forward 300 years later and I ask a very simple question;

How is it any different today?

If there was a time young women were not a financial liability, but an asset, it was the boomers and Gen X'ers.  These women were workers, they were employed, and they did take care of themselves.  But today's generation of young women (who are also at the age of marriage) do not present young male suitors a similar financial proposition or condition.  Matter of fact, most young women today are horrifically bad financial liabilities, and any young man who commits to them risks tanking his own finances.

This isn't primarily due to young women not working.  They most certainly do, and at labor force participation rates higher than any generation of women past.  But the financial liability nature of most young women today is due to student loans and the education scam that destroys their finances.  Young women ... are lured too easily to go $120,000 in debt for worthless liberal arts degrees that offer them no employability.  Worse, the indoctrination they receive in college weaponizes them against men, instead of making them partners and lovers in life to help one another.  And with the repeated indoctrination that women should NEVER rely on a man, the end result is not only often a girl who is a financial risk, but is a girl no man wants.  Indebted, talentless, unemployable, and ideologically programmed to be against men, marriage, family, and love. Even women trained in STEM, who are eminently employable, are often times indoctrinated to be antagonistic towards men, increasing the risk of divorce, adding a huge legal risk to a financial one as well.

Traditionally, logically, and "accountingly," such a proposition would require some kind of financial compensation for the legal and financial risks of committing to a modern day western woman.  And today, young men (or any man) is well within his rights to demand such a modern-day dowry.  But since most boomer and Gen X fathers have no money (and are likely financially compromised through matrimony as well), demanding a dowry today is moot.

. . .

Most men simply cannot afford to take on that risk, and even with a dowry the non-financial risks are just as costly and daunting as the financial ones.  Yes at the same time, men are biologically programmed, nay, compelled to want to get married and have kids. And so what is likely going to happen is what's been happening for quite some time now - men are balking.  They're going to punt.

The increase in cohabitation and the abandonment of marriage is a sign of men waking up and eschewing the legal and financial risks marriage presents to them ... And such marriage-avoidant behavior will continue as the internet educates men about the unacceptable legal and financial risks marriage presents to them (or, frankly, they just saw their dad get butchered in divorce court).

And so what we've seen this past 20 years, certainly the past 10 will continue. With no "theoretical dowries" and marriage being such a bad deal, more and more men will simply leave the marriage market because they can't afford it.

There's more at the link.

Modern marriage is weighted heavily against a man in our legal system.  I'm aware of one situation going down right now, where a divorced father, with legal custody of his children, has seen his former wife simply take them and refuse to return them.  She's gone so far as to interfere with his bank accounts, file false charges against him, and try to wreck his life, out of spite and vindictiveness.  I repeat - she has no legal right to custody of the children, but because she doesn't want him to have them, she's more than prepared to use them as a weapon against him (including lying to them that he doesn't want them any more), and destroy his reputation in the process.  What's more, law enforcement authorities appear powerless.  They've told him to get yet another court order for them to enforce, ignoring those he already has.  I don't understand that.

When men see that sort of thing happening, and realize that our legal system is predisposed to believe the mother rather than the father, is it any wonder that many men are afraid to commit themselves to a relationship that may have those consequences?

There's also the very real problem that a hyper-sexualized society, where a "hookup culture" has taken root, is anything but the ideal climate in which to foster traditional marriage.  When both partners in a marriage come into that relationship with a past history of dozens, if not scores of lovers, and probably having lived with several of those partners, how can they pretend that there's anything unique about their relationship?  There isn't.  They're just going through the motions they've been through many times before.  There's nothing "special" to bind them together, because they've done it all before.  When it comes to arguments, they can put each other down with comments like, "Oh, so-and-so was much better at that than you are!"  There's no foundation of "special" intimacy on which to build, because intimacy is no longer special.  It's been trivialized.

Perhaps, if a dowry was required prior to marriage, both sides of the equation would realize that it signifies the value of their relationship in monetary terms.  Perhaps they might then attach more intrinsic value to marriage, instead of seeing it as an arrangement that may, or may not, endure, depending on one or the other party's whims.  To me, of course, there's also a deeply spiritual element to marriage;  but that's not shared by many people, so I won't emphasize it here.  I'll simply note that I think it's essential.

Aaron Clarey poses some very good questions, that force us to confront unpleasant realities, and which deserve answers.

Peter