Air Safety and the 5G Rollout? Poor Planning? Or Airline industry CYA?

The Union-Tribune reported this morning an Associated Press column that the mobile phone industry rejected the request from the airline industry to delay the 5G rollout. The planning and design efforts for 5G cellular service started many years ago starting in 2013. The airline industry knew this. My understanding is that the millimeter wave 5G band is well above the frequencies where the airline radar altimeters operate. I also believe that the radar altimeters are a backup capability and are only relied upon when there is a problem with the normal landing system. The airline industry --both the manufacturers and airlines had plenty of time to not only test their devices against mock-ups of mobile phone towers, but apparently did nothing. Now, after the phone carriers invested heavily in buying the bandwidth, and installing hardward all over the country, they are complaining about the risk to flight from the phone towers near airport landing paths. They do not seem to be conducting any tests. In 2019 Korea went active with 5G service and many other countries have also. Did the airlines fly any tests against those systems? I believe this situation is a failure of the airline industry, the mobile phone industry, and the Federal Government -- FCC and FAA. I think if interference is found, it can be mitigated with better RF filters on the mobile phone tower transmitters and the radar altimeter receivers. There are also operational work-arounds, such as reducing the permitted tower antenna patterns around airport landing patterns. Meanwhile, I think the airline industry is just trying to "cover their ass" CYA in case there is some sort of an accident. They were asking for a "short delay" in 5G rollout -- but why a month or so now after not doing anything for 8 years?

Maybe applying Darwin's theory would resolve anti-vaxer's problem?

I saw this article in today's San Diego Union Tribune. Singapore is going to require anti-vaxers to pay for care should they be infected with Covid. Below is the text of it: Singapore won’t pay COVID costs for some Singapore will no longer cover the medical costs of COVID-19 patients who are eligible to get vaccinated against the virus but choose not to, the country’s Health Ministry says. “We will begin charging COVID-19 patients who are unvaccinated by choice,” starting Dec. 8, the ministry said in a statement Monday. Those who are not eligible for the shots will be exempt from the rule, it said, including children younger than 12 and people with certain medical conditions. The announcement came as the number of severe cases, which have been mainly among unvaccinated people, has stabilized but remains high, the ministry said. Of about 280 intensive-care beds for COVID patients, 134 are occupied, and most are among those not vaccinated, a senior minister of state, Janil Puthucheary, said at a news conference. Would a similar policy in the US make sense? Why should an insurance company (or the Government) pay the high cost of medical care for someone who blatently ignores medical advice? It isn't clear to me why the anti-Covid vaccination people believe what they do. These vaccines appear to have been tested more thoroughly than any of the previous ones, and also seem to perform better. I've never heard that same group protest against the huge series of vaccinations that we all get routinely -- Diptheria, pertussis, typhus, tetanus, polio, flu, smallpox, pneumonia, measels, mumps, rubella, varicella, menangitis, hepatitis, etc. Yes, they were all tested, but not with the latest technology, and their efficacy was not as high as the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine is against Covid. Maybe if the people who refused the vaccine were also refused from receiving care, future generations would not have to deal with this sort of distorted logic?

Retain Sand On the Beaches of Oceanside CA

A hundred years ago, Oceanside had beaches 100 yards wide. Since that time, we have lost about 3 feet of beaches each year so that in much of Oceanside we have no beach. The only good beach remaining is North Harbor Beach, which is retained by the Jetty (or Groin) at the mouth of the San Luis Rey River. Throughout Oceanside's history, the residents and City Council has rejected installing jetties or groins on the rest of the beaches. When sand is deposited on our beach it washes away in just 2 or 3 years. Millions of dollars in sand nourishment is wasted each time. The City of Oceanside needs to retain the sand on our beaches. Here's a video that shows a good way to do it: https://vimeo.com/577256118 #SOSOceanside

Housing Crisis in San Diego?

The San Diego Union Tribune ran an editorial today asking of the "public willing to tackle the housing crisis?" I'm not sure the public is willing! I'm also not sure the situation is actually a "crisis." Why do we need to have lower cost housing in an area where land is most expensive? Where are the economists? Economics would say that the normal situation is for prices to rise naturally until supply and demand come into balance. In a normal situation, retirees or disabled would move to lower cost areas so they could stretch their income further. There are areas throughout California that are lower cost, and there are places all over the United States that are lower cost. As those people would move away, their housing would become available to workers in the area. Why wouldn't retirees want to move to the huge amounts of open spaces available for affordable housing in other states? Why must Southern California accomodate so many people? The problem is that governmet policies have distorted the market in such a way that aggrivates the shortage. Some of them are: 1. Proposition 13 which keeps taxes on properties low. So many owners of properties keep the homes even though they rarely use them. Buildable lots remain empty because it doesn't cost the owner much for keeping it and hoping the values will go higher. 2. Capital Gains taxes. Even though long-term capital gains taxes are lower than taxes on current income or wages, it is still significantly high on properties that were purchased in the 1970s or earlier. Why sell and pay the tax, when we can hold the property and enjoy it? 3. The tax basis "step up" at death. Many owners of properties in San Diego, particularly in the coastal zone have signficant capital gains. If we wait for the owner to die, the heirs get the benefit of the "step up" of the basis to the value at death. This is a huge tax saving! So many people are simply keeping properties off the market and are using it just for short getaways waiting for that "step up" -- 4. Affordable housing to most people means low rent. Investors would build homes, condos or apartments for rent, if they knew they had good opportunities to earn above-market rates of return. Why take the risk of building or buying a property when you can get returns on stock market investments with less risk? However the state, cities and counties have passed rent control laws that put significant caps on what could be earned. Even though the caps are not too tight, there are threats and attempts to tighten those caps -- particularly if we have significant inflation. 5. The recent changes in income tax laws have put caps on the SALT deduction which actually removes a benefit from first-time home buyers. 6. The Coastal Commission says they want to encourage affordable housing and much of San Diego County's housing stock is within the coastal zone. However their bureacracy has added another layer of paperwork, approvals, and risk involved in making those investments. The Commission puts restrictions on making minor improvements to coastal property. If an improvement is made, the property is no longer protected as "existing construction" prior to the Commission so basically loses important property rights. The commission is also pushing the concept called "Managed Retreat" for response to sea level rise. That concept prevents owners from defending their own property from sea level rise. So different from other parts of the country where, for example, the Army Corps builds levees to protect Louisiana homes. 7. The cost of buying a home in a PUD or Condo is usually less than a stand-alone single family home. The higher density, as described in the article is also considered desirable. However, the State and local governments make it very difficult for people to obtain mortgages in PUDs and Condos. The mortgage applications are subject to seemingly arbitrary standards concerning construction, insurance, association reserves, and rental occupancy. In addition, the state continues to make knee-jerk reactions to problems and passes laws which make it much more difficult for an association to be managed by volunteer boards. All of these above constraints could easily be resolved by the government. But because each of them involve short-term pain for long-term gain, the sound-bites would tend to make those changes unpopular. Until we get legislatures with guts, integrity and technical understanding, the problem will continue.

Adaptation to the College Admission Scandal

 For the past couple of years, the news has been full of the college admission scandal.  Celebrities, brokers, coaches, and administrators were all guilty of various forms of cheating to get students into "big name" colleges and universities.

What were the real "crimes?"  There clearly was lying, forgery, tax avoidance, tax cheating, identity theft, and other real, but minor crimes.  To the general public, it was wealthy people using their affluence to cheat the system and get their kids into schools that they probably would not have been admitted to based upon their own merits.  But the biggest "crime" was the secrecy involved.  School administrators, alumni, boards, and sometimes even the students did not know that this was going on. 

It is clear that wealthy parents are more than willing to pay to get their students into slots.  It is also very clear that schools can use additional money from endowments to help with their infrastructure or to use for grants for students who are qualified to enter but do not have adequate funds to attend.

Why not put the two together?  Why not allow schools to allow a very small number of freshman entry slots to be "bid" for by the parents.  I could see a large university allocating 100 slots or a small college with 10 slots to be bid on.  The students would complete their normal application process, and the parents would commit to paying the normal full tuition and room/board.  However, the parents could then place "endowment bids" of tax-deductible amounts online.  The school admissions panel could then take the top 10 bids and evaluate the student's application.  

I think it is a "win-win" -- the school receives funding, and students get a chance.  Someone could say that the wealthy student "displaced" a slot for someone better qualified.  But the additional funding provided would help fund more students

The Busy Repairman? --Help from Youtube

 I saw this article in today's Union-Tribune by Soo Youn from the Washington Post.:  "The Busy Repairman:  

Ovens, dishwashers and washing machines — all kinds of appliances —

are breaking down like never before, but there’s nobody to fix them"

The premise of the article is that because everyone is now at home much more, they are using their appliances more and they are failing.  Repair technicians are in short supply and it is now taking longer for them to be able to obtain parts.  

I have no reason to doubt Soo Youn's report.  But It did surprise me.  I had thought that the need for traditional repair services was dropping off rapidly.  Yes, appliances are now made better and are more reliable.  Yes, we can now get repair parts via eBay or Amazon within a day or so.  But the biggest improvement is having youtube with detailed instructions for how to repair every type of problem with every different model of device done by multiple experts in every language.   These youtube videos aren't just "available" -- they are heavily used!  Some have had many millions of views.  Just imagine how bad the "shortage" would be if we didn't have this new, wonderful youtube resource to help us repair stuff! 

  

College Student work at Trump Troll Farm

 Donald Trump presidential campaign is using teams of college students to spread disinformation over social media.  See this article: 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=00f3c1e2-cff3-4907-a949-771e11b019d1

The article cites a team in Arizona doing it.  But that probably is the only team that was caught or detected doing it.  I suspect there are teams all over the country (and probably in Russia too) who are doing the same thing.  

It sort of reminds me of Nov 1964 and I was a junior in college in Western Pennsylvania.  A group of us volunteered to go to polls and stand a legal distance away and hand out matchbooks printed with the name of a Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania legislature.  I still was not old enough to vote or drink at the time.  But the candidate offered to pay us $20 for the day, and to come to a party at his big home in the evening for free beer!  Of course, the beer was the big incentive!  At the time, however, I don't believe any of us would have thought to spread misinformation about candidates.