Motorola DROID: I'm in love.

I resisted getting an IPhone until it met four benchmarks. Well I serendipitously was in the Verizon store on Friday November 6th(the first day of release) because my phone hinge spring was sprung. I saw the signage for the new Droid and asked about it and found it met all four of my criteria to get an IPhone. I've learned that it not only met those but exceeded any and all expectations. It can truly be the IPhone Killer Motorola and Verizon wants. The four criteria were:

1. Data plan less them $70/ month for ATT: It was $30/month for Data on top of phone plan
2. Cost less then $400 or even $200: It was $100 for me with rebate with 2 yr contract
3. 16 or 32 Gigs Mem for that price: It comes with 16 and owner can increase with Mem card.
4. Being usable on Verizon ( I'm stuck with verizon plus network coverage the best): It was
5. An added bonus was that all the programing was by Google (Big Brother but the best software producers)
6. Another added bonus: All the accessories are significantly cheaper then for IPhone and they were all 25% off list (more on that below).

So I bought it.

I then had to decide on the accessories to get. So I got one of each and returned those I didn't like. Here is what I consider the minimum to get full use out of your phone (w what I paid):

1. GPS car window mount ($30, $22.50 w discount): $130 for IPhone version
2. Bedside Base ($30, $22.50 w discount)
3. Extra battery, but only if you listen to 9-12 hours of podcasts or music daily like me ($40, $30 w discount).
4. Hands free wired headset with headset button ($20 at best buy)
5. Waist/belt pouch ($10 at walmart)
6. Car Charger($12)
7. Car radio Sync (I use a cassette type that plugs into my cassette player)($20).

I want to give you some examples of how smoothly and integrated this phone and the apps are. The app I use the most is Doggcatcher. It took about 8-10 hours to get set up but saves me 30 minutes a day. It downloads all my audio podcasts I subscribe to (186) and places them in a playlist. When I have listened to them they are removed. If I want to pause them or take a phone call I click the in line headset switch and the podcasts pauses and/or answers the call. When I click again it restarts the podcast were I left off or 15 seconds before , if a call. Last week I was in New Orleans and needed to travel. I set up the GPS navigator and began listening to my podcasts. When the GPS needed to give me directions it turned off the podcast, gave the directions and resumed the podcast. I didn't miss a second. I next found out that if I got a call all I needed to do was swipe the screen with my finger and I had a handsfree speaker system that both I could hear well and it picked up my voice at normal volume from 2.5 to 3 feet away. It turned off the podcast and then when it needed to give me directions it did (I could hear it but the caller didn't). Then when the call was over it started the podcast 15 seconds before it had stopped it. That was perfectly designed and met all me needs.

Well I then had a one week odyssey of 3-4 hours a day to get it close to how I like it. That was the biggest downside. Since then I have been in love. I have been in love with three other pieces of electronics: 1) My first HP-35 in 1971 ( I was the first engineering student to have one: cost $400); 2) My first palm pilot in 1995; and 3) my first IPod Classic in 2005, when I learned about podcasts (from my friend T Morris himself {he wrote the Idiots Guide to Podcasting}). All of these devices changed my life each in its own but very significant way and they became constant companions never leaving home without them. Well the Droid surpasses them all.

I bought it planning to have it replace four devices. I found that it replaced twelve items I use all the time or daily worth $ 2300 all together. The first four on this list were the original four and here is the entire list of those items I used to use almost everyday:

1. My Phone (obvious): $100 that I paid, $400 list price.
2. My Ipod 80 Gig with two year service: $290
3. Digital Camera (Droid is 5 MegaPixals): $200
4. Video Camera ( I was about to buy flip video): $150
5. Voice recorder to dictate my medical notes: $200
6. GPS with Google Maps and Traffic alerts: $200 plus $30 per month for service.
7. Clock radio: $50
8. My travel bedside radio: $25
9. I-Home or equivelant ( I use this getting up & dressed in AM about 15-20mins/day):$50
10. Pedometer: $30-70
11. Laptop (now obsolete for travel, about 2 trips a month of 2-3 days each): $500
12. Remote temperature sensor and base next to bed: $65

Those were the devices I used almost daily. I then found out there were many devices I have not had that I now did with the Droid. Some I have gotten to use regularly while some I know I will use infrequently, but they are neat to have:

1. calculator
2. compass
3. metal detector
4. Star Trek TriCorder
5. Flash light
6. Barcode scanner
7. Leveling bubble.
8. plus many more available through apps market.

Now that I mentioned apps I have to tell you about the top apps that I use. First I have only spent $15 on apps so far and have about 100 free apps. So apps do not have to be a big expense (but they can). Here are the apps I use the most, some daily and all weekly, and now feel I cannot live without:

1. Doggcatcher ($5): My podcast catcher. It works the best of the 12 that I tried. It saves me 30 minutes everyday (15 in AM and 15 in PM)
2. Google Chrome full screen web Browser
3. Pandora internet music radio
4. e-book reader
5. Movies: Tells me what is showing and time in all the local theaters
6. YouTube: Lets me watch YouTube videos anytime anywhere
7. Facebook and Twitter aps
8. Amazon.com with bar code reader
9. weather bug
10. CardioTrainer
11. plus lots of cool games

So I want to hear if your experiences match mine. Please post this and pass it around.

facebook.com/alan.koslow

Gates Foundation Donates $ 120 M Dollars To Change Paradigm for Allelviating World Hunger

I covered Keynote speaker Bill Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation today at the World Food Prize Symposium announcing his foundation will be donating $ 120 Million to support the worlds poorest farmers with new agricultural grants. He said. 'How do you help those people who live on less then $1 / day. Helping the world's poorest farmers grow more crops and get those crops to market will be the biggest thing we can do to eliviate hunger.'

'The Green Revolution did amazing things but it didn't do enough. It did not get to Africa, specificly Sub-Saharan Africa.'

'There is also trouble' 'The Global effort to help small farmersis endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two........One side is a technological approach that increases productivity (Big Ag, many of the attendees at the World Food Prize cinf.) ...the other is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability. (the Community Food Security Coalition, their conf. preceded the World Food prize Conf.)' I posted a blog two days ago highlighting this contrast.

He goes on to say this is a false choice, that blocks important advances. 'We need productivity and sustainability, and I feel we can do both..........The next green revolution must do both and must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the envirnment.'

'We have to develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can grow in flood; that can resist pest and disease.'

'We need rigorous science to accomplish this.'

'It is essential for Africa to get a hardiar Maze that can grow in a draught and be a complete food source.' 'In some grants, we include transgenic approaches.....because it can address challenges faster.....Of course these technologies must be subject to rigorous scientific review to ensure they are safe and effective.'

We are developing this maze and it will be released royalty free to all of Africa.

Swarna sub-1 rice species was tested in India. when floods came 90% of normal crops dies. 95% of new variety survived.

Wheat rust is fast-moving and threatening the world wheat supply. 'We are partnering with 15 research stations..using a number of approaches to bread wheat varieties that will offer farmers some lasting protection.'

'We focus on small farmers and make investments across the value chain.....and look at the expertise of woman farmers who do most of the farming in Africa.'

African countries must lead. Most countries have pledged 10% of their National Budget. Ghana is the first country to do this and they have turned around their poverty and are almost at the Millennium Goal.

Here is the Video to his talk and the following discussion.

'Poor farmers are not a problem to be solved: they are the solution.'

A book will come out soon called 'Millions Fed" to follow up on 'Millions Saved' The vacine and health story.

He finished with a standing ovation and then went into a Q&A with Dr. Ejeta this years Food Prize laureate.

This was an amazing speach which clearly showed that an over riding philosophy that is rational and that doesn't try to impose a specific solution and which take into account the needs of stake holders from all levels may have a chance to change the world for the better. However this speech was followed by Dr Jeffery Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. In this speech he laid out an analysis that was sobering and scary. My next blog will be on that.

Food Security: Two world Outlooks, A World Apart

This week I attended two main conferences: The World Food Prize (WFP), and 'From Commodity to Community', the 13th Annual Community Food Security Conference (CFSC), with a buffer conference between them the Third Iowa Hunger Summit (IHS). (#foodprize, #csfc) I saw two movements unfortunately a WORLD APART. The first, the CFSC, was attended by 800 passionate activists. Seventy percent of them in their 20's, dungaree and tee shirt wearing, with a passion and energy level that was exhilarating. The second, the WFP, was attended by 950 gray haired, three piece suited, corporate or governmental officials. The sessions were educational, stimulating with a call to action clearly stated. What was missing was the passion of the CFSC. What was missing from both was the missed opportunity for cross pollination between the two. When I had heard the CFSC was being held immediately before the WFP I expected this was done to foster this. However, I was severely disappointed.

There were many areas of common goals between the conferences and their attendees. They both agreed that within 40 years the world population will increase 50% and the need for food will therefore double ( to take into account those living in Hunger now). That this increase needs to be done in a sustainable manner. That women were the key to success (give women: 1-Educational access {the most important}, 2-Economic equality with men, 3-health access, and 4-Political equality with men). That agricultural improvements need to be done in a sustainable manner. Climate change will significantly hinder the ability to meet the world food demand.

There were some serious areas of conflict. Simply put those attending the CFSC felt all solutions needed to be bottom up, while the WFP attendees felt the solutions need to mostly be top down (however they felt bottom-up needs to be incorporated). The CFSC attendees were violently opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO), while the WFP attendees were it's prophets. They each have their own research the one that shows GMO's are nothing but pure evil while the other has their research that GMO's are manna from heaven. If only there could be more dialogue and sharing of those studies. There was more talking past each other then to each other. However, I did feel that the WFP attendees were more open to bringing in the CSFC people then the other way around.

Those attending CSFC complained of lack of access to the discission makers both in the US and abroad. Yet hardly any of them stayed on (actually in talking to over one hundred of them, most didn't even know anything about the WFP meeting - A failure of the CSFC to inform their members), to interact at the WFP conference. There were many world discission makers at the WFP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsak, eight Ministers of Agriculture, several former heads of state and multiple CEO's of the most important corporations in Big-AG-Biz.

The big shining light was Dr. Gebisa Ejeta, the WFP winner, in his talk at Iowa State on Monday to kick off the WFP meeting. He talked about the importance of Ag. extension type programs to get small farmers into the 21st century through education while also needing the large Ag-Biz to be the structure over this agricultural revolution.

So I hope that there is more dialogue between the dungarees and the three piece suits. We need both to move this forward and to have any chance of solving the loaming food and climate crisis.

Sustainable Food Conference, An Eye Opening: Hope for the Future.

I was at first shocked and surprised then encouraged by the distribution of attendees at the Food Security Conference. This week in Des Moines is a series of three international food conferences. The first one 'From Commodity to Community' the 13th Annual Community Food Security Conference, began Saturday 10/10 and will run through Tuesday 10/13. The first day was taken up with field trips to see the state of agriculture in Iowa. Today began with everyone at a breakfast plenary session setting the tone for the conference. But that is not what this first blog is about.

What I noticed, and as I interviewed many people, I found I wasn't the only one to notice, was that there was a bi-modal distribution of ages. Almost everyone fell into two age groups, either 20-32 or over 50. This made me wonder both about why and then what it means for the sustainable food movement. I talking to several attendees, the consensus seemed to be that those over fifty were motivated by the various movements of the sixties and early seventies. These participants felt that they had maintained their drive to improve and save the world. One women expressed despair that here 28 year old daughter was working for a defense contractor and felt having a nicer car and clothes was all she wished for. The older group was after almost four years seeing a new younger generation get enthusiastic about their causes.

The missing group, the doughnut hole, of those between 32 and 50 that were glaringly absent. To a person the attendees felt they were products of the me generation. The generation that went through high school and college and then entered the work force during the late seventies through the ME eighties and into the corporate boom of the nineties. They never got that spark of as the jewish religion says 'Tachun-o-lum', Repair the World. Fortunately, the generation to follow got the bug.

So what does this mean for the sustainable food movement. Well, the movement will survive and thrive. The young blood was both excited and enthusiastic. I saw a movement that has a new strong base that will work hard to move the movement forward. However it will be another ten to fifteen years till this momentum will cause a major shift in public opinion. That fifteen years will though have lots of small victories. Those who have been fighting this battle for four decades can be encouraged that there is a new generation who will take their fight to it succesful conclusion.

IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY LIKELY TO RECOMMEND LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA

I didn't write this. It is from Iowapolitics.com. However, I post it as follow-up on my previous posts on this. This is the only rational move.

I was at the first of the Boards public hearing and testified. The patients (none of whom I would label as Pot heads were so compelling there were times I saw tears in the eyes of the Bo9ard members.

Below is the news story.

Iowa is moving a step closer to legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana.

The chairman of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy told IowaPolitics.com that if public hearings on the issue this week in Iowa City and Nov. 4 in Council Bluffs are similar to ones held Sept. 2 in Mason City and Aug. 19 in Des Moines, the board will likely recommend that the Iowa Legislature allow medicinal use of the drug.

“I would say that if all the other three had a similar kind of content that we had, the board would probably be looking at having to digest that information and make a decision that there is probably a legitimate medical use for some people,” said Vernon Benjamin, a pharmacist from Argyle.

But even if the board does eventually make that recommendation – they are expected to vote on the matter before the end of the year - there is no guarantee legislators will heed the advice of the board.

“This one is a pretty political issue, so I can’t say if they’re going to follow it or not,” said Lloyd Jessen, director of the board.

Jessen said in the past, recommendations haven’t been political and have generally been changes to bring Iowa law into line with federal law. “It's anybody’s guess if they put any weight in the recommendation or not,” Jessen said. “You have to remember Iowa is a pretty conservative state.”

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal was noncommittal on the topic, saying he will wait and see what the board’s recommendation is, whether a bill comes out of committee and what other stakeholders have to say.

“I think it’s very much up in the air,” the Council Bluffs Democrat said. “I’m certain there’s a law enforcement side to be heard on this issue.”

Thirteen states currently allow the medicinal use of marijuana, Jessen said, while another dozen are considering the issue. Michigan is the only Midwestern state that currently allows its use, while much of the western part of the country has moved toward that policy.

“It seems to be a pretty common topic right now,” Jessen said.

Ann Diehl, a public member of the board from Osceola, said she’s glad the board decided to hold the hearings. Diehl used to be a detoxification nurse at Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines.

“It’s been a really interesting experience for me because I just had a totally one-sided view of it, and that was not good,” Diehl said. “I have learned a lot, and I have learned a lot about the medical benefits just from one hearing I've gone to.”

Diehl said she has heard scientific evidence and a lot of compelling stories from people who do have serious medical problems that they feel it helps. “I can say I have a much more open mind on it as far as medical use goes, but I haven’t come to any conclusion yet,” Diehl said.

Peggy Whitworth, a public board member from Cedar Rapids, attended the Iowa City meeting and said she’s been contacted by individuals eager to speak and get their thoughts on the record.

“I think those that have participated have found them interesting and helpful, and I think there are many rank-and-file citizens who are appreciative of an opportunity to express their views,” Whitworth said.

Whitworth said she encouraged the board to gather some solid information through public hearings and base any decision on science. “The reason for the hearings is to gather information from the citizens of Iowa, basically so any action by the Board of Pharmacy is grounded in reality, not simply in vague stories,” Whitworth said.

Benjamin agreed, saying board members are learning about switching the schedule of marijuana just like everybody else is. "You can’t do things like that lightly when federal law says it’s schedule one,” Benjamin said. “We wanted to make sure we had a case to argue if we do support the legalization of it.”

Hospitals in for $200 Billion Windfall Profits per Year from Health Reform.

I am amazed at the low profile the AHA (American Hospital Association) has been taking in the debate over health care reform. Think back you have heard and seen ads from every other sector but Hospitals, yet hospitals are 31% of the cost of medical care in the USA. Why have they been so quiet? Maybe they have a good reason to take a low profile. Maybe they don't want politicians and the public to realize they will be in for as much as $100-200 billion dollar windfall profits.

When you examine a major change think about who are the biggest losers and winners both before and after the change. This will help you understand the rhetoric or lack of it. Currently the hospital are, along with the uninsured patients, the biggest losers. The pharmaceutical and insurance industry the biggest. Using figures from Iowa from 2006, in a survey by the State Health Department, the states hospitals reported their expenses on unreimbursed indigent (uninsured) care. In Iowa the hospital spent $600,000,000 on care to the uninsured that was not reimbursed. This was not what they would have billed, but their actual expenses. They made this up by offsetting costs to those with private insurance. They still operated in the black. You cannot say they made a profit since they are non-profit. However many executives received large salaries and bonuses and many hospitals did expensive capital investments. This was in the face of $600 million write off. Amazing!!!

Well let us snap our finger and let every uninsured have insurance. Lets also say that this insurance will reimburse hospitals at the same rate (so they are competitive with private insurance) as private insurance. This rate is double or more over the reimbursement rate of Medicare or Medicaid. So the hospitals in Iowa will instead of writing off $600 million will be getting a check for $1.2 Billion. This is a swing on their ledger of $1.8 Billion. Now Iowa has a population of about 3,000,000 or one percent (1%) of the population of the entire country. So, if the number can be expanded to the entire country the hospitals of the United States will have as much as $180 Billion windfall profit each and every year.

$180 Billion is enough to pay f0or the cost of even the more expensive House bill for two years. So what I'm saying is that the hospitals will not be doing any more work (they are doing it now as charity) but will be making $180 Billion each year for no further work. Why not give them only $90 Billion windfall (they should be very happy with this) and pay for the entire system.

Please tell me where my logic is flawed.

Everyone Can Afford College. All Can Go.

We have a crisis in higher education. Like health care the cost of a college education is increasing at more then twice the rate of inflation, while the money available for scholarships and grants is shrinking. Many cannot attend the college of their choice or attend at all. Private Universities tend to get a disproportionate number of upper middle class to upper class students rather then the best students. I have given this a lot of thought and see a rational plan to solve this. First let me say not everyone should or needs to go to college, but some would benefit from a technical training and this covers that also. Read on to see the plan.

Society and our country benefits by having a more educated workforce and a educated class that can develop new inventions or processes. The person getting an education benefits from added earning potential. Also more lower income and middle income students will be able to attend better schools and not be worried about affording school or being saddled with burdensome debt. Many people will go into teaching or nursing since they will not need to find high paying jobs to pay off college debt. Keep reading the plan is coming.

The individual will benefit from this plan because of increased earning potential. US Census Bureau report shows that: '$4.4 million Estimated lifetime earnings of professional (i.e., medical, law, dentistry and veterinary medicine) degree-holders. This compares with $3.4 million for those with Ph.D.s, $2.5 million for master’s degree-holders, $2.1 million for those with bachelor’s degrees, $1.2 million for high school graduates and $1.0 million for high school dropouts'. Also the individual will be able to go to the best school they qualify with economic resources being no barrier and massive debt will be no barrier to taking the job they want rather then the job they need to pay off their debt. Here comes the plan.

Here is the plan. I will give the numbers to justify it below. The plan is simple students will apply to the colleges they want without concern for the cost. They will be accepted on their qualifications not the ability of their parents to afford it or the desire of the students to go into massive debt. After finishing school, graduate school and any required internships or residencies to complete their training they will pay back the loan this program gives them. They will pay back 3% of their net income for each year of school they attend for 10 years. i.e. someone going to only four years of school will pay 12% of their income (net not gross) for ten years while those doing Medical School will pay 24% of their income for 10 years after they finish their residencies. These percentages are first guesses it may be slightly higher or lower. The final number will have inflation built in so once you fund the first four years the program will pay for itself.

Lets look at some numbers. There are approximately 5,000,000 in each grade level although only 3,000,000 graduate high school (2 million do not, see their lifetime earning potential above, I will present a plan to improve drop out levels in future blog). There are roughly 2,500,000 students entering college each year but there are 18,000,000 in colleges and universities at all levels including college, professional schools and graduate schools. 14,000,000 are in public institutions and 4,000,000 are in private. The total cost of those(14m) in public institutions is 250 billion dollars or $17,000 per student (room, board and expenses averaged of all levels) and those (4M) in private schools is 150 billion dollars or $37,000 per student. Whether private or public the students pay (via loans, scholarships, parent contribution and work study) all but $10,000. So of the 400 billion dollars spent each year on higher education $140B is paid by government, $40B by endowment funds of private universities and colleges and $210B by the student (using: loans; parents contribution, scholarships and work study). Once the program is in place and up and running it will be self supporting. This will mean that local, state and federal government will save $140B yearly or $1.4 trillion over ten years after the first four years and people start repaying loans. Both private and public schools will be able to use the money saved to improve the faculty (both pay and quality) and to improve facilities ( to accommodate the increased number of students that will be attending).

When the program starts those already in school can participate and reimburse the program at 2% each year for ten years of their net income. The repayment will be handled on the persons tax returns.

The beauty of this is that the job a person obtains and therefor the income is based upon the education they get and the field they pick. By setting reimbursement to your income if you decide to go into a low paying job you reimburse less and if you decide to go into a higher paying job you reimburse more. The individual decides. Two people with the same degree may go into opposite ends of the pay schedule.

After eight years there will be approximately 28 million (this number could be almost double if more students go to college then would have) that will be paying back into the program with an average income of $75,000(assuming a combination of those in professions and in trades, with more data this number could be precisely calculated) paying roughly 15% each (averaging those that do just bachelors and those that do graduate or professional degrees) or 315 billion dollars and thus close to self sustaining.

Any one could elect not to be part of the program but they will then need to pay full room/board/tuition of $37,000 yearly at private school and $19,000 at a public school.

This is a first approximation kind of a back of envelope calculation. I want lots of comments and criticism and if you know a college administrator please forward it to them. also to any state or federal legislators.