Why is Digital Marketing the Winning Strategy for Law Firms?
How often anymore do people look up telephone numbers using the yellow pages phone book, yes, the large phone books children used to sit on to reach a table? How often any longer do people use Britannica Encyclopedias to research the answers to questions, or use a bulky dictionary to search for the definition of words? Technology has changed the way people research information and find resources. Presently, people use search engines to locate information and resources; including information about law firms. In fact, according to National Law Review.Com, a Google Consumer Survey found that 96% of individuals seeking legal advice used an online search engine. This article will discuss the reasons why digital marketing is so important for a law firm’s success for myriad reasons – from the importance of creating and maintaining a top-of-the-line website for your law firm; to search engine optimization; content marketing and consistently blogging.
Briefly, what is Digital Marketing?
Digital marketing, sometimes called online marketing, promotes products, brands and services using the internet and digitally based technologies to connect with potential customers or clients. Typically, digital marketing refers to marketing campaigns which occur on a computer, phone, tablet or similar device. Incredibly, according to the Pew Research Center, 85% of Americans report they go online on a daily basis, with almost 50% who report they go online several times per day. Prior to initiating a digital marketing program for a law, having an operational strategy is helpful.
Before We Start, What’s the End Game?
Essentially, clients need to find your firm! The reason for digitally marketing a law firm is to help potential clients find you. Whether by social media profiles, websites, blogs or posts; or a combination of all the digital marketing tools, helping clients find your particular law firm is the end game. Part of using digital marketing for a law firm is understanding who the people are that are searching for your firm. Knowing what they are searching for, what resonates with them, and what is going to compel them to choose your firm.
A great website is a perfect first step. It is important for a law firm to make sure their website is up to professional standards and passes the bar.
A professional website is an essential component in a successful law firm’s marketing strategy. Once the website is sure to be best in class, there are several forms digital marketing strategies can take. One effective marketing tool for any broadminded law firm is to know how to use and navigate search engine optimization to their advantage, because their competitors are likely on the same course.
What Exactly Does Search Engine Optimization Mean?
Essentially, search engine optimization is a useful tool or strategy in helping a law firm get webpages to rank higher in search engines such as Google. Since individuals searching on the internet is the primary way content is discovered online; a webpage ranking higher in search engines, can result in a significant increase of traffic to a specific law firm’s website. The key is to create web pages which are attractive to search engines. How specifically does search engine optimization benefit law firms?
Much of search engine optimization involves content marketing.
What is Content Marketing?
Content marketing is diverse, running the gamut from a blog, an article, an e-book, or a video. Quality content marketing is important for law firms.
What is the Benefit of Content Marketing for Law Firms?
Content marketing is an integral part of search engine optimization, and a successful digital marketing campaign, as noted below.
Closing Argument:
Potential clients are searching for your firm on the internet. You just need to be available for them to find you! A well-planned digital marketing presence will help you secure the clients who need your professional legal services. Digital marketing helps your law firm get the right verdict in the marketing sphere.
]]>
Government and private security forces around the world have employed countless brilliant thinkers to solve one of humanity’s most enduring questions: how quick and easy can we make it to slaughter one another? This is exactly the question on the minds of the thousands of people working on developing autonomous weapons for dozens of countries around the world.
During violent conflict, everyone suffers until human compassion finally wins out. But what if a robot is calling the shots? This is the question on policymakers’ minds as they decide when and how to regulate lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs).
Discussing the threat of robot-on-human violence immediately calls to mind Skynet from the Terminator saga, but we’re well beyond that kind of tech-phobic paranoia. Hoards of murderous robots are becoming a throwback to the days when Motorola made the hottest cell phone on the market and Nintendo blew everyone’s mind with 16-bit video games. But Elon Musk just recently warned that AI could cause World War III, suggesting that we are “summoning the demon.”
Before we dismiss this as yet another ranting rave from a crazy rich dude, let’s remember that crazy rich dudes compose a plurality of the world’s political leaders. Vladimir Putin himself has expressed a belief that the nation that leads in artificial intelligence will be the “ruler of the world.” And in case you think this means we’re heading to a new age of technology-driven social advancement, it’s important to point out the fact that dozens of nations are actively working on finding ways to weaponize AI.
They say that technology is not inherently good or bad, but rather it’s how new gadgets are put to use that determines their social and ethical impact. After all, nuclear weapons gave rise to peaceful nuclear power, and the Cold War made the internet possible. But also, there are at least thirty countries actively developing lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) — robots designed to kill people.
LAWs include any type of technology — drones, smartbombs, automatic weapons, or even nanobots — that can independently select, find, and execute a target. But how self-directed can an autonomous machine be?
There are three categories of LAWs: human-in-the-loop, which only operates at a human’s command; human-on-the-loop, which can initiate and engage independently, but is subject to human override; and human-out-of-the-loop which would have zero human input or override capability. Human-out-of-the-loop autonomous weapons only exist in concept for the time being, but these categories serve as helpful markers in the debate about feasible and effective ways to regulate the use of LAWs.
Many weapons already common in modern armed conflict include some level of in-the-loop or on-the-loop technology. For example, AI-powered autonomous platforms like Israel’s Iron Dome and America’s Close-In Weapons System operate in a classic human-in-the-loop system. Importantly, however, almost no one wants to see a global permission slip for fully-automated, human-out-of-the-loop weapons. Even the Pentagon has directed that any development in LAWs must incorporate some human influence. But should we ban lethal autonomous weapons outright?
Influential thought leaders like Elon Musk, the late Stephen Hawking, Noam Chomsky, and countless scientists and humanitarians have all called for an outright ban on LAWs. They believe that this technology is too dangerous to be meddled with, and a global moratorium on autonomous weapons is the only chance humans have for long-term survival. Those who have spoken out about using this technology focus on the fact that robots lack discernment, an essential quality of controlled warfare.
Combatants must distinguish between soldiers and civilians; failing to do so is a war crime. Likewise, the principle of jus in bello requires someone to be held responsible for civilian deaths during armed conflict. Robots aren’t above the law; LAWs must comply with these and other laws of armed conflict when acting autonomously. However, at the current state of technology it is unclear whether robots are even capable of making qualified distinctions. This begs the question of who is to blame if a lethal piece of AI makes a mistake.
Human laws regulating the practice of warfare are ancient, and existing legal mechanisms are ill-suited to protect us from the Pandora’s Box that has been thrown open by combining AI and lethal weapons. We could face another international arms race like we did during the nuclear era or run the risk that LAWs could get into the wrong hands. Plus — you know, Skynet.
The fact that autonomous weapons are not capable of discernment raises the very real danger that LAWs will fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians. This is the common wisdom behind the Skynet character in the Terminator movies and exactly why most parties to the debate around LAWs believe we should stick to human-on-the-loop, if not in-the-loop systems. Fair enough, those films are freaky. But any government policy that suppresses technological innovations inherently comes with unintended consequences.
Supporters of LAWs cite both military and ethical advantages to the use of autonomous killing technologies. The military advantages boil down to efficiency: killing more people, more quickly. They do this by saving money, multiplying force, and expanding the battlefield into places like space and deep underwater where humans cannot go. Unhindered by fatigue or exhaustion, robots could potentially be much more accurate and effective than human fighters, could be programmed to understand many languages, and could even assist with war strategy.
Although any argument revolving around ethical war practices involves a measurable degree of cognitive dissonance, there may also be ethical reasons behind the use of LAWs. Robots have no self-preservation instinct, so autonomous weapons would not make emotional judgments and reactions that could result in civilian death. And lest we forget the lives saved on the battlefield — LAWs have removed human beings from danger who would otherwise be in combat from the potential trauma of warfare. Meaningful arguments ring loudly on both sides of this debate, so what’s next for LAWs?
As new voices join the LAWs regulation debate, one thing is certain: this technology is not going anywhere. An outright ban may be unwise, but that fact is irrelevant because it is unenforceable. Government and private defense forces will continue to develop LAW, and there is a reasonable basis to do so. But then the question becomes exactly how we will regulate this increasingly dangerous artificial intelligence.
Whether and how to regulate LAWs is a policy debate muddied by interwoven legal, technological, military, and ethical considerations. Fortunately, some pre-existing international laws — such as the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel mines, conventions on chemical and biological weapons, and the 1970 nuclear weapons treaty — offer effective starting points.
Research and development bans are largely unenforceable, but we may soon see laws limiting the deployment and mass production of AI-powered lethal weapons. But of course, we’re only talking about LAWs that function with human control; there is little doubt that a fully-autonomous robot built to kill in a manner that escapes human intervention would be a serious problem.
Plenty of things in science fiction have matured into science reality, and that’s exactly what Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking were concerned about. Without a doubt, world leaders should begin working on coming to a consensus regarding on a ban on human-out-of-the-loop weapons. Fully-autonomous “killing machines” should be fully off the table before anyone tries to define rules regulating the varying types of LAWs. From there, leaders can decide whether and how to employ artificial life to effectuate anthropological death in a manner that maintains the human capacity for discernment and empathy that we both value as an ethical prerogative and demand as a matter of international law.
]]>
Yesterday was the last day of Pride Month, the 30-day celebration dedicated to our LGBTQ communities. The rainbow flags are coming down, and we’ve finally managed to unknot that hair tinsel and scrub off the last of that iridescent body paint that looked so fly on Insta. But now that the festivities are over, it’s time for a moment of reflection on what’s it’s really all about — a hard-fought battle with many casualties. Oh yea, and the fact that there are still no federal laws explicitly protecting LGBTQ people from overt discrimination.
No doubt about it — Pride is a blast. It’s among the most joyful celebrations from the most jubilant group of people that you’ll ever see, and that’s a wonderful thing regardless of anyone’s personal opinions to the contrary. However, Pride is not just a time to celebrate the breaking of the shackles of oppression that society has clamped on the LGBTQ community for generations; it’s also a time for somber remembrance of the brutality of the abuse that these people have suffered under legal regimes that attempted to repress their very existence.
June marks the anniversary of multiple LGBTQ events. It commemorates the beginning of the PRIDE movement, recognizes the impact that LGBTQ individuals have had throughout history and, raises awareness for the impacts of HIV/AIDS. Sadly, it is also a memorial for members of the community who were lost to hate crimes — particularly the Stonewall Inn riots of 1969.
When the first gay and trans-friendly bars and clubs began to pop up in the early ’60s, it was relatively common for police to raid them more-or-less indiscriminately. On June 28, 1969, one particular group of patrons at one such establishment had had enough. The night of the Stonewall Inn riot, the patrons at the LGBTQ-friendly establishment stood their ground, refusing to be bullied unfairly by the police. Chaos followed, then violence. There were arrests, mistreatment, and injuries among both the customers and police. The riot lasted for four nights but its impact has lasted for decades.
Making Love a Crime
As strange as it may seem today, our parents’ generation had to deal with a slew of laws that criminalized sexual activity between consenting adults. This made many homosexual acts of intimacy — and thus, romantic relationships — a crime punishable by law. And just to blow your mind even further, the Supreme Court did not officially come out against these crazy laws until 2003.
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that had made it a crime for two persons of the same gender to engage in intimate sexual conduct. Several other states had already passed (and overturned) such laws by the turn of the millennium, but Texas fought hard for its right to systematically oppress the gay and lesbian community. Fortunately, by the time Lawrence was decided in 2003, the Supreme Court was finally willing to recognize that such an absurdly invasive policy violated constitutional Due Process.
Our liberties under the Due Process Clause give everyone the right to engage in whatever sexual conduct they desire without the intervention of the government. Furthermore, it requires the government to apply laws equally to everyone. This policy was challenged again with the Defense of Marriage Act and yet another Supreme Court challenge — the United States v. Windsor. In this case, the Court struck down a major portion of the law that overtly discriminated against homosexual couples and forced the government to recognize at least some same-sex marriages.
Meaningful progress has been made since the early days of the LGBTQ rights movement.. In 1998, former President Clinton issued Executive Order 13987 expanding on equal opportunity employment rights within the federal government and prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 1999, President Clinton signed Proclamation №7203 creating Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Proclamation №8387 issued by President Obama in 2009 made LGBTQ Pride Month what it is today.
Hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity are also punishable by federal law under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Both of the named individuals were murdered in 1998 as a result of their gender-identities or sexual orientations. Notably however, the bill also covers hate crimes related to race, color, religion, and national origin of the victim; as a result, it is more of a crime prevention policy than an express articulation of LGBTQ rights.
All fifty states have legalized gay marriage, and landmark Supreme Court cases have created laws that support the practice. But short of the progressive leanings of a few Supreme Court Justices, America has no national law on the books that supports equal rights for LGBTQ people. As a result, in many jurisdictions, it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against LGBTQ people in the workplace, housing, public accommodations, healthcare, and schools. This is why Texas and North Carolina were able to pass their bathroom bills: two recent notable anti-LGBTQ policies that banned transgender people from using the bathroom or locker rooms that align with their identity and refused to allow municipalities to govern on the issue. And while equal rights advocates are clamoring for change, the Trump administration has taken steps to make life harder for a community already experiencing systematic oppression.
Just a few days ago, Trump and his administration made a great PR move when they sent out a single Tweet to declaring the president’s alliance. However, because it came after years of him promoting LGBTQ discrimination efforts, it has been met with a heaping measure of skepticism.
President Trump has made the oppression of the LGBTQ community a more-or-less official policy. Well, at least in my opinion — and in the opinion of the Human Rights Campaign.
The official Tweet from the Trump White House claims that his campaign launched a global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality — when in fact, his administration has undertaken serious efforts to discriminate against our LGBTQ neighbors. The Trump Administration placed bans on transgender people serving in the military, rescinded Obama memos that provided federal funding to protect trans workers and students from discrimination, challenges birthright citizenship of gay and lesbian parents’ children who were conceived and born in other counties, even when the parents are U.S. citizens. He’s also placed two new conservative justices on the Supreme Court with histories of hostility towards LBGTQ rights.
But why?
The majority of the country — republicans and democratic alike, the old and the young alike, and even most people who identify as religions — agree that LGBTQ people deserve the same rights and protections as everyone else. So, what’s the hold upon a change in law? Oh yea — it’s because President Trump and the Republican Party are actively fighting to maintain LGBTQ oppression as the status quo.
Our federal system refuses to conform with our modern culture and to inclusively provide protections for all American people. Our landmark civil rights laws do not apply to gay and transgender individuals, but by all means they absolutely should. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agrees, but the Trump Administration has pushed back.
The Trump Administration is feverishly trying to buttress the floodgates of a movement that is already bursting with power. But it’s not going down without a fight.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Equality Act “[t]o prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.” This bill puts LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections in place, and it was recently referred to the Senate for a final vote to be made into law. Unfortunately, the law is stuck in Committee, where it is expected to die due to the lack of Republican support.
Republican lawmakers have framed the issue of LGBTQ rights in religious rights terms. They argue that allowing LGBTQ people rights would suppress religious people from expressing their views about sexuality and gender. Rather than pass a law that treats LGBTQ people equally with all the rest of us, Republican lawmakers are proposing a “compromise” to the Equality Act that would allow a religious exemption to the law’s anti-discrimination terms. This exemption essentially makes the Equality Act meaningless — and not to mention creates a confusing entanglement of church and state.
Until we get our top political officials to support equality for all, America’s LGBTQ community will still have to fight for the basic freedoms, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that the rest of us take for granted. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and now that the Pride celebrations have subsided the real work can begin.
]]>
In the 1940s, the United States became the first country to add controlled amounts of fluoride to the public water supply. Over the years, this decision to dose everyone in America with controlled amounts of a calcifying mineral has made people increasingly skeptical. In fact, some folks are downright terrified.
If you’ve dipped a toe into the debate around water fluoridation, it might be tempting to dismiss the controversy as another flare of pseudo-scientist opposition to incontrovertibly safe public health practice. Much like the folks that fight vaccination and fortified foods, the anti-flourdators are easily dismissed as a bunch of crazies riding the hot mess express. And surely, the loudest voices against putting fluoride in public water spout more outrage than reputable evidence. But a deeper dive into the question of whether water fluoridation should be allowed as a matter of public health reveals a more nuanced debate than simple conspiracy.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral existing in many water sources. Like all substances, in extreme excess, it can be toxic. But, at the right concentration, consistent exposure to fluoride is an effective way to prevent dental cavities. This occurs because the mineral is particularly effective at reducing demineralization and increasing remineralization in tooth enamel. Since the U.S. started dosing kids with fluoride from public water supplies, we’ve seen an astounding 68% decline in cavity-related decayed or missing teeth between 1966 and 1994. The CDC named community water fluoridation as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century, and today more than 75% of Americans drink publicly fluoridated water.
The success of America’s water fluoridation campaign has inspired followers, and many other countries now fluoridate their water supplies. About 372 million people in 24 countries receive artificially fluoridated water, including in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Brazil, and Vietnam. These governments advocate for water fluoridation as the best way to promote oral health for all.
But despite its demonstrated dental health benefits, water fluoridation is not universally accepted. Nearly 98% of European countries have refused to fluoridate drinking water, relying instead on fluoridated salt and milk. Likewise, less than 1% of Japan practices water fluoridation, as the practice is unnecessary given that most children perform fluoride mouth-rinsing in school. This raises the question of whether water fluoridation is necessary at all — and a careful analysis of the risks raises questions about whether the practice is really as safe as it seems.
Beyond some public hysteria, there is no evidence indicating that fluoride is a neurotoxin. Likewise, claims of cancer and lower IQs associated with fluoride ingestion are largely unsubstantiated. In fact, the scientifically-backed hazards of too much fluoride are pretty limited.
Too much fluoride can cause fluorosis, which results in faint white lines or patches on the surface of the teeth. However, although these cases are extreme and rare, advanced stages of excessive fluoride ingestion can cause dental and skeletal fluorosis that makes teeth and bones brittle, causing pain and weakness. Physical pain from over-fluoridation is rare, but not unheard of. At least 20 states in India have been forced to deal with widespread outbreaks of both skeletal and dental fluorosis, requiring installation of fluoride removal plants. However, when measured against the potential agony of chronic dental pain for those with fluoride deficiencies, it’s hard to say which is worse.
Despite clear benefits in certain areas where dental healthcare is lacking, clearly community water fluoridation is not a smart option in every place. First of all, whether fluoride is needed to prevent cavities varies based on the natural mineral content of water supplies and public healthcare realities. These natural variations, combined with the forces of public outrage fueled by social media, cause vast diversity in global water fluoridation. And frankly, the jury is still out on which perspective is the most accurate.
The World Health Organization recently stated that fluoridation at the correct level is hugely important, particularly for high-risk communities, while the European Commission sees no advantage to water fluoridation compared with other sources. These entities are looking at different data sets around water content, community oral health standards, and the availability of universal dental care, so clearly they will come to different conclusions. But the singular conclusion that can be drawn from this great diversity of data is that universal water fluoridation is at best unnecessary, and at worse potentially hazardous to public health.
Although medical consensus deems fluoride safe and effective for promoting oral health at the right levels, there are some gaps in the available data that opponents have latched onto. Those who fight fluoridation argue governments shouldn’t be making choices regarding the contents of a public resource that is both free and necessary for human life. Individual rights and informed consent for our own healthcare decisions weigh heavily in this debate, play heavy across the board, but some opposition arguments are more farfetched than others. Conspiracy theories involving communist plotting, forced sedation, and Nazism lack any real merit, but fluorosis is nevertheless a real consequence of over-fluoridation.
As with any good debate, there are zealots on both sides. But the true risks associated with public water fluoridation are perhaps less dire than many imagine. On one end of the spectrum, we have dental health and cavity-prevention. On the other side, we have the aesthetic risk of fluorosis and privacy rights. In the middle lie the many variables that influence whether water fluoridation is actually a good idea in a given place. Regardless, whether and how much to fluoridate public water sources is a highly fact-specific inquiry that requires decision-makers to consider the natural makeup of existing water supplies, the oral healthcare realities for their particular constituents, and the way that interest in individual rights balances against an imperative for government dental intervention. Given this highly circumstantial scenario, it’s hard to convince people that universal water fluoridation is really a good idea.
]]>
The internet is the greatest social technology we’ve ever seen. It’s created opportunities for free speech and expression in parts of the world where such rights are dismissed as radical foreign ideas. It’s allowed for the development of social networks, where we can connect with the people that we care about and stave off the loneliness and isolation of the human experience. But now that governments, corporations, and other centralized organizations have figured out how to pull the strings of the world wide web, the internet and social media are mutating from a technology that promised freedom for all to yet another tool of systematic oppression.
Internet companies with market power are wielding it to make sure they stay at the top of the fiercely competitive tech industry. This is a tale as old as recorded economic history, and many would see it as the natural functioning of a competitive market. But when a company’s market power revolves around the use and management of personal information to manipulate public opinion, irresponsible or abusive competitive moves can have far-reaching social consequences — including violence, oppression, and abuse.
Just a generation ago, the things that we do online every day were unfathomable. Social media — a technology that now fuels our economy — wasn’t a thing. If you wanted to communicate instantly with someone far away, you had to do it by telephone — and the telecommunication monopolies charged you out the nose for it. Now, such things are just a matter of sending a message through an app, email service, or social media platform. It’s easy and free, and as a result over 2 billion people around the world use social media as a tool for communication. But if social media is free, how are companies like Facebook and Google making so much money off of it?
The tech industry survives on innovation. However, big tech is becoming growingly monopolistic, and some of the biggest names in the tech space have even been accused of suppressing up-and-coming innovations that would shift the status quo. And to figure out why tech companies that got rich by offering people new freedoms would be incentivized to stifle them, all you need to do is follow the money.
Monetizing Your Private Data
Most popular social media sites have a business model that centers around collecting, managing, and monetizing user data. When we use social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube, we’re constantly inputting data about ourselves and our preferences into algorithms designed to track and manage this information. This allows the platform to feed directed content and advertisements pertinent to our interests.
Companies like Google and Facebook monetize user data by using it to create directed advertisements. Unfortunately, however, big tech doesn’t always collect and manage user data in a responsible manner. In fact, the algorithms behind social media sites have led to a suite of unintended consequences that have gone as far as the oppression of personal freedoms and basic human rights.
The misuse of private social media user data is a growing concern in the tech industry. From the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal to accusations of illicit user data mining, social media sites have a less-than-sterling record when it comes to the protection of personal information we share online. But when it really comes down to it, why should we care?
For many of us, privacy issues created by this type of user data collection and sale fail to elicit anything more than a shrug and a sigh. But the fact of the matter is that big tech companies control personal data in a manner that has massive negative consequences in the real world. And if anyone needs any proof, just take a look at what’s behind the ongoing abuses and attempted genocide of the Rohingya minority population in Myanmar.
Social Media and the Abuse of Human Rights
The New York Times recently reported on the Myanmar military’s use of Facebook to spread fake news and propaganda designed to incite violence against the nation’s minority Muslim population, the Rohingya. The anti-Rohingya messages spread by the Myanmar government incited real violence against the minority group, including the largest forced migration in modern history. And while the Myanmar military is clearly to blame for the growing human rights crisis in the country, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Facebook — a social media platform most Westerners use to share cute memes and check in with friends and family — is actively being used as a tool of social oppression.
Facebook has clear standards regarding the censorship of violent or hate-fueled speech. However, the company’s censorship software failed to identify the growing impacts of Muslim hate speech being spouted to the people of Myanmar through its platform. This oversight has contributed to further violence in an ongoing refugee crisis that has been truly devastating to the estimated 1 million Rohingya living in Myanmar. And while Myanmar’s military failed to achieve the ethnic cleansing its social media campaign was designed to facilitate, it took actual real-world violence to break out before Facebook finally froze the accounts of the militants and extremists responsible for fanning Islamophobia in Myanmar.
Social media platforms use our personal information for private gain. And while there are surely teams of tech attorneys that will argue otherwise, this makes tech companies responsible for ensuring that the data we share on their social media platforms aren’t used to incite violence or abuse.
Facebook and other social media sites may not be legally responsible for the human rights abuses that are facilitated through their platforms, but they have a social responsibility to prevent such harm from coming to their users. In an age where consumers are becoming increasingly sophisticated about exercising their economic power, the lack of social responsibility among tech companies may lead more and more of us to delete our online presence once and for all.
]]>
When a utility grid is down, every second counts. At substations with fuel cell backup systems, grid engineers can restore electrical service during a blackout much faster than those relying on traditional diesel generators without the noise and pollution that comes with traditional fossil fuel backup power options. The business case for system-wide deployment of fuel cell-powered substation backup systems makes for a compelling argument, and the enterprises at the cutting edge of this innovative infrastructural technology are working to educate utility executives, managers, engineers, and consultants about the beneficial impacts fuel cells can have on transmission reliability.
The energy sector is rife with innovation. Newly-developed fuel cell technologies allow utilities to restore power faster in the event of a blackout. This is possible because private companies have developed utility-scaled backup power infrastructure for installation at substations. The professionals responsible for ensuring the reliability of our electrical grid are facing growing challenges, but cutting-edge fuel cell technology offers a clean, efficient, and cost-effective solution to the increasing constraints on our electrical transmission infrastructure.
Electrical grids are some of the largest machines in the world. They are massive networks of electrical generation, transmission, and distribution systems that stretch from continent to continent light people’s homes, power their businesses, and provide the basic infrastructure they need to carry. The electrical grid is something that we all rely on nearly every minute of the day, and as a result it must be designed for reliable service. And, as a result, ensuring critical grid reliability requires utility professionals to install backup power sources.
Between widespread deployment of distributed generation and growing demand for electricity, it’s becoming harder and harder to ensure reliability of our electrical grids. And of course, reliability is only one of the many critical factors utility managers and energy consultants must consider. The operation of our electrical grid impacts our natural environment, public safety and social infrastructure, and the quality of daily life for billions of people around the world.
The deployment of renewable energy solutions and other forms of distributed energy have created new opportunities for critical economic, infrastructural, and environmental developments in America’s energy infrastructure. However, taken along with our ever-increasing demand for power, the ongoing changes in America’s energy infrastructure are posing real challenges to utility professionals working to maintain our grid.
Utilities are facing growing constraints on transmission infrastructure, but fortunately the American energy regulatory structure encourages the integration of private-sector solutions in our critical public infrastructure. Working hand-in-hand with private enterprises, utilities are finding technological solutions to some of the most complex and pressing challenges affecting our energy infrastructure.
Private companies are working with utilities to deploy fuel cell backup systems that offer effective solutions for boosting grid reliability and greening the environmental footprint of our energy infrastructure. In the past, utilities have been forced to rely on portable diesel generators to restart grid operations following a major blackout. This technology is not only costly and burdensome to deploy, it’s also noisy and terrible for the environment.
As our utilities work to manage the growing burdens on our transmission infrastructure, they are working to find clean and cost-effective ways to boost reliability. While it may require a substantial investment upfront, the long-term reductions in costs and environmental impacts that are possible with fuel cell technology are meaningful. When properly designed and integrated into a utility’s electrical grid, fuel cell backup systems offer superior safety, reliability, and efficiency than generators powered by fossil fuels. And with advanced remote management and enterprise software integrated into these advanced systems, many fuel cell backup installations offer far greater functionality than the existing standard technology.
The tech industry is not without its problems. It centralizes wealth within the social elite and discriminates against women and minorities in a manner that’s just outright shameful. But we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the deployment of technology is often an effective way to address our social, economic, and infrastructural problems. Fuel cells represent just the type of solution utilities need to upgrade our aging energy infrastructure, and they’re yet another example of how technology can be used to improve all our lives.
]]>
There are far-reaching consequences to the under-representation of women in politics, economics, and society. Gender gaps inhibit development, and they prevent the efficient functioning of our democratic systems. And if we are to take any lessons from last week’s midterm elections, it’s clear that the American people want to see a greater female presence in our political leadership.
Although of course opinions on the matter will vary, Americans are really smart. They’re starting to recognize that equal participation of women — and all genders, races, ethnicities, for that matter — is key to building a government that accurately represents the diversity that characterizes our great nation.
American women are showing up in force on both sides of the ballot box. Last week, the U.S. midterm elections attracted a record number of female voters to the polls, and millions of these women cast their votes for female candidates. This helped the Democratic party pick up over two dozen seats in the House of Representatives. In fact, the vast majority of the seats that the Democrats were able to flip in the house — 18 total — went to female candidates. Now, there are more women serving in Congress than ever before in U.S. history. And if history has taught us anything, this means good things for American society.
Research has shown that when women are in elected office, they make issues that affect families and children a critical part of their policy agendas. And while the political pundits constantly point towards the economy as the key factor driving voter behavior, building a society where kids and families can thrive is something we can all get behind. Unfortunately, however, women make up only one-fifth of national political leadership worldwide. This is true despite the fact one-half (more-or-less) of the population is female. While a variety of factors contribute to this state, one cannot ignore the impacts of implicit discrimination that has been built into social and economic systems almost everywhere.
Sexual misconduct and assault scandals rocked the highest offices of our government, from the Oval Office to the Supreme Court. Gender bias and discrimination infiltrate the corporate leadership of even the most progressive companies. Women have felt this impact, and they’re responding with a demand for more equal representation in American politics. This has already fostered a permanent change in the electorate, and we’re almost certain to see the next generation of female leaders carry forward the important achievements we’re making today.
Gender equality is a fundamental human right, and its potential benefits are universal. This isn’t a fringe opinion, it’s an official Millennium Development Goal for the United Nations and the official position for countless other international organizations that advocate for better policy. And while it’s relatively uncontroversial to say that women are entitled to equal access to education, jobs, and healthcare, saying the same about political power inevitably elicits pushback. But the fact of the matter is that women are vastly underrepresented in politics in just about every country in the world, despite the fact that they usually do great things once they’re elected to office. This is at least partially due to impacts of bias and discrimination.
Both the economy and society at large can benefit from more female leadership. This isn’t just a matter of fairness and society-building, it’s a question of overall economic success. Closing social gender gaps increases economic competitiveness, and in an increasingly globalized economy a competitive edge is something every nation can use. However, women around the world face substantial barriers to meaningful political participation. As a result, policymakers should focus on ending gender discrimination and increasing the role of women in social and economic leadership roles. But with fewer and fewer Americans placing trust in our public institutions — particularly with respect to their respect for gender equality and women’s rights — change is going to have to start from within.
Large scale progress doesn’t only occur from the top-down. Often, it must begin at the grass roots. Empowering women to become leaders begins by changing social attitudes. Before women can reach their full potential, they must have equal opportunities. This requires making the challenges facing women and girls a policy priority on both the national and community level. Otherwise, we will all miss out on the important benefits female leadership can bring to our economies and societies worldwide.
]]>