Issue 544 A Shameless Future March 10, 2015

With technology advancing the way it is, we literally have no privacy.  So what impact could this potentially have?  Let's discuss.

We know what you did:  Because of technology, the world will literally be able to see you for who you really are.  The information on the internet, the footage of you walking past a camera, all of it is going to be public knowledge.  There is literally no escape from the prying eyes of anyone and everyone.  So all your embarrassing moments and secrets are live and in color for all to see.

Reaction:  Because people know that they can no longer hide, even in their own home, people will become willing to do almost anything.  Some may think, wait, they know what we are doing so would we not try to hide our embarrassing moments?  Short answer is no, because you cannot escape, thus you simply stop trying to hide your silliness, your anger, your happiness, and all that you are.  In fact, because you cannot do anything privately anymore the level of what we are willing to do increases.  We are more likely to let ourselves be embarrassed, and then shrug it off.

Result:   This future that we are bearing witness to will cause us to look for people who are authentic.  We will be able to see people for who they really are.  So if all the information on the net shows that they are full of empty promises, then we know they are not authentic.  In this future we will know if that person is faking who they are, or if they are self-aggrandizing.  Literally it will all be a search away.  So, we can see people for who they really are and thus we will conscientiously seek real people.  This will also cause the phonies to start to act more authentic and thus our society, while shameless, will face, in my opinion, an improvement.

Conclusion:  People are going to behave how they feel.  They will stop caring what people think to a degree and become freer in a sense.  But, my worries are on morals.  Without morals, the society will fall.  However, people with morals and principles will be the most authentic, and thus will become emulated by others so that they too can be trusted and sought out by people looking for authenticity.  So I say do not fear this future, as it may lead to something great.

Issue 543 Cyber Defence and Obama March 9, 2015

I actually agree on something the President wants to do.  In this case it is to shore-up our electronic defenses against foreign attack.  So here is what he wants to do, and what I feel he should also be doing.

Obama's proposal:  The NSA used to be the only game in town when it came to electronic defenses.  In this case, it was all regulated by government.  Then it was deregulated and we now have a myriad of antivirus and antispyware programs.  But this is increasingly not enough as hackers and other bad guys seem to be removing the blocks on all the data that we want kept private.  Obama proposed a new cyber security agency to do this job, but I only like a single part of this proposal which would allow more people to fight hackers without relying on government or a need for a new agency.  In this case that part of the proposal will declassify data on hackers, cyber-attacks, and the methods they used, which has been kept secret by both the military and intelligence agencies previously.  In this case, the data will release data primarily to companies who make cyber defense software like Norton, MacAfee, and the like.  This would allow them to shore-up gaps in peoples' private security and in a company's security as well.  This to me, the NSA can do on its own without a new cumbersome bureaucracy, but the President likes big government, so what can I say.

My addendum:  In addition to the one part of the President's proposal, I would make one additional part to this.  In this case, I would license hackers to hack back.  So if a company or a government facility is hacked, hackers licensed by the government will actively seek to identify the hackers and at the same time stop them from doing any damage/retrieve stolen information.  This concept is underway, but if it is combined with the above, it will allow antivirus and spyware companies to offer a new service that can actually protect you actively, rather than passively defend your computer.

Conclusion:  Defending our electronic information is becoming increasingly important.  Identity theft is a very real threat, and can ruin people financially.  In an age where there is no more privacy, this last vestige of financial and key private information must be protected.  What more can I say, messing with people and potentially harming them must be prevented. So these two things together will more than shore-up our personal defenses.

Issue 542 9 cents worth of love. March 6, 2015

Did you know that the emotion called love uses about 9 cents worth of chemicals?  I learned this while watching a discussion between Penn Gilet (an atheist) and a Rabbi on the Blaze network.  In this discussion, they discussed love, and the differences between the types of love and whether faith is needed to love.  So here is what they talked a little bit about.

Faith in love:  They discussed if we need more faith in love itself, so that we might realize, or feel love.  For Penn Gilet, he did not need faith, for he, just knows the emotion love.  He does not need faith (God) to back it up.  For Penn, love is just that love.  He does not care if it is a chemical reaction or not, but that the love for his family is all that he wants or needs to feel love toward someone else.  In a sense he has faith in love even if he has no faith in God.  The Rabbi on the other hand needed love of God to feel love.  His connection with God is so strong that God becomes a part of his love of family.  In that sense, God's love and his love become inseparable.

Greedy in love:  Part two of their discussion on this topic asked if we, the faithful, are being greedy in needing God's love so that we might feel love. You see, the Rabbi, in the way he said it, made it sound as if God's love was inseparable to love of each other.  But Penn pointed out that it might be us being greedy.  Again, Penn being an atheist just needs the emotion, and needs nothing else to back it up as he has faith in love.  The Rabbi, in response said that yes, he was being greedy needing God's love to love others, but to him that was a part of loving another.  That loving another as per our own emotions, and through God allows us to love both sinner and saint alike, not to mention family.  

Evidence of Love:  From here it evolved into a debate on if we need evidence of love so as to not dismiss it all as a chemical reaction.  Penn says no for the emotions he feels toward his daughter are real enough.  The Rabbi answered that we do in fact need evidence, for love to him comes through God.  Together it highlighted that some people need evidence while others do not, but that evidence comes through faith and not science.  In this case, love to an atheist was real and something he could have faith in on its own, while the Rabbi needed Gods support, or the faith in God as a lens to have love feel real.

Conclusion:  So this discussion (mind you, this is one of many things discussed) differentiates between a love through the eyes of the faithful, and the eyes of those who do not need faith.  Neither one, dismissed love as a simple chemical reaction as each put their faith into love itself.  As such, love has a different element that allows even those with unscientific and scientific minds to believe in something greater.  This is what I got out of the interview, that love really cannot be explained by faith, or science.  Love simply is and that some get greedy with love, or need support with love, etc.  In the end, love really seems to conquer.  

Issue 541 What Government should run the moon? March 5, 2015

Well, my readers, let us get away from the more serious side of things and look toward the future.  In this case I would like to discuss with you all on who should actually run the moon once colonization begins.  So let's begin.

The people of the moon:  For our purposes, the moon should remain neutral to all conflict on earth.  Reason being is that from the moon, any nation, or the colonists can attack the entire planet without limit.  Also, it will act as an outpost for humanities further expansion amongst the stars.  So a neutral government will be the best one, so as to maintain peace.  Further, people of all nations should be allowed to colonize so that the varying interests of each group clash.  This mimics the whole ambition counter acting ambition established in America's own constitution.  Thus, the idea is to divide loyalties to the original home nation, and make it all belong to the moon resident’s fellow colonists.  And then we arrive at our answer, a democracy, or sorts, will run the moon.  They will have a legislature to make laws, and a senate to approve of them.  Each settlement will be represented by population in the legislature, and with one each in the senate.  This ensures no one side holds too much power.  Let's face it, the moon will be a transportation hub, and thus a central location for interstellar trade.  So each settlement, or even city for that matter needs a say in their survival and prosperity.

Basic laws will be just that, basic.  So a central charter that outlines these laws and the rights everyone has are a given.  Basically, it will be something to rally behind.  As such, laws against murder, and establishing a court system to prosecute crimes is a must.  But also, adapting the charter to the characteristics of lunar survival is a must also.  Resources will be very tight, and thus some form of distribution network for food, and resources may in fact be needed to be either regulated or at the very least monitored for this to work.  You see, unfairness in resources could in fact drive people apart and thus preventing that and maintaining unity is a must.

Why self-rule:  So with just how the government should run, you may be asking why not the United Nations, or a coalition government between existing countries.  Reason is because the countries here will not be responsive to the needs of the colonists.  They will use the colony(s) for their own purposes which will either be for profit or control.  Survival of the lunar people is not a priority if they do not provide what the host country(s) want.  Also, the countries on Earth are not as responsive to places that are far away.  They cannot see a crisis if there is one.  So waiting on bureaucrats on Earth can cost lives, as well as money.  That is why the moon needs to govern itself.  

Conclusion:  The moon will be dependent on the Earth initially to send it resources, but as time goes on with interstellar trade increasing, the need of the Earth will dwindle.  Thus, managing this, and preventing being taken advantage of relies on a government that has the moons interest at heart.  Thus, self-rule is the only way for this to work in my opinion and therefore prevent a repeat of past mistakes.

Issue 540 What speech should be squashed? March 4, 2015

So, is there any freedoms of speech that should be squashed?  I find that there should be two specific ones that have to be, despite my being libertarian (though I do admit, I have some totalitarian ideas).  So let's discuss.

Child pornography:  You are probably screaming that child porn is not speech?   Well, unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.  It is in fact a form of expression that uses and illegal activity.  Thankfully the Supreme Court sides with the kids and declared this form of speech to be not protected at all.  So this speech can thankfully be killed by law without any disagreement save those who partake in this obscene and disgusting activity.

Death threats:  Now this is a tricky one.  Yes death threats and the violence that goes along with them are at all times to be taken seriously.  Yet, intent in this case must be proven to actually act on such a threat to stop the perpetrator before the violence starts.  As such, this speech is harder to squash as it must be taken on a case by case basis to see if action must be taken or not.  Let us face it, some of us say really dumb things that can be construed as a death threat.  So sorting those out is important.  So in this case, you turn the evidence over to the police, and they look into past writings of the individual along with activities to see if action is to be taken.  And that is it.  Otherwise you as say an internet moderator can take the threat down and ignore it.  

Conclusion:  It is hard to say that any other speech should be squashed as that becomes problematic.  You cannot stop people from cursing, or making obscene gestures as that invites people banning kissing in public (it has been done before in America, so don't think it cannot happen again) amongst other activities and expressions.  As such, the only two forms of speech that do not invite a slippery slope of denying all speech and expression are in my opinion these two.  Aside from that, say and express yourself however you like.

Issue 539 Should the internet be a utility? March 3, 2015

With net neutrality passing, we must ask if this vote to regulate the internet is worth it.  Did this vote between unelected representatives just kill the internet or not?  Let us discuss.

No difference in Bits:  First of all, this not only affects your internet experience, but the content of your radio, television and phone.  Reason being is that all these technologies use the internet to transmit the information.  Thus, the government will lump all these bits together as part of distributing the bandwidths evenly to make it their version of "fair" and "equitable".  So the same amount of bandwidth for say a broadband internet must be equal to the same amount for a television channel or vice versa, even if that much bandwidth is not needed.   As such, your television shows will now buffer in the same way some internet videos do.  But if you want to manipulate it so you can watch unimpeded, you will probably have to buy special boxes to prioritize the data yourself.  So this will be annoying for regular television watchers and internet content users.

Loss of freedom of speech:  With the internet being regulated, the government has the opportunity to control who can say what on the internet.  So they can actually censor what we say on say a chat room, or on a blog which is something they could not do before.  Also, the government, just like they did with television, is require certain content on a website, such as a percentage of content being educational or some other standard.  Therefore, we may be forced to advertise, or say things we do not want associated with what we put on the internet ourselves.

Harms progress:  Did you know that phones and radio were a utility once?  When the radio was deregulated it became 100% free (excluding the recent addition of satellite).  But before this, only certain types of radio could be sold and the technology used in them had to be pre-approved.   Phones were another travesty of government regulation.  In the 1950s to the 1970s we had rotary phones because that was all that was allowed.  Then they (government) let them become push button phones.  That is 20 years’ worth of waiting for innovation.  However, when they deregulated the phones we got call waiting, answering machines, and touch screens, all year after year of each other.  It was progress and evolution done in years rather than government regulated decades.  Government regulation of the internet invites the slowdown of such progress.

And that is not all.  This invites government sponsored monopolies.  Google apparently was allowed to read and edit the regulatory set up, but no one knows what they did, as non industry members and even other government officials were not allowed to read it, let alone edit it.  So hopefully Google changed it for the better, even though that does not stop the government officials from making post edits to undo, or further harm progress and promote their favored businesses over startups who will now probably get squashed.

Conclusion:  We are now currently stuck with a potential and colossal failure of government regulation that may even make it easier to tax the internet, or limit future access to the benefits of the internet itself.  I am speaking of the freedom of speech and information exchange here people.  So turning the internet into a utility from my standpoint is a bad idea.

Issue 538 Who owns the internet? March 2, 2015

Who really owns the internet?  Only two groups actually do.  And you can actually name them very easily.  Can't figure it out?  It is the companies that sell access and us the regular people.  Let us discuss.

What the companies do:  The companies serve a single roll with the internet. It is to sell access to the whole thing.  So that internet bill every month is just us paying to get on.  Everything else is literally free.  These companies have no need to do anything else with respect to internet access as that would actually hinder their businesses.  Yes, certain websites are charged more to access the internet, but that is because they use up more space for data.  So they essentially are causing congestion on the internet which means they are technically being punished by the service providers for inhibiting everyone else using the internet.  But that is only the case for businesses.  People just pay for access as well, but otherwise they can do whatever they want.

The regular users:  This is us, the regular people who use the net each and every day.  We provide content, use services that are almost universally free, and otherwise do work and play on the internet.  Nothing is actually impeding us from doing whatever we want on the internet.  All we do is pay a small bill that is only going to become cheaper so that we can use a modem, and even that is becoming cheaper and possibly at some point actually free.  You see without us using the internet almost constantly, the internet would not be such a lucrative business opportunity for companies to sell goods and services (whether they be free or not (think advertising)).  As such, without us, the continued existence of the net with its ability to share information and content for free would not exist.

Conclusion:  So the companies that sell access and attempt to prevent clutter, and us, the consumers of services and content are the true owners of the net.  Without each other, the internet could not prosper or evolve into the sensation and tool that we all enjoy.  The internet is only going to become better and freer with each passing year, and you know what?  You helped make that possible by you simply using the internet.