Issue 559 Internet kill switch March 31, 2015

The government has sought an internet kill switch since the internet has become so integral to commerce, communication and of course the exchanging of both good and bad ideas.  But what could potentially happen if they turned off the internet.  Here are some of the terrible things that could go wrong.

Medicine:  As someone who works in a pharmacy, I know for a fact that nearly 100% of all medical billing is internet based.  Also, when the internet has gone down in the stores that I have worked in, we were unable to fill any prescriptions via peoples insurance.  That is how dependent we are.  As such, we had to have people come back later when the internet was up, to either get re-billed via their insurance after they had paid the out of pocket cost, or pick up their prescription once it could finally be filled through the insurance.  Needless to say it was a hassle.  But if the internet was dead, how long would these people have to wait for potentially lifesaving medication to be covered?  Some of these drugs are thousands of dollars and people are already on a tight budget.  You get the idea.

Financial transactions:  Credit and debit card payments are all done through the internet as well.  So, you couldn't pay for your groceries (let alone medicine) via your bank cards.  Essentially, you could not access your money and would be left only with whatever paper and coin money you have in your pocket.  Thus, you may starve simply because you could not pay for food assuming the internet is down for an extended length of time.

Communications:  Text messaging, telephone calls, radio, television, and all other forms of media and communications all use the internet now.  As such, only analog technology (assuming you still have it) will be the only way to communicate (basic two way radio).  No communication means no getting in contact with grandma who has a heart condition.  It also means no calling for 911 in an emergency.  

Conclusion:  I provide these three broad topics as to what would be unusable if the internet kill switch were to not only exist, but to be used.  It is the ultimate terror weapon to a society built around computer and internet technology.  So stay aware everyone and if they announce their intention to make a kill switch, or use it, fight them with everything you got.

Issue 558 Don't sue them, sue the Regulators March 30, 2015

I have discussed with you all before that the reason why we do not have things like more comfortable seat belts and other technology is out of fear of lawsuits.  But what if we provided an insulator from lawsuits for these inventors and entrepreneurs?  In this case, government regulators can act as that shield.  Let us discuss.

Regulators as shields:  The concept is that things like new seat belt varieties, consumer products and the like all have to be approved by regulators who test them to ensure they work the way they are intended.  However, sometimes these items malfunction, are not used as intended, or there is an unknown defect.  This causes the sellers/creators of that product to come under fire for a lawsuit.  But, the seller/creator did not intend for such a thing to happen to those individuals, and the regulators are supposed to test to see how many malfunctions could take place, and look for defects.  So why not make it so that only the regulators (the product testers at the governmental level) are subject to the lawsuits for damages first?

Reasoning:  In concept, the idea is that because the regulators failed to identify defects and malfunctions it is primarily their fault.  Thus, the lawsuit falls on them first.  So any lawsuit by anyone will have to meet the full weight and force of a government sponsored lawyer who has near unlimited resources.  In this lawsuit, the first thing to be determined will not be blame however, but if the item was being used properly.  If it was then the lawsuit continues, if not the lawsuit ends as the blame goes to the item/product's user.  Then, if the case continues, they look to see if there is a defect, and if there is, the case goes through and the product is recalled to fix the defect and to replace the item with a fixed version, or an alternative.   If there is no defect, then they look to see if the cause for harm was a malfunction, and the rate of failure of the item/product in question.  If the rate of failure is deemed more than what the regulators stipulated by a reasonable amount, then the regulators pay damages, if not, then the case is dismissed.  The only time that the case will be bumped to the creators/inventor(s) is if gross negligence was discovered on their part in the making of their product and that is investigated in the course of the trail, but the regulators would share the blame for not catching it and thus pay part of the reparations to the victim.

Conclusion:  This set up prevents creators, inventors and startups from losing money to lawsuits that can be potentially frivolous. It also ensures that people/companies who make and invent new products do not have to fear lawsuits as much which allows more freedom and accelerated technological development and allows for newer products to go on the market.  The regulators can not only protect us from a bad product, but also protect the sellers/investors of these products as well.

Issue 557 Should the Media Show it? March 27, 2015

In this article I ask if the media should show graphic scenes if they are recorded on film or even audio.  Should we have shown the man burned alive by ISIS, or the murder of innocents by gangs in Chicago, or Louisiana or our U.S. Mexican border?  I say yes it all should, and I will tell you my reasoning.

Why I say yes:  The reason is because I feel we are blind sometimes to the reality of what is going on in the world.  We lack perspective when the news says a certain number of people were killed in a roadside bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan.  It does not completely sink in with us because we cannot see it.  Then you add the footage of the event, or the aftermath and it provides perspective to the event.  It actually makes you say WTF and think for a few seconds.  The movie "Hotel Rwanda" said it best, people will hear genocide in Rwanda on the news, say that’s terrible, and then go back to eating dinner.  But once the stomach turning footage is shown we can no longer just look away.  We actually want to take action to stop the event, or prevent it from happening again. I mean remember Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite reporting on the Tet offensive with all the bodies being dragged away? It was that footage that changed the opinion of the American people with respect to the Vietnam War. These images have power.  But the media today is fearful in my opinion of said graphic footage.  Some have an agenda, while others worry about how graphic the footage is in the first place.  But not showing it does not allow people to wake up and see the world with their own eyes and the horror we must resist.  The world is filled with violence, maybe it is time we stop hiding from it.

Conclusion:  As I said, this is my opinion, and it is nothing more than that.  I just feel that we are not getting the full impact of why it is important to stop the violence committed by ISIS and other violent groups.  We should be shown graphic footage so that we awaken and see not just the pleasure and innocence, but of the darker half of society and our social ills.  Things need to be said without fear, and showing a shooting, a murder and similar on TV and the ones responsible will help change us I believe for the better.

Issue 556 Marriage and Prenuptials March 26, 2015

I was watching Glenn Beck one day and he was saying how he met his second wife.  He said that he initially wanted a prenuptial do to a bad break up in his first marriage, but his now current wife would not have it.  She said to him: why would I put a contingency plan on a relationship that is supposed to last forever (I am paraphrasing here).  So the question is why have a prenuptial?

Answering the question:  Marriages are supposed to last forever.  It is supposed to be an everlasting union between two consenting adults so that they can start a life together and share a bond of love.   However, a prenuptial challenges that notion.  It says that the relationship may end, or that an end is already decided, and thus the love in the marriage is fleeting at best.  I can understand why some people would want a prenuptial, as they fear the marriages failure, or they feel the feeling of the other are not entirely genuine, but they love them so much they are at least willing to spend whatever amount of time belonging to that individual.  But, if you have such a strong doubt that you would need a prenuptial, then why are you risking wasting your life on a failed relationship when you can find true happiness with someone else.  Why torture yourself with doubts.  Also, why not work out problems with your spouse as they arrive so that you never need a prenuptial like a real couple.  Why resort to a divorce the moment you reach an impasse.  There are some stark contrasts here, which while easy to understand, genuinely show that love is typically blind, or at the very least is easily not very understood.

Conclusion:  My point is, be careful with what messages you are sending to your spouse when you ask for a prenuptial.  Obviously it is not a very pleasant one as your doubts are showing up on your sleeve.  Marriages are supposed to last forever, so make sure you think hard before asking for a prenuptial.  

Issue 555 Three types of people March 25, 2015

So there are apparently three types of people in this world.  And frankly they are easily broken down by their spirit animals.  Here we go.  

Sheep:  People with this spirit animal are typically followers.  They simply go about the everyday thinking about nothing save their own lives and those they immediately care about.  However, as they are typically concerned with themselves, they ignore news and other events and so they are gullible, and are generally not able to protect themselves.

Wolves:  These individuals take advantage of others (typically of the sheep of our society).  They will use anybody and everybody to get their way and in the exact way they want it.  Their goals are selfish as they seek profit, power or simply act as parasites in our society.  They give real wolves a bad name.

Sheepdogs:  Here is the kind of person you want to be.  All sheepdogs are independent thinkers.  They don't give into group think and are willing to speak out when they know they are right or when it is most important.  These people are informative and will protect others when and wherever they can.

Conclusion:  Obviously everyone wants to be the sheepdog.  But, we are a little of each one of these.  So it comes down to how much of each you are.  I for one am typically a sheep, but I act like a sheepdog from time to time as the situation requires.  But, there are times I am a wolf so as to make sure that the right things are done in the way they should be if and when it becomes necessary.  But then there are people who are not a combination of these but are singular, and there are people who can transform themselves from sheep, to a sheep dog if the circumstances permit.  So the real question is what spirit animal are you?  What kind of person do you think you really are?

Issue 554 Should movies make you think? March 24, 2015

So, should movies make you think?  Not that senseless movies are bad (National Lampoons series was always fun for me as a kid), but we can do so much more.  Let us discuss.

What I think a really Good movie should do to us:  So what I would like, and I am sure others do as well, is to get more movies like "American Sniper", or "Patch Adams".  They made you think and made you try and figure out what you have learned.  So the smell test is, can the movie make us ask, who, what, when, where, why, and how.  These questions are asked in respect to the characters and their motivations, the story as to why is went the way it did, and even the plot.  It makes us try to understand and contemplate what we have learned.  If the story is dark, make sure it has a point, otherwise is simply a dark brooding movie that makes no sense.  Basically, give us a compelling story about real people with real problems.  I am not saying you cannot make it entertaining, but it can be an awesome learning experience.  "Argo" was a learning experience, even if not 100% historically accurate.  Even "How to Train Your Dragon" was something children can learn from with respect to friendship and trying hard to do what is right.  So yea these movies exist, and are fun to watch, but are they enough?

Conclusion:  Movies are a source of entertainment, but they do not have to exist in a vacuum.  They can make us look at torture from multiple facets.  We can see different kinds of friendships and how we can innocently harm each other or cause a friendship to become deeper by simply adding what we have obtained from psychology classes to the movie.  The sky really is the limit with films that can educate us and help us learn, so why not add real science, real sociology, psychology, history and power struggles to wherever and whenever they are applicable.  So, I say let us get compelling stories that make us think.

Issue 553 The Memory Chip March 23, 2015

In the future we may get something called a memory chip which will record everything that happens in our daily lives.  Sounds crazy, but it may actually come true.  So let us discuss.

The Chip:  Basically the chip is implanted in your body (brain) to record everything you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste.  Literally all that you are is recorded.  This concept was explored in a Robin Williams movie "The Final Cut" which literally was about a man looking at peoples past lives through their implanted microchips.  But in the movie, the other senses save sight and hearing were not included.  However, it gives you a general idea of what the chip can potentially do.  But those who don't want to watch what can only be considered a dystopian sci fi film, read the next section.

Its Impact:  So this chip can allow us to relive past moments of our lives.  The idea is that we can actually mentally access this chip to relieve moments of our own past.  So you will never forget where you placed your car keys.  But you can also relive the most special moments of your marriage. Though there is fear that people may just get stuck in this playback of the best moments of their lives (sex, a drug trip, a birthday etc.) and thus cease to function normally in an everyday life.  In short, it can become addicting.

Another impact is security.  At the airport, the security staff would simply have to download everything you did in the last 48 hours.  You will never have to have your bags checked again as they can literally watch you put all your stuff into your bags.  But this also leads to the possibility of hacking someone’s chip to see everything they see.  Espionage becomes easy as you hack a chip in say a foreign embassy to see every paper run across a secretary's desk.  Heck, it can potentially record your thoughts and feelings too, not just sensations allowing for spies to find potential collaborators.  There is even a possibility, that with all the information our bodies take in, they can use people as mobile listening devices to listen in on conversations happening nearby.  Very scary, and cool at the same time.

Conclusion:  I would never want a chip in my head if I can help it, but others may see the advantages of it.  So it is up to you to choose to get this tech, assuming it is ever fully developed and placed into mass production.

Issue 552 No services to non-citizens March 20, 2015

Non-citizens are people.  They in fact perform jobs and work like the rest of us.  The issue though is that some of them are here not to benefit our society, but to leech off of it.  Let me make this clear, those who want to support themselves and not be a leech, will in fact get out of poverty, but there are those non-citizens who steal from our country.  So what are we to do to solve this?

Cut off the Federal and State aid:  The only real solution is to make all welfare of non-citizens a local issue, save deportation if that becomes necessary (if a non-citizen is trapped they should be allowed to go to local authorities and deported in an expedited manner so they can go home).  By cutting all welfare off from these people at the Federal and State levels, who have no intention of becoming citizens, we will see the true worth of these people.  The reason why local government does not cut them off is because they will be the determiners if an individual gets aid or is considered a freeloader and thus deported immediately. Obviously standards will need to be put in place, but this eliminates much of the issue as localities can deport the freeloaders, or illegals in general if they are overwhelmed in their aid for these people. It should even be allowed for illegals to be swapped between localities (if situation permits) so that the other locality can reduce its economic burdens.  In short all welfare is expensive and we have to sort out helping our own citizens and those who want to be citizens first and kick the rest out (as unfortunate as it may or may not be).

Conclusion:  We cannot afford to accept those who are unwilling to care for themselves (not those who can't as they will be the exception).  America is a compassionate nation, but compassion must be balanced with a firm hand and a gentle nudge (or harder nudge when needed).  By denying all other forms of welfare save what localities want to give/willing to give, we can possibly solve our issue with free loaders coming into the country and focus on those who wish to be full citizens.

Issue 551 Viewing thyself and others March 19, 2015

How do you view yourself?  Is it as a buff character with all the world bowing to you?  Do you feel that you are insecure?  Are you sad? But what if I told you that someone might see you in a completely different way?  That is right, we each see and understand each other in such a way that there will always be a difference of opinion on one level or another.  So let us discuss.

I see you and you see me:  So despite the characteristics we see ourselves as, someone will see you differently than how you see yourself.  We have all experienced this before.  I am a college graduate, and obviously an adult, and yet when someone looks at my hobby of model building, they think me immature or unique and cool, depending on who they are.  Likewise I am book smart and thus when I recite facts or figures some will reject it as me being naive, or they will accept it and say I am well read.  So people have actually told me that they are intimidated by me.  I don't come off as a know it all to a majority of people, but there are instances where some people think I am.  But this is surface level.  What about people who can look deeper into your soul.  Again, people may see you as courageous, bull headed, intriguing, etc.  But these opinions are based on careful observation and thus people who get to know each other well enough and thus learn to deal with them.  For instance I have a friend where once they get into a funk, they cannot be broken out of it for any length of time.  The only way to handle that was to just leave them alone.  However, if you asked them what their opinion of themselves was, they would say that they were in excellent shape.  This is all because we cannot view ourselves properly without an external lens.

Reasoning:  We look at each other differently and ourselves differently due to a few things.  The primary reason is experience.  As we collect information and mature in our daily lives we acquire information on how to deal with each other.  This shapes our perspectives which determines how we view one another.  This combined allows us to compare ourselves to others which in turn helps us identify and figure out who and what we are inside.  In other words, we springboard off each other to identify who we are on the inside, but then our interactions with others, with them sharing their thoughts on us, helps us to finally begin to see the actual us on the inside.  

Conclusion:  Humanity cannot exist without it being able to interact with the environment or itself.  If a person lives in seclusion, they will eventually loose sense of self, and thus what it means to be human.  They will mentally break down.  So we must interact with one another to better get to know who and what we are on the inside.

Issue 550 Politics and Words March 18, 2015

 As I am sure you have noticed, politicians use certain lingo to get their point across.  What's more is that lingo is used to manipulate (for good or for bad) into making people think in a certain way.  So let us discuss.

Lingo of politics:  First and foremost, the lingo revolves around gaining power.  In this case it is moving the people who listen emotionally and sometimes physically into action.  President Obama is masterful at making people move as he being a former community organizer knows just the right messages and words to make people follow his lead.  So when he had the campaign slogan "hope and change" or when he said during his campaign for Obama care (the affordable care act) that you can keep your doctor and your insurance, it moved people.  People believed it because it was repeated a number of times, and used almost like a chant on occasion.  The news media ate it up which further enhanced the Presidents message.  As to whether what a politician says is one hundred percent truthful or not doesn't really matter, for power is all about making people move willingly or unwillingly. As such when you want to turn people away from something like the estate tax, the tax on inheritance over a certain value, you call it the death tax.  Why this subtle manipulation of words?  Simple, its word play as normally you would not care about a tax that only affects a group of people outside of yourself.  But when you say death tax it invokes a totally different mindset for those who do not know how the tax works.  Key point though is that if the wordplay is bad, then people ignore it.  Hence why inheritance tax is not used over death tax.  

Conclusion:  Words are tools to politicians.   I will say that all politicians use wordplay and thus manipulate their message to accommodate their audience.  So it is up to us to do two things, educate ourselves on what goes on, and to find out if the politician is sincere.  If we can do those two things then we will be safe from politics and politicians efforts to manipulate us.

Issue 549 3D printers and drugs March 17, 2015

Drugs are about to get even cheaper.  And it is all thanks to 3D printers.

How it works:  Just like before, 3D printers will lay materials on top of each other to produce an object.  In this case, the material will be chemicals for medicines.  We already have mass production, but it has to be done at a factory far away and then shipped to the pharmacy/stores.  Thus we have extensive labor, and transportation costs. But 3D printers simply require raw materials.  So labor costs can be completely eliminated.  Transportation costs can be mitigated as now you only have to refine the chemicals (if needed) and then a warehouse holds them until they are transported to their destinations (pharmacies/ and even hospitals).  From there the materials are loaded into hoppers for them to be dispensed by the printers.  What is cool about this is that multiple medications can be put together in the same pill.  So you can take your blood pressure pill, your cholesterol pill, and your heartburn pill all at the same time as a single pill. 

What this also does is make drugs cheaper for insurance to cover.  No longer will insurance companies have to cover expensive pre-manufactured drugs, but simply the chemical components and the cost to buy and put them together at the pharmacy level.  Drug companies essentially lose control on drugs and thus become chemical collectors and distributors.  As such, chemicals themselves will be patented, and of course researched, with the costs of that research factored into the costs.  It will thus mean that chemicals without patents anymore become dirt cheap, but newer chemicals remain somewhat expensive.  But, this also means that some drugs can simply be made at home.  You yourself can cut out even more costs by buying the packets of chemicals and using your home 3D printer to print the drugs. Of course you can bypass drug distributors by actively looking for chemicals yourself and printing them yourself.  So you're being able to self-medicate is also a possibility.  But potentially doctors can also hire pharmacists to work in their offices too, to reap the rewards of a 3D printers cheap manufacturing and having a single pharmacist on staff to maintain it and answer questions (essentially cutting out pharmacies completely).

Conclusion:  3D printers are shaking up the world of medicine.  As time goes on it will supplant traditional methods of drug manufacturing and thus bring forth many of the benefits and abilities I presented here to you all today.  And this may only be the tip of a very large iceberg with respect to the potential of 3D printers on medical manufacturing and drugs.  So, feel free to get excited about what may come.

Issue 548 3D printers and transplants March 16, 2015

3D printers are changing transplant surgery for the better.  Here is how it works.

3D printed bones, and organs:  You have probably heard from me before about how 3D printers can print organs from your own cells. They do so by laying cell after cell onto each other as they bond.  The result is a new organ.  But before they were imperfect and still required rejection medications.  Some required other foreign materials like meshes and screws.  But science is changing that.  Meshes can now be made from your own cells to allow your body to repair itself naturally.  Less and less chemicals are needed during and after transplants for your body is less likely to reject them.  But here is something even more creative.  Bone transplants and surgeries typically required screws to hold them in place.  Artificial bones could not grow with the individual and thus multiple surgeries were required.  Heck, just to take screws out required surgeries as the screws would rust and cause blood poisoning.  But with 3D printers, they can print new bones and even biodegradable organic screws.  Recently they made screws out of cartilage which would degrade over time by the body’s natural fluids as the hole in the bone would be slowly filled with natural calcium, thus eliminating the need for follow up surgeries.  This also proves the potential for not just whole organs to be made, but parts of organs to be made and spliced on.  The potential for medicine is endless.

Conclusion:  The progress and potential of this technology is progressing in such a way that costs for transplant surgeries will go down exponentially.  There will no longer be a need for waiting lists for organs, no follow up surgeries, no need for rejection drugs (to a degree).  Cheap reliable medicine for all.

Issue 547 Disposable versus Reusable March 13, 2015

Here we contrast disposable versus reusable objects.  Here we go.

Disposable:  Anything disposable is generally cheap initially, but costs build up over time.  For instance, paper plates are great as they save water, are more hygienic than potentially eating off an improperly cleaned plate, but can build up in the garbage fast.  Paper towels are another example.  They are hygienic as you do not have to rub your face on a dirty towel, but over time they build up in cost and fill the garbage can.  So you can see that cleanliness is key to the advantage here and that that cleaning a traditional towel uses a lot of water.  

Reusable:  Here we have cheap goods that are durable.  You buy them once and use them for years until they are no longer useful.  Plates just need to be washed in water with a little soap.  Towels are thrown into the laundry after about two uses.  So rather than the cost to buy a new plate or towel, you have the cost of cleaning them.  This cost is mitigated by cleaning in bulk so as to save money and thus can cost less than disposable brands.  But these also take up space.  You are not going to keep plates for a dinner party of 12 or more if you don't have that many people coming over every so often.  So this is economical if you know how to clean them, and use them, but as stated, they take up space and if improperly maintained, are not hygienic as you will end up eating off the dirt and grime you left there from not maintaining your wares.

Conclusion:  Balance to me seems to be the answer.  Use cheap reusable towels for your body twice so that you minimize dirt and grime while maintaining costs.  Use reusable plates and bowls for yourself and family.  Use disposable items like paper towels for messes that are germ filled like spills, and cleaning, while using paper plates for those occasional dinner parties.  Basically, use each object to its strengths to maintain a sustainable and healthy household. 

Issue 546 Our Gladiators March 12, 2015

Entertainment is a source of getting away from it all.  To stop thinking about the everyday.  Thus we have gladiators.  Who are they you ask?  Well, allow me to tell you.

Modern Gladiators:  So the modern gladiators are very obvious.  They are:

1) Sports figures:  these people who play football, soccer, and the like are gladiators in their own sense.  They play a sport for glory and prestige, the same way gladiators of old did.  In short, they want to be champions in their team sports.

2) Boxers and martial artists:  This group comes closest to looking like the original gladiators.  The only real difference is that the brutality is put in check by rules, and there in no death.

3) Video game characters:  We play first person shooters, multiplayer online quests, amongst others.  This allows us to become our characters and gladiators so that we ourselves can be the heroes.  

Why have them:  It is all based on entertainment.  And the reason we don't kill them off is because our watching them makes them rich (or the franchises owners rich).  You may even argue that capitalism saved the gladiator from destruction, and our desire to see our favorite teams, players and video game characters duke it out over and over again keep these teams and such playing.  We desire entertainment, and that unto itself is all based on distracting us from the everyday problems we face.

Conclusion:  Gladiators of the modern day fight for prestige.  We watch for entertainment.  And in the end money is made to continue this cycle.  Let us face it, our everyday life is full of pressures, and these fictional and nonfictional people help us get through the every day.

Issue 545 Addiction to electronics March 11, 2015

Are we addicted to our electronics?  It is a ponderous question.  So let's self-reflect to see if we really are.

Signs of potential addiction:  Do you look at your phone almost constantly?  Do you rush to grab your phone the minute you hear the notification pop up?  Basically you may be getting addicted to your phone/the internet.  The biggest sign of addiction to me, is that you text the person next to you.  This is not socializing in person anymore, but semi isolationist as you try to protect yourself through the barrier of technology.  They see a plain piece of paper (electronic paper so to speak) with words written down.  There is no body language, no inflection, nothing but words.  In one way it makes the conversation somewhat more authentic as there is no extra fluff to the conversation, but in the end people stop knowing how to act in front of others.  And even worse, all you do and say is now on public record.

Now is this really an addiction:  I really am not 100% sure that this is actually an addiction.  It is more to me that people are starved for social interaction and that is because people fear rejection.  So the people jumping on a notification for a "like" or a "comment" is just them wanting more interaction and conversation with people.  So that leaves people who can only talk in front of each other via texts.  These are people who lack the social skills to actually start and keep a conversation up.  It is not really addiction in my eyes.  People just have trouble communicating for various reasons.  Thus the fall back electronic means becomes the sole way for them to communicate properly.  You can even say a person's true personality comes out through their electronic devices for they may actually become more honest and engaging than they are with traditional human to human interaction.  

Conclusion:  What do you think?  Are people simply starved of their ability to properly communicate, or are they really addicted.  Consequently, this contributes to our lack of privacy on the internet as we post pictures and comment through blogs, and Facebook like services. So our level of social interaction increases on the internet when our preferred methods of social interaction are electronic.  I personally think that we are just struggling, but you may think differently.  Hopefully we are not addicted, but this is just me being hopeful.

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.