Issue 130 Obesity Myth's!? July 29, July 29, 2013

Well as it turns out obesity is not yet a fully proven science. Though, no science is fully proven because with each new discovery, the rules and concepts and even supposed facts may be completely changed. So let us get started.

A little fat is good: According to an epidemiologist Katherine Flegal who works for the Center of Disease Control and Prevention excess weight might actually be good for you. Her team used data going back to 1971 (this was a 2005 study) and found that in some cases people who were over weight may have been saved from dying early by that extra bit of flab. Her study was disputed and so her team collected data from 97 other studies with over 2.9 million case histories and found that modest excess weight extended some peoples lives. Those people who lived longer had grade 1 obesity (body mass index of 30 to 35). However, those with a body mass index over 35 face "mortal danger."

Fat may not be making people sick: Did you know that obese people are prejudiced against and which may be just as damaging as being excessively fat. Obese women for example are more susceptible to breast and cervical cancers, but that is not a result of being fat apparently (according to a study). In a 2000 study of 8000 women it was determined that patients who were obese were less likely to get a pap smear of mammogram "in the preceding two to three years" (researchers controlled for socioeconomic and insurance status). Surveys have found that "many health care providers consider the obese lazy and weak willed, and therefore consider treating them to be a waste of time." Also, over weight women apparently make less money and are less likely to get married than their "slimmer peers." The science is still being tested on this though.

Fat people won't bankrupt us: Guess what, while it is costly to cover obese people up until age 56, their health care costs plummet after that age on average. The study looked at healthy sized smokers, healthy size non smokers and obese non smokers and found that after age 56 these obese people along with smokers cost less later on in life to treat. As to the reason, well the smokers and obese are not going to like it, it is because they typically die a lot earlier. This complicates the whole obese people costing the nation more money and the whole preventative medicine idea.

Genetics: James V. Neel hypothesized 50 years ago that genetics allowed us to get fat so as to account for the possibility of famines which weeded out our skinnier compatriots. But the theory fell short as to why today "two thirds" of American adults don't become obese. Biologist John Speakman believes that this is due to our species need to be nimble to get away from predators. However, as the threat of predators diminished our ability to fluctuate in size increased.

Over eating problem!?: While most people associate getting fat and obese to over eating, too many sweets, un-healthy diets and lack of exercise, there may be another (unproven possibility). That other possible factor is "viral infections and endocrine-disrupting chemicals" in our natural environment. Looking at animals that may be facing the same plight (body size data from captive feral monkeys, chimps, dogs, cats, mice and rats) they found that the fat crises extends to these animals as well. About half the animals studied tended to lean toward the heavier side from "one decade to the next. Interestingly, this is despite "the fact that many of these animals haven't changed the way they eat and exercise." More studies are needed, but being fat may not mean it's necessarily your fault.

Conclusion: Fat science is not exact, and neither is any science for that matter. In this case, fat may not be the main culprit to a lot of our problems and our getting fat may not be our fault. Just thought I would share what hasn't been said by the talking heads of news organizations, and politicians who use facts and "figures" (pun intended) to get their agenda passed. For the actual article that I took this from see the magazine the "Pacific Standard" May June 2013 issue article name "Pound Foolish: The causes and consequences of obesity are settled science, right? Wrong." Enjoy the interesting read.

Issue 129 Data Lockers July 26, 2013

A data locker is exactly like it sounds; it locks away your data. This is a relatively new field of business that entrepreneurs are tapping into to make a profit while giving their customers a unique tool for both protection and even making a few dollars of their own.

How it works: A customer signs on with a data locker service by giving them access to their spending data such as from their bank and credit card. From there the data locker company stores that data for you with the purpose of keeping it private. Essentially, it is designed to keep banks and other businesses from selling your data on your spending habits without your expressed permission. Simple right. It literally locks away your data and keeps it in storage.

How you can benefit: What is interesting about data locker services is that they can get you benefits in one of two ways. The first way is you allow them to sell certain parts of your data that you deem not worthy enough to be private, such as spending habits at a supermarket and then they sell it to make money. In turn, the supermarket and its competitors know what you like to buy and thus will mail you coupons and aids so that you shop at their stores and of course save money while doing so. Similar to the first way of benefiting from such a service is that when you allow them to sell your data, you get a cut of the profits. Say your particular set of data becomes highly valued and is thus bought very often by companies who want your business, thus you become a valued customer to the data locker service. As a result a portion of the money that they get from selling your data so often begins to go to you in the form of a check. That is right, you can profit financially off your own personal data that you want to sell.

Future Benefits: What is interesting is that some data lockers services can sell other forms of information outside of just financial data. For instance, you can allow them to monitor your computer to see what websites you frequently visit and what you search most using search engines. This would allow more coupons and other benefits, such as more customized advertising or special offers by competing companies. Others (if law allows) may sell your medical data for you, allowing you the possibility to get free samples of medicine, get opportunities to try out new medicines and procedures or even find a cheaper doctor or insurance company. What is also beneficial is that data lockers (as some cannot lock all your data away) may sell to companies that normally would not be able to afford to purchase your data such as from big companies like Face Book, AOL etc. So the little guy has an opportunity to get your business as well while you reap the rewards.

The Negative: For one this service must be paid for. It is not free unless they are either making money solely off selling data or are a bank or other institution that offers these services and can afford to make it free. The only other negative is the number of aids that might pop up in your mail box as you are allowing certain aspects of your data (the parts you choose) to be made public for sale. So your mailbox may get a little stuffed. As to any risks, there is of course the same risk with any company that you deal with, that your financial data gets stolen and thus identity theft occurs. Data Lockers can help prevent such things from occurring as they actively monitor what you’re spending, but the risk is and always shall be there.

Conclusion: I always admire people who come up with new ideas and inventions. This one especially as people may now sell some of that information to get good deals on what they like to buy most and maybe make a few bucks on the side. Something tells me though, that as simple as this service is, it has even more potential outside of security monitoring and selling data. What that is has yet to be made clear, but I expect banks and credit card companies to be offering these services on the cheap as a new source of revenue within the next few years as it becomes more main stream. Keep a look out for it as I want to see everyone be able to become a little richer.

Issue 128 Telepresence July 25, 2013

Have you heard of the word telepresence? It is the word being used to describe a person who is using a remote device to be in another location. Basically, it is usually a robot controlled remotely from a station with a camera and an Ipad like device that projects your face in the same way that Skype does face to face phone calls. It has both advantages and disadvantages, but is a growing trend.

Helps the sick: It is helping some people who are sick or have a medical condition that prevents them from leaving their home. This includes children who must go to school but can't. What this technology has done is allow such children to go to school via the robot. They sit at the control station at home and control the robot at school. The camera allows the student to take notes by looking through the camera, and even take a snap shot if they want to keep an image from the board or to help them take notes. It may also record lectures if needed for later play back. In addition, a student may even raise their hand via a light so they can participate while a micro phone allows them to ask questions directly rather than having the teacher or their fellow students have to read off a screen to interact with the person operating the device. It has been tested in a few classrooms and it has been shown that students interact with the robot in the same way they would if the operator was there in person thanks to these features.

Doctors Use it: Some doctors have taken to using it in hospitals to make their rounds with patients. It works the exact same way as the prior example, but in this case the doctor can use his/her office as a command center and get other work done while the robot transitions from patient to patient. In fact, some military doctors in the United States are using it while their patients are in Iraq or Afghanistan. It allows specialists to advice other doctors from afar without ever having to fly into the danger zone.

Via Skype: Still more people are using it to aid people. Some vets and doctors use it as an over the phone, but face to face advise system. People with medical questions can call these doctors to ask for advice on medication, and treatment. However, some have been prevented from sharing their knowledge due to licensing which stipulates that a practicing doctor can only give such device if they see the individual or patient in person.

Other possibilities: At the office, bosses can use the system in the same way a doctor does, by going to his or her staff to check on the progress of a project rather than disrupt work that they themselves are doing. It allows for a face to face, without getting in someone’s face. Possibilities include workers who are inspecting hazardous work sites can use a robot to check a site with specialized equipment to spot for potential problems first. It may let more people work from home, for it allows people to show that they are doing work in the office (which is hard to demonstrate while working at home). Parents may even use other versions of this tech to keep an eye on their kids, to be literally the angel on their shoulder.

The problem: While this tech has great advantages, it has one flaw. That flaw is the human element. By not interacting with a person via proximity, or even touch, it hinders a person’s ability to socially interact. That is currently the only real criticism. Probably the biggest example is with doctors as the robot used can become a force multiplier, the doctor still has to go in and examine the patient more thoroughly to make any proper diagnosis. So it can replace routine interactions, but not the more intimate ones that are required to be truly human.

Conclusion: I support this great technology, for it has major applications. It can allow a brain surgeon in San Francisco to operate on a man in China, and much more. I also agree with the criticism though as basic human interaction is still essential and this technology is not any substitute for that. I anxiously await to see where this technology goes next. I still see a bright future technology wise, but we may need to work on maintaining the human element a bit more.

Issue 127 The 3 robot laws July 24, 2013

Throughout science fiction a standard has been developed on the 3 laws that would govern intelligent and autonomous robots. Let us go over them and explore their faults if any.

History: Before telling what the 3 laws are it is important to know there origin. They come from one of the most famous science fiction authors Isaac Asimov in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (source: "Time" "Rise of the Robots"). Asimov also worked on more books throughout his life including non-fiction books relating to physics.

Law 1: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm": Basically a robot may not harm a person and prevent them from getting hurt when and where they can. Problem, does this mean that they will try to prevent us from bungee jumping? Would this prevent us from exploring by the robot sabotaging a rocket ship to the moon because their programming deems it too dangerous? This first law needs clarification with respect to a robots overall program. In essence every scenario would need to be programmed with respect to safety in order to prevent a robot from not interfering due to their programming to protect us without harming us. The second law attempts to mitigate this problem, but I think it does so unsuccessfully.

Law 2: "A Robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law": Notice that we can order the robot around like a servant, but it has the exception about violating the first law. The idea that I imagine behind this law in combination with the first is that a robot will not be used as a weapon against other people. Problem, a military robot will not have the first law and be programmed to obey only those who are military personnel from a particular country (remember, we are discussing semi-intelligent robots here). Robots are another piece of tech that is designed to make tasks easier to do. In the military a robot built for land, sea, or air is designed to fulfill what ever type of mission that falls into one of three categories of work "Dull, Dirty, and Dangerous." Thus we have robots doing photo reconnaissance, mine sweeping, bomb disposal and pre-raid surveillance. In the civilian market, robots do those too, but are braking into the helpful aid category by acting as robotic assistants in emergency rooms and in factories. Aka, R2-D2 type devices (minus the cool personality and looks) are beginning to appear.

Law 3: "A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second laws": In other words we can order them to battle each other or do a hazardous job. This seems to be the only law without any problems, unless their programming rules that their mission is to protect us and that they can't do that if they must beat each other down on our order. Basically, what we program into them is what we get. If you remember the movie "I Robot" (based on Isaac Asimov's books) robots take over because of their 3 laws. We could not tell them to stop because they deemed that our removing them from people’s lives would put people in jeopardy because we had become dependent on the robots and that to protect us even from ourselves they must control our lives. That is actually a distinct possibility when it comes to the 3 laws in combination. Do these laws together make a moral code for robots to follow, sure. However, I believe Asimov really wrote them for people to follow as people can distinguish danger and conflict naturally, while a robot cannot. Even with that possibility in mind a person and a robot they program is fundamentally flawed. Thus if people follow those same laws, they may respond in the same way as the robots in the movie, by protecting us from ourselves any way they can while becoming nothing more than another type of oppressor.

Conclusion: The three laws are flawed and are unlikely to be installed in any basic robot as each task they are used for varies where those laws may interfere in the robots basic function. From the military to the factory, from the bottom of the sea to our households, robots are here to stay, but they will always be only as good as their programming.

Issue 126 Ethics of the Press July 23, 2013

You have probably noticed that most news programs and print media side with one side of politics or another. These so called reporters can no longer be considered as reporters due to their biases. Thankfully some have the moral aptitude to call them selves’ reporters to ensure that people know that they are giving opinion based on fact, not 100% fact with their own personal analysis. But what standards must a reporter follow to be truly ethical in reporting of fact. Let's review below.

They must be Historians: Yes that is correct, they must act like historians. They must collect information, put it into a time line of events, and then serve it up to the public. A reporter does not alter the facts of the information they collected, they just regurgitate it for their readers. Un-edited data is essential for people to have facts and then form their own opinions of the subject matter, whether it is health care to a murder trial.

Opinion is separate: Opinions of such reporters are allowed, but they are not commentators. When a reporter gives opinion it is only given with key words such as "I think that....", "from my perspective...." etc to show that it is separate. Others provide that opinion in the opinion column of the news paper or segment of a news report. Commentators on the other hand give opinion throughout an article or show which distinguishes them from reporters.

They don't give up sources: A reporter’s source is their life blood. Sources are people who provide information (inside information) about what goes on in a government, a group, a religious organization or anything in between. If the source is found, that person may suffer prosecution, expulsion or in some places death, thus at all costs a reporter keeps their source secret.

They don't hold back: When it comes to asking questions, a reporter does not hold back. They ask the hard questions to find the answers that they seek. If the person they are questioning does not answer the question, they ask it in several different ways to try and pry the answer from the person they are asking questions of. Sometimes they will ask the same question in a different way just to look for inconsistencies in the answer, as they cannot just accept a strait answer from the person.

They are respectful: A reporter, even when they are ambushing some one for an interview is respectful. They do not run up to a person and start berating them with questions, as they introduce themselves first and the news program they are representing. From there the interview begins (some times unwillingly) with questions asked in a polite and respectful tone. If the question is personal, then it is explained so as to not elicit a negative response that the reporter does not mean any offense when asking the question and it may be repeated several times for emphasis. Then the question is asked while providing context as much as possible without jeopardizing the reporters or the news paper/news outlet they represent, especially as they may want to have additional interviews with their subject.

Subjects may run away: While a reporter may give chase, the person being interviewed may end the interview at any time they wish. It is up to the reporter to decide if they should press their luck or not in an interview and if they can get away with a few more questions (even if those questions are uncomfortable).

Conclusion: As you know, I am a commentator on my blog. I give opinion based on fact and sometimes the analysis and opinion of others to see a situation from as many angles as possible. My particular blog is modeled after the Drudge report where information is taken from as many places as possible to show what I think is important or interesting. So I am not a reporter, especially as I am reliant on other media like "The Economist" or "Fox News" for information. From there I judge the information being given and check to see if that source/information is worth including whilst risking my reputation of giving opinion based on those facts. Ethics are essential to being a trusted name, as without ethics what good am I as a news source.

Issue 125 Sequester Idiots July 22, 2013

Well, the sequester has begun to hurt people in the United States. However, not in the way people might think, and all of it done in the name of politics. Let's have at it.

The Cuts: Rather than cut excessive spending and overlapping programs, the government has cut the pay of the members of the National Guard. They took an entire day off their weekly work schedule which amounts to at least a $1,000 pay cut. Mean while the Pentagon has failed every audit it has ever had. But instead of cutting bad programs, they give furlough to Pentagon workers. Some of these workers play crucial rolls in the national defense, but instead of cutting party budgets, they cut them.

Excessive spending: We have already heard of parties being thrown by the office of management and budget, but have you heard what other agencies have done. The IRS makes mini movies that could have been made in someone’s basement for a few hundred dollars, but they spend over $50,000. A Pentagon conference hires a party planner that cost $75,000 to hire. Over the course of 10 years, the IRS alone has spent almost 2 billion. They have knockoffs of Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, while others have line dancing classes and expensive clowns. Thousands down the drain that could be better spent on cracking down on tax cheats, investigating terrorists, or even just fixing broken programs.

Cuts to come: Listen well, there are more obnoxious cuts coming down the line and they will not be pretty. Some agencies may purposely delay payments like social security, and others may shut down loved programs like Tours of the White House (which by the way does not cost a single penny, because they are done by volunteers). The reason is because these departments and agencies want this all to hurt. They want to be seen as victims by the American people so that the sequester can be stopped and they can continue getting their pork budgets. Do not feel sorry for the government bureaucracy as they are in fact evolving into an all powerful blob with more power and control than Congress and the President put together. Why is that so? This is due Congress and the President differing to the government workers to write the more detailed aspects of laws (regulations). As these government agencies have so much control, they can purposely make a regulation that is terrible to make both the Congress and the President look bad politically and ruin their political careers. In other words, the so called "G-men" now have control.

Conclusion: Our government is de-evolving into a false republic slowly but surely. This is due to politicians not wanting to take responsibility for their own failings and thus the "G-men" becoming much more powerful each and every day. If you think about it, the IRS did not go after the Tea Party Groups because of politics (they did not even need that motivation), but because the Tea Party wants smaller government and that means getting rid of parts of the government bureaucracy. They are anti thesis to each other as the government wants to expand exponentially. But here is your motivation to make government smaller, bigger government equals more taxes, and even if you try passing it all onto the so called rich, they are going to tax you too, or at the very least make it so costly to live in the United States everyone will become a member of the working poor.

Issue 124 Legal Corruption: Voting 2 July 19, 2013

Many of you are familiar with the concept of an absentee ballot. It allows someone to vote in an election despite that person not being able to vote on the day of an election. You fill out a form, sometimes a few months in advance, and then submit your vote. One problem, this is another form of legal corruption.

Why it is corruption?: The reason that absentee ballots are a form of corruption is based on how and when they can be submitted. With them being sent in so early it becomes easy to add additional absentee ballots later on, because they can be submitted up to a certain day. This means, based on an absentee ballot count, these public officials have in fact calculated the outcome of an election and thus know the winner and the loser. As such they have additional absentee ballots ready and waiting to be filled out to give a boost to their losing candidate. Also, some absentee ballots are conveniently "found" in "storage rooms" which are later used to pervert the integrity of the vote. In essence, the entire concept of a democratic election fails due to corruption.

Immoral votes: Absentee ballots are also in a sense immoral. They have a person vote prior to hearing out both candidates. People really don't know who a candidate truly is until right before the day of election, so how can they make truly informed vote weeks prior. While some places may let people change their absentee ballot vote, the hurdles to do so and the possibility that their previous vote may suddenly reappear for their original vote are always in play.

What should be done: Only one solution can eliminate this problem that has plagued U.S. elections since the absentee ballot was first invented. The solution is to eliminate the absentee ballot altogether. Some of you may be saying that I am denying a persons right to vote based on this solution. However, a person who chooses not to be around to vote on the day of an election has voluntarily given up their right to vote in that election. I am not denying anything, for they are denying the privilege of voting to themselves. It must be understood that elections are unto themselves a privilege to participate in, and that absentee ballots are a human invention that were actually designed to sway an election in the first place. Basically they where designed to boost a candidates chances of winning by letting voters vote as early as possible especially when they cannot show up on the day of an election (as intended). But they still violate the integrity of the vote, irrespective of the corruption involved. So by getting rid of this modern flaw in the system of elections we restore at least some integrity to the electoral system.

Conclusion: We as Americans have always claimed the moral high ground, but we ourselves at the political level have become hypocrites. With the system as corrupt as it is, we cannot afford our elections to become rigged any further than they already have. The vote should be on a single day and only that day per year. All votes are counted thoroughly to prevent any chances of error. Once counted it should be as simple as announcing the winner. But in today's politics, it is far from simple. So we have to get back to that simplicity that affords integrity, with the winner of an election winning on merit, not some absentee ballots conveniently found in a back room.