Issue 133 Culture Vs. Cure August 1, 2013

Did you know that a cure can instigate a cultural change? Not just any cure however, but a cure to deafness and even possibly a cure to being gay. Full disclosure, I learned a little sign language and a little bit about deaf culture back in college. As to members of the gay community, I have nothing against them either as I have some gay friends who are really awesome people. This issue is meant to discuss how a cure for deafness and this alleged cure for "gayness" has an effect and a push back from the members of those communities.

Cure for the deaf: Depending on how you became deaf, there is an implant that can be placed onto your brain that controls hearing. Once installed, a deaf person can actually hear. It works best on people who lost their hearing due to accidents or disease later in life as they will be better able to comprehend sound. The technology also works great for young children as their brains are still developing and as such will be able to make sense of the sounds they are hearing later on (A child as young as 3 has gotten the implant and you can find the video of him hearing for the first time online). But the deaf community is concerned. They fear that their unique culture and even members of the deaf community will be eradicated by this technology.

Deaf backlash: Members of the deaf community have their own language known as sign language with each country having its own unique version. They have deaf jam concerts that use sound with high vibrations that allow them to feel sound rather than hear it. Turning lights on and off in a room, and tapping some one on the shoulder to get their attention is also apart of the deaf culture. But parents who can hear with children who are deaf want their children to be able to hear. Most deaf children are in fact born to hearing parents and so the deaf community is worried. With a shrinking community, it becomes harder to maintain a culture, let alone an identity. As such, some deaf individuals have taken legal action when and where they can to block or stifle this great technology. Let us face it, a cultural identity that was developed out of outright discrimination (deaf children were abused in schools by tying their hands to their chairs, and they found it hard to get a job due to their unique condition) is hard to give up. But this becomes an issue of choice for parents of the deaf and for those who at one time could hear but now cannot.

Cure for gayness: While I wouldn't call it an actual cure, it is more like they discovered what hormones cause a person to be attracted to the same sex. Apparently, as the science is not all there yet, at a specific point in development in a child's life certain hormones are released that dictate what sex a child will be attracted to. Thus, some scientists believe they can fix this "chemical" imbalance at that stage in development so that the child "never becomes gay." Gays have taken action to protect themselves and their community from eradication, as they call upon civil rights lawyers to block the "early detection" of gayness. Why block the early detection (which I find myself agreeing with)? This is because, if you can detect if a person is gay, deaf, autistic, blind, or any other unique circumstance, a parent may abort that baby. That is right, rather than raise the child as is and overcoming those challenges, a parent may give up and just kill the child before the child is born. As such early detection of gayness has become a target for banning as a medical practice. And I agree with the gay community, no child should be killed before they are born because they are gay, or deaf or anything for that manor (but this is because I'm pro-life). However, this does not stop scientists from adjusting children's hormones to prevent attraction to people of the same sex; it does get stifled a little bit.

Conclusion: A cure can drastically harm a culture or even eliminate it in the case of gay and deaf communities as they are slowly eradicated through technology. While I have no doubt that parental discrimination of an unborn baby will be banned in certain instances in the U.S. and specific foreign countries, it will not be prevented in a country like China or the Middle Eastern countries due to culture and law. Will these communities disappear right away, or even entirely, no that is for certain, but they are going to struggle once again as their voices as a collective group shrinks little by little.

Issue 132 Why don't we save money July 31, 2013

I take inspiration for this Issue from "Pacific Standard" March/April 2013 Issue. Article: Why Americans Don't Save-and What We Can Do About It." Well, why the heck don't we like to save our money?

I like to Borrow: The Federal Reserve has analyzed this trend and believes the availability of credit "can explain about 90 percent of the long decline in American savings." In other words, they believe that because it is easier to just borrow money that people see it as an easier way to get the cash they want and thus buy what they want sooner. Saving for a new car does not mean you can get that new car immediately and thus cannot not get that instant gratification. I however, still prefer to save as at least I won't owe anyone anything and I can use that left over saving for more important things like retirement (yea I'm only 24, but I'm already thinking about what I have to do to get there).

Helping the wrong people: Apparently we spend $130 billion each year via America's tax code to encourage savings for the future. But almost all of it (according to the article) ends up in the hands of the rich who were going to save money any way and did not need help in the first place. According to Pew Charitable Trusts "the highest income quintile receives 70 percent of the benefits from these tax incentives." "The lowest income quintile receives only 0.2 percent." It kind of makes you question the point of the federal tax codes rules and exceptions doesn't it?

Living off the grid: About 30% of Americans have no savings accounts and about 8% have no bank account at all. Apparently, when there is no bank in the picture it makes it harder to accumulate wealth. Part of the problem is that banks don't make it easy to get an account partly due to "minimum balance requirements" and "onerous" fees which drive them away. As a result these people turn to payday loans, check cashing services and money orders "whose high cost further erode wealth and potential savings." But for once, our neighbors in Europe have an idea worth emulating. They have special banking systems for these "small depositors" which usually take the form of post office banks which apparently boost savings rates in the neighborhood by "10 percent." Perhaps this is something that can not only help the Post office get back on its feet, but make it more useful and flexible for the 21st century.

We are selfish: That is right, one of the reasons we do not save is because we do not care about our future selves. According to the article (who quoted neurologists) that when we think of our future selves, we look and feel about them as if they were a stranger. As such, we value immediate gain over our future selves. Some have tried to mitigate this issue by showing people what they are to look like in the future (digital versions of course) and as a result of that new knowledge actually saved more toward the future. So start thinking about your eventual crinkly, shrunken selves.

Stop making it optional: Well apparently the more rational of us do not have to worry about retirement as we are probably already doing so (yes I've got a 401(k) and stocks along with bonds). But regular people procrastinate (this is according to the article). They wait till the last minute to start saving. Pensions are going bye bye, and Social security is no longer enough (especially as it is predicted to collapse within my life time). However, while people have access to 401(k)'s and similar, they do not use them because of how they procrastinate. So the article suggests that rather than making them optional to join, the companies and businesses make them optional to leave. Basically you are forced to join with a given rate, but you give these people the option to "opt out or adjust the rate." This apparently causes these people in general to "stay the course" and thus have an actual savings. Aka, we need a push and a shove to actually save.

Conclusion: What I got from this is that people are terrible at saving money and psychologically we are predisposed to not worry about the situation until it is too late. Making people opt out is a good idea as private firms can do this, as working for them it becomes a stipulation for employment. Well all I can say is I agree with pretty much every thing and the ideas to get people to save are sound (at least from my perspective). Hopefully you are thinking about your future self like I am.

Issue 131 Another Approach: A Federal Bank July 30, 2013

What would you think if the Federal Government established a new national bank? I'm not talking about the Federal Reserve type that we have now, but an actual bank that replaces all other banks. Here is the concept broken down.

Centralized Banking: All private banks would be forced to give all their accounts to this national bank. In essence it would take the money out of the private banks hands. Thus, when we draw money we would be drawing it from our federal bank account. All of our income (well the income on the books) would go into this account. This would make it easier for government to tax us based on income (if that is kept) and to see where people derive their revenue. It would also eliminate the need to have money backed by the Federal Reserve in case your private bank failed. Well that is a given because the government bank cannot close down ever.

Welfare recipients: To add a perverse incentive to welfare recipients to get off welfare, those on welfare would have their accounts monitored and limited. What does this mean? This means that every transaction that they do is scrutinized, including how much money they take out and how much "cash back" they get at a cash register. All of this data is used to ensure that they are only buying what they need to live, not drugs and alcohol. A step further would be limiting the whole account (private/welfare) to specific types of items. This again would limit how much a welfare recipient can buy and give incentive for them to get off welfare. Of course, this would only work if the only bank in existence is the government one as it would be the only place to put your money away. Though, some version of this government bank can be made in our current system of fiancé to keep the least honest recipients more honest.

Banks new role: Private banks would have a new role in this system. They would offer ATM's like they do now as a service for people to take out money. People can allow these banks access to a certain percentage of their federal account to loan out to people. Basically what they do now when they make a loan, but the difference is that rather than just interest as a reward for allowing them to do this, you would get a percentage of the profit. (Again, something that can be done independently of this idea). Banks can offer all their usual services, the only difference is that they don't have to worry about storing your money for you, the government does.

The negative: While this idea would take a major burden off of traditional banks and give the federal government an easy way to collect taxes and keep an eye on certain citizens, there is one major problem. The major problem is that the government has control of all of our money. This means they can lock us out of our money at will. If they want to get into the loan business, they can do it without permission. No they don't have to give us interest for keeping money in the bank. Also, let us not forget our history back when we had a national bank (the one President Andrew Jackson killed off because of corruption). What you think it cannot happen? Well did you forget that the federal government borrows from Social Security and Medicare to help fund their pet projects. They already owe the people more than $4 trillion do to their borrowing from those beloved programs. What makes you think they won’t do it again (by the way, the one that Jackson killed off acted in the same way). So all the benefits of this idea are fundamentally mute.

Conclusion: Even if the government can do something, it does not mean they should. While it becomes easier for the government to track our money, punish welfare cheats and eliminate some rules and regulations on some businesses, it does not mean things will be batter. New rules and regulations would replace the old ones, and all that money in one place would be a tempting target to politicians. So while I present this idea as an alternative, I do not find it to be any better than the current system. In fact I find the current system superior and flexible because the current one will be able to innovate as commerce progresses. Yes, this idea was mine, or at the very least I came up with this centralized approach just to evaluate its merits in comparison to our system now (if any one came up with similar separately then it is just that, we came up with it separately). At the end of my comparison, I prefer the private business whom I can take my business away from, than a government whose inevitable power and greed will corrupt them and thus steal my money.

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.