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.