Biometric BIO NET TRICKS

Sweaty palms, dirty fingers, discharged batteries, bloodshot eyes: the signs of despair that, oddly enough, truly worry cyber novices. How can we trust technology, one can hear them scream, if the ordinary markings of a working man (and we are talking men here!) are so easily able to derail whatever technologies are put between a man and his right to be armed, dangerous, and carelessly free?

To them, the science is a fiction that has been shown to be false because, already and without signs of hope, biometrics have come up short.

But what’s funny is that they are probably right. Except not for the reasons they obsess about. Biometrics come up short because there are other, less biologically exact measures that are better and will soon be proven to be able to guard and activate devices with extreme precision -- mostly without regard to the blood, sweat, or tears of the humans hiding behind their walls of protection. The protective methods of tomorrow have to do with the patterns of our actions, our behaviors, and the devices that we latch on to, not so much the biological bits or bytes our bodies project. And guns are a perfect companion for this evolution of security progress.

Which means, by looking at this situation as a whole, the setback for technology comes from the fact that biometrics have already been shown to be something of a trick pulled on the networks that connect us. It is almost as if someone has tried to cash in on the sensitivity we have for all things related to our unique bodies by making it appear that our individuality is not up to the job.

Before getting into this a little deeper, first a note: I use guns as an example here (once again) because the issues are timely and dramatic. And because the topic aligns so well with people's perceptions that if something is tied to their deeply individualistic being ... it has to be good, and powerful, even empowering. Few of us want to accept the notion that who we are as unique individual humans is insufficient to keep us strong, and well, and ... well ... safely unique. Thinking otherwise acts to reinforce the notion that we are subject to the whims of others to keep us secure.

Meaning ... they want to believe that if biometrics will work ... that's awesome. They can say, "I told you! I can be the source of my own survival ... especially when protected by a fast-action assault weapon aimed at those who dare attack me, my home, or my family!" 

But proven to be easily derailed, biometrics comes up short and there can be no better alternative. In fact, most are willing to draw rapid conclusions based on only the scantest of evidence. Which is where the problem lies. They have been convinced, one, that biometrics are beyond repair as a safety lock for guns, and two, that because of this there is no market and thus no desire to make those efforts work better. Biometrics have failed the technology tests ... so ... "thanks ... I'll just stick with my dumb guns instead of what you say are smart guns!" 

What they have missed is the depth of the deceptions about the failure of biometrics has been internalized as part of an intentional strategy by groups like the NRA. Gun enthusiasts have been led to believe that smart tech cannot work on guns because gunner men have dirty, moist hands, wear gloves, and can't be bothered to plug in their guns, thus leaving that equipment subject to the failure of bad batteries. 

If biometrics fail this simple test ... technology cannot exist between a man and his guns. Period. End of story. Go away. Leave me and my weapons of mass protection unhindered by progress. There may be an Internet of Everything, but EVERYTHING does not include guns ... it's in the Constitution ... somewhere ... that bearing arms means bare of technology.  

End of biometric story: biometrics is nothing but a trick and they cannot even achieve the potential that our individual bodies deliver so much better.

Only thing is: this is not where the issue is today, and not the course for the technologies of tomorrow. The existence of a massive, smart, and rapid fire system of behavioral information gathering ... blockchains of knowledge ... this is where the future of security access lies. And this has little to do with biology. The systems that will really unlock the weapons of pure destructive force will be those that validate who we are through the devices, practices, and activities of living, not of the functions of our bodies. And those metrics are proving to be rather impressive. 

Can you imagine systems being able to make decisions to confirm who we are in less time than it takes the hordes to beat down and eat our children?

To many, this is not conceivable, and as such is the result of the great Bio Net Trick that fed us biometrics first and that now feeds us the believe that such systems are less human that the owners of guns.

Yet technology has no such bias. It favors fast and smart decisions and is more than capable of making just such decisions -- way quicker than most of us are willing to accept. It may even be able to measure your need for a weapon significantly before the attacker gets physically near you -- assuming such a thing might happen -- and possibly even days before. The proof of concept has been established. Software can tell when a bout of depression is heading your way, and when certain evil folks are practicing routines that indicate their evil intentions ... evil aimed at a social institution, important people, or even us as particularly distinct individuals. This isn't science fiction, just cyber science ... and taken on its merits, the making for some very smart gun options.

Start thinking about this. Biometrics is, even by accident, a BIO NET TRICK .... We have been led to believe they cannot meet the human standard, and thus they have no right to exist. That other collectivity technologies are better than humans too, well that thought cannot measure up against the notion of human superiority either.

The New York Times recently asked, “Just How ‘Smart’ Do You Want Your Blender to Be?” It is a silly but good question, and one that we need to ask ourselves about ourselves as human machines too.

National Ridiculous Ass.: Splayed By Their Own Gun Petard

We lost the kids -- big and small ones -- when Super Mario let his plumbing heroism get displaced by MMOFPS’s -- Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooters. The poor little guy and his plumbing buddies got so lost hunting for CAPS of their own concern that they missed that others were discharging in the form of very realistic, rapid fire destructive calibers against anything that so much as wiggled.

And, alas, severe damage against good tech was done. From that period till now, generations of participants on virtual killing fields have grown up (either from being actual little people to becoming gamer adults) thinking that the splay of bullets even from a virtual weapon were worthy tools for destroying life’s challenges (or challengers). Super Mario and his do-good friends were rapidly transformed into symbolic relics whose noble intentions -- to scare away evil with a wrench! -- could not possibly stand alone as realistic weapons against the evils of human transgression.

Rescuing the damsel in distress gave way to accepting that the true fun of interactive existence came with blowing away enemies at such astoundingly fast rates that we could collect points for our efforts.

A game of Warcraft, perhaps, but still something that could readily take the competition of life to new and daring platforms of conflict and revenge ... pretty cool, huh?

And since Mario gave up, it has gotten worse. And a good part of the blame for which is now landing in the lap of the iconic ugliness of fear that sells membership of its own to other kinds of killing fields: the NRA, which I prefer to think of as the National Ridiculous Association.

Rest easily, however. There are signs that the nefarious methods and unadulterated madness sold to the public by this corporate front have themselves gone too far. Slaughtering Mario and all about him is too much. 

The NRA and all that it represents in gaming America has set the issue such that it is about to be splayed, one might say, by its own gun petard -- and this is a good thing. We might even get Mario back.  

We need to understand why this change is happening and what it will take to give our sweet animated characters back the tools of morality. But rest easy, that transformation seems under way. In future posts, I'll talk more about smart guns and smart ammunition and why the NRA has done so much damage to the very game it is playing.

Bernie Missed His Ship of State

Thanks artist for making this cartoon grabbable. 

I said it at the beginning of the primary mud-wrestle and repeat it here now and then (since I have a talent for being ignored): if Bernie was true of heart about doing his campaign differently … breaking the model … rejecting the established patterns … he would have approached the operations and collaborative far more proactively as a demonstration of his philosophy.

He wouldn't even have had to change his one-tune speech to showcase how his revolutionary ideals could be brought to life -- particularly for a guy with little track record of implementing grandiose offerings. Instead, he used his offering spaces simply to stir anger and disrespect for all things status quo. A visionary for radical re-empowerment could just as easily have called upon entire fields of the artistry and science of advocacy and unrolled tactics that directly exemplify his supposed better ways and means -- something I fundamentally agree needs to happen.

EMPOWERology, as I've dubbed it, is my effort to begin formulating a discussion of just such a creative hybrid of the proven methods of science with the artistry of advocacy )or perhaps the other way around -- the art of sociology and the science of change?). Seen this way, tactical efforts and movers for transformative notions can move out of the laboratory and into the streets for social and political betterment.

But I wax philosophical. What does this mean in real campaign life?

It means that in looking at the vote-catching process, the Constitution doesn't require a certain way to win or which steps to take, other than its minimum personnel expounding of qualifications, and the implied requirement that the one person who garners the votes get the job.

Accordingly, it is perfectly legitimate for a draconian candidate like a Sanders, for example, to have said upfront with a positive tone: "Isn't it awesome, this force of Hillary’s? About how her experience has created a magnificent resource within the first exemplary female candidate?” Then, moving into an action phrase, he could add: “I would love to be the president who unleashes such magic as part of my executive and administrative intentions. She's better than I am on those fronts and as such I promise to you all to fill in the gaps she cannot reach. I think I'd be better in this regard by pairing her strengths with mine -- which center on the passions for really drastic and disruptive changes. My speeches are gonna show you how this will work."

Hillary, on the other hand, might then have been able to join the party of collaborative, affirmative support by saying things like, "This Bernie guy has truly lit a fire under the desires of our young and disaffected. That ability will be an undeniable addition to any presidency, and I would be honored to use his abilities as my right hand of progress.” Her commitment then becomes: “If he wants a great cabinet space, he has it. If he would prefer to be the engine behind implementing what I unleash from my bully pulpit -- maybe as an outside agitator! -- so be that. Either way: judge me on my special capacities to be America's first Madam President and I will nurture the best he and I share as members of the family of progress.”

Ok, silly, dramatic, obviously not conventional; absolutely idealistic. Sweetly affirming, nearly to the point of giving one a sugar rush.

But be that as it may, I offer it as a way of highlighting the way forward for the fired up populous Bernie has relentlessly attracted. It would have been a remarkable differentiation made all the better by a tsunami of fun, praise, and even entertaining winning for both sides.

In the end, one of them would have to take the title and perks. But they could add on a swearing commitment to even more. The Founding Fathers - undoubtedly with the frustration of the Founding Mothers who were probably left out of the conversations -- gave us no collaborative leadership mechanics of this nature. But the best minds ought to have been able to figure this out for themselves while being productively and pragmatically disruptive and without taking their eyes off of any prizes.

Neither Hillary or Bernie really needs the retirement package; nor do they probably care that much for some of the formal designations in the ancient history books that would go to the one who took the glory. Each, however, coulda shoulda woulda benefited without question from being that force for electoral improvement.

Hillary didn't try probably because she knows how to use the existing tools and tactics to her advantage, and it would mean a lot for a woman who we now know will win to give up that gender upgrade of our country’s commandership.

Bernie, on the other hand, would have benefitted enormously and not ended up scrounging to be noticed. Unfortunately, he decided instead to magnify the anger and fire up blame without engaging better ways to change. And in so doing, he missed the boat he could have captained.

The Devil We Frack - Over the Hill Warning

Causing a purposeful, wholesale revolutionary explosion of new energy alternatives, without knowing whether those efforts might lead, let alone whether they are obtainable, desirable, or even conceivable other than in the hopes and dreams of the perpetually wanting .... Going cold-turkey away from fossil fuels ....  

Unfinished, uncertain thoughts. I'm really not sure what to say. Hardly anyone who is paying attention wants or likes the idea of fracking. Yet the fact remains that no matter how we try to get quickly from where we are to a better energy future will require us to put enormous, nearly unfathomable degrees of faith in a simple notion. Fracking was its own step towards hoping that giving up coal could be a painless transfer of addictions ... one that might get us to a place where our choices were not burning a hole in our vision of a cleaner, healthier modern future.

These kinds of meandering thoughts about our next energy choices could and should be seen as scary; they are. But they are real. I happen to come across a quote from Nolan Bushnell in a fun and simple book called Digital Destiny, where he was saying, “Everyone believes in innovation until they see it” (p283). 

For new energy options -- particularly ones that we want to instantly flip on for better results and an uninterrupted flow of convenience -- this wisdom is truly the case. We can opt for more Earth-friendly ways, almost as readily as a president can say “Do Ask, Do Tell." She can order bits and bytes of such a transition to happen on many fronts by lighting up a few executive action fights. Getting such an order to have sufficient power to achieve its desired goals ... well ... that's another thing.

Arguably, this is exactly what soon-to-be President Hillary Clinton is trying to tell us when she stumbles through her explanations about fracking. Using fracking as a desirable anti-coal approach was accepted as a viable way to give America a sense of energy production destiny. It existed, scaled readily, and seemed reachable and reasonable as a sidestep. Then, as we discovered its true ugliness, all kinds of forces turned against that momentum and demanded a different, quick other-menu of choices.  

But towards what ends? Full solar? Total wind? Ocean wave harnessing? Something all the more unique that can drop down from the Silicon sphere? The mechanics are intense and still uncertain. Are they better than what we have? Are their harmless technologies as perfect as some of us hope for?

There are risks in halting what we have going on right now; lots of them. Presidential contenders like Trump (and to some extent Sanders) exist because the noises of crowds are screaming of a loss of faith and uncontrolled uncertainty ... with no ends of stability in sight. There are folks who serious fear change and want to go backwards.

But there is a different reality before us. Dramatic change on top of change is coming fast and we cannot and should not disregard its many implications. Nor accept that understanding what it means will be easy. We've jumped into a digital future and need to come to terms with that fact. Fracking is a technological "upgrade" in the petroleum sector ... and it turned ugly quickly. 

Shawn Dubravac says in his introduction to Digital Destiny: “Digital technology resides in the same realm as these transformational technologies, and we cannot undo what has been done. This is our digital destiny. This is not what might happen if we choose this road over another. This is what will happen regardless of which road we take.”

Hillary is starting to get ready to go "full Oval" as she finishes her campaign. She seems to be trying to get us to pull together thoughts and ideas. The public has shown dramatic opposites about what it can handle. Maybe we might give a better listen and try to help Madam President think more about taming the devil we already frack? Maybe it will be worth the effort. \

Sander's Sin of Prideful Division

If Senator Sanders is going to come to the point of accepting his defeat by aligning himself with other non-traditional candidates -- Green, Independent, or a made-up compilation -- I request that he please do so now, early. The sin of such an intentional act of redirection could be costly to all things progressive and democratic if done at the last moment. We know what is happening because of spur-of-the-moment actions by the monster whose name we dare no longer say. But for the good gals and guys, doing the same would be nothing less than a degrading sin of pride and hurtfulness.

If, Senator Sanders, you are to do this and do so earlier rather than later, you would give those of us with more confidence in the ideas of hope to offer better ideas you might want to consider. Anointing a figurehead out of frustration does little but bring about ugly ramifications that might even distract from the biggest loser’s self-immolation.

It takes a lot of talent (and transparency) to be a successful presidential candidate. Hillary has shown the strength of her convictions on both and many other fronts. Opening the doors to another just so you can say you did … well, that would really not be a dope path to any kind of revolution. I don’t think you will do this but the pressure is going to mount -- let’s hope you don’t feel the burn to respond out of a philosophical obligation or, heaven help us all, out of some notion that it will help clean up the campaign administrative burdens heading your way.  

If you are going to use the sin of prideful division Senator Sanders as a purposeful derailment tactic, turn it into an exercise in empowerment. Talking, asking questions, twisting your frustrations towards ongoing progress? Hillary (and we) will withstand the pull of less worthy choices but the work to get your efforts back … now that could readily be a whole different sin of indulgence.

Hillary vs Trump-tanic: Betting Smart on Goldman Sachs

“It’s just business” is essentially the refrain of those who have come to believe that Donald J. Trump has anything to offer the political discourse. They allow him to get away from explaining his existence by saying that anyone “outside” of politics has to be better than any part of those inside the establishment -- and besides, his ugliness is “just business.” It’s just business when he says and does anything to make outrageous and unearned profits.

Whatever happen to the good old proverb about “the devil we know versus ….”? I’m not sure, but what is clear is that we ought to take a hard look at this promise from some surprising sources. There is abounding evidence that many of the companies that appear to be too big to be measured by normal standards of decency are learning valuable and useful social/cultural lessons. Obviously, the mind of Donald the Dumpster fell off this track, meaning that even if his human soul was salvageable, he would likely still miss out on the movement towards imbuing positive capitalist developments into “smart” and “sustainable” Impact Investing … the latter being the basic idea that money can and should be used as a means to earn reasonable profits in ways that align to socially beneficial purposes.

The Trump-tanic of business is sinking fast, and we ought to pay attention before deciding too vehemently on the bet Hillary Clinton has made on companies like Goldman Sachs.

For the fact is that one of the better companies that exhibit an amazing propensity to learn is the constantly attacked Goldman Sachs. Without going into details here -- since people tend to gloss over them, which likely explains the mess the country is in with our business sectors anyway -- look at just two issues concerning GS: it’s move towards alternative energy and its interest in Impact Investing.

I mean, by the way, literally LOOK IT UP. The evidence is abundant that this is a company that is trying. And this could well explain who they hire to listen to. Go here, for example, and see this article by GreenTech folks: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/goldman-sachs-sees-transformational-moment-in-renewables-investment . After wondering about whether this is a PR ploy on the part of the company, here’s what the head of GS’s sustainable sector says:

“It will be important from a societal perspective, and it will be good business for us and our clients,” Bernstein said. “We want to be extraordinarily focused, involved and have the best franchise in the area. That’s how we think about it.”

And regarding Impact Investing … their commitment to putting better money into their corporate spreadsheets is impressive. They were one of the first to put their money where their mouths are, and in ways that should rattle other traditionally exploitive money takers: http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/social-impact-bonds.html 

I confess without hesitation that I back Hillary Clinton to be Madam President. We’ve earned that privilege, she the right to represent our interests. As for Trump, he’s a social and generational error with wasteful access to attention-getting ways and means, thanks to unfair and exploitive jumpstarts and white, male privileges. 

But my animosity against him aside, stop dissing Hillary without factoring in the possibility that she could well know where Goldman Sachs is heading and thus made a smart decision to be on the side of a movement geared towards better learning. No chance there those who refuse or are too self-obsessed to listen. As I said, the Trump-tanic is sinking and we as a nation need to get away before the force of descent drags us under with it.