As the old social bonds unravel, philosopher and member of the Lifeboat Foundation’s advisory board Professor Steve Fuller asks: can we balance free expression against security?
Justice has been always about modes of interconnectivity. Retributive justice – ‘eye for an eye’ stuff – recalls an age when kinship was how we related to each other. In the modern era, courtesy of the nation-state, bonds have been forged in terms of common laws, common language, common education, common roads, etc. The internet, understood as a global information and communication infrastructure, is both enhancing and replacing these bonds, resulting in new senses of what counts as ‘mine’, ‘yours’, ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’ – the building blocks of a just society…
A presentation of the future strategic options available to both Tesla and Chevy Volt, using the Holistic Business Model, as published in the book, Reengineering Strategies & Tactics. Note, correction that GM will be investing an $449 million not $1.4 billion I had stated in the video.
In Part 1, I show the strategic structural positions Tesla & Chevy Volt occupy. In Part 2, I show the future strategic options available to both, and potential mistakes they could be making.
If after reviewing the videos you would like to a similar 1/2 day review of your business, please do contact me.
A presentation of the future strategic options available to both Tesla and Chevy Volt, using the Holistic Business Model, as published in the book, Reengineering Strategies & Tactics. Note, correction that GM will be investing an $449 million not $1.4 billion I had stated in the video.
In Part 1, I show the strategic structural positions Tesla & Chevy Volt occupy. In Part 2, I show the future strategic options available to both, and potential mistakes they could be making.
If after reviewing the videos you would like to a similar 1/2 day review of your business, please do contact me.
I am very pleased to announce the publication of my book “Reengineering Strategies & Tactics”.
The book is based on more than 2 decades in manufacturing & management consulting, and presents the new business model, the Holistic Business Model, that ties together operations, revenue generation and business strategy. It also enables one to do strategy sensitivity analysis, and much more. Watch the video. Buy the book & enjoy rethinking & re-strategizing your company.
I might add that this is much better than anything you can get out of McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Booz Allen Hamilton or Bain Capital.
The book details are:
Book details are: Title: Reengineering Strategies & Tactics Sub Title: Know Your Company’s and Your Competitors’ Strategies and Tactics Using Public Information Publisher: Universal Publishers Date: July, 2014 Pages: 315 ISBN-10: 1627340157 ISBN-13: 9781627340151
Synopsys: The Holistic Business Model identifies, in a structured manner, the 48 structural positions and 32 strategies your company can effect, resulting in 2 million variations in your company’s strategic environment. This complexity is handled by three layers, consisting of the Operations Layer, the Revenue Transaction Layer and the Business Management Layer.
Strategy is the migration from one structural position to another in the Business Management Layer. Therefore, the Model prevents investors, business owners and corporate managers from making incorrect moves, while both, enabling them to see their future options, and enhancing the quality of their management decisions.
The Operations Layer explains why lean manufacturing (JIT and Kanbans) works when it does, when it does not, and the important considerations when setting up a manufacturing operation using lessons learned from the semiconductor and Fast Moving Consumer Goods industries. The Revenue Transaction Layer identifies how your company generates its revenue.
Based on 20+ years in manufacturing and management consulting in multinational, large, medium & small companies, Solomon invented the Holistic Business Model that only requires public information to determine your company’s and your competitors’ strategies. Four case studies are presented: a manufacturing operation, a home builder, a non-profit and a sea port.
Most of you will know that in December 2012, I wrote 4 blog posts here at the Lifeboat Foundation, explaining why Spaceport Colorado will be an enormous success. The blog posts are:
Here is the reason why I was able to do this. I spent many decades working in manufacturing companies and management consulting firms. I am now sharing this experience in a book titled “Reengineering Strategies & Tactics”. The book presents a new business model, the Holistic Business Model, that allows one to infer private information from public data.
If you have read the book, I would appreciate your feedback.
Book details are: Title: Reengineering Strategies & Tactics Sub Title: Know Your Company’s and Your Competitors’ Strategies and Tactics Using Public Information Publisher: Universal Publishers Date: July, 2014 Pages: 315 ISBN-10: 1627340157 ISBN-13: 9781627340151
Synopsis: The Holistic Business Model identifies, in a structured manner, the 48 structural positions and 32 strategies your company can effect, resulting in 2 million variations in your company’s strategic environment. This complexity is handled by three layers, consisting of the Operations Layer, the Revenue Transaction Layer and the Business Management Layer.
Strategy is the migration from one structural position to another in the Business Management Layer. Therefore, the Model prevents investors, business owners and corporate managers from making incorrect moves, while both, enabling them to see their future options, and enhancing the quality of their management decisions.
The Operations Layer explains why lean manufacturing (JIT and Kanbans) works when it does, when it does not, and the important considerations when setting up a manufacturing operation using lessons learned from the semiconductor and Fast Moving Consumer Goods industries. The Revenue Transaction Layer identifies how your company generates its revenue.
Based on 20+ years in manufacturing and management consulting in multinational, large, medium & small companies, Solomon invented the Holistic Business Model that only requires public information to determine your company’s and your competitors’ strategies. Four case studies are presented: a manufacturing operation, a home builder, a non-profit and a sea port.
After the reprint at the ClubOfINFO webzine of Franco Cortese’s excellent IEET (Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies) article about how advanced technology clashes with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, I am interested enough that I have decided to put together this response. Changes in technology do eventually force changes in the law, and some laws ultimately have to be scrapped. However there is an argument to be made that the Second Amendment’s deterrent against tyranny should not be dismissed too easily.
Franco points out that the Second Amendment’s “most prominent justification” is that citizens require a form of self-defense against a potentially corrupt government. In such a case, they may need to take back the state by force through a “citizen militia”.
Technology and “stateness”
The argument given by Franco against the idea of citizens engaging their government in battle leads to a conclusion that “technological growth has made the Second Amendment redundant”. Arms in the Eighteenth Century were “roughly equal” for the citizenry and the military. According to Franco’s article, “in 1791, the only thing that distinguished the defensive or offensive capability of military from citizenry was quantity. Now it’s quality.”
I believe the above point about the state monopoly on force going from being based on quantity to quality can be disputed. The analysis from Franco seems to be that the norms of warfare and the internal effectiveness of state power are set by the level technology available to the state. Although there is of course a strong technological element involved in these manifestations of state power, it is more accurate to say “stateness” – which military power is only the international reflection of – is due to a combination of having more legitimacy, resources and organization. The effectiveness of this kind of “stateness”, including the ability of the most powerful states to overcome challenges of internecine warfare, has not changed very decisively since the Nineteenth Century.
In fact, stateness is said by many analysts to have declined worldwide since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Since that event and the subsequent dissolution of the USSR, the number of states facing internal crisis seems to have only risen, which suggests stateness is being weakened globally due to many complex pressures. Advanced technology is itself even credited with eroding stateness, as transport and the Internet only give citizens ever more abilities to get around, provoke, rebel and ultimately erode the strength and legitimacy of the state. In most arenas of social change, states face unprecedented challenges from their own citizens because of the unexpected changes in advanced technology that have taken place over the last few decades. Concerning the future of this trend, Franco aptly anticipates in his article that “post-scarcity” technologies would make things even more uncomfortable for the state, pushing it to rely on secrecy and suppression of knowledge to avoid proliferation of devastating weapons.
Much of this commentary on the loss of stateness may seem irrelevant to the right to bear arms in the United States, but it is relevant for reasons that will become clear in this article. We cannot say that the US government has a true monopoly on force due to its technology, and that the potential of a citizen uprising is gone. We have seen too many other “modern” states such as Yugoslavia, Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Mali quickly deteriorate into full scale civil war just because groups of determined citizens took up light weapons (many of those rebels have far less skill and technology at their disposal than the average US gun owner).
Internecine warfare in the United States
From what we have seen of civil war in other countries, we cannot know that simple rifles and handguns really are a useless path of resistance against a modern state tyranny, just because the tyrants will have more lethal options such as cluster bombs and nerve gas. Even the most crudely armed insurrectionists are capable of overthrowing their governments, if they are determined and numerous enough. Having a lightly armed population from the outset, like the US population, only makes it more likely that such a war against tyranny would be ubiquitous and likely to succeed swiftly from the outset.
If we do take the unlikely position of supposing that the United States will degenerate into a true tyranny in the Aristotelian definition, then US citizens certainly need their right to bear arms. More than that, their path of armed resistance using those light weapons could still realistically win. If their cause was just, we can suppose that they would be battling in self-defense against a tyrannical regime that has plummeting legitimacy, or is buying time for contingents of the military to break off and join the rebellion. In such a situation, the sheer number of citizens taking up arms would do more than just demoralize government troops and lead to indecision among them.
The fact of a generally well-armed population would, if they took up arms against their regime, guarantee the existence of a widespread insurgency to such an extent that the rulers would face many years of internecine resistance and live under the constant specter of assassination. Add the internal economic devastation caused by citizens committing acts of sabotage and civil disobedience, foreign sanctions by other states, and even international aid to the insurgents by external actors, and the tyrants could be ousted even by the most lightly armed militia units.
Explaining the imbalance that has prevailed between the military might of states and the internal ability of citizens to resist their ruling regimes with arms, Franco notes that the “overwhelming majority of new technological advances are able to be leveraged by the military before they trickle down to the average citizen through industry.” This is certainly true. However, the summation that resistance is futile would not take into account the treacherous opportunities that exist in every internecine war.
When the state projects force internally, it prefers to call that “law enforcement” for as long as it remains in control of the situation. Even if the violence gets more widespread and becomes civil war, the state denies such a fact until the very last moment. Even then, it prefers to minimize the damage on its own territory, because the damage would ultimately have to be repaired and paid for by the state itself. Even in a civil war situation, the technology brought to bear against citizens by the government would never be as heavy or destructive as the kind of equipment brought to bear against foreign states or non-state actors. This is for the simple reason that the state, in a civil war, has to try to avoid obliterating its own constituents and infrastructure for political reasons. If it is caught committing such a desperate and disproportionate act, it will only undermine itself and give a propaganda coup to its lightly equipped opponents by committing a heavy-handed atrocity.
The imbalance of the superior technology of the United States government in contrast to the basic handguns and rifles of its citizenry is real, but it would have zero significance if a real internecine war took place in the United States. The deadliest weapons in the arsenal of the United States, such as nuclear or biological weapons, would never be used to confront internecine threats, so they are not relevant enough to enter the debate on the Second Amendment.
The concept of taking back government via a citizen militia is not about defeating a whole nation in the conventional sense through raw military strength, but rather about a multifaceted political struggle in which the nation is able to confront and defeat the ruling regime via some form of internecine combat. The US would tend to prefer handling militant and “terrorist” adversaries on its own territory with the bare minimum of heavy equipment and ordnance at all times. Given this, the real technological contest would only be between opposing marksmen and their rifles (any advanced firearms would soon be seized by guerrillas and used back against the state). No ridiculously unbalanced battle with tanks, nukes and generals on one side and “simple folks” with shotguns on the other side would take place. In most civil wars, the use of tanks and warplanes (never mind nukes) only tends to make matters worse for the ruling government by hitting bystanders and further alienating the people on the ground. The US military leadership should know this better than anyone else, having condemned regime after regime for making that same mistake of heavy-handed escalation.
Anti-tyranny insurgency using only light (and easily hidden) armaments is as viable in 2014 as it was in the Eighteenth Century, and has proven sufficient to delegitimize and ultimately remove brutal regimes from power. Any sufficiently unpopular regime can be delegitimized and removed from power by the armed resistance of lightly-equipped militia forces.
Franco’s conclusion that the US should neither extend the Second Amendment to cover giving everyone access to ridiculously devastating weapons, nor scrap the Second Amendment altogether, is wise and relevant to helping US society make some difficult decisions. Law (and by extension stateness) is “uncertain in the face of technologies’ upward growth.” States that want to remain popular should try to be as adaptive as possible to new (and old) technologies and ideas, and not be swayed by any single narrow-minded idea or program for society. If the American people distrust their system of government enough to keep their right to bear arms, for fear of tyranny, then the Second Amendment ought to remain.
- @ClubOfINFO - On May 15, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed rules that would threaten net neutrality.
As stated by Michael Copps at the Common Cause grassroots organization, “This is an alarming day for anyone who treasures a free and open Internet – which should be all of us”. Many are still unfamiliar with this subject, but they should take the time to learn what it means. Not simply US citizens should be concerned about a threat to net neutrality. US hegemony over the Internet means everyone should be concerned.
According to an analysis from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), rules proposed by the FCC “threaten the future of our Internet” by stifling the potential for creativity, innovation and freedom of expression. They do this by saying it is okay for internet service providers to discriminate in favor of bigger web companies, so they can connect to their users faster. The EFF amply sums this up as “allowing Internet providers to discriminate how we access websites by offering an option for web companies to pay to connect to users at faster speeds.” This has been called creating “fast lanes” for firms able to pay more than the others.
The discrimination permitted under the FCC proposal is recognized to mean there will be less diversity, less creativity and less freedom available to everyone through the Internet. Internet service providers could become “gatekeepers”, thus reducing competition and freedom of expression.
Many believe that the unique character of the Internet as a place of anarchic socialization and equality – the most celebrated aspects of life online – is under threat by the FCC’s proposed rules (If you are one of them, sign here to take a stand). If people do not act quickly to stop it, they will face the dark possibility of the Internet being yet another space occupied by a handful of monolithic companies, like the airwaves or the newspapers before.
What is happening is part of a frightening trend that seriously threatens the usefulness of the Internet as a popular space giving a voice to the voiceless. The Internet should not be hired out to the highest bidders and dominated solely by them, in a mere sham of free speech and competition. The actions of large firms in the direction of curtailing competition, freedom and the popular Internet will take more offensive forms, if they are not stopped.
While the current proposed rules by the FCC are a threat mainly to small businesses, we can already imagine the trend eventually affecting our own lives. Imagine not being able to view the best of anything other than the sites controlled by powerful corporations – the same “stakeholders” that already control the US government and media through lobbying. Not only would this discrimination be tantamount to censorship, it would also appear to be part of a deepening offence against democratization and moral revolutions through technology in the Western world.
As usual, the US government is continuing to accuse vulnerable regimes around the world of not respecting freedom, while it goes to extraordinary lengths to stifle freedom and strengthen a corrupt and autocratic corporate regime to the detriment of society. As usual, the US government continues to claim it supports competition, yet its only interest seems to be in privileging and protecting a handful of corporations, crushing competition, retarding technology and crippling the long-term potential of humanity for the sake of its own greed.
Regardless of its origins or its original design, the Internet has come to be used as a means of disclosing and encountering the truth. It has been a source of alternate media, and it has drastically weakened the influence of the corporate media. It is inevitable that the corporate-lobbied regime in the US will try to launch an onslaught against the foundations of such transparency and freedom. Greed and the desire for illicit monopoly and oligopoly pervade the US establishment and regime, leading them to seek out the total invulnerability of the regime and the handful of monstrously powerful corporations that sponsor it.
If consumers do not take a stand against the creation of “fast lanes”, they can expect to suffer further costs in the near future as powerful companies gain unfair advantages and tighten their grip over the Internet. The FCC rules, if they really come into effect, may be the thin end of a wedge to completely removing individuals and organizations from the Internet because they are unable to conform to the cruel monopolistic regulations of the corporate-dominated regime.
The problem, according to consumer advocates, lies in the attempt to portray the web as a service to be purchased at different qualities depending on how much money you have, rather than a utility that should be equally available to everyone, guaranteed and protected by the government. If the Internet can be classed as a utility to be safeguarded by the government, like electricity and gas, web users can be assured that they are not at a disadvantage to the handful of powerful businesses determined to suffocate freedom and competition.
If we take into account its true liberating and awakening impact on global society, the Internet must be seen not just as a utility but as a human right. As Pope Francis noted, the Internet is truly valuable for society. It offers an unprecedented opportunity for communication and the elimination of global disparity. Such things make it tantamount to a “gift from God”, something that cannot be denied so long as we know it to be a source of liberation for the many.
Based on the Bloomberg TV program “The Next Space Race” and other reliable sources, I determine the realistic payload costs goals for the next generation of private space companies.
I review NASA’s Space Shuttle Program costs and compare these with SpaceX costs, and then extrapolate to Planetary Resources, Inc.‘s cost structure.
Three important conclusions are derived. And for those viewing this video at my blog postings, the link to the Excel Spreadsheet is here (.xlsx file).
I am so glad to have the new video for my Kick Starter project, Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion and covers briefly Gravity Modification aka Anti-Gravity, Interstellar Propulsion, UFOs, Laithwaite, Crisis In Physics
How has your work, your life, your humanity, been improved by the promise of Big Data?
What apps and online media do you use to upload personal and other info?
Singularity has flopped – that is to say, this week Johnny Depp’s new film Transcendence did not bring in as much as Pirates of the Caribbean. Though there may not have been big box office heat, there is heat behind the film’s subject: Big Data! Sure we miss seeing our affable pirate chasing treasure, but hats off to Mr. Depp who removed his Keith Richards make-up to risk chasing what might be the mightiest challenge of our century.
Singularity, coined by mathematician John von Neumann, is a heady mathematical concept tested by biotech predictions. Made popular by math and music wunderkindt turned gray hair guru of an AI movement Ray Kurzweil, Singularity is said to signify the increasing rate at which artificial intelligence will supersede human intelligence like a jealous sibling. Followers of the Singularity movement (yes, with guru comes followers) envision the time of override in the not to distant future with projections set early as 2017 and 2030. At these times, the dynamics of technology are said to set about a change in our biology, our civilization and “perhaps” nature itself. Within our current reach, we see signs of empowered tech acting out in the current human brain mapping quest and brain-computer interface systems. More to the point, there is an ever increasing onslaught of Google Alerts annoucing biotech enhancements with wearable tech. Yes indeed, here comes the age of smart prosthetics and our own AI upload of medical and personal data to the internet. Suddenly all those Selfies seem more than mere narcissistic postings against the imposing backdrop of Big Data.
Johnny Depp’s face says it all in Transcendence where Big Data determines our AI future wherein life as we know it, can and will exist online. Think beyond a 24/7 teenage plug into a smart phone or flash- driving Facebook entries. Think Neuromancer, VALIS, and Star Trek’s Borg — sci fi predecessors predicting memory transformations amounting to an existential reboot. Translated into the everyday, we’re talking more than just uploading your genetic code to 23andme. This is an imagined future where what we call “Me” will be psychologically and legally recognized as living online.
As a contemporary sci fi, Transcendence is filled with pentimento film tributes to Zombie and X-Men TakeOvers, Westerns and Romantic Tragedies. Pitting AI critics against AI visionaries, the film is a bioethics drama, where the prospect of creating online Selves will constitute a direct social threat with thoroughgoing eco consequences. At the center of the bioethics contest, we encounter the marriage and business partnership of Will and Eleanor Castor — the heroic scientist and the eco-activist whose death do us part vows are broken to unleash a future so thoroughly transformed by AI as to render biological existence “hacked” by internet code.
The romantic hubris of Transcendence is jolting with a Shakespearean twist: Dare to Upload yourself to the internet and threaten genealogy, global power. Wait, this is no Romeo and Juliet. Love and Death, Eros and Thanatos, as Herr Freud called it, stands at the center of this science fiction pivoting on Will Castor’s heroic martyrdom (played astutely by Johnny Depp). By the end of the film, we are forced to face the movie’s existential questions as moral and medical ones. With new sentient life living online, collective imagination for our biohumanity and ecosystem is left unhinged.
Image Credit: Transcendence, 2014 Original Soundtrack
While the film lifts common AI themes of transformed “self-awareness” and “identity,” the real AI deal breaker in Transcendence, and in our own lives, is Time – biological, ecological and geologic. Described as a sequential and cyclical process, Time frames our present experience, shaping both memory and imagination of that present experience. As my Buddhist philosophy professor use to say: “When you are waiting for your lover, 10 minutes feels like 1 hour; but when your lover arrives, 1 hour feels like 10 minutes.” Cognitive neuroscientists tell us that episodic memory is at once measurable and elusive of metrics — researchers can study the sequence of what we remember (like learning our ABC’s) but they struggle to discover howit feelsto remember the alphabet.
Time after Will Castor’s AI is not waiting for cognitive neuroscience to catch up with a hacker’s race to design new codes, new systems, and new products for regenerating uberhuman biosystems. After all, AI Time presumes the speed of downloads to the Internet and programming APPs as if to emulate the speed of light.
Before Einstein, Neuroscience, the Internet and Apps, Time was once thought of in mythic, primal terms of genesis. In Indian cosmology, Siva, the God of Time, dances on the back of mother earth, moving us through karmic cycles of birth, life, death and rebirth. In the ancient Greco-Roman cosmos, Time is born from Chronos the three headed serpent that gives us earth, sky and the underworld. Through the ages, Time / Chronos became associated with the cycle of seasons, assigning to the process of change in light and life, the name Father Time in contrast to quiet, deep Mother Earth, which seems to absorb the underworld into her womb.
Conceived as such, Father Time has given way to our current understanding of RAM and neural memory codes leaving Mother Earth to stand in for blood, bones and stem cells. Today as we couple with technology and look to Big Data for knowledge and insight, we lose sight of when, and how, we capitulate to a fundamental misperception: That we are one and the same with the technology we create. Blinded by the light and speed of computer gazing, we mistake ourselves for our creations. We forget difference and our humanity — even if coupled with technology. For the sake of a popular drama, Transcendence pushes on the consequences of this misperception by entertaining a bioethics war over regenerating biological tissue. Like I said, this is a flick with a nod to X-Men.
With computational neuroscience sitting at the center of this passion play, it is neurobiologist and bioethicist Max, the Castor’s closest friend and film’s narrator who reminds us that we are Time emergent and memories alone are not us. Memory may be coded for upload but it cannot fully account for the what and who we are as neuroplastic creatures with uncertain futures. Yes, we are more than just code. As the father of American psychology William James once wrote, we draw from a world of “blooming buzzing confusion,” perceptions enriched with a variety of associated thoughts, sensations and reactions. That piece of wisdom may be more than a century old, but even if our behaviors might fit a statistical profile for behavioral economics, we are reminded: statistical profiles are not Us.
Coda:
Looking back to the late 1990’s, the call for the human-machine interface was met by both excitement and trepidation by frontier technologists and skeptical intellectuals. In my own backyard, I curated a 2003 symposium at Art Center College of Design with NASA scientists and a world famous cyborg, STELARC to discuss: What kind of science and technologies would push the design futures forward and would our imagined futures require the inevitable coupling of human and technology? Now more than 10 years later with advances in the Cloud, wearable tech and neuro-marketing, students have no greater skills for managing their union with the Borg. To paraphrase the thinking of my business partner, Gaynor Strachan Chun, ‘the problem is not with technology, but the way people behave with technology.’
Future Forward? Let’s skill up with the brain in mind to face the behavioral challenges with Big Data.
M. A. Greenstein, Ph.D., Lifeboat Advisor — Neuroscience / Diplomacy / Futures; Founder / Chairman, The George Greenstein Institute (GGI); Founder / Chief Innovation Officer, SM+ART
Based on the Bloomberg TV program “The Next Space Race” and other reliable sources, I determine the realistic payload costs goals for the next generation of private space companies.
How has your work, your life, your humanity, been improved by the promise of Big Data?