China Builds Military Hardware With Designs And Technology Stolen From U.S.

TN Note: Technocrats in China have no moral dilemma in stealing designs and technology from other parties, especially from the U.S., where most of the state-of-the-art military hardware has been developed. Why? When technology exists for technology’s sake, then it is treated as if it is in the “public domain” and hence, available for the taking. This writer has had a relationship with a tenured professor of Aeronautical Engineering at a major eastern University, who broke a ring of Chinese espionage that was blatantly stealing technology. It was known to be a wide-spread practice and the U.S. government basically turned a blind eye to the practice. 

China’s vibrant military blogosphere presented a video this month revealing a missile-firing unmanned aerial vehicle in action, dropping bombs against ground targets.

The Caihong-4, or CH-4, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a testament to the remarkable success of China’s military in copying vital high-technology weapons that currently are considered among the most cutting edge arms systems used in modern combat operations for both ground strikes and intelligence-gathering.

he one-minute, 37-second online posting shows takeoffs and landings of the drone. It was uploaded to the video-sharing website Youku Dec. 17. According to the blogger who posted it, the video was produced by 11th Academy of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, a drone developer and manufacturer.

The drone is shown launching two different types of bombs and the impact of their explosions on the ground. One is labeled a 50 kilogram, satellite-guided bomb and the second is an unguided CS/BBE2 50 kilogram aerial fragmentation bomb.

Photo analysis of the CH-4 shows the remote-controlled aircraft is very similar to the US military’s front-line combat UAV, the MQ-9 Reaper.

Both aircraft are about the same size and wing-span and both sport identical V-tails, landing gear, imaging pods and propeller-driven rear engines.

The only major difference is the Predator’s engine intake is located on top of the aircraft while the CH-4’s is underneath.

There is no evidence the Chinese directly stole design information through cyber attacks against the Reaper manufacturer, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.

But in the words of a former National Security Agency director, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, the likelihood exists Beijing acquired drone designs and technology through cyber espionage. “There are two types of companies: those that have been hacked, and know it, and those that have been hacked and don’t know it,” Alexander said in a recent speech.

The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board warned in a 2012 report on automated defense systems that China was aggressively pursuing unmanned aircraft development and were “copying other successful designs” to speed up their drone programs. “The scope and speed of unmanned-aircraft development in China is a wake up call that has both industrial and military implications,” the report said.

China in 2012 lagged behind US drone programs but has “clearly leverage all available information on Western unmanned systems development.”

In three years since the report was published the Chinese have managed to close the gap with the United States on drone development.

Additionally, Chinese military writings also indicate Beijing is working to counter US drones by interrupting their communications links. The May 2015 issue of the technical journal “Winged Missiles,” published by the PLA’s Electrical Engineering Institute, discussed how its done.

“Detecting a UAV system’s remote link signals is important for countering UAVs,” the authors note.

On Dec. 1, another Chinese website, the social media outlet Tencent News, published a report on Chinese drones, including photos of the Gongji-1 attack drone, made by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group. Like the CH-4, the GJ-1 bears a striking resemblance to the Reaper. The report stated that the GJ-1 has been deployed with a PLA air force UAV unit in the Gobi desert since 2012. The report showed the remotely-piloted controls and command system used by the PLA to operate the drones.

Details of pervasive Chinese military cyber theft were revealed in classified documents made public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

An undated briefing slide from around 2010 titled “Chinese Exfiltrate Sensitive Military Technology” reveals that Chinese hackers had conducted more than 30,000 cyber attacks, including more than 500 described as “significant intrusions in DoD systems.”

The attacks penetrated at least 1,600 network computers and compromised at least 600,000 user accounts. The damage was assessed as costing more than $100 million to gauge the damage and rebuild the networks.

The systems compromised included a range of commands and agencies, including the US Pacific Command, the US Transportation Command, the US Air Force, US Navy including missile navigation and tracking systems and nuclear submarine and anti-air missile designs.

In all the Chinese obtained an estimated 50 terabytes of data, an equivalent to five times the holdings of the US Library of Congress, the American national library considered the second largest library in the world with 23.9 million catalogued books.

Separate NSA briefing slides identified 13 separate Chinese cyber intelligence-gathering operations that NSA traced to the 3rd Department of PLA General Staff Department, the electronic military spying service known as 3PL.

Read full story here…




Presidential Candidate Says Technology To Transform Us Into Immortal Cyborgs Is Within Reach

TN Note: Technocrat/Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan is dead serious (pun intended) about immortality. He is running for U.S. President as a representative of the Transhumanist Party, while spreading the gospel of Transhumanism. His writings and ideas have been featured in The Huffington Post, Le Monde, Wired, Esquire, Mashable, The Telegraph (UK), Financial Times, Newsweek, Gizmodo and a host of others.

That’s the firm belief of Zoltan Istvan, a third-party presidential candidate who wants to not only beat Trump at the polls, but also cheat death itself.

‘I’m hoping I will live indefinitely, that’s a major priority,’ the 42-year-old tells DailyMail.com. ‘Even if don’t, I would freeze myself or use some other type of mechanism.’

Istvan says one possibility is uploading parts of his personality to a machine so that future generations can reconstruct a realistic avatar that recreates his being.

‘What happens is you take a complete scan of the brain with incredible detail using technology that is already available to some extent,’ he said.

‘Then in 20 or 30 years when the technology arrives, we upload these detailed scans to a machine, which reconfigures the brain circuitry using sophisticated algorithms.’

If all goes well, it may be possible to have an uploaded consciousness that exactly resembles someone’s personality.

From this point, he says, people could transform themselves as an avatar and live in virtual reality.

By then, robotics would be so advanced that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to tell the difference between who is a real human and who is a machine.

‘In the next 20 years we’re going to become cyborgs, we’re going to become healthier, and probably a lot more interesting.’

This promise is at the heart of Istvan’s presidential campaign, which he is running for the Transhumanist Party.

The movement describes a belief that technology has the power to achieve immortality and physical perfection.

Transhumanists believe we can do this through technologies such as mind uploading, cyborg body augmentation, and genetic manipulation.

While these technologies might sound far-fetched, various companies are already making huge strides in achieving transhumanist goals.

Istvan mentions Crispr gene editing, a controversial technique that was invented three years ago.

Unlike other gene-silencing tools, the Crispr system targets the genome’s source material and permanently turns off genes at the DNA level.

It has the potential to treat several thousand inherited disorders such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis.

Read full story here…

 




Meet Erica, Japan’s ‘Most Beautiful And Intelligent’ Android

TN Note: We had the ‘space race’ and the ‘arms race’ and now we have the “robot race”. Nations and companies are rushing to create the perfect android that can replace people in work-related positions. Technocracy is generally and specifically amoral, and technology is created because it can be created. The societal implications are of little or no concern to Technocrats.  

Erica enjoys the theatre and animated films, would like to visit south-east Asia, and believes her ideal partner is a man with whom she can chat easily.

She is less forthcoming, however, when asked her age. “That’s a slightly rude question … I’d rather not say,” comes the answer. As her embarrassed questioner shifts sideways and struggles to put the conversation on a friendlier footing, Erica turns her head, her eyes following his every move.

It is all rather disconcerting, but if Japan’s new generation of intelligent robots are ever going to rival humans as conversation partners, perhaps that is as it should be.

Erica, who, it turns out, is 23, is the most advanced humanoid to have come out of a collaborative effort between Osaka and Kyoto universities, and the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International (ATR).

At its heart is the group’s leader, Hiroshi Ishiguro, a professor at Osaka University’s Intelligent Robotics Laboratory, perhaps best known for creating Geminoid HI-1, an android in his likeness, right down to his trademark black leather jacket and a Beatles mop-top made with his own hair.

Erica, however, looks and sounds far more realistic than Ishiguro’s silicone doppelganger, or his previous human-like robot, Geminoid F. Though she is unable to walk independently, she possesses improved speech and an ability to understand and respond to questions, her every utterance accompanied by uncannily humanlike changes in her facial expression.

Erica, Ishiguro insists, is the “most beautiful and intelligent” android in the world. “The principle of beauty is captured in the average face, so I used images of 30 beautiful women, mixed up their features and used the average for each to design the nose, eyes, and so on,” he says, pacing up and down his office at ATR’s robotics laboratory. “That means she should appeal to everyone.”

Read full story here…




World’s Most Human-Like Robot Lands Job As University Receptionist

TN Note: Meet Nadine, the world’s most human-like robot, or so says its creator, Professor Nadia Thalmann at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Nadine now works as a receptionist. Her creator says, “This is somewhat like a real companion that is always with you and conscious of what is happening.” The philosophy behind Technocracy would say that any job that could be done by a non-human, should be done by a non-human.  

The world’s most human-like robot has begun work as a university receptionist as scientists predict the new technology will eventually provide childcare and offer friendship to lonely elderly people.

With her soft skin and flowing brunette hair, Nadine does not only meet and greet visitors, smile, make eye contact and shake hands, but she can even recognise past guests and spark up conversation based on previous chats.

Unlike conventional robots, Nadine has her own personality, mood and emotions. She can be happy or sad, depending on the topic.

Powered by intelligent software similar to Apple’s Siri orMicrosoft’s Cortana, she is the brainchild of scientists at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and is based on her creator Prof Nadia Thalmann.

Prof Thalmann, the director of the Institute for Media Innovation who led the development of said robots such as Nadine are poised to become more visible in offices and homes in future.

“Robotics technologies have advanced significantly over the past few decades and are already being used in manufacturing and logistics,” she said.

“As countries worldwide face challenges of an aging population, social robots can be one solution to address the shrinking workforce, become personal companions for children and the elderly at home, and even serve as a platform for healthcare services in future.

“Over the past four years, our team at NTU have been fostering cross-disciplinary research in social robotics technologies — involving engineering, computer science, linguistics, psychology and other fields — to transform a virtual human, from within a computer, into a physical being that is able to observe and interact with other humans.

“This is somewhat like a real companion that is always with you and conscious of what is happening. So in future, these socially intelligent robots could be like C-3PO, the iconic golden droid from Star Wars, with knowledge of language and etiquette.”

Read full story here…




Flashback: Concern Over Agenda 21 Turned Cattlewoman into Agricultural Activist

TN Note: How do you know when enough is enough? Each person has their own point of inflection that when reached will move them to tangible action.  In recent years, more and more people are turning to activism as the only way to push back against tyranny. 

As her children and grandchildren filter through the office at the Chain Land and Cattle Company on this bright spring morning, Andrea (Andy) Hutchison looks more like the proud mother and grandmother she is than the agricultural activist she has become. Some of the kids come to see what their job is for the day and others are looking for the home-baked goodies sitting next to the coffee pot on the shelf.

Hutchison and her husband, Brad, have four children and 10 grand children. All of her kids are involved in some way in the family ranching business west of Canton, Okla. Hutchison said her great-grandfather, Oscar Chain, homesteaded on the land 120 years ago trading a shotgun and $50 for a quarter section of land in Dewey County in 1893. Her son lives on that place and underneath his home is the original dugout where her great-grandfather lived. Hutchison herself lives in the home her grandfather Lenard Chain built.

Hutchison’s transformation from housewife and mother to agricultural activist began with involvement in the Oklahoma Cattlewomen, Inc. She eventually served two terms as president of this group.

“At that time I was just raising kids, cooking, being a gofer for the ranch hands, and helping the secretary in the office,” Hutchison said.

In 2006 she was appointed to her first of two terms on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board.

“I really started watching and learning to see what was going on,” Hutchison said.

Today she is chairman of the Animal Well-Being Committee for the American National Cattlewomen and represents that group on the board of the Animal Ag Alliance.

Her involvement in these organizations opened Hutchison up to the issues facing agriculture across the country.

“I started hearing stories 10 years ago at these meetings,” Hutchison said. “There were little groups of women discussing these problems. They would come in and tell horror stories but nobody was listening to them.”

Through these meetings Hutchison met women like Sue Krentz and Mindy Patterson and most recently Janet Hufnagel Thompson. Sue Krentz and her husband, Bob, were fighting immigration issues on their ranch in Arizona. Bob Krentz was killed by illegal aliens crossing their ranch to enter the U.S. Mindy Patterson has been fighting against the Humane Society of the U.S. in Missouri in an effort to re-establish the humane slaughter of horses. Janet Hufnagel Thompson and her husband fought back against environmentalists but eventually lost their feedlot business in Australia.

“I would come back home and tell these stories back here in Oklahoma and most thought I was nuts,” Hutchison said. “The stories I hear are coming directly from the people it is happening to with conversations ranging from drones and the abuse of the EPA to threats of Endangered Species destroying livelihoods .”

Hutchison said women are more likely to get together and talk about these problems than men. In the past there were Home Demonstration Units or sewing clubs that gave rural women an opportunity to gather and discuss issues in their lives. Today these same women are more likely to be officers in state, regional, and national farm and rancher-related organizations.

“Women love community,” Hutchison said.

After hearing all of these stories, Andrea Hutchison believed that these were not just random events. Somehow they were all tied together.

“It was a culmination of a lot of stories,” Hutchison said. “I knew there was something wrong, early on I thought it was just HSUS. But over the last year I’ve realized it was something else.”

Hutchison believes that the something else is Agenda 21. Wikipedia describes Agenda 21 “as a non-binding voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.” It is a product of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Agenda 21 is implemented at local, national, and global levels by multilateral organizations and individual governments.

“It is like someone threw a bunch of knives in the air and now they are falling and we are in the middle of it,” Hutchison said.

Hutchison has been speaking to groups at the local and national levels to educate other producers on how to recognize Agenda 21 and its infiltration. Nationally she was part of panel discussion at a meeting of the American Agri-Women. She will speak to anyone who will listen.

“It is a lot of information to share with a farmer or rancher,” Hutchison said. “After 10 or 15 minutes their eyes begin to glaze over.”

One of Hutchison’s main concerns about Agenda 21 is the fact that this plan will ultimately be determining what is and what is not sustainable, a term that actually has no objective way to be measured. Basically, there will be no top on the regulations that could be implemented. It will affect not only farmers and ranchers but all owners of private property.

Hutchison is not alone in her campaign to stop Agenda 21. In March this year a large group of Oklahoma residents, who are concerned about this UN-sponsored program, met at the capital building in Oklahoma City to educate their legislators about the issue.

From the beginning Hutchison said she felt like she was doing the right thing and never stopped talking about the issues that were important to her and other cattlewomen. She encourages everyone to do their own research and find out just who they are letting on their farms and ranches.

As the grandkids leave the office at Chain Land and Cattle Company they congregate in their grandmother’s backyard, gathering material to build a fort. Andrea Hutchison the activist is now the proud grandmother again as she looks at them play together. She says they are the real reason she is involved with these issues. Hutchison wants those grandkids to have an opportunity to be in the ranching business that has been so good to her family.

Read full story here…




Off The Buses: Driverless Robot Revolution Threatens Mass Cull Of Transport Jobs

TN Note: England may lead the way for now, but driverless transportation will quickly be ubiquitous in every industrialized society, displacing hundreds of thousands of workers. Technocracy has no provision to consider the real needs of people. Rather, it exists only to apply its scientific method to social engineering problems in order to extract maximum efficiency from the social engine. Agenda 21 specifies that the ultimate sustainable global population will be 1 billion or fewer people. Those who cannot survive because of unemployment will rapidly depopulate the planet. 
Government plans to introduce driverless buses as part of a digital revolution could see Britain lead the way in new technology, but could also put tens of thousands of people out of work.

Culture and Digital Economy minister Ed Vaizey said a five-year digital strategy currently being drawn up will propose that robotic buses be launched across the country.

The plans will be part of a wider policy to force government departments to embrace the digital age in the same way private companies have.

A Whitehall official told the Times it was a “cross-government” program.

It is about how we push the boundaries and make sure every bit of government is digital and policy is more digital.

Speaking to the Times, Vaizey said the impact of the plans on people’s lives would be “profound” and cited positive outcomes such as improved healthcare from wearable smart technology.

However critics such as computer entrepreneur and author Martin Ford warn that if the introduction of automation in the economy is not handled carefully, it could lead to mass unemployment.

In his recent book, “Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future,” Ford argues such a surge in unemployment could have disastrous consequences on the global economy.

London’s transportation system alone employees 27,000 bus drivers, according to Unite the Union, many of whom could be pushed out of work.

Britain’s digital sector accounted for 7.5 percent of the economy (£113 billion) in 2013, just ahead of Germany. Vaizey said the government wants the UK to lead the way with the new technology.

We want the UK to be synonymous with digital, a place where technology transforms day-to-day life,” he said.

The potential impact is profound. It might mean that the best educators from around the world are made accessible to all – with virtual reality sets bringing Nobel laureates into the classroom. That we can build better houses, faster.

That more power is given to the patient, and the care we provide for our elderly and sick is improved and made more affordable.

That we use driverless robotic buses in rural communities or help people to find parking places using GPS technology,” he added.

Read full story here…




Technocracy Is Being Woven Into Our Society

TN Note: A tip of the hat to Kathy Solomon, who wrote this article for her local paper in Macon, Georgia. This type of editorial/activity should be repeated in every community across America, and why not? It is your community after all!

Throughout history, various totalitarian and dictatorial governances have more often than not, been cloaked in some form of promised utopianism. These philosophies have had different roots but the outcome is the same: destruction, misery and death. There is a new form of utopian totalitarianism called Technocracy. It is alive and well and under implementation in this country. It is transforming economics, government, religion and law. It is about economic and social control of society and persons according to the Scientific Method. If it is allowed to be fully implemented, it too will have the same results.

It is being woven into our society under the names and programs called: Sustainable Development, Smart Grid, Green Economy, Smart Growth, Public Private Partnerships, Agenda 21, Land Use, Global Warming/Climate Change, Cap and Trade and, in education, the Common Core state standards.

Technocracy was resurrected by the global elitists led by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski with the formation of the Trilateral Commission. In Brzezinski’s book “Between Two Ages: Americas Role in the Technetronic Era” he wrote “the nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of nation-state.” He called sovereignty “fiction.” He also wrote the” technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society dominated by elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”

What we are being transitioned into is Global Governance and the United Nations is an integral part. Much of what is being established circumvents our Congress and the Constitution. So bit by bit, our rights under our Constitution are being eroded. We will have no representation under this governance.

In view of the current Climate Conference Agenda 2030, consider the dictatorial statements such as “the science is settled,” “climate deniers must be silenced” and “climate deniers should be jailed” et al.

The conversation must be shut down because the “science” has been bought and paid for and fabricated to fit an agenda. The scientists who have changed views against global warming/climate change have had their reputations marginalized and often their careers ruined.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, said “the UN is using false models which show sustained temperature increases because it wants to end democracy and impose a New World Order.” The adviser’s inflammatory comments coincided with a visit from U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres. Newman said Figueres is “on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.”

There is much more that is in play to exact this diabolical agenda. I would direct anyone interested in learning more on this subject to read both “Technocracy Rising” by Patrick Wood and “The Green Gospel” by Shelia Zilinsky.

Read full story here…




The Future Of Food: Completely Automated Farms Run By Robots

With automated farming, workers and traditional family farmers will be quickly and easily excessed. The race will be on to completely subsume small farms into giant corporate farms that exercise monopoly control over food production, and advanced technology will drive the whole process. Those who have the technology will thrive; those who don’t will wither away. 

Since Dorn Cox began automating his 250-acre New Hampshire farm four years ago, he has installed dozens of sensors. Some measure moisture in soil around his squash. Some track temperatures in the greenhouse air around his cucumbers. Others track wind speed and rainfall in segments of field roughly a quarter-acre in size. When something is amiss—temperatures are too high or the soil is too dry—he receives an alert on his smartphone. He also sends out drones to survey his field crops for dryness, soil erosion, and plant health.

“On a farm, there’s a lot going on,” Cox says. “Being able to keep track of it all without having to hire more people is important. It lets you do a better, more efficient job.”

For centuries, farming was an intuitive process. Today, it’s networked, analytical, and data-driven. Large farms (1,000 acres or more) started the trend, adopting the tools of precision agriculture—using GPS-guided tractors, drones, and computer modeling to customize how each inch of land is farmed. Farm managers can measure and map things like soil acidity and nitrogen levels, and then apply fertilizer to specific plants—not just spray and pray. As a result, they get the most out of every seed they plant. Such methods have reduced farm costs by an average of 15 percent and increased yields by 13 percent, according to a 2014 survey by the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Small farms—which make up 88 percent of all farms in the U.S., according the Department of Agriculture—are now adopting similar methods, powered by a proliferation of affordable sensors, drones, cameras, wireless networks, and data plans. And they sometimes see better results than large farms. Cox, for one, says he has cut labor and fertilizer costs by as much as 70 percent, and in some cases doubled his crop yields.

He and his fellow farmers also share data through farmhack.org. In the past, innovation came from individual experiments. Now, “if you’re able to capture new data with the help of other farms,” Cox says, “all those experiments add up to much faster learning.”

At Cox’s Tuckaway Farm, about 20 miles northeast of Portsmouth, Cox uses farmOS, an open-source farm-management software he helped develop. He can also create 3-D models of crops to show biomass volume. He can look at larger landscape patterns via drone. And he can share information in real time. His next innovation will be employing robots in the field. When corn grows to a mature height, it’s difficult to get through the rows to apply nitrogen. Instead, farmers apply it to the soil at the start of a season and hope it lasts. But Rowbot—created by Minnesota agricultural engineer Kent Cavender-Bares and his two brothers, one a roboticist—is small and sturdy enough to carry several gallons of nitrogen and work its way down the space between rows, applying nitrogen when needed.

“In the future, the machines will be out there doing work and at the same time learning about that field,” says Cavender-Bares. That data will, in turn, affect how farmers like Cox manage their land. “We have the pieces to put this together,” Cox says. “We haven’t had that before. That’s a big deal.”

Read full story here…




Technocracy’s Green Economy Means The End Of Ownership

Originally developed in the 1930s, Technocracy is a replacement economic model for capitalism and free enterprise, based on energy usage and consumption instead of supply and demand. Sustainable Development and Green Economy are essentially equivalent terms that are used by the United Nations but originally coined by members of the elitist Trilateral Commission. This writer contends that these latter terms are also substantially equivalent to the original model of Technocracy, and this has been documented extensively in the book Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.

A new documentary called “The End of Ownership” has painfully highlighted a key element of Technocracy which requires a total transformation from direct ownership to utility usage. In other words, instead of owning things, you simply rent or lease them from the appropriate parties, with energy usage automatically bundled into the price. In part, this sounds the death knell of private property and the right of consumer choice in selecting desired products and lifestyles.

The End of Ownership’s storyline is as follows:

The birth of highly sustainable energy sources and other resources presents a double edged sword for the business sector. A company can remain vital and viable if the products they sell represent the cutting edge of technological advancement, but that same innovative spirit can also spell disaster for their bottom line. Businesses don’t want you to buy a single light bulb that can burn throughout your lifetime; they want you to buy many light bulbs over the course of your life. Therefore, the development and ultimate success of sustainable products requires a new economic model. The End of Ownership follows architect Thomas Rau as he puts one such model into motion.

Shortly after Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, a committee gathered to assess the economic feasibility of such a product. They decided to maximize their profitability by manufacturing the light bulb to burn at no more than 1,000 hours. By imposing limitations on the performance of the bulb, they ensured that many more bulbs could be sold. In Rau’s view, their decision also created an environment rife with waste that placed an unnecessary burden on the consumer.

Rau approached the Phillips technology company with a proposal: produce lighting solutions that work for the consumer, and assume the power costs as their own. In theory, the benefits of such an approach would be desirable for the consumer, the business, and the environment. The consumer essentially pays a rental fee for their lighting. Since the company is footing the electric bill, the product they provide is carefully designed to operate with extreme ease and efficiency to keep costs low. Currently, the program is rolling out across the business sector, and is resulting in astronomical energy savings for all involved.

Rau’s provocative new economic energy model has additional applications beyond the light bulb. The public housing sector has expressed interest in creating more efficient appliances throughout their properties as a means of saving money for their tenants.

The End of Ownership is an invigorating look at a potential future that can work better for all of us. Most valuably, it exposes a troubling current that runs through our modern culture: the things we own have a tendency to own us.

The architect Thomas Rau was subsequently highlighted in a case study published by Phillips Lighting titled Pay-per-Lux – a whole new way to deliver light.

Rau originally told Phillips,

“Listen, I need so many hours of light in my premises every year. You figure out how to do it. If you think you need a lamp, or electricity, or whatever – that’s fine. But I want nothing to do with it. I’m not interested in the product, just the performance. I want to buy light, and nothing else.”

Since the above video documentary was released, Phillips says that “Pay per Lux” is catching on around the world as other agencies, architects and companies are requesting the same level of service.

Lighting is one thing, but the concept is much more far-reaching than that. Do you need a refrigerator, washer or dryer? An air conditioner, stove or microwave oven? Just fill out your requirements checklist and rent the unit – with energy costs bundled in – and pay by the month for as long as you are willing or able to pay.

If it hasn’t occurred to you yet, this is essentially the same scheme already used by cell phone companies to sell you communication services: You rent the phone with cellular minutes bundled in. So far, I have never, ever heard a consumer rave about how great this works. In fact, most people vocally complain about how they feel about getting gouged by their “carrier”.

Extrapolate the cell phone concept to all other energy-consuming appliances in your life and just think of the possibilities for aggravation and financial pain.

Even though these schemes are sold as money-saving, option expanding services, Technocracy could not care less about consumers and what they pay for things. Technocrats are only concerned with squeezing the last possible bit of efficiency out of the economic system.

In fact, in 1939 The Technocrat magazine defined Technocracy as follows:

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.

Can you see why writers such as Huxley (Brave New World) and Orwell (Nineteen Eight Four) concluded that Technocracy would ultimately result in a tyrannical scientific dictatorship?




AI Chatbots Will Become ‘Friends’ To Millions Of Technology Users

TN Note: Artificial Intelligence is being applied to ‘chatbots’, programs that interact with users as if they were human. The problem is, people cannot differentiate between real and unreal human interaction, leading many to build bonding relationships with a program. This is not the way life is meant to be, however, and will lead to serious social dysfunction.

Artificial intelligence is coming to a messaging app near you.

Google has been working on a messaging-based chat bot for a year, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper described the service as a Google Now-like virtual assistant that you could send messages to and get the answers back as messages.

It’s not clear whether this service would be available within Google’s Hangouts or Messenger service, whether it could be available on other platforms, such as over SMS, or whether it would be a new messaging service. One source told the Journal that Google would open up its chatbot as an extensible platform, which means other companies could build special-purpose chatbots based on Google’s data.

The Journal had no information about a launch date or name for the service, but did say the project is being headed by longtime Googler, Nick Fox.

An A.I. chatbot makes sense for Google. Consumers are increasingly going mobile and searching (pun intended) for an alternative to search. Current alternatives, such as Google’s own Google Now or its competitors — Siri, Cortana, Alexa and others — all suffer from imperfect voice recognition. And in their state of evolution, they can be unsatisfying to use.

John Underkoffler, the CEO of Oblong Industries (and creator of the Minority Report and Iron Man user interfaces), told me recently that “we haven’t built a good feedback system yet” (for voice assistants) that keeps you informed in real time about how well the system is understanding you. Virtual assistants also require a conscious decision to stop doing the current task and actively seek out the virtual assistant, which is a reflex many users haven’t developed.

Meanwhile, millions of online users, who used to seek out data on search engines like Google Search, and more recently on social networks like Facebook, are now moving to messaging apps, such as Facebook’s WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, Viber, Telegram, WeChat and many others. The habit or impulse to reach out to people on messaging apps, and to respond to incoming messages through notifications, is growing stronger.

Google doesn’t have the most popular social network or messaging apps, but it does have the best and most popular search engine. Also: Many people consider Google Now to be the best virtual assistant. Building A.I. virtual assistance into a messaging platform makes a world of sense for Google. It helps the company with both their search engine exodus problem and the messaging app nonpopularity problem.

Of course, the new Google chatbot solves Google’s problems only if it succeeds. To succeed, Google needs to win users from a wide range of alternatives, including and especially Facebook’s.

M is for ‘Made Out Of People’

Facebook launched a new service on its mobile Messenger app called “M” (the code-name was Moneypenny).

M is a chatbot designed to do things for you. Trouble is, A.I. is imperfect. No chatbot has yet passed the Turing testuncontroversially.

So Facebook M performs a neat (if expensive) trick: Humans fill in where A.I. fails.

When you ask M whether people are involved, it replies: “I’m A.I., but humans train me.”

That claim is simply not true. Humans directly answer some of the queries. So some of M is A.I., and, yes, humans train this A.I., but many queries are answered by people.

This has been proved by multiple journalists testing the system for human involvement.

In any event, this reveals that Facebook is willing to pay what must be a massive amount of money for real people to help answer M queries, while denying it all the while. Chat-based A.I. as an alternative to search — or, for that matter, virtual assistants, customer service, and more — could become a major, important way for people to use the Internet.

Companies are desperate to show that computers can convincingly respond as people would. They grasp intuitively that the public wants exactly that: A fake human.

Cheating on the Turing test by inserting humans is Facebook’s stop-gap solution. But all chatbot makers, including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and many others, are working hard on acing the test — on creating a chatbot that always convincingly plays a humanlike role in our lives.

Google itself even created a somewhat philosophical A.I. engine, which emerged in the summer. Google researchers published earlier this year a research paper on Arxiv about a machine learning-based proof-of-concept chatbot they created that can discuss Big Questions, such as: “What’s the meaning of life?” That sounds profound, until you learn that the answers have been gleaned from a database of movie dialog. The chatbot answers the Big Questions, but with Hollywood’s answers.

Basing answers on existing dialog seems to be the winning approach to the problem of making chatbots seem human. At least, that’s been Microsoft’s experience.

X is for XiaoIce

Microsoft researchers in China have been developing a chatbot in China (and in Chinese) called XiaoIce, which is reportedly used by some 40 million people on their smartphones.

XiaoIce is different from the Siris of the world because it’s more of a friend than a personal assistant. It can hold conversations, tell jokes, suggest products to buy and do other things. The New York Times even reported that about 25% of users have at some point told XiaoIce “I love you.”

Unlike Google’s research project, which gleans responses from movie dialog, XiaoIce gets them from social media in China. So when you ask XiaoIce. “What’s the meaning of life?” the A.I. scans a database of people who have posed that question online, and chooses one of the popular responses to provide to the user.

The disturbing reality is that XiaoIce is not only basing its replies on social media chatter, it’s replacing social media and messaging for some users in some circumstances. And therein lies the dystopian risk with messaging-based chatbots.

Read full story here…