The Workplace of 2040 : Mind Control, Holograms

MYOB has released its ‘Future of Business: Australia 2040’ report, which examines the possible impact of emerging technologies on business and work over the next 25 years.

While all manner of business interactions will continue to be “formalised, automated and digitised”, the biggest effect will be on what we currently call ‘the workplace’, according to MYOB chief technology officer Simon Raik-Allen.

Driven by the rising cost of energy and transport, the focus of 2040 will be the ‘suburban village’. “You will live, work, eat and learn primarily within walking distance of your house,” he writes.

Communities will pool their resources, people will trade with neighbours and list skills on local noticeboards, drones will deliver packages between communities or “even a coffee and a bagel to your current location”….

Mr Raik-Allen predicts that holographic projection technology will bring about the biggest change to the workplace since email. The seminars that became webinars in the ‘90s and noughties will soon become ‘holonars’.

“You will sit in virtual auditoriums, next to three-dimensional light-based images of your colleagues from around the globe watching a hologram on the stage of someone giving a talk. And you will do this just as easily as you gather in the office today.”

Launching a new business and hiring 500 people could be done in minutes, he argues. “Your company could be just you and a couple of project managers: the thinkers, controlling every aspect of the company through new digital interfaces.”

….Here’s where it gets really crazy. If you thought smartphones and wearables were the height of personal technology, wait until you have chips implanted under your skin and downloadable apps for your brain.

Nanobots will swim through your blood, diagnosing illness and clearing blood clots. Brain augmentations will heighten our senses or allow us to control technology with our minds.

For example, implants in the retina could farm off the raw data to miniature processors implanted in our bodies, analysing the images to identify things that can’t be seen with the naked eye, and then feed that back ‘into the stream’, effectively giving us augmented vision.

“Imagine how that would add to virtual reality,” Mr Raik-Allen says. “100 million nodes [in the retina] is not that many. In 25 years, the processing power of a single phone will probably be condensed to the size of a single red blood cell.”

Already there are examples of rudimentary ‘bio-hacking’, both of the brain and body. One experiment allowed a man to wiggle a rat’s tail with his mind; another demonstrated brain-to-brain communication, allowing two subjects to control each other’s movements.

“These things are already being done invasively, with epilepsy patients for example….

What about mind control in the other direction? Will employers be able to bend recalcitrant employees to their will?

“If you want to be sinister about it, that will certainly be possible,” he says.

“We could work out which brain pattern is associated with looking at Facebook, for example, and which is looking at a spreadsheet. The boss could have a dashboard to see who’s working and who’s not.”

By Frank Chung – News.com –

US mulls arming Ukraine in struggle

With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO’s military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev’s beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, American officials said Sunday.

President Obama has made no decisions on providing such lethal assistance. But after a series of striking reversals that Ukraine’s forces have suffered in recent weeks, the Obama administration is taking a fresh look at the question of military aid.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal assistance, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is leaving his post soon, backs sending defensive weapons to the Ukrainian forces.

In recent months, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official who is familiar with her views insisted that Ms. Rice was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

Fearing that the provision of defensive weapons might tempt President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to raise the stakes, the White House has limited American aid to “non-lethal” items, including body armor, night-vision goggles, first aid kits and engineering equipment.

But the failure of economic sanctions to dissuade Russia from sending heavy weapons and military personnel to eastern Ukraine is pushing the issue of defensive weapons back into discussion.

“Although our focus remains on pursuing a solution through diplomatic means, we are always evaluating other options that will help create space for a negotiated solution to the crisis,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Fueling the broader debate over policy is an independent report to be issued Monday by eight former senior American officials, who urge the United States to send $3 billion in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT – New York Times –

Law Has Been Murdered

Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly, and Bonny Mahoney are the kind of people who are imprisoned in America. It is not the perjurers and liars, the torturers, war criminals and mass murderers. It is the good people who peacefully protest the crimes of those who control the US government and its policies.

Since around 1990 I have studied and reported on cases that have resulted in the erosion of the protective features in law that made law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the government. Barrett Brown’s statement to the Judge in his show trial shows that the US Department of Justice has been successful in preventing the system from delivering any justice. The US Court system delivers support for the government’s crimes. That’s it.

Brown’s statement shows how the system works. The government brings false charges against you or they bring charges that are not illegal under law as understood. However, prosecutors invent new interpretations of laws and judges and juries accept legislation-by-prosecutor-to-fit-the-made-up-case. Almost never is a jury involved, not that jurors show any inclination to go against the government’s case. However, prosecutors only face that unlikely risk in 3 or 4 percent of the cases. All other cases are settled on the basis of self-incrimination. The prosecutor tells the defendant and his attorney, “you can admit to this and that and have a sentence of 5 or 10 years. Otherwise, we are indicting you with 105 offenses with imprisonment of at least one lifetime.

Read Brown’s statement to the judge. This young man describes perfectly how the so-called “criminal justice system” actually works. I have seen it time after time in cases I have investigated. Read “The Tyranny of Good Intentions”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/journalist-barrett-brown-sentenced-to-63-months-in-prison-for-linking-to-hacked-material-read-his-speech-here/5426421

Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney were sentenced to prison for stepping across the perimeters of Air Force bases in peaceful protests against murder-by-drone. There was no real reason for charges to be brought against them or for a judge to sentence them to prison except to continue to make it crystal clear that the US government tolerates no dissent.

http://warisacrime.org/content/hancock-drone-resister-convicted-unexpected-new-charge

A democracy protected by free speech would permit these demonstrations, but the US is not a democracy and does not have free speech. That is the fact that Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney are proving….

What Brown, Kelly, and Mahoney are in fact proving is that the US is lawless in the sense that law serves only the government and its agenda. In America law no longer has any other meaning. There is no rule of law. We are ruled by the government’s agenda.

By Paul Craig Roberts – Infowars.com –

Gov’t surveillance Greater Threat than Terrorism

….[In] George Orwell’s dystopian fiction classic, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Winston Smith was breaking the law by seeking privacy outside the range of the “telescreen” in his apartment.

In an irony that would no doubt give Orwell grim satisfaction in his own prescience, Britons today are being pursued and prosecuted under an Act of Parliament designed to curb terrorism… for failing to pay a license fee for the televisions in their own homes.

Big Brother is watching you!

Orwell wrote soon after the invention of the television, which he envisaged as having evolved into an all-seeing two-way surveillance and propaganda device: the telescreen. It subjected viewers to constant hectoring demands for obedience and reported their every move to Big Brother, the avatar of the all-seeing surveillance state.

The fact that the novel is set in a future (and fictional) Britain only heightens the irony of recent revelations in the U.K. The government of Tory Prime Minister David Cameron has been using surveillance powers designed for the “War on Terrorism” to ferret out Britons who have not paid their hated “TV License,” a £145.50 ($220) annual tax imposed on every home containing a set in the country.

Her Majesty’s government clearly takes this odious little tax very seriously, so much so that the BBC is using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) — designed to catch terrorists and Internet criminals — to track down people who dodge the license fee.

About 200,000 people were prosecuted for failing to buy a TV license between 2012 and 2013. More than 50 of those were sent to prison, and many others received penalties of up to £1,000 and a criminal record….

Orwell wrote with extraordinary perception and clarity, taking as his central theme the ways in which government’s attempts to serve its citizens are inevitably turned against us. Any policy, program or technique developed to “protect our freedoms” will be used to achieve the opposite.

Orwell would recognize the absurd irony of the situation in Western countries following the recent atrocities in Paris targeting the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. In response to these terror attacks, David Cameron has effectively launched a war against encryption, deeming private communication too great a threat to afford to keep as it prevents government from tracking and monitoring potential terrorists.

After loud protestations for “freedom of speech” following a terrorist attack on a magazine, our leaders barely pause for breath before demanding even greater surveillance powers than they already have — powers that, as Winston Smith knew, turn us all into self-censoring drones, fearful of saying or doing something that might offend Big Brother.

….If otherwise law-abiding Britons can go to jail over a petty tax, courtesy of surveillance powers grabbed in the name of fighting terrorism, imagine what can and will happen if the government decides to turn its attention to you.

This is why, now more than ever, you need to take concrete steps to secure your privacy — not just from crooks, but from the greatest enemy of freedom there is: the government.

By using techniques of encryption (while it’s available), secure end-to-end communication and identity masking, you can become a free and sovereign man or woman, because you control the knowledge available about you.

But you’ve got to start now… before it’s too late.

By Ted Baumann – Personal Liberty –

Man Shoots Down Drone, Lawyers Scratch Their Heads

By Kelsey D. Atherton – PopSci.com –

Shooting down a small drone is hard. But determining whether people should be allowed to do so may prove more difficult still. A man in New Jersey fired a shotgun at his neighbor’s drone, and as the quadcopter crashed to the ground, the incident raised new legal challenges about when and if it’s okay to shoot a robot.

Police arrested the New Jersey man, charging him with “Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose and Criminal Mischief”. In this case, courts might find that, by firing the shotgun at the drone, the man is guilty of destruction of property. The use of force is often only legally permissible to prevent a physical threat, and a wandering drone, like a trespassing cow, is inconvenient but not an imminent danger.

Courts might rule that a trespass by drone is unlike a trespass by a pet. Drones can carry cameras, so a drone flying into a backyard isn’t just trespassing, it’s a threat to privacy…

 
Continue Reading