Where There's A William

there's always aweigh

Archive for the category “technology”

A World Transformative Opportunity

Confused by the plethora of technology choices you daily find yourself confronted with?  Want an easy-to-learn technique to help you answer all your questions?  Can’t help you.  However, if you have the least interest in taking advantage of the near-endless opportunities our steadily (and increasingly) changing world offers, you should be listening to tonight’s edition of The World Transformed, 10pm Eastern, 7pm Pacific.

Oh yeah, Phil and Stephen try to make sense of some guy ratcheting on about strategy, too.


The Threat Of Abundance – A Strategic Model

In their book, Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler write a brief over-view of many of the dangers associated with the concept of exponential growth of technology.  This can be found in the appendix on pages 293 through 304 and is imaginatively titled DANGERS OF THE EXPONENTIALS.  They confront the Bill Joy lead balloon along with bio-terrorism, cyber crime, a mash-up of robotics, AI, and the unemployment line and conclude with Unstoppable:

“… putting the brakes on technology just won’t work.  As the Bush administration’s ban on human embryonic stem cells bore out, attempting to silence technology one place only drives it elsewhere.”

  Keeping in mind that the really bad stuff is still in Pandora’s Box somewhere (Thanks Lara Croft!), all of the rest seems sufficiently bad enough to be getting on with and we are going to have to do something about it too.

In my post on this book on Wednesday, I wrote:

Diamandis and Kotler seem to be comfortable in the belief that networks of users of technology will accrete naturally.  While true enough, this position leaves the direction of such growth far too susceptible to destructive (or merely oppositional) forces influence.  My belief is that such user networks deserve nurturing and promotion in their growth process; in direction, in speed and in the very nature of that growth.

 I realized at the time this is a bit inflammatory (at the very least of drawing a conclusion based on little direct evidence) and almost certainly isn’t an accurate description of the authors hopes.  They were writing a book and there simply must be a limit to what can be included therein (otherwise you have to call it a library).  What follows is an effort to redress that imbalance, as well as to propose a possible mechanism to counter the threats noted in their book’s appendix.  With that said, here you go, boys.


There are legitimate concerns about what might also result along with the abundance of opportunity from the projected growth of technology examined in the book Abundance.  Human history being also littered with past efforts at dealing with threat, I wish to suggest a potential example upon which we in this era might base an effort to both develop that hoped-for abundance while simultaneously countering the implicit threat.

What we need is a mechanism – an organization accepting membership by anyone – that encourages development and adoption of technology that satisfies the increasing demands of humanity and also encourages creation of counter-applications to the undesired efforts of those who would apply technology in a harmful or unacceptably destructive way.  I think the example of the Knights Templar might be adapted to fill this bill.

An organization associated with, but not directly a part of, mainstream groups.  An organization with an explicit but multifaceted effort structured around a stipulated membership skill set.  An organization funded by external donations as well as from it’s own accomplishments and developed assets.  I can stretch this as far as necessary, but the idea is to create a semi-official but independent organization that is dedicated to the safe development of technology as equally as it is to encouraging the most wide-spread adoption of technology applications (both direct and in response to technology threats) that the membership works to develop.

Actual knighthoods and the like would be silly, but might offer an example of a potential class of “job titles” for this hypothetical organizations members to utilize.  Any organization has its internal hierarchy; the Templars were no different and I suggest that the distinct but loosely defined type of descriptions they utilized would make good sense in this application too.

Like the Templars, members in the organization (a name would be really useful too while I’m about it) would be unpaid but eligible for support by stipulated means; direct contributions toward a specified development perhaps, cash or other material prizes awarded for successful development efforts being another obvious (and I think principal) mechanism.  The important part of this is that the format specifically address how to equitably distribute both prizes and commercialization of developed technology applications.  Perhaps the “badges” mechanism used by Salman Khan to encourage and reward student study efforts might be usefully modified in this circumstance.  Two or three (at most) distinct badges that can denote both level and degree of direct involvement in a given development.  This mechanism would also be used to equitably distribute prize awards as well as commercialization revenues.  Again, this would be consistent with the Templar historical model of knights, sergeants and clerics working together as (social) equals within the same organization.

There would need to be some sort of “executive council”, made up of non-members of the organization; perhaps drawn from sources like Diamandis’ X-Prize Foundation, NGO’s and even governments themselves (as example, the US President’s Science Adviser, charged with recommending funding for specific prizes to a Congressional committee perhaps and reporting back to same on current status’ and results).  Members of this council (which I think should be temporary appointments) would be responsible for creating prizes as well as determining their being awarded properly of course, but I think this council should be equally responsible for encouraging explicit government efforts to reduce legislative hindrances to adoption of technology application.  The membership themselves act as a self-coordinating effort to encourage popular support for the same freedoms at the political grassroots level as it were.

I envision the executive committee establishing (this would involve soliciting funding as well as supervising the honesty of the award process) a series of prizes ranging from a few thousand dollars to as much as $250,000 for specific technology application development along with aggressive management of application commercialization contracts (also to be developed and supervised by the committee).  Along with this should be a series of prizes directed at developing technology applications that defeat stipulated threat mechanisms (either existing or potential) that members can work to develop; these prizes should begin at the $500,000 level to make clear the importance placed upon developing safeguards as well as increased capability.

The founding document(s) of this organization (much as the US Constitution does, a model I recommend) should make explicit the intent and purpose of the organization, should stipulate a transparent process whereby anyone can determine this principle is being adhered to in practice, should strictly limit the duties, functions and authority of both the executive council as well as the general membership, and perhaps most importantly of all, should explicitly delineate the liability the council, membership and contributors assume for their actions within the activities covered by the founding charter of the organization.  Having this founding charter be formally recognized and accepted as having equal legitimacy with a formal treaty between governments would be the standard sought.

I’m certain I’ve left out much of importance, but this seems sufficient to introduce my proposal.

A Rights-Based Strategy Of Exponential Technology Change

There exists in the USA an energetic (and more than occasionally vituperative) debate into the nature of rights.  Their source, their expression and, perhaps most vehement of all, the acceptable limitations on that expression.  What follows will draw example from a limited selection of that rights discussion with the express purpose of arguing the applicability of the fundamental principles of human rights as that concept might apply to developing a strategy to accommodate the exponential development of technology on human society.  This post is not intended to be all-inclusive and the hope is to stimulate thought toward arriving at a considered position available to be applied as circumstance makes desirable.

Since the topic is exponential change in capability, I will take the fundamental position that the principles delineated in the 9th and 10 amendments to the US Constitution are the most supportive of people having the broadest authority for developing and using technology.  Additional to this, the principle that restriction of the exercise of rights (specifically, the right to learn about and individually seek to advance the development of technology in a specifiable application) by those other than the legitimate owner(s) of a given technology (in a word; government) are subject to specific and quite limited circumstance (as example, see the entire Bill Of Rights to the US Constitution).

There has recently been an effort to counter the question of an individual exercising certain rights without reference to the general concept of rights.  I think this entire line of reasoning is most pertinent to dealing with the effects of exponential growth on human society.  To wit; that rights cannot be selectively denied without destroying the very concept, and that rights can be mutually limited in specific and stipulated fashion and degree.

Rights are the universal condition of the individual human (alright, the individual intellectual entity).  Their exercise can be denied, but they can only be temporarily extended to some other voluntarily (regardless of the duration of the agreement).  If this be true generally, then applying the same principles to encourage and normalize change becomes a mere extension of established principles and it’s application subject to the established mechanisms for dealing with disruptive circumstance.  Should it come down to a matter of law, I’m thinking a Federalist model; a unifying but expressly limited structure within which a variety of different standards are available to individual choice.  Freedom of movement between the different areas is guaranteed as is personal responsibility for the effects of one’s actions.

In their book Abundance, Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler seem to ignore the effect of network development on the ability of people to adopt technology changes in a fashion that allows for exponential growth of their ability to accommodate the effects of exponential growth on their societies and selves.  What I am suggesting in this post is that a principle of ethical and mutually beneficial standards be developed, specifically in response to the numerous changes the two men make so prominent a part of their book.  We can make such an effort a central part of our effort to adapt to and incorporate exponential change into our lives, or experience yet another set back in the course of human development – an experience they go to some effort to point out that human history is “littered with”.

The two men make the point that humanity has been improving the human condition throughout the course of recorded human existence.  Why not make doing so successfully a prominent part of a conscious strategy to achieve a continuation of that historical trend?

Transformative Strategy

I received an email from Phil Bowermaster the other day in which he pointed out what he saw as similarities between my views on classical strategy, the evolutionary developmentalism concept John Smart writes about and the Prosumer concept I first became acquainted with in an Alvis Brigis blog post shortly after our mutual Future Blogger days.

Any of these ideas would make for a complex discussion on its own.  The idea of trying to summarize and present them in some combined form as a classical strategy holistic (I really don’t like that word, but it does seem to sum up the non-linear process Sun Tzu formalized back when) presentation is an enormous challenge, one I just don’t think can be clearly presented in a strictly verbal format.  To wildly mix the metaphors, it requires too much spade work to form up the foundational concepts that permit erection of the assumptions necessary to format the context from within which to extrapolate possible choices to select among so as to make an informed decision whereby to advance our individual position within the more general strategy that we are pleased to call “civilization”.

In other words, this post is about calling a spade a context, or some such nonsense claptrap brilliant insight as that.

The expression “accelerating rate of change” (sometimes called exponential change) isn’t really directly applicable to social constructs like “prosumer” (though it is to economics more generally), for all it has a measurable economic effect.  Intellectual constructs like economics are external to the individual person; the prosumer concept is one of individual, personal self-perception that informs how we each view the economic and other societal structures we inhabit and interact within.  I share the belief that a fundamental change in our personal and societal image of ourselves (such as that implicit to the prosumer concept) will likely be necessary for humanity to successfully adapt to the social instability caused by such a dynamic experience as an exponential rate of change would cause.  The immediate problem as I see it is to convince people that they should examine the set of personal and societal changes necessary to begin making such a transition will require, and then set about organizing to effect the process.  My personal belief as to how one might begin the former can be read here.

Moving on,  I have to say that the whole evo-devo concept John Smart (and others) writes about isn’t all that compelling a proposition as of yet.  I’m convinced (indeed I would be astonished that it might ever become otherwise) that there are physical interactions and processes in this universe that humanity isn’t even aware exist, never mind understand.  It doesn’t strike me as unreasonable to suggest such unknown processes are expressed in such a manor as to mimic a deliberate design intent, but I think this more an effect of our ignorance of the physical universe and its controlling principles than it is of anything else.  There are lots of facts and a good deal of correlation being presented, but the absence of anything resembling measurable causation leaves me certain that this inquiry needs more development before it will begin to become useful as a factor in strategic consideration.

Phil’s summation of my views as “… trying to advance one’s position” gives me hope that I’m not such a desperation choice as an interview guest as I have only half-jokingly suggested in the past.  Not only is “no man is an island” a poetic truism, it’s also another way of stating a strategic concept; all human beings (all independent intellects despite planet or source of origin for the more cosmic-minded reader) are unique positions within the strategic construct we are pleased to call “life”.  Each such individual position has the capability to exercise independent choice as to action taken, but does so from within an interactive social construct of other positions each also acting independently (if occasionally in mutual cooperation) together.

Confused yet?

Classical strategy is the premise that we must make semi-informed choices of action, which we base upon the sometimes-measurable effects of the physical universe within which we exist.  Strategy never has offered a certainty of result, nor can it ever do so; what strategy does is provide a matrix of measurable cause-and-effect relationships upon which the individual can develop a course of action and re-action having a predictable outcome somewhat more likely than that allowed for by pure chance.  The more we each can know about our universe (both in total as well as in detail – the macro as well as the often seemingly contrarily structured micro/nano levels if you will), the better we can make use of the principles embodied in classical strategy.  The more our technology advances, the better we might become at predictably applying those principles.

Classical strategy doesn’t offer any answers to our questions.  It does offer a proven platform by which we can determine the best answer we are capable of, given our limited knowledge and less-than-perfect ability to process what we do have.  It also offers a means by which to measure our belief in the reliability of the conclusions we draw based upon that known-to-be incomplete knowledge base.  Classical strategy offers proven standards by which to both acquire, and judge the trustworthiness of, newly acquired knowledge.  Unlike the practice of heuristics, which always assumes ignorance of the subject (so as not to rule out any possible answer), the principles of classical strategy provide a structure within which to itemize all known data and from which to create and validate the network effect used to advance position, which is built upon that knowledge by yourself as well as others.

From all of the foregoing, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with Phil and Stephen (and, through Erykah, my fellow members of The World Transformed commentariat)  about how modern technology might help us apply the 3500+ y/o principles of classical strategy to the problem of adapting to the demands of an exponential rate of change as well as a possible methodology to make that as seamless and un-disruptive a process as existing dominant positions will permit.

That’s an interview topic I think would fit the constraints of The World Transformed interview format and in which I have some hope of holding up my end of the conversation.

Space In The Campaign

Want to hear all about the actual technology required for a Moon Colony and Getting There From Here (and just how available all that stuff actually is)? Tune in to Fast Forward Radio at The Speculist tomorrow night (2/1/12) at the special time of 11 pm eastern/10 pm central to listen to Rand Simberg and Brian Wang, two guys who actually know what they’re talking about and aren’t running for any political office (and aren’t indebted to anyone who is :)).

Yo, Phil, Stephen; I don’t give a damn what else is in the news for this show at least. Tell the nice people who these guys are and then get straight to it!

They Got Me

I managed to pick up my first no shit trojan yesterday (FYI, I think it was hidden in some Java script within a you tube video and is called “blacole”), everything seized up and then my firewall went pffftt! I managed to ID it and remove it, but I still can’t get my firewall back up, nor can I access my e-mail account. I can’t get my desktop to uninstall anything either, so to the computer store we go – back in a week I hope. This little netbook allows me to do minimal stuff, but I sure miss that 22″ screen and sound system.

At the moment, I’m mostly waiting for the 44 updates to finish. Man, I’ve got to start taking care of my computer gear a little more frequently one of these days (yeah, that’s gonna happen :)).

Officially, it sucks to be me.

Modern Chemistry

I wonder what this product does to a garment material’s breathablility? If NeverWet turns my tee shirt into a rain coat, does it simultaneously turn it into a sauna? If you build your next bathroom shower stall out of ordinary plywood and spray a coat of this stuff on all exposed surfaces, will it keep the water inside the stall (’till it goes down the drain) and out of the rest of the house?

If this product does what’s claimed there would seem to be a long list of potential applications to consider, many of which rise to the level of “game changing”. One example; constructing houses out of compressed earth is an economical and structurally robust design if you can keep water out of the building material. A coating of NeverWet would appear to achieve that requirement, making mud pies the building material of choice for at least single and two story structures.

Almost anywhere on Earth.

That strikes me as “game changing”. NeverWet is supposed to become available through retail sources next year. If so, this is a product to investigate for yourself.

Via Instapundit.

500,000 Manufacturing Jobs Lost

In China.

To robots, no less.

So, if we buy/build under license our own robots, does that mean the manufacturing jobs sent out of the country over recent decades can be brought back to the US?

Here’s a thought; how about we form a consortium to buy some of these robots and have them manufacture stuff for sale so that we can avoid having to have a job ourselves? Since robots don’t have any use for money (though I admit they can account for spending a good deal of it), anything they make we can sell and divide the money amongst ourselves.

What a strategy!


Second Try At Breaking Universal Speed Limit

Those not-so-wacky boys (and, presumably, girls) at CERN are going to repeat the experiment they announced last month. The speed of light was apparently exceeded by the charged neutrinos released in a comparatively lengthy stream by the CERN experimenters, so a slightly different format (two short bursts released separately over a measured time period) will be used this time to test for that outcome specifically.

The maths are all well beyond my fuzzy calculations (fuzzy, math; it’s a math funny :)), but this seems to me a most honest and transparent method to check their earlier results. I may not understand the process, but it’s obvious even to a mathematical ignoramus like me just how profound a change in humanity’s supposed understanding of our universe is potentially put to the question here.

Exciting stuff.

h/t: Instapundit

More Getting There From Here

[Now with update!]

The future is always just around the corner, and it seems the promise is always outweighed by the challenges of making the turn. The objections range from “how do we learn to do …” to “what will we do for jobs?” and always seem to wind up with the perennial “what happens to the people who can’t do it?”. As if I had answers for questions about things that haven’t even happened yet …

One of the regular dismissals of proclamations about the future has to do with how a given technology will be adopted by industry and just people in general. Take for instance the future technology of 3D Printing. This is the stuff of Star Trek, right?

Nazzo fast, Guido.

A little segue here, to take another look at those questions that keep getting asked. I tend not to get all worked up about the how’s and what’s that always accompany change; people have been successfully adapting to changing circumstances for as long as there have been people. Now, because it’s all of a sudden us having to make the change, we’ve somehow forgotten how? I don’t buy it, and we would all be better off trying to find a way to incorporate whatever opportunity we can into out lives instead of objecting to others doing the same. No one is able to be successful at everything – and some of us seem incapable of mastering anything – but the more of us who do succeed at doing so, the more of us there are who are able to help the rest along. Which is pretty much the same messy way humans have adapted and developed throughout our history.

One of my principal hobbies is shooting (and generally spending money on) firearms. It’s an American thing. I spent much of my teen years shooting 1903 Springfield-pattern rifles and 1911-pattern pistols and have taken every opportunity that came along to try my hand at whatever firearm I have been presented the chance to shoot in the years since. I’m well aware that the shooting sports and industry is steeped in the traditions and technologies long since refined to achieve the degree of finish and performance now regarded as routine and normal, so imagine my pleasant sense of surprise to read this and this and not watch the blogger have to wade through a storm of objections and dismissal by others. Those old reactionary American Gunnies slipping into the future like it was scripted by John Moses Browning himself.

Actually, I submit that the culture and mental attitude that is fundamental to modern ownership of firearms in America has much to do with why such fantastic-seeming technology, and the individual empowerment it provides, seems so readily accepted. The near-universal acknowledgement of The Four Rules (enthusiastically encouraged by the showers of scorn heaped upon those who publicly violate them) along with the widespread practice of personal licensing for private concealed carry of handguns (in 49 of the 50 US states) has, I contend, nurtured a somewhat self-reinforcing atmosphere of accentuated personal responsibility among gun owners, especially notable within the online members of the gun owning community, that exceeds anything experienced by our gun-toting ancestors. I expect the historically recent efforts to exile guns from private hands, and the apparent rejection of those efforts by our fellow citizens, has had much to do with the psychological attitudinal change that has accompanied the shift away from the “group rights” mindset toward that of individual rights common today and has also contributed to this willingness to consider the unorthodox as well. Whether or to what degree I’m right about any of that, I do think that gun owners seem better prepared to accept and adopt potentially disruptive technologies that offer the potential to expand their capability to participate in gun ownership then other sub-sets of the American populace have so far demonstrated. No doubt the historical attitude of self-sufficiency and independence associated with gun ownership strongly contributes to this willingness to accept the challenges that accompany untried opportunity as well.

What this instance also provides is a real-world example of how disruptive technology gradually transitions from threat to routine practice. Go read that wikipedia link to 3D printing in closer detail; the boys and girls at Cornell University can print food? When is that home appliance going to be for sale at Walmart?

One of the regular objections raised in discussions of this type of technology relates to education. At Phil Bowermaster’s site Transparency Revolution I’ve recently participated in a discussion on a variant of this concern; here, here, and here, with a related post here. How we gain knowledge and experience in using it for some practical purpose isn’t only a matter of having it presented to us in a controlled fashion within a regulated and structured environment (to the extent our public schools ever really were such a thing), especially now that the capability to obtain the information is literally at almost anyone’s fingertips.

An example of what I mean can be read here. World of Warcraft is certainly one of the most popular time sinks online multi-player games in the world today (can you tell I’m one of the few to have successfully resisted the allure? :)). It is also the forum of choice for a presentation of the latest research findings into individual and group cognition by a research group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. If that topic of research is of interest to you, and you can gain access to “… the Ironforge Library on the Saurfang server“, your attention and contribution will likely be welcome.

The more general education point of the linked post by Labrat at her personal blog Atomic Nerds (and you too should contribute to her husband Stingray’s efforts to help raise money for prostate and testicular cancer research) can be summed up best in her own words:

The thing is, though, that what game developers are essentially in the business of is making learning such a fun and organic activity that people pay in real money and real time in order to do it. It doesn’t matter how basic the game is, all that any of them offer is a chance to master an activity at progressive levels of difficulty; Tetris is a spatial puzzle that speeds up. You can see rotation of objects through space as a challenge on many, many different IQ tests. Pac-Man is another spatial puzzle- track yourself and several other moving objects through a maze, complete the maze within a time limit and without running into any other moving object. Any of the original simulation genre is complex systems manipulation and mastery, and the flight simulator became so detailed that its devotees can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment and the software to do something that has no game goal but is just as complex and difficult as flying a real plane, minus the g forces and fatal consequences. The later Sims games are a combination of resource management, virtual architecture, and learning how the AI works. Portal is another spatial puzzle, speeded up and with extra dimensions and physics problems added.

MMOs take things to the next level; something like Portal is meant to be played out over a certain number of potential gameplay hours, but an MMO developer has to make the game interesting enough, and content extendable enough, that players remain interested and engaged with the game for years. Depending on the game and the size of playerbase it’s looking to command, there are usually multiple layers of gameplay to learn and potentially master; a developer’s challenge is to make the transition between “kill ten rats, get ten silver” to “level up (gradually increase in complexity)”, to “master your class and take part in competition demanding great knowledge of the game and your role in it, teamwork, practice, and research” fun enough to be worth paying money for- and the fun is in the learning process; even very achievement-oriented players walk away if there’s no challenge to it.

EVE Online is probably the most extreme example; the point of the game is participation in a player-driven economy, which rather than being centrally controlled by the parent company is entirely player-organized and run, to the point where fantastic acts of economic sabotage that nearly any other gaming company would put their foot down on is merely part of the game experience. It’s also the only game with a player-created and elected governing political body, the Council of Stellar Management, which exists to represent the playerbase to the developer team. It is, in essence, a virtual state with virtual corporations and virtual militaries and mercenaries who do what is in nearly all respects work, with the difficulty curve to match and little effort made to make it more accessible to newer or more casual players. The work IS the point of the game. In essence, people pay real money for a non-real job with far fewer protections and benefits than a real job, except for the freedom to experiment.

One more link to consider before you dismiss all this as wishful thinking. Al Fin is one of the more consistently well written and wide-ranging of topic blogs I’m aware of. S/He and/or they recently posted about an interesting educational practice the Israeli’s have developed called Talpiot. From the Al Fin post:

Talpiot is a program for bringing the best of the best of Israeli youth together into an intensive mental, physical, and military training regimen. 5,000 youth apply every year, and 50 are accepted. Out of those 50, only 40 will complete the training, and be commissioned as lieutenants in the IDF. They spend 9 years total, including education, training, and military commitment …

… Talpiot is run by the Israeli Defense Force with the aim of creating an elite officer corps which is capable of responding to any threat by the innovative use of the most advanced technologies — or any tool within reach. If these elite soldiers later become leaders in business, technology, finance, and other vital areas of society, it should come as no surprise to anyone who is paying attention.

Consider if you will an online game community structured much like the EVE example from Labrat’s post, that begins at the basic levels of academic instruction and proceeds ultimately (and only really expected to attract the most fractional percentage of the total player community) to some reasonable facsimile of the Israeli Talpiot program structure (or at least it’s academic/intellectual content), that is available to anyone who can gain online access at whatever schedule s/he requires and at the pace of advancement they are capable of achieving.

Think it could never work? From Labrat again, consider this Proof of Concept:

More accurately, this would be titled “clever biochemists induce a population of people who do spatial reasoning puzzles for fun to solve their spatial reasoning problem for entertainment and bragging rights”.

If American business entities large and small were to jointly create a mechanism (a straight-forward trust fund to finance purchase/maintenance the servers, etc once the game itself was written would accomplish this – look at the EVE model, management and repair/expansion of the game is a player responsibility), they could fund this EVE-like online educational game to their – and our – mutual advantage. If their HR departments could track at least some of their individual employee’s achievements within the game, and a financial benefit for the individual employee was offered for success achieved in stipulated courses of instruction, the pending skilled/educated employee crunch that gets much moaned about might become a non-issue and the question of where the jobs will come from become self-evident. Players would probably have to roll their eyes at the inevitable product placement, but whatta ya gonna do?

Some disclaimers; I don’t play electronic games, online or otherwise; there’s only so many hours in a day, and so much money to be extracted from the wallet, so I’m all too aware of just how far all this strays from an personal expertise I can claim. That said, I’ve repeatedly learned new (to me) skills and knowledge throughout my life in order to continue some semblance of gainful employment. If I can pull this off for going on six decades now, pretty much anyone who can see the screen and hit the keys can too.

I will also readily admit that some better mechanism for gaining practical expertise to accompany all the theory needs to be developed along with the educational game I suggest here too. There’s always going to be some problem needs solving. Indeed, this may not prove to be a practical mechanism at all, but I contend it does illustrate that a solution to being able to take advantage of the opportunities the disruptive future will present are available to us now. It only remains for us to make the effort to begin the gradual process of preparing ourselves to overcome the risks that are always associated with opportunity.

UPDATE 9/27/11: RobertaX takes a look at this too.

10/07/11: And Clark at Popehat gets all linked up on the details.

10/10/11: Phil at Transparency Revolution points out yet another application for educational games.

Post Navigation