tv Capital News Today CSPAN July 1, 2013 11:00pm-2:01am EDT
flow to the last closed society on earth. it's remarkable to think about a society with no personal music, no personal sources of information, new unfiltered book. two television channels which play the dear leader's speech over and over again. imagine, you know, such a closed society just a few ideas getting in there would significantly improve in our view the safety of the world. >> and if they opened up the internet one day, how many -- how long would regime last? >> of course, no one knows. the korean culture is different from other asian cultures. it's hierarchical and patriot call. and the gentleman who founded killed off the leader.
it's perfectly possible that the north korea does not become a democracy on day one. it's arrogant of americans to thinksha somehow democracy occurs in one day. it took a long day. and america was formed in unique way. everybody of a you are refugee from other places except for the indians. it's possible you could see a transition not unlike what south korea went through. south korea was poor, relatively run by a strong man. relatively unfree and over some number of decades became more freer. >> does technology eventually make democracy inevitable. >> one of the observations that we kim away with. we were there a month ago. less than 1% of the population has access to the internet.
access to the internet. everybody heard of it. they understood the internet as a set of values. as a concept and idea even before they experienced it as a user or as a tool. their understanding of the internet was not based on a chinese -- internet. it was not based on a autocrat version of the internet. they understand it in term of the western value of free flow of information and civil liberty. what means you have 57% of the world's population living under an -- what happens when regime try to create an awe karattic internet that doesn't respond with the democratic understanding what it should be. what does look like? we don't know the answer yet. >> finish on burma. so this will be a wonderful experiment for all of us to watch. 18 month ago, the generals
either for seflt interested reason or policy reasons opened up the country. they become sort of the future leader of the country. i'm sure she will. and they have now taken a lot of press fr off. press restrictions off. no all of a sudden, the underlying hidden tensions in the society, which they had brutally repressed for fifty years, which are primarily religious in nature and violent are becoming apparent. so what will happen as a society works through these tensions will the hard liners come back. for example, in next month they are going to vote on a sort of press freedom law that looks a lot like the chinese is a addition law. which is a problem. most not a no brainer that these countries immediately adopt the western notions of openness, criticism, all of those kind of thing. maybe there's an alternative path. >> you say it's not inevitable they quickly adopted.
it inevitable they eventually adopt. >> it's inevitable they adopt systems which work well for the middlesse cotry. the middle class is empowered with the devices and the middle class will ine wt it wants. and ask fo it may not look like the kind of freedom we have. it will be a lot more free that night people have been operating up until now. >> hi. [inaudible] a bit more about how the u.s. government leverages technology to foreign policy. so i found it interesting that obamacare campaign hired 300 data analysts to look at the messenger, the policy, what platform. if you look at the state department for the national security counsel, i think there is a zero or a handful of data analysts. so does it look like our ambassadors are like campaign managers for the dash board saying it's a policy, this is messenger. this the platform that we should
use? could you go beyond social media and sort of share your thought on leverage data to form foreign policy? >> the current problem is still that -- the good news is the foreign policy apparatus or the importance of technology. the problem is we still view in foreign policy technology through the lens of public diplomacy and communicating. i'm not touting the importance of public diplomacy and communicating. that's one instrument of stay craft. the bigger sort of role of the technology can play is in how it empowers local entity and individuals who address local challenges. there's a huge role in the technology can play around analyzing and correlating data. i'll give you one example. google idea we look a lot at how do we use data to mass expose from traffickers to organ harvesters to human trafficking networks.
terrorist organize organizations. when you look how they are organized in government they are deeply -- so the people working on human trafficking that typically falls in the human rights area. when people were working on -- it's the dea area. we silo these things. we look at them through the lens of their functions rather than through the less than of data. now all of these organizations work with each other. take money-laundering, for example, if you can follow the money you can trade the money back to the ortion so i didn't realize this until i got to google and you start talking to engineers about the problems. when engineers look at them, they continue look at them through the remembers of one function or another. they want to see the math and the data. they want to correlate it. they are silo busters. tremendous silo busters. it leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems we have is, you know, how do you convince students of computer science. how do you convince electrical
engineering students it's in their interest and relative to serve in the public sector. i'm worried about a crisis of my generation in some respect we are more connected more entrepreneurial than any other generation. we are less willing to serve than any other generation. in the public sector. we have to fix that. >> a quick word from the sponsor. this is -- book series. i want to thank them. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. jared, i would like to come back to something you mentioned before about technology making the rebellion easier to start or finish. why do you think that is? this is, somehow, for example, iran it almost seemed like a disconnect between the power that people were getting through social media and reality on the ground. there's a disconnect when people's hope raised by
technology meet the reality on the ground? >> i think there's a couple of issues. technology can give people in some place like iran a false sense of how things are going just because there is a crowd that is articulating something. there's a lot of momentum and noise online that may not translate to the streets. we may see it next month. you are starting to see expectations raised online in iran about doing something similar to what they did in june of 2009. my guess is because they crush the green revolution so brutally and rooted out the leaders we shouldn't expect something. as extraordinary. i think that the challenge is you still comes down leadership. if you look at the nelson minute deal will. it took decades for these guys to emerge as leaders and eventually they became public figure. we reversed the model now. public figures first who may
become leader. that being said, in any societies if they are true leaders who have the credibility to take their country forward, technology can find them. in that sense, you have a leveler playing field. but can't invest them overnight. >> in the book you talk about building up the credential eventually. new leader, it's different in the virtual world than it is in the physical world. >> i think we came to the conclusion, you know, it's easy to say technology will drive all of these changes. but the essence of human leadership is still very hard, very important, very person dependent end. very much dependent on the can reis ma. and excited to motivate. it will take a long time for computers to get used to. >> okay. [inaudible] >> assume you are right as opposed to plato and -- [inaudible] about -- [inaudible]
anonymity. [inaudible] [laughter] anonymity is here to stay. what does it say about cyber crimes then? you have been a victim of it. it's your company and so forth. do you we have to completely separate the networking that to be secure like -- [inaudible conversations] >> we better. >> and that sort of thing. >> i hope the nuclear power plant control room are separated from the internet. >> that's right. it's a bigger thing to celebrate all the thing that we like to be completely safe from potential attack now. is that feasible. >> again, let me tell you a little bit about this. a system most concerned about around life safety thing are called systems are command and control systems. and they are typically not connected to the internet. and unless israeli and americans actually attack one with the iranian reprocessing by essentially getting a virus to the machine. and again, we'll see if it's
true or not. it took a tremendous amount of work. you're not supposed to be -- indeed in the united i can sacred call military networks command and control networkings are highly separated and highly secure and highly illegal to, you know, move your computer from one to the other. and they have done all the right things there. i don't worry as much about those as i worry about increasing reliance of business systems that are mission critical on the public internet that are subject to trial service attack. we talk about it in the book. to net it out, the simplest thing for you do ask is remember two thing. make sure you are not using common password across all of your accounts. and make sure that the password is hard to guess. the fellow running the ap twitter account just learned that lesson. right. to the tune of some number of hundreds of billions of dollars of losses from someone. and the second is, don't
download malware, soft you don't know. and make sure you are run the chrome brower is from google and free. it's the only brower is not broking. the combination of those will give you high degree of security. if you run a company, a government, business. make sure you are run the most recent version of software. almost all of the attacks are ones where the attacker finds a -- sitting in closet not updated with the latest antisecurity patches and to forth and manages to get in and does the rest of the attack. >> right here. >> yeah. i'll go back to you next. i think there was -- [inaudible] yeah. >> agnostic. and internet operates on passion and waves. when the waves overwhelm science i.t. and information not based on fact and scientific like we
see with climate change or biotechnology. it goes against testimonying that could help the world. in a world of naftion ising a noisic. -- information that is agnostic how do you deal? >> the theme of the book is the next five million people. like at the alternative. the alternative is a world where every generation after the next is being essentially socialized and trained based on -- [inaudible] what they are memorizing is often factually inaccurate, distorted, disillusional, whatever other adjective you want to use. ultimately i i i believe in the power of critical thinking. we write it in the book. the new people connecting to the internet. think about how many are young and school age. the vast majority. the young people with mobile devices in their hands whether the teacher show up at school or not. or told to memorize thick. the mobile device is the most
vehicle against world incredibly influenced by rogue themmization. it's not ideal and the perfect answer. the power of critical thinking is important. >> i agree with that. people can be fightenned by business interests. so lest say you are busy selling that hurting people. go back to the cigarette example in the 1960. you can imagine using the profit of the corporation to spread to falsehood. it would be true today that an alternative group that would amass a big group saying it's crazy. first you see them as choices and the ranking algorithm would sort out which one. i think we have pretty good answer the more information even with sponsored and we called it biz information. business misinformation people are trying to misinform you.
they sort it out -- when you see something that doesn't quite make sense, check it. [laughter] so for example, there a site called smokes.com. and every day i get a message that -- it doesn't quite look. i check to se it's correct. and the internet is full of this. we may be going through a period of deciding where we went from having trusted sources informing to possibly trusted sources information. one of the core conversation we have to have as a country and society to check. when you watch television and you're maybe being a little bit manipulated rather than believe it. why don't you check it? you are on a website that looks a little bit promotional. maybe you should check it. right. google is available. [laughter] >> if i wonder if you talk about a little bit -- looking in to drug trafficking. you talk about the concrete or
more promising application that you have seen in the degree of corporation with u.n. and mexican government. we're going have obama going mexico and it's one of the topics i'm convinced we have really not used technology to the degree as we could. >> let me start an observation. eric and i took a trip to -- >> it was last year. sometime in the last year. and we were start told find that all of the police officers were wearing face masks. imagine living in city that is already very dangerous. st so dangerous that the police are there to supposedly protect you don't want anyone to know their identity. t more extraordinary while the police are busy hiding themselves, the population is busy using their real identities to essentially crowd source where the violence is. they are using various microblogging platforms and social media platform and said there's a virtual courage
happening as a result of people coming online. what we find interesting and write about in the book is a challenge that it's not unique to mexico. it's best illustrated by mexico. when you talk about free expression, people talk about in the context of being iran and north korea and cuba of the world. where the state is actually doing censorship. in mexico, you know, by all accounts the mexican government is democracy. it's a censored site. it's censored because people seflt sensor out of fear. out in of the government but demonstrate actor inspect this case the various car -- how do you solve the problem of removing fear through technology? and so we look at this in the book and explore various ways to encourage anonymous reporting. considerable reporter networks and lying if i said there's a silver bullet answer. t a great example what we were
say engineers love the kinds of problem. >> think of it as problem of anonymous reporting and responders you conduct a networking so the players can help police the situation when the police themselves are corrupt? ic reasonably secret location in mexico city which is underground. they build data mining system. they apprehend somebody they can figure out who they are. the immediate realabama were those of americans which is think about the possible civil liberty violence. so country under such terrible, terrible attack from in this case criminal gain might stoop to building an action which a subsequent government might then misuse again the law-abiding citizen inspect is the trade-off. it's not obvious where it will go. let me tell you that the conversation is very severe.
>> the question has a mexican conversation. i agree there's no delete button the internet. companies including your own have term in community and community standards. i don't know if you saw the story that came out yesterday about two viral video depicting decapitation. apparently in mexico. which went viral in my daughter's high school. at the beginning of the day facebook was standing by saying even though it was showinggraphic violence. it was in the public interest. yet by the end of the day, having online petition and a number weighing in decided to take them down. so how do decide what is in the public interest or not? >> youtube has a five-page document which defines precisely what it is. i haven't seen the video. i would be extreme extremely surprised if it passed our test we would allow it. >> i read in a magazineoo youtu.
each having -- [inaudible] how does it work? >> every company has a set of rules about this. for the web, google is search index. we don't have ab ability to take them down. and if we d it would be censorship in the form of filtering which we don't do. on youtube where we host the contest we have term of surfacing. i'm assuming twitter and facebook have the policy. they may not have the same criteria or rule. it's up to the company. [inaudible] a virtual currency in the news late i and the value of the coins rises and falls based on demand and google stockpiles large numbers. what is interesting about it,
though, that the problem is virtual wallet. so they have to download a digital wallet to store it. there a number where the instances have been hacked. the canada government tried to create the own national -- they couldn't protect the virtual wallet. obviously you will see more movement to vigil currency and virtual yule goods as well. there's security risks that come with. [inaudible] all of the technology have various form of digital wallet. it's more efficient. the phone have a nfc chip which allows you to go to a pad near
it. you swipe buy and velocity matters. it's going happen. >> why don't we have something very simple from google like an ease pass if i'm going around the web and i want to buy today's "new york times" or buy, you know, something i know a wallet can get hacked. but my easy pass. >> we have google wall. >> yeah buts in to the an easy dp. >> it sounds like a simple proposal worked in this for a long time. these are complicated system. they are subject to many regulations. they are all sorts of fraud issue. paypal, of course, is the company that is faces the most that worked through them. others have as well. and so you just find a particular kind of wallet. a wallet willing to lose the money in. most people not agree with you on. they don't want a wallet.
you still don't have a single -- across the site. facebook and google and others are trying to promote it. we are -- we'll get there. we'll do it in a different way. the journalism industry if people can make quick, easy, -- >> the technology -- it's been around far lock time. so it's not a technological problem a sort of provisioning scale problem. >> yes, ma'am, and in the way back. i'm sorry. >> thank you. i think we all appreciate what you did in connecting the human trafficking data because of making it more efficient for access. there are so many -- data silo. i'm very interested in uniting our theft data base. there are too many of them and you can't search across them if you are looking for something.
is google doing more in the area? >> we have groups that reach tout the close community. it's important to know it's their data. not ours. and their decision to make it available. and the largest probe of useful data that is not available to google is that in federal state and local government. who have enormous architecture. the information should be public. it's interest many public, et. cetera. it's not going cause a huge confidential problem to make it public. the government will run more efficiently -- and see what the government was up to. and i think -- for the reason you said and so forth we're looking on it. the core message is that your job is to publish information, and you don't publish it on to the web to such a way -- google can find it. you're not really doing the job. and indeed we respect something called robot stop text which
says don't call me. so if you talk to one of these firms saying, oh, okay. you have public site you are proud of yourself. do you have robot text that prevent google and the competitors from getting information. you may find they have them. >> the electronic -- [inaudible] that's a whole hour. >> let me summarize by saying -- in under the bush administration, the government did a good job of promoting interoperatability -- a set of standard allowing them to be exchanged with each other. it's a state-of-the-art. no computer scientist would ever design the recordkeeping the way it's evolving in the medical industry. it makes no sense whatsoever. that's why it's difficult. it will vently get -- it will be very slow. way back. >> there's a pretty will i can't report coming out today from
david robinson on censorship technology in china. and it's called collateral freedom. >> they are actually putting up a link right now which i'll pass on. >> who is it from? >> harlan u and david robinson. robinson u. is the firm. they surveyed 1,175 censorship evasion technology users in china. t a one-a kind thing. they are not using them but bpn. and up ending the wack mole model. chinos where the moalg are. they are not wacking them because disrupting the technology would disrupt the business users for making lot money nearby. is it something you have seen in china or something where the wack mole is stopping right before it hits the pole. it's going screw up the economy or other part of society. >> the specific technology used
to do encryptic contribution. the most notable use is the use in wick -- wikileaks. the bpn technology is the kind you are describing when you have an intermediate proxy you can go through. so all of the ante-dotal evidence we have and people are continued to reach google services through wack mole and able to get there. g-mail is block obd -- order of halftime. for reasons we can't tell. our search efforts are blocked periodically. we can't quite tell the reason. the rough is roughly accurate. we have to take a look at it. >> the last question. >> [inaudible] can you comment on the observation about women in technology? >> anies aspect of it be it leadership, use of technology in developing countries. >> i would start by --
>> be it safety? >> i would start by saying that we and i am normally proud of this next-gen ration of women leadership in technology. we're seeing driving it to new heights. it's exciting and it's occurring in an industry which is -- [inaudible] >> the point i would add. again, in the book we talk about 5 billion new people coming online. the majority of the 5 billion are women. and our observation, we travel around the world people do better in school. women are more entrepreneurial. and a lot of societies where women have been held back and the men sit around playing video games and working for the government. what finally starting to happen it's something certain countries 80% of the male population works with the public sector. so the combination of women who are already moving forward very
fast in the society with some of the new freedom that have plus technology will be extraordinary for the worlded. >> on a very serious note, the empowerment of the technologies allows a very local nature of horrific crimes against women hob recorded and policed. and there are so many examples we visited one which i don't think we'll ever forget. we visited in pakistan a group of women that hads acid thrown on the faces. i can't describe how horrific the crime is. they were using the internet to recover their identity. on the internet no one knew they had been so victimized. building businesses, achieving the on jettive in a society where the shame was shuch they couldn't go out of their home. they were trying to use the internet to put pressure on the acute -- accused which were inevitably known but not prosecuted for one of the worse crimes in
humanitarian. i felt felt we should what we do. it's for that reason. >> we'll end by saying education around the world will be transformed and the people who least benefited and parts of the world from education have been girls and women. i hope it will be major transmore -- tran formational. it hit the best seller list the week out. go buy the book! [applause] booktv in prime time continues tomorrow night with memoirs about scientists. ..
>> next we have a panel on entrepreneurship and innovation. we talk about tax reform and immigration. the remarks at the national press club our little less than an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i'm president of the national press club and a reporter with bloomberg news. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists to mature professions future through programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at the ww.press.org.
please visit our website. if you hear plus an audience, members of the general public are also attending and it is not necessarily a lack of journalistic objectivity. you can ketchup with us on twitter and we will have a question-and-answer time. now it is time to introduce our head table guests. from ra we have a retired u.s. navy captain and the weekly technology computer to black enterprise and chief social
officer of socially ahead. we have crisper chambers, professor at the university of new york and then we have my rendell kind come in the national press club vice president and we have the washington bureau chief and 21 the national press club member and the speakers at organize today's event. we have cam harbor and the chairwoman of the press called freelance committee. and we have alan schleicher and the member who has assisted in making today's luncheon happen.
[applause] [applause] our guest today have enjoyed a fascinating for involving technology and politics and most recently, as he will we will see here, claim to be. as many of our national press club members know, one of our priorities this year is to celebrate women's roles in our society. i'm particularly pleased that today our guest, carly fiorina, has agreed to produce a they. born in texas, her career began as a secretary working in a small business and what a journey she has had since then. as chairman and chief executive officer of hewlett-packard from 1999 through 2005, she was the first woman to lead a fortune 20 company paper six years she was named "fortune" magazine's most powerful woman in business for it was during her tenure during that time that the company
acquired compaq computers. politics has also been central to the speakers work in this central years, having played key roles in the republican presidential campaigns of both john mccain and mitt romney she was triumphant in the biggest that'll of her life as a survivor of breast cancer. she received her bachelor's degree from stanford.
she penned a memoir and she was also a contributor to fox business. what has she been up to lately? she is now the chairman of the 360, described as the world's largest fleet of the organization based nearby in alexandria, virginia. it was founded three decades ago thousands of charitable items are collected. today we will hear more about that work and please help me welcome carly fiorina. [applause] >> thank you and good afternoon. it is great to be with all of
you and we have met new friends and we have also seen some old friends here as well. i was recently asked what i thought an entrepreneur was. in fact, a member of the press corps said to me, what is an innovator. i have to think about that for a moment. my answer was an entrepreneur and an innovator is someone who can envision a different future. it is someone who can dream big and work long hours. an entrepreneur is someone who sees possibilities. by seizing the possibilities, creates possibilities for others. because it is almost the fourth of july, i also saw on the way here what makes this country great. what is so special about this
country. as you heard in the introduction, i began my career as a young adult as a secretary and a graduated from stanford university with a degree in medieval history and philosophy. in the middle of a recession. [laughter] which meant that i was all dressed up and nowhere to go. like so many in my situation, i decided to go to law school with all due respect to all the lawyers in the room. the only thing is that i hated law school so i quit after a semester in order to make a living come i went back to doing what i did i was in college to help pay my bills. i was a heck of a typist. i went back to work as a secretary. i typed and i filed and i answered the phones for in a nine person company. i have traveled all over the world.
it is true still to this day that it is only in the united states of america that a young woman typing and filing for a nine person firm can soon -- and only twentysomething years -- become one of the ceos of the largest companies on earth. that is only possible in the united states of america. [applause] and it's possible here not because i'm so special. it is possible here because this place is so special. and it is so special because it was founded on a radical idea. it was an idea that was radical in 1776, but still radical to this day. the idea is that every human being has potential. everyone has the right to fulfill their potential.
but it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or what your last name is. all that matters is where you want to go. all that matters is that you have potential and all that matters is how you envision your own future. it was a radical idea and is a radical idea still that is linked with the power of entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship is the single greatest lover or for filling human potential and for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever known. it is the genius of this country that we have coupled political liberty with the opportunity to build your own future. to imagine your own future and
to create something that you have a stake in so that you and your family are better off. entrepreneurialism and innovation is a uniquely american gift. it is the secret sauce that makes this a very special place. it is true because so many americans got their start exactly the way i do. i started out in a little nine person firm. they wanted a different future for themselves and their community. one day when i was typing and filing on my desk after six months of working out, those two partners came to me and said, we have been watching you and we think that you can do more than
just type and file. do you want to learn something about what we do, do you want to find out something about the world of business. because they took a chance on me, because they saw possibilities in me that i had not considered, i was able to envision a different future for myself. that happens in communities all across this great nation. waves after waves of immigrants have gotten their start as entrepreneurs. you don't have to be steve jobs to be an entrepreneur. if you want to open something on the corner, you are an entrepreneur. whatever it is, you're creating a different future for yourself and by extension your community. wave after wave after i got
their start there. if you look at the statistics, you'll see that women only small businesses and african-americans own small businesses and asian-americans owned small businesses and have been historically the fastest-growing in our economy. in other words, in this great country where we are defined by her potential, it is entrepreneurs with people that make it possible. they have provided the opportunity to start your own business and imagine your own future to more more people than at in any time and place in human history. it is a fundamentally human thing. it was a one woman initiative which i founded six years ago. through my work today was opportunity international and this was an organization that gives a very small of credit to
women who are in desperate circumstances. what we now and what we have found is if you give someone the chance and you give someone the chance to build a better life for themselves in which they can only speak in progress, it happens. progress happens. people with lift themselves from poverty. it is a human drive. in this country, it is where it has seen its fullest. here we are on july 1, 2013. what is the state of entrepreneurialism innovation in this country? well, actually think that the data is a little bit alarming.
i think that entrepreneurialism is in trouble in this country. allow me to give you a couple statistics. there are fewer businesses starting at this time than at any time in the last 40 years. there are fewer businesses starting and more feeling than at any time in the last four years. this depressed state of entrepreneurialism is i believe why are economy is underperforming. it is why we grow and why our unemployment rate stubbornly stuck at an unexpectedly high explained something percent. because if you also look at the data, you know that even small
businesses create two thirds of new jobs in this country and employ half the people. if you have fewer small businesses starting and you have more small businesses failing, you have an economy that is underperforming. your people have the possibility of that first job. there was recently a survey published in "the washington post." 70% in a survey of small businesses said that they felt government was hostile to their efforts. if you ask people why, you get answers like it is just too
hard. it is too complicated. i don't know how many of you saw an article describing what they claimed was a risk-averse culture. a risk-averse culture in the united states. the article quoted many statistics, but fundamentally what it says is this is what people used to take pride in, taking risks, and if you comb through all the data, what you find out is that people are saying, you know what, the risk of earlier is getting too high and the reward for success is becoming too low. it is a bipartisan comment to recognize that our tax code is now tens of thousands of pages and it is way too complicated
for any entrepreneur to wager. it is part of recognizing that a regulatory environment has become so complex that there are thousands of regulations written into law every single year, but rarely is a regulation ever repealed. the consequence of that is a geologic its sediment of complexity. this part of regulation and taxation is represented by the data that i just quoted as well as other pieces of data. it is literally choking the entrepreneurial life at our economy. this is a grave concern to everyone, and i recently had great pleasure of developing a
plan with three entrepreneurs that were female and is one of them noted, kids in school learn how to be in place, they don't learn how to be entrepreneurs. now, how does washington work? you know, i grew up in big business, really big business. i would say again that it is accurate to describe washington is a place that works well if you are a big business that works really well. you can hire legions of attorneys and accountants and lobbyists. all that helps a big business a lot of times. if you are a big trade association and represent lots of votes, whether you are a union or a company or other, washington works pretty well for you. because you have the resources
and the time to wade through the complexity and let us speak the truth to manipulate that complicated environment for you and your members. if you are a politician, it is to your advantage as well. because now your job to represent people and to help them navigate through this thicket of complexity. but washington does not work well if you are an innovator or entrepreneur who is busy trying to build your future for yourself and your family and your community that you do not have the time or resources to navigate your way through this. what the data says is too many artists giving up. i will never forget a luncheon that i had haven't done for one
are starting a small business owners. i was encouraging them to get more involved in the political process. one of them finally said to me what was patently obvious. they said, we are too busy. we don't have time to figure it out. and of course a small business owner doesn't have time. they are spending all their time trying to make it work. have you ever heard that story of the frog in boiling water? you know, if you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water he will jump out to save himself. but if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn the water up to a boil, the frog will boil to death. it happens so gradually. he doesn't realize until it's too late.
and i worry that we are gradually, year after year, creating an environment that is similarly choking the life out of this economy. regulation upon regulation. let's talk about the nature of bureaucracies that matter here in washington. we are full of them and because the big companies and big associations and the labor unions that do well in washington are also big bureaucracies. what characterizes a bureaucracy? it's a rul@ bureaucracy? it's a rules-based and tradition bound institution that seeks to preserve itself and that over
time towards playing by the rules rather than judgment and initiative. these are not pejorative comments i am making the factual comments. a bureaucracy is a rules-based organization whether it is business or politics. it is an organization that rewards playing by the rules. it is an organization that celebrates playing by the rules more than disruptive innovation and we have lots of bureaucracies and over time, what happens in bureaucracy, whether they are in business or in politics, what happens in bureaucracy is they become inward looking and insulated. playing by the rules inside becomes more important than serving customers or constituents outside. this also contributes to an environment where people not only lose faith in the
institutions which have become bureaucracies, but they conclude that those properties are hostile. entrepreneurs give people a chance and they gave me my first chance. in some cases, they give entrepreneurs a second and a third chance and a fourth chance. entrepreneurs are just for-profit businesses. my whole life i had been animated by the opportunity to help to fill potential in myself and others and that is why i am so proud to be associated with an organization like this, which recognizes that civic society also helps lift people out of poverty and to fill their potential. rather than just have wasted going to landfills and we work
with goodhearted and smart minded businesses with excess inventory and makes sure that they get to people in need. the charities, instead of warning about whether or not the members or the twins have diapers for that week, they have to worry about helping those individuals. a group of like-minded people who believe it is vital this includes lifting themselves and their families out of poverty. so in a few minutes i have, what do we do that so we don't boil the frog to death? what do we do so instead of
choking the life out of this entrepreneurial economy and this very special place, we actually unlock the potential of all those frustrated entrepreneurs and innovators out of there. well, i think there are four policy prescriptions. some might say that i have been critical of washington. but there are some small glimmers of hope. first we need tax reform. and not just lowering rates, although that is important since her tactics are the highest in the world. the radical simplification. tax reform has bipartisan support. but i am in particular heartened by the efforts of senators orrin hatch and max baucus who are starting with the fundamental notion that they are going to wipe out every loop hole and reduction in the tax code.
because let's face it, the loopholes are mostly benefiting those in other areas. maybe there are a few loopholes that you would come back in. but what they understand is that if they say that they all go, then the burden of proof is on those who must argue to put them back in. not only do we need lower tax rates but radical simplification of its tax code so that an entrepreneur does a look at it and say, oh, my goodness, i cannot possibly understand 26,000 pages and give up before they start. we need immigration reform. we desperately need immigration of. if we set aside the criminals who are coming in, the people who have broken our lives where the human traffickers, why is it
that people come to this country enact because they envision a better life for themselves and their family and they are desperate to imagine and create a different future than they have. i hope that we are at a moment where bipartisan immigration reform is possible and we recognize that our legal immigration system is so fundamentally broken that we are hurting ourselves as a nation. this has to be the place forever and for always we're hard-working people all say that that is where i want to go. that is where i want to dream my dream and build something different for my future. third, i think we need zero based budgeting. there is a lot of time sometimes about a balanced budget amendment and that is less useful than saying that we are
going to ask every bureaucracy and the united states government to justify every dollar that we spend. that is what we do in business. i know as a business person whether you're talking about a very small startup or huge fortune 20 company, this is true. if you give an organization more money year after year, their performance will deteriorate and it will not improve because people need the ability to prioritize. they lose the discipline to justify why they are spending money. they lose the incentive to explain clearly that they are trying to spend each and every dollar wisely and well. zero based budgeting or congress has the opportunity to ask for
justification for every dollar and the transparency that comes along with that. believe me, it doesn't matter if you are a liberal or libertarian or somewhere in between. you'd be shocked at what we are spending money on. if you doubt what i just said that more money doesn't mean better performance, think about what is going on in the veterans administration. it is not because people are ill meaning, it's just because the way the bureaucracy works is against performance sometimes. the budget has increased 45% in the last five years. we would all applaud that. the waiting time for veterans to receive disability has gone 260 something days in 2008 up to 400 something days in 2013. therefore more money is a better performance, and zero-based budget. finally i would create a task
force, small business owners and entrepreneurs, keeping their businesses open in the meantime, their job would be to look at each and every regulation on the books today. each and every one. they would make recommendations about which to kill and which to modify and my guess is that we could do with at least 50% fewer regulations than we have today. it's not that it is important, sometimes it is important. but when no one knows how many we have and no nose which contradict others and you can't find anyone in the city who can actually say yes, i know the regulations make sense, because how is it that regulations could put together? someone finds a problem. they say that they need to fix that problem. that particular problem may need fixed and that regulation might make sense.
but you added up over and over and pretty soon together none of it makes sense. we need a full scale regulatory review. this policy prescriptions, i do not think our partisan. you may or may not believe that they are possible. but as we approach the fourth of july, i would close by saying that this is a unique nation in the course of human history. it is a unique nation in the course of human history because of that radical idea that everyone has potential. that everyone deserves the right to the fill their potential and everyone deserves a chance and maybe a second chance and a third chance or a fourth chance. the thing that makes that
radical idea come to life, in addition to political protections is entrepreneurialism. the ability to imagine the future and to build that future. we have so many problems in this world than in this country are one in six people live in poverty today. we have so many opportunities to compete and to read and to win and human capacity is relentless. but human potential is very too rarely prefilled. so on this fourth of july, what i'm hoping is that in addition to the founding fathers who had a genius to imagine this place and those who have died and fought and fought to preserve this place, that we will
celebrate the entrepreneurs and innovators who made this place worth it. thank you so very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. please stay up here and answer a few questions. >> okay. >> you talk to your remarks about immigration reform and calling for something to be done. do you support comprehensive immigration reform package that the senate passed last week? >> the short answer is yes. i think it must be comprehensive i think that there are some things that the house can and should and hopefully will do before it passes something in a bipartisan way.
i understand why someone others want them to say the border is secure. on the other hand, i think that we are putting enough resources out at the border based on the senate bill that it should be quite easy for a governor to say yes, the border is secure. i hope people will recognize that reform by nature always requires compromise and i hope that people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers will not get too hung up on taking credit for anything, but will instead conclude as the chinese proverb says that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. to embrace the fact that what we have today the worst, we have to have reform.
>> we know the market is still recovering from the crisis that our economy has been on for number of years. we talked about eliminating all of the tax credits and the mortgage deductions. if you eliminated that, how would that keep the company from going into another housing crisis? >> nature of the question is why i think that we should have the ability to start from a clean slate. i can stand here and make a wonderful case for the home mortgage reduction are also say that mostly that deduction is useful for people who have not just one homer to homes but the point is through a process of starting with a blank slate, the
burden of proof is who can muster the will to put a loophole back in. maybe there will be enough political will to preserve the home mortgage deduction and it will be preserved and that would be okay with me. but my bet is that 80% or more of the deductions and loopholes and complications in our tax code today will not be defended or preserved. if we could get rid of 80% of them, that would be huge progress and it is the process that matters because it causes a different outcome than saying let's have a political process to debate who uses their deduction. that is a free-for-all that will not end in the right outcome.
>> the next question is whether entrepreneurs are actually linked. much of the world is overflowing with entrepreneurs but there is little innovation. what is your take on? >> i think it is a very interesting question. i think that in part the question illustrates the link between democracy and innovation. i believe that there is a link. political liberty is linked to economic liberty. for the reasons that china has a problem and difficulty with innovation is because the innovations threaten the political institutions. one of the reasons that singapore now struggles with
innovation is because their society as much about their society and nation that i deeply admire and it is by their own admission a society that has celebrated conformity. innovation is not conformity, it is disruptive. it is by nature revolutionary and sometimes. disruptive revolutionary ideas generally don't happen in a politically constrained environment and if they do, they are threatened in a politically constrained environment. that is why it is the genius of this place a political liberty and entrepreneurialism are part of two sides of the same coin although both are a fundamental human experience. he met there has been much
reporting regarding the handling of personal data and other stray president obama said he is trying to balance national security against privacy. their best interests are being well guided. let me take it out of the context of president obama and his administration and let me generalize my answer. because it is what i believe. if you're the old saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely. to me, the question that is raised by the nsa, the question that is raised by the irs is how is it that we should all these vast complex and opaque institutions and how is it that
effective oversight is possible and how can we possibly know that if a few people with fast potential -- how can we know that they are always competent and well meaning. the point is that i think that we need a fundamental re-examination. i would hope on a bipartisan basis, prompted by news events. we need a fundamental valuation of how to conduct oversight that is effective and how do we hold these institutions accountable. perhaps in that fundamental re-examination we will conclude that sometimes there is just too
much power invested into too few people and sometimes drop to see has simply become so large and complex that they are unmanageable and we need to do something about that. those are the profound questions that we hope will be raised by these two events this summer in washington. [applause] >> on the cybersecurity front, last fall when he was the defense secretary, leon panetta and warned that the nation was facing the possibility of what he called a cyberpearl harbor and he says that we are increasing invulnerability for computer hackers and they could put our nation's power grid and transportation system at risk. is that true? and if true, why have we not done a better job to protect against this threat since the possibly involves a partnership between government and industry. >> i think it is true.
i served as part of the advisory board and i have talked clearances. there is no question that the chinese invest heavily in hacking all kinds of things in this country from business to industry. there is no question that cyberespionage has been a tool for some time and there is no question that it is the new face of 21st century economics, as well as the political concept. i agree with the questioner that solving any one of these problems requires public
partnerships between the private and public sector. i think that there has to be a fair amount of risk available and i am encouraged by the fact that there is a huge community of entrepreneurs here in the northern virginia area who are focused on the cybersecurity threat from whom we might see center of the conventions that will help. but the first step to speak about it publicly. so i'm encouraged that we are actually saying that we have a problem. china is part of the problem and by the way, whatever you think of the nsa program, there is no equivalent between what the chinese are doing and around the world and the nsa program. let us not allow anyone in this
country or around the world to say that the u.s. is doing it as well. it is not equivalent. >> a young person asked how do you combine passions and the poor for-profit world and nonprofit world and how do we balance both of those? >> you know, one of the things that i find so encouraging the number of people that are going into what is known as social enterprise in. enterprises that aren't exactly for-profit and those or something in between. they are investment opportunities that are focused on achieving not only success by doing good.
the truth is there are too many businesses that miss the opportunity to do good while they are doing well. there are all kinds of opportunities to do business while at the same time doing well. it is true of companies that are doing well and also doing good. we have a whole series of investments that was really focused on building communities and doing good and we got something out of them as well. better employees, better partners, but her customers. businesses can do well and it is likewise true that there are some point of these entries are animated by passion but not sufficiently disciplined about how they run operations.
if you're trying to do good in a community, need to be thinking really hard about spending every single dollar lively and well. discipline that comes from this is incredibly helpful and plan to be in the heart is helpful in business it is not exactly part of the roadmap. i can tell you that my parents were exceedingly concerned when i dropped out of law school. they were concerned again when i went back to work as a secretary. they were near panic stricken when i quit that job after year and ran away to italy to teach english. but here's what i would say if you are a young person. do not worry too much about what your first job is. were carted every job. there is no substitute for hard work. the person who is most likely to get promoted wherever you are
working out is that the person who is doing really a really good job after job that they have. find where your heart is and what excites you and what you have fun. what is your passion. because you're not going to be any good at something that doesn't really get you going in the morning. [applause] [applause] >> as far as your next term you've, i have noted in the introduction that you asked on television whether you might want to run against elective office and the answer was never say never. he noted then that there is a new opportunity and we are here the national press club where we like to make news. so please tell us if you have any interest in trying again for elective office. >> i'm sorry, i won't make news today, but i do believe in never say never.
i have a wonderful opportunity in my life, as was mentioned in the introduction. i am a cancer survivor, we lost a daughter in the last several years, i know how fortunate that i have been in my life i know how short life can be. for me, it is about how do i make the biggest contribution that i can in the thing that gets me going in the morning, which is to unlock human potential and help people unlock their potential. that is about cannot be associated with not-for-profit but help to do that. can i help restore the entrepreneurial spirit. to help utilize women in the world. to help develop leadership and organizational capacity with those organizations i work with.
i have also always believed that when opportunity knocks, we must answer the door and never say never. [laughter] >> sheryl sandberg's book has generated controversy. as someone who has made comparing women a priority, what is your take on what she has to say? >> she's a good friend of mine. good for her that she has decided to spend her time and her talent and money to help inspire other women. there are things that i disagree with her on. one of the things that was mentioned in my introduction was
a great honor, of course. but every year i would say to the editors and publishers of "fortune" magazine, why are you doing this. why are you rank ordering women one to 50. if you want to celebrate women, good. don't worry guys like business is the goal flatter or the tennis ladder. this is not a sport, this is the game of life. it is better when everyone gets to play. the thing where i disagree with sheryl is i think it is about women and men. but let's talk about women for a moment. the filling their potential. sometimes it is true that women become risk-averse and they don't want to take a chance on a
job they've ever done. i know when i took various jobs, people would always say to me, do not take that job. don't take that job, it's too risky and you might fail. what i found out is when you go to a job that is really messed up, if you fix it, people notice. so it is true that sometimes women are risk-averse and some women don't have the opportunity to take a risk. they don't always get to take a risk. they have to think about other things as well. sometimes they take a risk and listening to a different point of view. i think some of this is when every woman and any have the opportunity and tools and the chance to live the life that she
chooses. not everyone in will choose to become a ceo and some will decide to give back to their communities in ways that are unheralded and have a huge difference. many have the chance to live the life they choose. whether or not men approver would make the same choice. [applause] >> there may be more women ceos, but technology management is still dominated by mostly white men. you think this will change in the next 10 years and why or why not? >> it is interesting when you look at american businesses. when i became the ceo of hewlett-packard, was the only woman running a fortune 50
company in the press attention come under scrutiny, the tension was just unbelievable. unanticipated as well. today hewlett-packard is run by a woman. xerox is one by a woman. the list goes on and on. it is wonderful. and yet less than 20% of board members are women and people of color and that statistic has not moved. it has not moved in 10 plus years. it is true that technology is dominated by men in the financial sector is still dominated by men. because on the one hand there is progress in on the other hand there is not progress. the reason for that is because we are coming up against it. it is no longer that there are qualified people in the
pipeline. i think that now we are coming up against what it really is and what it really is people have to take a risk. they have to take a risk on someone they just don't know. we have to take a risk on someone who thinks differently than they do. they have to take the risk on someone who will challenge them. they have to be prepared to have an environment that is sometimes uncomfortable. but i think diversity is a business imperative. it's about being inclusive and doing the right thing. but fundamentally it is a competitiveness compared with. i have sat around lots of tables where decisions were made. all kinds of tables with all
kinds of people. i will guarantee you this. you have a group of people that is mostly alike. they think alike and look-alike, they probably have known each other for a wild. and you will make a decision. it will not be a good decision as one that is made by a group of people that are different from each other and challenge each other. that decision decision-making process will be a little messier and harder. but you'll end up at a better place because you will consider more alternatives. this is china's great portability. so i hope that it will get better in 10 years. i believe it will not truly get better until people understand that this is not about this. it's about we have to do it to perform at our best.
as a nation and a company. [applause] >> we're almost out of time. before we ask this question, a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to remind you of our next speaker who is going to be here with us, jim rogers from the president and ceo of duke energy on august 8. secondly i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. [applause] >> for last question, let's go back to your speech. you have one a lot of hats during your life so far. you have seen regulations from many angles. if you could choose only one federal regulation to resend, what would it be? >> only one? [laughter] well, it is probably cheating to say that that is the wrong
[applause] civic figure for coming today and to our audience also the national press club staff including said journalism is to and broadcast center for today's you have. you can find more information on our web site. account the web site if you would like a copy of today's program. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> we want to introduce you to first-time author randi zuckerberg. >> double author. >> guest: my books are docked complicated for adults and a docked for children. i spent the last eight years working at facebook building my own company in silicon valley and one thing that i realize there is a world that people are fascinated with one to procurers, technology and so got complicated looks at the
crazy techie assessed world and now it changes our lives and families. >> how to do that? >> guest: i talk about that balance there is a lot of talk on the work life balance but if you are still in your cellphone and is sitting on your laptop at home you were still working you have not found that balance but how to find that tech life balancing your love life into your home and with your job in all areas of communication. >> turn off your device is then go off facebook? >> guest: there is a timing device for everything but i do think if you take time to unplug to remember there is a world it makes you all the more productive been refreshed in and relax we return to the online
world. >> is there a danger of too much technology? >> by talk about the phenomenon of friends better further from friendships the you could literally keep in touch with thousands of strangers but if you are berry did your device you ignore the people that you love right next to you. so we have to be conscious technology can do amazing things. it is hint incredible to will be owned the devices and they don't own us. >> of people recognizing that? >> a lot of chatter going from the 24/7 people what time to decompress there is
one hotel that will lock up your phone when you check-in >> people are responding? period people pay for that. so to recognize they are detective dick -- addicted and assess that we need to reclaim our lives back but that led me to write a children's picture book but my own to year-old son will literally walked up to the pitcher frame and a swipe it. so we live in a culture where the toddlers are tech abscessed so i wanted to write to the of picture books to remember there is the beautiful world out there. >> how to approach the children's book? >> guest: it has a strong the female character named teetwo.
she has heard tabla interphone and she is by being in terms of forces her to go outside into the real world and in the second half of the book she has these amazing adventures that echo what she does on the digital devices. and has a happy ending. >> randi zuckerberg as former marketing director of facebook are you being disloyal to your own company? >> no. it is an amazing tool and i had a firm grossi to show its role to shape the elections come olympics olympics, responding to national disasters, even if you just looked at the traditional last week the people to go on into social media to immediately provide relief there is nothing like that in the world but we need to remember to find a balance the because you have
people who you love the space fight next you a better real people so it is everything in moderation. >> what does your brother think your approach? >> guest: he is excited readjusts punishing the finishing touches on it right now. no one has read it yet. >> randi zuckerberg where do you grow up? >> which at one negative westchester new york. my parents are both doctors my mom is a psychiatrist and my dad is a dentist. from very early on my first introduction to the magic of technology came through my dad in his office and the impact had on our whole family obviously with facebook and it changed all of us. >> when did you get involved with facebook? >> guest: 2005 i was working here in in new york city and i started to hear
about this amazing sight that my brother created and i was working in digital marketing at the time and he needed someone that had some knowledge in this new space is and i went out to california and i was blown away by what i saw. if you read a book, i had an amazing was -- experienced with facebook use of all the time and it is a positive feel good story how technology can make our lives amazing but a reminder to find balance. >> you also have a web site dot. complicated because it took a long time to publish chided want to put specific websites because you don't know what may be outdated so
i launched a companion web site that people could get updated recommendations come of breakdowns and given to you as the big sister died. >> somebody goes on the web site and they register what are they able to consolidate ? >> guest: first we have a twice weekly newsletter that breaks down the latest technology how we can help in your life and career also watching -- launching a broader web site you can get craig content from guest riders in our time and join the community. >> and t2 also coming out in november? >> november 5th in time for the holidays. so if you are considering what to get from the technology obsess trends you
now have an adult and children's picture book. >> we are talking with the new law 3792 complicated and dot. >> making his transition is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening but wonderful. climb made the choice because i have long wanted to work on of book with the m it allows you to dive into a topic to go off on a tangent and having
i used to haunt this a bookstore when i was younger so long ago. and i cherish this particular story and i thank you for supporting it. we just lost the last significant bookstore in north berkeley and to not have that really changes things. it is extraordinary. i'd like to believe it makes up for it but it doesn't. it is not the same. these are precious places. this book's pardon me remember that i am allergic this time of year. the pollen that comes over the ocean. 30 years ago or so i was part of a circle of young
techies and i bet there are some that are here there were just on fire how we would improve the world. we would get digital networking to have been get these amazing experiences and make computing easier and accessible to create a huge wave of well-being i remember anticipating this that i could feel it. queer going to do a wonderful thing for the world. and i still believe that we will and we have a little bit but in my view, might experience something went wrong and has gotten bad. i will explain what that is you can understand mime motivation in my position. when a huge new wave of technological efficiency appeared in the past, they
have often been imperfect or disruptions but generally the appearance of the interstate highway and the electricity in the wall and vaccines, clean water available with the turn of the knob and when they appear what is undeniable and apparent there after is of wave of improvement for well-being of the vast portion of the population starts to do better. i was certain that would have been with digital networking but that is not how things went. starting with the turn of the century i started to notice the pattern that was bothering me that my friends to work to in the industry
who were most affected by digital networking first thinking of musicians and photographers were not finding the world of the new opportunity that i anticipated would appear but instead almost every week i would have to be part of of fund-raiser for someone to get a crucial operation when they didn't have insurance. well-known people bought the unknown but the will of those you -- positions that were ashamed they needed help. that was new but what really hit me was the financial crisis. the whole developed world when talking about that exclusively for the moment but at approximately the same time got itself tangled up in financial absurdity. the most powerful countries losing their credit rating
in jobless recovery is in a college job market and a tight credit and a major role -- major waves of financial fraud and most of all a phenomenon of intense concentration of wealth and influence and they declined of what we call the middle class. this happened in societies all over the world is this just blew my mind. then they noticed something that all of the new powerful e. lee to and i have to mention i have done pretty well in this game myself so i am talking about me and my friends in dido individuals who have done very well they
are my buddies not aliens but every single one is close to the computers on the net. i started to realize in the new system power and influence were accumulating around the biggest computers it happened with insurance and electoral politics and media with nation states and all over. so looking back from an average under the held to make up the rhetoric and what we always believed is if you make information available as an deviant resources would create so much efficiency and
creativity that we were not sure what would happen but surely the benefits would overwhelm any problems that would be temporary. but we failed to consider something that if you want to create this utopia with people sharing your information, people are created equal but computers are not. they're vastly different. some of our johnny and sir farms in utah collecting information for government or sir farms powered by their own power plants or cooled by glaciers or rivers some of them belong to financial schemes or social media or search companies or financiers there are all kinds of there for one's
some that are run by criminal organizations but they all basically do the same thing. if everybody shares equally to have the best computer gets and natural advantages that are so profound they seduce the owners of the largest computers what say if your gift to their privilege you often don't notice but it is invisible a form of failure and you take advantage of your position without intending to or knowing because it is the most natural thing in the world. kuwait to explain what it is like is to go back to the thought experiment to the
19th century. you notice i will go to that time a lot because the 21st century is an echo of the 19th century in a multitude of ways. in a town like this that is so educated by to talk about maxwell's stephen how many of you having counter this stephen? okay. you never know. it is somebody who you will meet if you take the class of thermal dynamics. zero know he will talk about the six. run. it is simple. he headed demon named after him imagine this who is opening and closing a tiny door just big enough for a molecule to slip through. but the demon is watching them in the chambers of the accident each is filled with
the fluid and he watches the molecules approached the door if there is a hot one it goes to one side if it is a cold one it goes to the left and just by observing these molecules to separate the hot from the cold, once you have done that you can open a bigger door to let the cold and hot mix to create a turbine to have a perpetual motion. now perpetual motion machines don't work. the active discrimination is real work is never abstract soon to open and close that little door takes more power
and generates more waste heat to the and running the turbine. this is known as no free lunch you can never get ahead of the game. every perpetual motion machine turns out to be that maxwell's stephen fallacy. if the what has happened as big computers of the owners without even meaning to think they can be maxwell's stephen. the most familiar example is american health insurance the most cherished of american institutions. it used to try to calculate risk that had to write down figures in and tables with information roughly gathered
and then try to set the rates of policies. their job was not to exclude people by surprise. that only became possible with their research data it has and constitutional power that you could pretend to be maxwell's stephen so you gather the statistical correlation you will need insurance the new open the door the people of likely gather over here in those that will immediately put them on the other side and thereby having the biggest computer recreate the perfect investment in the perfect scheme that can fail because we will only insure the people who need it and make a great profit. i will tell a story without meaning the people but this was in the book originally but the editors lawyers cut
it to. [laughter] but there is a little island that is used by the republican establishment for planning retreats. i have a consulting gig helping the largest american insurance concern figure how to operate their big computers and i remember the ceo saying how we would love to not insure people that will need insurance the we should be able to avoid doing that. at that moment there was so weird sound like a little earthquake. it turns out there is a meteor strike right next to us. [laughter] so those of you who are interested in astronomy you
should look at the population of health insurance executives. [laughter] you will find what you need. [laughter] so the metaphor i am making should be clear by now that you operate the little door you thank you create the perfect benefit with no risk the you radiate to keep in the risk out to the world and it is not large cannot absorb all the people who need insurance so eventually the system breaks and it you undermine the system that made sense it is self-destructive but immediately it is more destructive to others. in the short term you can say but even even though such try to run the perfect investment. this has happened to health
insurance in america that we can see from the state of our country but also in finance again and again. some friends of mine worked at an outfit called long-term capital. remember that? the reviews big computing to make the perfect investment fund and it seemed too good to be true so they hired the people of nobel prize in economics to be associated and it looked perfect first but when it failed, it failed piggy and who paid for it? all of you. then there is also enron to doing the same thing a big computer to make a perfect investment we can predict their best to make sure other people have and i remember getting a call from enron they wanted to buy my start a. don't know no. we don't want to sell the pretty start up to a company
that tries to take a vintage of big computing. guess you bought it? google's. [laughter] volume sure you were here tonight but we will get to that. [laughter] the thing about it is even though maxwells demon illusion always breaks the temptation is great because in the first phase it does work with the biggest computer and a network you can calculate tiny ways to improve your game is other people take the risk and to get the benefit and everything seems golden but what happened with finance and insurance will happen to silicon valley and every other area of life we try to organize. this is the fundamental
pattern we have to find a way to transcend. it will not be easy. i have been on the other side, it is great when it works. it is like informations in here when and we have to get off of it. mentioned i will return to the 19th century again and again so i will return to it now. in the 19th century a lot of things happened there was 100 years there the civil war, a lot of new technology but in terms of human thought with the unifying theme that was so powerful and present the expressions of it remain dominant. it was robot anxiety. the 19th century was
defined intellectually by a of fear that people would be made obsolete by improving technology. you may not think of this as a 19th century concerned but let me give you a couple of signpost of the country. the riots which were by textile workers concerned there would be made obsolete by textile machinery. that was a very ugly and early battle that resulted in public executions. that in turn strongly influenced the 19th century thinkers and karl marx. if you read early marks around 1840's he was a technology writer concerned with this issue. i was driving a and
listening to the radio i thought it was something else and somebody was going on about how they would lower barriers to market access and capital would flow and i thought it is another silicon valley start up. i cannot listen to is actually a reading of marks and it was the strangest thing. my god. i went back to read it. i think the proposed solution has been proven to fail but if you read his descriptive work what was going on with human life, he sounds contemporary it is extraordinary. there are not that many thoughts that are immediately familiar but john henry is one in to he manages to win some of this
is tragic, ironic, some -- sympathy and a race against machines. the literature of the 19th century is with us today and we call it science-fiction and it is directly you motivated but a wonderful example is the time machine where humanity splits and the benefits from the descendants on facebook darr the rich ones a and but the interesting thing is both species are made ridiculous and absurd by their situation. but if you look at science fiction in the unmakes his case with his a question if humans will become obsolete
in fuseli it is the machines and it continues to resist there with "the terminator" and matrix movies. that is the steve over in dover sole science-fiction started out of robot anxiety. it very interesting thing happened in the 20th century. we did not see massive waves of unemployment because of improving technology in the reason was new jobs were created when the machines got better in they were safer and cleaner and easier and more dignified. but it did not happen automatically. the labor movement was not small enough was gigantic movement and to in the sense it was fighting for the right to get paid even if your job was not as
miserable as the other jobs and that is forgotten. let's imagine in the bookstore is located in rochester new york and if we were in new york we would remember it was the center but then a the buggy whip went obsoletes and i love horses but dealing with them as a necessity just to get around is a pain in the but. i don't know if you have done it but there is feeding , they getting kicked , the poop and not all of the merchandise and the whole thing is a nuisance. so having a motorized vehicle is not only cool but you wonder why people would not be paid to drive them. if you wonder whyse
teamsters union tough? it had to be to assert even though you just put your foot on the pedal you deserve to get paid that is why the cab's get paid and every time you see a job that is not utterly miserable and dangerous but still pays you will notice that in the past there was a struggle that created a structure to help those people get paid despite the fact there not risking death. or a tin ear for academic corer something of a mechanism. this is the reason why in the 20th century we got better jobs. it was not a question if people were still needed but a judgment with a hard-fought o billion that
if the new rules for people were more pleasant than you could still get paid for them. said the unemployment crisis averted, middle-class is strong especially in the postwar years. but at the turn of the 21st century we suddenly decided on that covenant that screw that solution we will just let people go obsolete. one of these magical tools that are available seemingly for free is language translation a proximate. you can upload the a say in english and get it back seemingly automatically turning into a spanish as a that is perfect. and a few others do it for the first company to demonstrate it was i am but
now it is a common thing. the way we talk about a service most commonly is ther is a giant artificial brain. >> for free. >> isn't it how you can benefit but translate for free? there was a time there was a hope that it goes back to the 1950's where the pioneers were not sure where it was involved the he was one of my mentors and to favor a signed a summer project this recitation could come up with a formula. that doesn't work. famously but what does work
is a big data or what of that -- whatever terminology you prefer so we gather large numbers of examples of real translation done by real paper route -- people than pattern match them to find a point of coinciden the unmatchable translation into a sequence to form a new translation and that is not so bad. that is how it works. it is not a magic and artificial brain but real people that they pretend don't exist. so as technology gets better if you are a translator translator, that job is not like being a truck driver even notice not miserable, this time you don't get paid and we have
pretended you don't exist to create the illusion of a giant brain. this is another example of a siren whether the value goes to one side, we will let all the value go to one side but all the people whose did the work go to the other side to make the perfect scheme with the electronic brain. with big data involved you hear the words artificial intelligence what you should hear is accounting fraud what is going on the people who did the work are forgotten and hid in behind the curtain the active stage magic the real magic. what is crucial if we keep
thinking this way if we pull back on the covenant that allows unemployment to continue if we teach you on that government -- covet they will see the anxiety of the 19th century there is no need that this happens. it is not based on reality but a judgment how we're willing to acknowledge each other. what i am hoping you can see is the connection between right -- between the rules people get paid for and the tendency whoever owns the biggest computer to benefit from the possibility to get a perfect scheme. two sides of the same point in every time you find yourself on the biggest computer to improve your situation the way it works is you are gathering data
and the key is you don't have to pay. if you have to pay, if there was a market it would be like raw materials and pay more for more valuable information but it is the fact it is free the gives the illusion the information is never free. that is what we've learned with the aerodynamics. now, we're in the cultural situation for me to talk about these things, i have to speak against the people i like the most. this is awkward because if you're on this side of the angels, a good person of course, he should love open culture and information by have been struck the open source code is the mystery of our culture that you can
take anything boring to say is open source software lake used under rare and i don't want to click on this. please. anything. but then if it says it is being used to sort under. that sounds innovative. [laughter] i wonder if that will help global warming? so i indisposition to speak against this thing that so many people are sure will help. it is not comfortable. i myself help to make it appear believed it would be true but i don't think the open source people are the biggest problem right now but they do create this hipness or legitimacy to a
problem exploited by eight entirely different people. right now the form of free information and the disenfranchisement that people experday to day is brought to them by a silicon vl where once again this is not comfortable but you know, e prospects of getting a job have gone down it does it mean the course is not wonderful or products -- education but it does unto the long-term prospect in exchange for short-term benefit. but you will say that space formation in those people will turn around. i thought that about networking once the benefits are routed through computers, which they will be then whoever owns the biggest computer will
radiate to the cost to everyone else. i guess you're many examples to talk about a hypothetical that you could insert inside your tattoo that will synthesize chemicals and how that could create a wave of health and well-being that the same time put doctors and pharmacists and chemist out-of-work. but it could be done in the way that makes it possible to be demonetized horror whoever runs the routing computer is infinitely wealthy. the greatest fortunes are concentrated around the biggest computers and that is not what we intended. how do we get out of this?
at way people experience the silicon valley companies, the world of high frequency trades and rears leverage and there are other causes the run of big computers that are not that familiar but logistical schemes that use big computers to move money around but to earn interest everywhere but these things are commonplace at this point. there is an absurdity but i have a bunch of buddies who worked out the math and it is cruel and put the fact is it makes them so fast
there's not time for information from the real world to get in so it is impossible to optimize based on realities of there is the other argument there often by using the path of the market itself. and that can be legitimate and only if there is only one monopolistic high-frequency trade. if there is a toothless of the they reach their own algorithms so those fluctuations collectively make money fast and radiating this to everybody. you will find this they have a local framework in which what you are doing seems to make sense but it never does because there is never a free lunch. i go over many examples because they of have fascinating creations.
how to make it out of this? "this is it" we cannot keep the market going we need another way to organize human affairs for when the machines get good we need to have it for a political process. i have gone down all those roads and they don't go to pretty places. people disagree. i have a lot of critics with the new book one person says why you trying to keep the markets at all? just get rid of many. i think the problem with that is politics also screws people over if it functions on its own terms. i think what happens with politics with what we see
with unbridled capitalism ochered in a political way. and again and again. people are difficult creatures. i remember being a young hippie trying to live in a group household and found it to be terribly difficult. a number of them were right down the road but it was very hard to win politics and the reason is not because of lack of the internet by people are ornery. we are just difficult. i will believe a purely political solution will not happen. people are perverse and difficult. the use of money should be understood about balances the tendencies of human society to become
dysfunctional. it can concentrate power and wealth but this economics can blunt each other's thorns. so i hope i a treated reasonably in the book. what we can hope for from digital technology is a way not to create a perfect society, but to add to the process of a balance of different systems and none can go too badly. i think of the way america is balanced between the legislature and the executive branch and it is an interesting idea the hope is each prevents the other
from going off the deep end to much and for the most part i think it works but i think a blunt each other's tendencies. so we have to think about society of the economics economics, social process is different because it is more abstract than the two systems, i think competition is the third one but i try to find the balance. those who have social tendencies think i tried to elevate capitalism. but i don't think that way i will give them examples of bringing money into the world of intimation may create a balance instead of capitalistic evil. one of things that concerns me is the proliferation of
cloud connected cameras. the government benefits from having a camera on every corner and the software can attract people by a face and then you have a system where government knows where everybody is and what they are doing. now we think it is cute silicon family -- silicon valley was kindergarten names can do its. [laughter] it is problematic. so the usual way you try to stop it is an advocacy group like the electronic frontier foundation that have lawyers to argue with government officials to sway candidates to enact regulations so here
i am looking at programmers with huge computers and connectivity to look at schemes and bureaucrats come up with the prohibition and i do not see the fair fight. also regulators trying to control high frequency traders. the way the algorithms go if you slow them down then the algorithms will adapt to use that as the system that they optimize against. what can possibly be done? you can have some effect but it is hard. if it cost money than the pitcher changes settle think it is a complete solution but a part of it. traditionally one of the ways the people constrain the government or for that matter, churches or corporations is a cost money to do things.
and the control of taxes creates a constraint. no taxation without representation the police cannot just go to the auto lot to say what police cars but instead they have to argue for taxes with the budget then buy them like everybody else and it creates a constraint. if you have to pay many when you recognize someone and you cannot do it without restraint you have to strategizing in prioritizing and instead of automatic gathering of information it creates a an honest situation nephew's information to create a balanced scheme because it affirmation is never free just reflex the reality that and ask to come from somewhere information's people in disguise.
but does his of philosophical points for questions but it creates the baseline it is not infinite power concentration because there is a cost balance to this. i think monetizing information is friendly to civil liberties. there are huge questions how to do it. gigantic questions and i don't have all the answers but the topics of prospect for the information costing many instead of being free. one of the first questions is does this exclude? because the rhetoric is even the poor have access it creates opportunity. we have tried it and it does exactly the opposite. the middle-class is sinking
in wealth and power is concentrated in it smaller numbers every time you tweet about the of 1% you enrich the 1% you have to understand the reality the system is out working it has the opposite effect. [laughter] this is something that is interesting to me. if i look at how outcomes i see the winner-take-all if eyeleted the people who'd do well in the information around a central hub you to bore amazon that everybody has to cycle through israeli and reseeded neck and a long tail. is problematic because people are primed to want to believe in hope.
going back to the 19th century it is the horatio alger stories there are few people who legitimately to well a lot of others to live with their parents and living on hope and self funding are just of hairsbreadth of success but they will not get it. this bugs me is the commonly held belief with hundreds of thousands of musicians doing great to promote themselves on line and sold t-shirts and i try to do count the musicians doing well and it is just a handful. it is a real. i am stock even the people at the top of the regime used to be considered middle-class. do you know, jenna marbles? she had 1 billion hits on
you too, she offers duty and dating it advice for young women. not easy to watch but she is a cross between sneaky and martha stewart. [laughter] she is a giant fan there are the is discussions are she is top and in her mid-20s you can rent it 1.$1 million house in l.a. the talk to an engineer that is a huge ground. it is great for someone in their 20s that is doing well and a great luxury considering how many people are starving in the world so i don't want to minimize but if that is the top then think of for everybody else is.
we have been incredible blow or in of expectations but for every jenna marbles you have that many people that are that close then when you have 100,000 views it is so close they get a few gigs than they think i can almost make this work but not quite. based on false hope that this was the crew list forms of society but a lot of them living on help will have a midlife crisis when it doesn't work out and i think it is a shame and a tragedy waiting to happen for the facebook generation. at some point more likely the kids will say we are sick of this of every scheme radiating the risk in we are sick of living on a false hope they will realize the
price is too high. i often hear eight tear it by half to pay to look at somebody's facebook page? but you pay to go to do stupid movies. people pay for a dumb stuff all the time. titanic industries are based on of want instead of a need in this is where the talk shifts between '01 to and in need. cosmetics, professional sports, i hardly know where to begin but it is based on taste with subjective values. there is absolutely no reason why there could be a society to get paid for social media and you may say
what's the point? here is a leap of faith but capitalism can work in the market can work it works when they start helping people courtney to to create more wealth than they would have otherwise and if it grows as a result meet more people do better in the trading system and the sharing system. it is entirely appropriate for the information network. you are paying the you also get paid. the nature is unlike any other payment they have experienced before but you only get paid every two weeks or the royalty check then divided coffee and
spend in drips and drabs a few you would be paid in drips and drabs of the time in different people would find different systems to be paid. if you want to get a feeling how much you want to be fade -- paid that is stolen from you but keep track of the discounts you get when you allow someone to spy on you. look at your club card, the differential lovelies spend in one year, a frequent flier programs how much he would have to spend can you could calculate there is a fair amount of money if it were real instead of a bargain and you were in control you could make decisions that would put you into participation in a market growing instead of concentrating wealth. if you look at the information people are interested in a very interesting effect comes out
that instead of a few superstars you see this connected thing that is of interest to people. this has been funded by facebook to protect itself from critics that says it is a centralizing its influence but it means if it was monetize we would see them middle-class pump and it is intriguing because it is possible monetized information network would yield a middle-class home in a new way instead of through the day ratchets up levees like a taxi medallions and cosmetology license in the union membership but maybe a natural distribution to create a thick middle. to say something about the
middle-class i have noticed my hipness friends and part of me are affronted by the term middle-class because it means period oriented horrible loss of hipness everything we must renounce as the middle-class. i am talking about the issue of the aristocracy that occupied the founders of the united states and you need to have a preponderance of people who collectively have more influence. the middle has to be able to out clout the tip. you need that if you want a democracy if it becomes a sham, i am unhappy with what is going on with money and politics lately i don't know anybody who is, but if you
care about market dynamics if you are a libertarian you need the same thing you need to the middle otherwise you don't have customers and ended with a petrus state or fake and feudal system that pretends to be a market but it isn't so it is essential to every humane system that has ever appeared you cannot count on the infinitely wise and charitable the leaked. this brings up another point that i happen to think this silicon valley's elite may have been the nicest ever to appear in history. but the thing is we cannot let that enter into our thinking. you don't have to imagine
the captive of silicon valley are not evil i still think that we are cute. we are great. but over time you don't know who will inherit the of power sadly hp started the pattern and i am sure there are hp people here and i am sorry but what a tawdry seeing that this is normal it will happen to every institution that they go through periods of decadence, corruption, we have to plan with that realism there would not be turned all benevolent benevolent, appier, every elites has degradation over time. i am attempting in the book
it is a very experimental to make myself vulnerable to get a point across. it could have stopped halfway through how the power is concentrated around big computers then stopped. and they think it would be adopted of school courses in the humanities department and a lot of french scholars it would have the cache but i try to talk about pollution even though i know for certain they cannot be right. i know i will read this myself in 10 years and think i was naive but i lay my neck out to be for you because i think it is essential we have the
courage to be perfect to improve ourselves but i want to be first in line all of my friends who are technical are people of goodwill. everyone in silicon valley is a big computation and one of the good things is it is one of the most pleasant deviates in history and we have an excellent shot to fix this. the final thing is humanity we however onstage we're not beholden and we screw ourselves over more than any other creature in we are in charge of ourselves with the
only way we can see what we're doing is with the same big data. so wouldn't it be better to be free? to be even better if it was not corrupted by big computers. what we have seen now is almost a perfect inability to separate the truth from the corruption of big data the people that first discerned that had a wikileaks type of the males were leaked in the conspiracy theorist poured over them but meanwhile those who put out in response to austerity measures it took time to get that revealed some we have not established a way to have big data with
credibility so people could hear the message. we have not connected it with troops. as long as deliver lives with the schemes intended to concentrate through perfect investments and schemes through the demonic attends to make everybody else take the risk to concentrate the benefit so we're used to the aid via of data being a nonsense. i was going to use a bad word. [laughter] we are happy with big data algorithms we listen to music without knowing who made it. perhaps the most intimate decisions we ever make and we do this all every time real science is applied we figured out it doesn't work
that they are not scientifically valid but they have the organizational contingency but the logarithms are nonsense in the back of our mind we know it is a big game. my deepest hope if information and cost many you would use it carefully to give rise to businesses that ticket more seriously to give rise of a culture to discern truth from nonsense. if we cannot get there, i feel it as being connected to the bigger picture to make it through the crazy century ahead. with that, i thank you for listening and i will take some questions. [applause]
when. >> thank you for coming tonight. i have a question. you discussed rewarding people for putting information into the system but how does the creation of the informal economy fit into this model instead of monetizing information but our assets like renting now to our homes, our bicycles bicycles, power tools to have a second income, does it contribute to your idea to make it more robust or do you mean it strictly information?
>> i talk about that with similar things in the book. in general the informal economy is not a good thing. people in the ghetto of the world trying to get into a formal economy. informal economy is a great if you are young forever, and never get sick and always have parents to support you there is the illusion that wealth is the opposite of the informal economy and it means i am sure there are engineers but it means the you have some staying power. said in the case of the schemes that sent people around to be taxi drivers but those avoid all risk to
say we are at arm's length. but the problem with that is risk and waste heat are related but by trying to create a perfect system the matter what happens on the ground the people in the informal economy will take the risk themselves you can rent out your place 30 times nobody rips you off but then something happens but there is no insurance scheme or risk pool or planning so gradually because of the contingencies that always come up to participate in these informal scheme you will get in you will be sick on the day somebody needed your apartment. as long as if you have perfect lock it is great but
we have to get away from the central hub fitted ready takes the risk was no planning and there are various ways that can happen but my concern is i will create an insurance service in those become another example of the computer trying to take risk but to have the information monetized which is what they are. if you can make the leap to that then people are forced into insecurity. that is what the informal economy is hour. >> i have been thinking of
these issues but my concern is in addition to new technology there is the specter of education and personal health we although elementary education is dismal but the food that we eats that the laws have been passed to make the world's biggest genetic seed manipulator so if they're not that well educated or healthy fed how can that population seeing for itself for facebook for purely entertainment purposes? on the other side you have to bring in those that come
to your thinking because without that they will not see the fallacy there will not cease to their own actions. so how do we individually take the baby steps? >> i have a lot of friends who are writers who write about big issues but talk about what you can do you can grifter food and cook but part of me wants to do that and to i have not found a good way to do it honestly but a lot of those things feed into the problem.
it is hard to address this because it feeds the monster i am concerned about. every time you tweet about the 1% you enrich them so you run into great conundrum. i work on this problem of course, if you are highly technical you can do all kinds of stuff if you know, how to program you can alter your privacy settings. [laughter] and use all kinds of tools but just as if you want to change the food system where things cost 10 times more than any person can afford this not solve the problem or it does not address anything so i am stockinette would like to solve it that i get proposals every single
day from people who have ideas but so far i don't know how to ian's your question -- answer your question. >> i am glad to see you mentioned jenna marbles. >> you look like that type. [laughter] >> i mention it because senior u.s. history class i notice how you go back to jefferson and the notion of the yeoman farmer if everybody has a chance to get land they can become independent. self, independent come on your own wind, grow your own food, have a great family. will this be possible with caavllions t?
jenna marbles? but with your work depose the question came in the internet we a virgin and that america was supposed to be when the first europeans were? of course, it is problematic although i like your idea very much that people should buy and sell but what you think of the vision of the yeoman farmer? >> go might god. there is so much to say. to bring of so many points the original design for networking was monetized from ted nelson in 1960 before the package a system was invented the original idea is much of what i am
talking about the lost gradually through tawdry incidence. we were there precisely because of the tradition but yet i grew up in an obscure part of southern new mexico where the words -- roads were still dirt and i can tell you it does favor the strong and creates a world of mobs and not necessarily a pretty world. what happened in general was the land was free but we pretended the native americans were not there and you have to go astray transportation system or
railroad and gradually we lost that innocence with real-estate agents and that world as little less romantic and a more nerdy but it is safer and creates more coordination and to i think it is better overall and that transformation, as much as i like the romance, the truces the transformation to the america we know is not a precedent for what ought to happen which might lose a touch of romance. >> can we get a new deal? >> there are other people. but if we are willing to have the of world war we
could get a new deal covered rather not go there. >> i agree the bottoms up solution to change and monetize information's seems very, very difficult. have you given any thought to the meetings of mines of people who own big computers or how big of a prototype would have to be to make it meaningful? and could that be stratified from people who produce quality in those of kitten running into all videos? >> yes. in the book i fantasized the top hackers get together to create a new system then infant a tattoo robot.
it is a weird eave vents at the googleplex over a weekend. i for fun of us a few of different routes but it will not be easy. of homage financial suffering does it take until people realize the regime is not working? how many times to we have to go through this? we did it with the savings and loan and bundled securities now with the student negative and sovereign debt which again and again how many times does this have to have been? how many times must it fail before we call it craft? said of the answer in tel we
realize that pattern is not sustainable but the few people that make the good information in, i don't see empirically they are interested in each other in a general way with the middle-class distribution wray proponents of people get attention instead of everybody. of the number it does not have been in a network of the youtube but it does with facebook i am not convinced a think we should give each other more credits i will remain optimistic but if it is true people are doll and useless except for the three the program it? there is a lot of science fiction with fact but i do sees the evidence i am more optimistic but i just try to
be realistic we are more go label them give ourselves credit for. >> thank you very much. very interesting and i am an open source people. [laughter] but i want to look what you discuss from a different level of obstruction. to talk about the 21st century i think the main achievement with my understanding is equalization of information of matter? i think feathery the printing well prove that to be the case. so to think about it this way when you talk about value and information, it is the same thing as a property-tax? >> it is not.
no. i go into 3d printers quite a lot and let say that it's big and i hope it does. every day you have a new outfit because it is made perfectly for your body and every gig you get a new design and has to come from the object but they keep saying it is that i have friends who have great friends that have been doing very well for themselves to go to pour neighborhoods to watch what they're wearing thin translate that into expensive fashions so the existing terminology is but
the morris 3d printers work the less the ownership means but that is a totally different question into the people that contribute to of value are they remembered to we come up with the illusion that they are not there? >> if i am equating information it doesn't mean the object. so when matter in information is the same thing then whoever is able to process the information will become the most meaningful producer of false over time. i thank you try to address is a tactical problem only a few years machines to a better than humans. >> machines still existed is only people pretending
people don't exist for you made a huge logical heir. you we're doing great you fell off a cliff. >> the there is a number of futurist who will think that but might question is that. why? there is a whole train of thought that does not think the way you think. >> of course, i know that. people are a little crazy and very emotional. i was present in the room when open source was born. i remember him being insole upset of it being held up with all these things and i understand the motion later stand my buddy does not want
to die in this laser to think about the pristine digital immortality. i interstate and those emotions. we cannot run in our society totally on our passions and fears and that is what the technical culture is coming to. but there is the interesting alternative source because there are two domains the proprietary software with a ridiculous license and everybody knows it is machine man to have this monster or see that whoever runs the computer. there is a third alternative
that every time a cove signs , but that's has not been given a fair chance. if there is something of a coach is built up, if you look back from the people contributed if ever micro payments going to help that is the middle-class distribution. right there. added is against the elite that are forming around the very use of the machine to have to pay the software. the notion you make open source input the information out there but the new support the google's concentration it is absurd with a failed idealism. we have to try this other alternatives and it made that way they would make money from the search code
and we could not have these spying empire by right now the internet has multiplied to support things like bit torrent that make you plus copies of files to avoid paying for them and that this is in looking at the carbon footprint and the greatest rewards are for the worst cody and the worst use of machines. that is precisely what we're doing into the current regime. . .