Watch this video on YouTube.

97% Owned is a new documentary that reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis. Featuring frank interviews and commentary from economists, campaigners and former bankers, it exposes the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives banks the power to create money, shape the economy, cause crises and push house prices out of reach.

Fact-based and clearly explained, in just 60 minutes it shows how the power to create money is the piece of the puzzle that economists were missing when they failed to predict the crisis.

Produced by Queuepolitely and featuring Ben Dyson of Positive Money, Josh Ryan-Collins of The New Economics Foundation, Ann Pettifor, the “HBOS Whistleblower” Paul Moore, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Sargon Nissan and Nick Dearden from the Jubliee Debt Campaign, this is the first documentary to tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online now.

Donate to Positive Money

http://www.positivemoney.org/donate/

that scientists don’t want non-scientists to understand what they are talking about.

It is as if they protect their knowledge from the great unwashed by hiding it behind by a minefield of jargon, technical terms and unpronounceable latinisms and, as if that wasn’t enough, they have a final line of defense – a smokescreen of linguistic subterfuge where everyday words are double agents imbued with confusing and contradictory meanings.

Of course, this isn’t the case at all. Scientists do want to communicate their discoveries – it’s just that sometimes they seem to do so in a slightly different language.

Let’s take a look at some words that mean one thing to us but might mean something very different to scientists: hypothesis, law and theory.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is the first rung on the ladder of scientific enquiry and is formulated to explain observations.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words “hypothesis” and “theory” are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still have to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Speculation is a conclusion, opinion, or theory based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence or guesswork.

For example: three people (Bob, Sally and Jake) see a curtain flapping around and moving (seemingly) independently of its surroundings. Bob’s scientific hypothesis that the movement is being caused by a nearby open window. Sally theorizes that there might be an unseen person hiding behind the curtain whose movements are creating the observed effect. Jake also speculates that it must be caused by an invisible, incorporeal spirit.

Bob can test his hypothesis by checking for an open window and then trying to replicate the observation – if it moves when the window is open and stops when it is closed, he can be fairly certain his hypothesis is correct.

Sally can test hers by checking for a hidden person moving the curtain – if no one is present, she can formulate an alternative hypothesis.

Jake has made an untestable speculation – he can’t detect or measure the ghost so he can’t remove or include its ‘influence’ to test for a result. He might take note of Bob’s results and conclude that the open window was the culprit, or he might say that the window was only open because the spirit made it so (he can’t test his speculation to prove it, but nor can Bob test it to disprove it – Jake might then use Bob’s inability to disprove the presence of a spirit as proof that the spirit exists).

Bob and Sally are being scientific – Jake is not.

[Despite the protestations of some, gaps in the fossil record do not disprove evolution. Only solid evidence – like finding a creature that fossilized before it could have evolved – could disprove it. Evolution has passed every test... just as a good theory should]

I am the law!

This where meanings start to get a little muddled.

In our society, a law is the pinnacle of a set of rules – a law is the umbrella under which rules reside. But, in science, a law is really only the second rung on the enquiry ladder.

Scientific laws are a description of how something works under specific circumstances. Taking our example above, having successfully tested his open window hypothesis several times, Bob formulates a ‘law of open windows’ which states that an open window will cause a curtain to flap around.

Jake will dispute the law because Bob can’t disprove the presence of the curtain-twitching spirit.

But Bob’s law only describes how the curtain behaves when the window is open, it doesn’t explain what is causing it to behave that way – for that, he has to formulate a theory.

Theory is king

A theory is one of the pinnacles of science and is what scientists like Bob strive to make out their hypotheses and laws. A theory usual includes several different hypotheses and laws – each of which must have withstood all attempts to prove them false.

A scientific theory explains observations and laws by providing the mechanism that makes them work.

Going back to our example, Bob is happy with his ‘law of open windows’ but, as he tests it further, he notices that the rate of the curtains movement isn’t constant – sometimes it moves a lot and other times it barely moves at all – so he looks for a mechanism that explains why the curtain moves at all.

He develops another testable scientific hypothesis that suggests that varying air movements outside the open window could account for the variation. He tests this by measuring the air speed outside the window and comparing it to how much the curtain moves. He discovers that there is a connection and develops a the ‘law of air-connected movement’, which states that there is a direct correlation between wind speed and curtain movement.

After further testing, Bob also discovers that the curtain’s movements are also affected by how far open the window is – so he creates a law for this also.

But all of these laws still lack an explanation of the underlying mechanism that causes the curtain to move.

After much consideration and many, many more tests, Bob realises that there must be something within the air itself – something invisible to the naked eye that acts on the material of the curtain; is more energetic in fast-moving air; and is restricted by the aperture of the open window.

Based on his evidence, Bob concludes that there may be invisibly small bits of matter within the air that, although tiny, can move the curtain when given enough energy. He names the unseen matter after the Latin word for ‘a small bit’ – particula – and he calls his new theory the ‘theory of curtain-moving particles’.

Happy with his work, Bob publishes his theory and leaves it to other scientists to search for direct evidence for the existence of his ‘particles’.

[A successful theory can make predictions that scientists can test. In 1990 scientists predicted how much warming would occurring if climate change models were correct. A recent report in the journal Nature confirmed that those predictions were right on track. Climate change is a successful theory]

Change is good

Some people think that if a theory has to be updated or changed it must be flawed or incorrect. They point out that theories like evolution are always undergoing revisions and are full of gaps in the evidence.

But they misunderstand what a theory is. A theory can be compared to a car. A car has many complex moving parts that perform many different individual tasks, but they all work in harmony to make the car function. Just as a mechanic can upgrade individual parts, add some parts and take others away without changing the function of the car as a whole, so scientists can upgrade, replace and remove hypotheses and laws without changing the overall truth of the theory.

That’s the beauty of scientific theory. Even seemingly ‘perfect’ theories are subjected to constant tests and observations – if parts are are found wanting, they are refined and (if need be) replaced altogether.

Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

You will never hear about the scientist who verifies for the 239,000th time Newton’s prediction that a feather will fall at the same speed as an anvil in a vacuum. But the chap who find evidence that gravity isn’t what we thought it was will become a household name.

The theory that isn’t a theory

Just to really muddy the works and throw a spanner in the waters, there is an exception to the ‘theory’ rule. String theory (which seeks to replace particles with vibrating strings and introduce myriad extra dimensions) isn’t a theory by the definition above – it hasn’t made testable predictions – and really should be called the String hypothesis. If it is ever proven (many scientists don’t think it will be) it might be renamed ‘the theory of strings’ or something like that..

Conclusion & Comments from Jacque Fresco (The Venus Project)

Scientific theories are not necessarily absolutely true but they are by far closer approximations to reality than speculation. Proof: there are 3000 satellites in Earth’s orbit that seem to be working and sending back information. Although scientific theories and hypothesis may have their limitations they are nowhere near the amount of error of non-scientific principles. No one else has predicted the necessary formulas for putting a man on the moon. When a scientist devises a hypothetical description of a process or a procedural system if other scientist did not get the same results the system is rejected. Therefore the scientific method comes closer than any other known system.

If a measuring system is inconsistent it cannot be used as a working hypothesis. The very fact that computers and ipods work as well as they do is because the scientific system has proven the most valid system available. Yes it is true that there are limitations to the scientific method but present day scientific systems have higher predictability than most other systems. Even with the climatic changes that are occurring some people feel that those changes are not due to human pollution but if we stop human pollution we can decrease the influence on climatic change. The non-scientific world that express the limitations of the scientist world are unable to provide the necessary answers to environmental pollution and other factors effecting climatic change.

As I understand the scientific method if a hypothesis is forthcoming and other scientist do not get the same results the hypothesis is rejected. To evaluate any system you do not formulate a hypothesis with insufficient instrumentation. For example if we use an anemometer (a device for measuring wind speed), we can detect other influences in the example given in the article.

Without that it would not be a scientific test nor can you formulate a theory. Therefore all theories have to be based upon the phenomena observed under varying conditions. When someone supposes that some scientist may have a pet theory, which they wish to uphold, other scientist not getting the same results can easily disprove this.

Science and mathematics have proven to be far more reliable than politics and public opinion. They have proven to be the best means available today for identifying probable cause of seemingly other inadequate approaches.

If other scientists do not get the same results a theory or hypothesis is rejected. Often there is no need to speculate or develop a hypothetical theory most phenomena can be put to test. The procedure of the scientific method may be different. The theory is speculation until it is put to test. A hypothesis cannot be worked out until things are measured then a hypothesis is formulated.

Scientist test theories to see if they are consistent not to “break them.”

Like many other commercial banks of the time, Fox, Fowler, and Company was legally entitled to issue its own banknotes. However, when the Bank Charter Act was passed in 1844, no new banks could issue notes in England and Wales, and the number of note-issuing institutions fell gradually with financial sector consolidation. Fox, Fowler, and Company was the last commercial note-issuing bank in England and Wales, until it was bought out by Lloyds Bank in 1921.

Under the terms of the 1844 act, the bank lost the legal right to issue banknotes upon its merger with Lloyds, and the Bank of England became the sole note-issuing bank in England and Wales.

Some commercial banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland retain the right to issue bank notes, but only the Bank of England may now issue sterling bank notes in England and Wales.

Now, however almost everything has gone digital, and an estimated 97% of the money we use today is nothing but digital numbers that the commercial banks can create out of nothing. Most of the money in circulation today consist of bank demand deposits, that are not legislated as part of the monetary laws passed in 1844.

All money held in bank accounts is an accounting entry, it is simply numbers in a computer system. The money lent to a customer does not exist until the customer signs the repayment agreement. Upon this act the digital commercial bank money is created.

When commercial banks issue loans to the public, they create new commercial bank money.

When a customer repays a loan the commercial bank money is destroyed, the banks keep the interest as profit.

All new money is created out of debt, it is destroyed upon repayment of the debt, all that remains is the interest made from the loan. This is why the money supply, debt and inflation of countries around the world are rising in an a exponential curve and will continue to do so as long as this un-economic monetary policy is maintained.

In the 10 years prior to the 2007 financial crisis, the commercial bank money supply expanded by between 7-10% every year, through creating money out of thin air, based on the promise of the borrower to pay that loan back + interest.

Since 1980 the global private banking sector grew from $2.5 trillion assets owned to $40 trillion

In 1980 private commercial bank money was 20 x the global economy, by 2006 they were worth 75 x the global economy

What are the advantages of a naked culture? Let’s begin this journey of discoveries.

If you put a plaster cast on a broken arm the skin starves for Vitamin D, the muscles weaken due to strangled range of motion, the nerve synapses depress to a whimper of their former joy. Twenty-first century hominids? We shroud our entire skin palette except for face, neck and hands – we obliterate symbiosis with the planet.

We hide in cocoons, when we could be free as butterflies.

History reveals many cultures that were not clothes-minded. Spartans were basically bare and their victories in pan-Hellenic sports competitions enticed all neighbouring Greeks to exercise nude, creating the word “gymnasium” (Greek gymnos = naked). Romans mingled in magnificent bathhouses, enjoying dense communal nudity as they drank, dined, defecated, bathed, read books, argued politics, and watched theater.  Adamists — naked heretics — performed stripped-down church services in North Africa, Bohemia, the Netherlands, and England. Pre-Hitler Germans were avid adherents of Freikorperkultur (“Free Body Culture”) with 70,000 attending co-ed Nacktkultur schools.

There’s naked Japanese in hot springs, naked Finns in saunas, “sky-clad” Jain monks in India, plus millions of nudists worldwide going to “Nakation” camps, beaches, and resorts. They’re still sporty as Spartans, eager to hike naked (“free bush rambling”), canoe naked (“canuding”), bicycle naked, ride horses naked, run naked, play volleyball, badminton, ping-pong and chess naked, swim naked, dance naked, do Naked Yoga, Naked Tai Chi, Naked Gardening, Naked Bowling, and of course, many of us, perhaps you and I, dear readers, are NIFOC — Naked In Front of Computers.

Many famous figures were bare-all aficionados; too many politicians to name, so I’ll just list sci-fi and scientists: Leonard Nimoy, Alexander Graham Bell,  Robert Heinlein, and seismologist Charles Richter. Nudism is prominent in Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld books and John Varley’s Steel Beach. Celebrities? Many movie stars skinny-dip at the French Riviera, trying to elude paparazzi seeking pix of Bruce WIllis’ willy or Natalie Portman’s port side.

Here’s evidence suggesting that skin-only can be superior:
Born Free. 
Pediatricians agree that infants thrive with a daily dose of “naked time” because the unhampered range of motion aids brain development, stimulating neuron growth. Recent discoveries reveal that the “plastic” brain changes and develops throughout our entire lives. Neuroplasticity pioneer Michael M. Merzenich believes, “Everything that you can see happen in a young brain can happen in an older brain.” Doesn’t this imply that “naked time” is equally valuable for humans of any age, especially the elderly?

Weakened Bodies.
A 2003 University of Reading study entitled “A Naked Ape Would Have Fewer Parasites” posits that “humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease.” Unfortunately, the garments we wear can be a breeding ground for filthy fungi and bad bacterium, causing yeast infections, urinary tract infections, rotting toenails. Lyme Disease deer ticks can grab onto our sweaters and sea lice can sneak into our bathing suit crotches. Cinched-up belts, ties, and clothes impede breathing. Men’s snug pants raise testicle temperature, lowering sperm count and fertility.

Barefoot Medicine.
Going shoeless is now recognized as an anti-Alzheimer’s, brain-boosting activity because the sole sensation entices your brain into growing extra, efficient neuron connections. Dr. Norman Doidge (author of The Brain That Changes Itself) believes skipping shoes increases brain flexibility and youthfulness, and many podiatrists now advise going barefoot as much as possible. Bare feet are today’s prescription. Will tomorrow’s elixir take the next step: Bare Body?

Superior Socialization.
Self-actualization proponent Abraham Maslow believed “Nudism… is itself a kind of therapy.” Health benefits of social nudity include stress reduction, satiation of curiosity about the human body, reduction of porn addiction, a sense of full-body integration and developing a wholesome attitude about the opposite gender. Research at the University of Northern Iowa discovered that nudists have significantly higher body self-acceptance. Another study concluded that teens at a New York nudist camp were “extraordinarily well-adjusted, happy, and thoughtful.” It’s also excellent for children to grow up free of shame about the human body.

Tolerant Views.
A University of Central Florida 2008 study of 384 participants concluded that pro-nudity students “were significantly more accepting of other religious groups and gays and lesbians” when compared to the anti-nudity students. They were also “less prejudiced towards ethnically dissimilar others.”

Soothe Away Your Crazies.
Massage is recognized as a therapeutic treatment for mental health issues like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolarism, borderline personality disorder, learning difficulties, and low self-esteem. The skin stimulation of massage — improving blood flow and detoxifying the lymph system — is duplicated by the warmth, freedom, and improved circulation generated in nakedness.

Soak Up The Rays
Vitamin D deficiency is currently soaring, with up to 75% of USA teens and adults receiving insufficient amounts of the “sunshine vitamin.” Lack of this essential health aid is a factor in numerous ailments, including cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes. Anyone who bares all outside as a “naturist” harvests larger amounts of Vitamin D in a quicker time span.

Just dont forget the suntan lotion!

Financial Liberation.
Clothes are a huge money and time-suck with shopping, laundry, closets, dressers, and gazillions of hours wasted wondering what so-and-so looks like with their garments removed. The global markets for swimsuits alone is expected to reach $17.6 billion annually by 2015; our carbon footprint would shrink like a wool sweater if fabric was no longer manufactured.

Longevity (just joking!).
Have you noticed that the furry Norway Rat only lives 2-3 years, while the Naked Mole Rat survives to be 28?
So… is the future going to be full frontal? Will the post-Singularity planet be stripped? Will everyone in a climate-controlled tomorrow choose to be nude, strutting around like the Nuba dancers and boxers of Leni Reifenstahl?

Trends point to an era where there won’t be a stitch to worry about. Many resort areas are are now offering nudism to increase tourism, and American naturist clubs claim their enrollment is growing 20% annually. The German airline OssiUrlaub.de offered nude chartered flights to a Baltic sea resort, and today’s lengthy luggage searches at airports are steering travelers to destinations where they only need carry-on towels and sunblock. Twenty million Europeans already go to nude beaches and spas.

Getting goosebumps imagining it, are you?

Post by Volunteer and Advocate Gabriele Giordano.

(Disclaimer: Whilst we value the scientific evidence and views presented in this article, The venus project is not suggesting that all people regardless of the environmental conditions in which they live subscribe to total nudity as a way of life, especially in colder climates and accept no responsibility for frost bitten bottoms, sunburn or any other condition caused from removing their usual climate protection clothing)

Ever since Google began designing its self-driving cars, they’ve wanted to build cars that go beyond the capabilities of human-piloted vehicles, cars that are much, much safer. When Sebastian Thrun announced the project in 2010, he wrote, “According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half.”

New data indicate that Google’s on the right path. Earlier this week the company announced that the self-driving cars have now logged some 300,000 miles and “there hasn’t been a single accident under computer control.” (The New York Times did note in a 2010 article that a self-driving car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light, so Google must not be counting the incidents that were the fault of flawed humans.)

For comparison, in the United States in 2009 there were 10.8 million traffic collisions, according to the Census Bureau. That same year, American cars logged some 2.954 trillion miles, for a collision rate of about .365 per 100,000 vehicle miles traveled. Now, you can’t directly compare the two figures. Google’s cars have been tested in pretty hospitable conditions, not facing, for example, the rigors of a New England winter. And, as Google engineer Chris Urmson, writes, they still “need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter.” Additionally, the cars are still driving with “occasional” human control. But at the very least, the Google cars are slowly building a pretty good-looking driving record.

This technology is still at its very early stages and 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. According to a “cursory” analysis by Bryant Walker Smith of Stanford Law School, “Google’s cars would need to drive themselves (by themselves) more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles.” We’re still a long way away from there.

Legally — and ethically — we will need to grapple with the questions about safety standards for autonomous machines. As Smith said to me over email, “How well must these vehicles ultimately perform? Perfectly? Or something less — an average human driver, a perfect human driver, or a computer with human oversight? And how should this be measured?” And, perhaps toughest of all, how will we make those decisions, and, really, who will make them?

Article Source:  Rebecca J. Rosen

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/googles-self-driving-cars-300-000-miles-logged-not-a-single-accident-under-computer-control/260926/

In the second Star Wars prequel, Attack Of The Clones, C3PO walks into a droid factory and exclaims, “Machines building machines? How perverse!” Although it may be an abomination to a fictional robot, for the Japanese camera maker Canon, a fully automated factory is good business sense.

Recently, the company announced that over the next few years, some of its camera factories will phase out human workers in an effort to reduce costs. That means robots will soon be making the next generation of cameras, possibly as soon as 2015.

In an effort to convince the public that this move doesn’t mean layoffs at Canon, the company’s spokesman Jun Misumi said, “When machines become more sophisticated, human beings can be transferred to do new kinds of work,” according to the Associated Press.

Even for Japan, globalization has led to exporting manufacturing jobs to countries where labor costs are lower, like China and India. So this announcement is a validation that robots are cheaper than humans for a manufacturing company, as long as the robotics technology is sophisticated enough to mimic human actions.

Fortunately, Japan has become one of the leaders in robotics development, so Canon is confident that it can achieve full automation of at least some factories, perhaps by taking some of the more exotic robots that have been developed and learning to make them more practical, as was done a few years ago with a strawberry-picking robot.

When companies like Canon and others around the world venture into more automated workforces, concerns arise quickly about human job loss. But Misumi has a point about how human beings should be doing new kinds of work.

Take, for instance, this video of young non-robotic workers packing playing cards into unfolded boxes and ask yourself, “Is this the only contribution to society these individuals have to offer?”:

Amidst the growing pains of societies across the globe adjusting to robots replacing humans in factories, the reality is that manual labor jobs will be, and arguably, should be done by robots, allowing people to explore the new kinds of work that Misumi alludes to. What is this work? It’s not entirely clear yet, but it certainly has the potential to draw on a much fuller set of an individual’s talents than before.

Watch this video on YouTube.

Article Source: http://singularityhub.com/2012/06/06/canon-camera-factory-to-go-fully-automated-phase-out-human-workers/