In a world where “all things cloud” are connected; you can reduce overhead costs of onsite labor. According to American Community Survey (2021), “remote workers are substantially more productive than onsite workers.”
Read more…
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (Apr. 2025) | Percentage of laborers working all hours remotely
In 1964, Paul Baran created the theory of a distributed network. The theory was proposed as part of research for Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) by Rand Corporation, with the intention of creating a communication network with no command point to prevent nuclear attacks on its airborne fleet(s).
Within ARPA’s research, the concept of a packet switching network was introduced by Leonard Kleinrock who used it to send a message from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to Standford. In 1965, Lawrence Roberts, a chief scientist for ARPA research, designed a small-scale network infrastructure that allowed two computers located in two different places to communicate. The two computers were linked using a single phone line and a modem enabling the transfer of digital data called “packets,” thus, ARPANET, now called the Internet, was born.
Bob Kan and Vint Kerf expanded the theory of “packet switching” in 1974, with the introduction of Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol (TCP / IP). The concept of digital data transferred in packets would later be described by Vint Kerf (2007) as, “the infrastructure that gets things from point A to point B.”
In 1983, the Domain Name System (DNS) was invented by Paul Mockapetris and Jon Postel at the University of Southern California (USC). The purpose being to create a centralized system that converts domain names into internet protocol (IP) for Internet communication.
ARPANET’s research was later refined and expanded through the use of communication standards such as Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) by Tom Berners Lee, eminent of the World Wide Web (1989). The concept exploded into internet browsing applications when Marc Anderson created the first widely used Mosaic browser.
ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990; however, the Internet landscape created in its wake now reaches space in its imaginative creation, crossing earth and country borders with limitless boundaries through remote satellite driven technologies.
Recent technological advancements caused some major cataclysmic events that forever changed the way we work in our environments. Therefore, we have designed our web pages to remedy the social behavior of those – not so security conscious.
In our move toward newer technology, our experience in programming languages and technical writing has managed to get us through the simple stuff. Today’s technologies just are not known to be feature rich and cost efficient. Our page travels assessed web content for mobile and desktop environments. We found many cross-platform challenges.
As a viewer of our web pages, you may not see everything you expect in bold magazine style layouts. The fact is, as a one-man development team, our basic box-style pages just are not any different than what the big boys let us develop. But…, the vision is here – in our maps, web forms, chatbot, content style, and video.
We like our videos to be viewable to all. By default, the videos on our pages are set to auto select quality. Set your video player to the best quality for better visuals.
How To:
On the YouTube video player, click the Settings wheel located to the lower right of the screen.
Click the Quality setting. A Quality selection panel displays.
Select the appropriate setting: 1080p50HD. Once the Quality is set, objects display with clarity.
The threat of artificial intelligence rears its head as recent phenomena targeted toward courtroom proceedings. Its story, covered by DailyMail.com on September 22, 2017, boasts scientific design of “a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict over 70 percent of Supreme Court decisions. “
So how much of this technology is artificial intelligence and a threat to society? We can assess this based on previous courtroom decisions. In 1977, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded decision in Gardner v. Florida. “The Petitioner was denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed by the Florida Supreme Court, at least in part, on the basis of information that he had no opportunity to deny or explain,” stated Justice Stevens. The information utilized in the case was an informational report which held information of which Gardner was unaware.
On July 13, 2016, a similar report was utilized for sentencing of Eric M. Loomis and evaluated on appeal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The report was comprised of a proprietary algorithm utilized by the COMPAS system which scales violence and recidivism risk principles as part of case triage. In its opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated, “The court of appeals certified the specific question of whether the use of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing violates a defendant’s right to due process, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account.” The court determined, “if used properly, observing the limitations and cautions set forth herein, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process,” further explaining its reasoning for decision was supported by other independent factors; thus, the risk assessment use was not a determinate.
Highlights on the use of artificial intelligence were issued by the New York Times on May 1, 2017; in a conversation with Chief Justice G. Roberts Jr., a reporter asks, “Can you foresee a day when smart machines, driven with artificial intelligence will assist with courtroom fact-finding or, more controversially even, judicial decision-making.” The article discusses in minor detail, the outcome of State of Wisconsin v. Eric M. Loomis (2016); finalizing statements of concern on secrecy and technology impact on the judicial society.
Based on the concept of use shown in State of Wisconsin v. Eric M. Loomis, the technology discussed, is not artificial intelligence in composition. The COMPAS report requires human interaction from the offender and runs on a set of pre-determined risks which may or may not fit the offender taking the assessment. Today’s concept of Artificial Intelligence, implies “a machine that thinks for itself;” this is not quite the same as machine-learning in scientific standards of robotics versus assessment tools. Data is gathered through human interactive processes and stored in the machine’s memory. Data is then run through human interaction and provides comparative results. Analysis tools like COMPAS have always been in circulation; prominently shown in discussion surrounding defense attorney Susan Flanders in Harrington v. State, No. 05-1351 (2007); State v. Harrington, 03-0824 (2004), a case which innovated criminal litigation’s use of the trial and mental competency assessment in its wake of judicial decision.
