In a world where all things “cloud,” are connected; why put up with the overhead costs of onsite labor? According to an American Community Survey in 2020 – 2021, “remote workers work substantially longer hours per week than on-site workers.”
In the corporate environment, situation norms where remote labor works include security, disaster recovery, communications, and live test or development. Approximately 16% of the U.S. population of employers, employs remote labor. For corporate abroad environments, remote labor helps reduce the costs of overpopulation, unethical labor practices, onsite risk, travel costs and much more.
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.
Have you ever watched a technical training video on how to implement a software development kit and realized that you learned nothing? The reasons for this could be because there just was not enough information, the speaker’s tone of voice put you to sleep, or the speaker was speaking so fast that you could not determine the steps required.
Bad development experiences can lead to product purchase refusals. For this reason, many consumers today want more than just a video for their complex web-based development projects. Not only is documentation such as a user guide needed for in-person and video training, but scripts and outlines of what should be presented. Training videos are great if you have the time and money to develop training properly. But in most cases, that prize engineer that knows everything about your product will not be the right resource for delivering the training to a customer.
As technical writers, we work to get the most out of the information needed to develop content for complex technical topics and have worked with some pretty advanced subject matter experts. We often assist in testing the usability of a product through documenting it. Our assistance can help make a difference in how your application is delivered and perceived by customers.
What sells technology better than the people who use it every day…, without a person that understands your technology, or has the ability to conceptualize it; writing a proposal, user manual, or online help system on that technology is not built on facts but rather vague marketing jargon.
For example, here is a statement from a marketing advertisement that states, “Solutions that improve efficiency, ensure safety and drive performance by delivering unparalleled operational and compliance support.”
Can anyone really discern that this statement is factual about a product being promoted and sold “as is” in web application development? There is a variant for every social media platform, as there is a variant for your web application design. There is nothing “exceptional” in the concept of being sold “as is”.
Add direction to how your content is being promoted, by sticking to factual statements. The industry frowns on piecemealed applications that promote compliance when there is no actual compliance value in buying a piece of an application to create another product.
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.
When you think about remote technology, you don’t commonly think about the oil and gas platform. The oil and gas platform, commonly referred to as an offshore platform; is a large structure that is utilized for exploration, extraction, storage, and processing. Oil and gas platforms are found in many ocean waters; thus, have made a major impact in remote technology.
In 2016, the United States legitimized a five-year leasing plan which would allow oil and gas vendors to drill in its federal waters; allowing undiscovered, recoverable oil and gas resources to be recovered. Leasing sales would occur twice a year, per region. In 2017, the U.S. President, amended the five-year leasing plan to include federal waters in the Arctic and Atlantic regions; expanding the reach of the remote oil and gas platform.
Some of the most spectacular oil and gas platforms are found in the Gulf of Mexico region. For example, the USRA, a $1.45 billion oil-and-gas platform, lived 65 miles offshore; its total height from the seabed to its top was 4,285 feet. The Magnolia, reaching 4,698 feet, was considered the world’s deepest platform. In March 2018, Big Foot was introduced, replacing the Magnolia’s magnitude by 5,180 feet.
The expansion of offshore oil drilling by the federal government has created quite a stir among conservationists. For example, California recently passed Senate Bill 834 and Assembly Bill 1775 which prohibits the California State Lands Commission from approving any new leases, or any lease renewals, extensions or modifications of any lease in state waters that would result in an increase of oil or natsral gas production from federal waters. The amended pre-existing law had authorized the commission to let leases for the extraction of oil and gas from coastal tidelands or submerged lands in state waters and beds of navigable rivers and lakes within the state in accordance with specified provisions of law. New York state also proposed similar protections with Assembly Bill 9819 and Senate Bill 8017.
However, oil spills are an unavoidable part of offshore drilling. Each year, about 880,000 gallons of oil are sent to the ocean from North American offshore oil drilling platforms. Natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina also have caused destruction; which, in 2005, destroyed over 100 platforms and caused the release of 8 million gallons of oil into the ocean waters.
“In 2009, nearly a quarter, 23.6 percent of total U.S. employment in the oil and gas industry existed in Harris County, Texas;” states Bureau of Labor Statics. Therefore, the removal of the remote oil and gas platform in technology will be a hard battle for conservationists.
In 2004, the human microchip was advanced and approved by Food and Drug Administration and utilized by medical science to assist in the safe location and treatment of Alzheimer patients. The human microchip was inserted under the skin using a procedure that takes less than 20 minutes and leaves no stitches. By mid-2004, the human microchip technology was formally introduced for use on children as a prevention method against child abduction.
In January 2005, “students at a school district in Northern California, were forced to wear RFID-enabled ID badges as part of an “RFID test” done with the support of a company developing and manufacturing attendance reporting and security systems. The badges were issued without the parents’ consent, and allowed the school to track and maintain records of students’ movements on campus.”
Human microchip technology has had many roadblocks since the incident in Northern California, because the RFID monitors movement of a child and vital record. Civil liberties argue that the ability to track people would create “a world where law enforcement officials could read the contents of a person’s handbag, without a person’s knowledge, by simply installing RFID;” indicating the abusive nature of the technology.
However, there are also limitations in frequency ranges provided by the technology which may prohibit proper localization of a child in a situation of abduction. For example, at 128 frequency levels a child could not realistically be located if abducted within 10 miles from a system reader.
The RFID system reader relies on a scanner similar to the ones found in a grocery store when implanted under the skin. Additionally, various reports returned on the testing of animals indicate the human microchip can be expelled or cause infection, scarring and even cancer.
In 2019, the human microchip technology still exists in medical science, as does its privacy breach concerns for use. There were in 424,066 NCIC entries for missing children reported in 2018; as a double-edged sword, human microchip technology fails us based on the same reasons for which it was built. The question of whether human microchip technology can effectively assist in child abduction investigations has not yet been answered.
We all know about the history of the Hippocratic oath, you know the one physicians take that state they are sworn to “save lives and administer healing to the best of their ability and judgment;” but, how does that play ethically in the law sciences?
In 2017, two members of a political party, a police officer and district attorney participated in a courtroom attack on an innocent man and his family in defense of an illegal immigrant that entered the country under Visa Sponsorship of Marriage, left her new husband and then claimed “domestic violence.” The woman they defended had only been in the country for three months, had absolutely nothing but a character evidence sheet in her case file when the case went to trial and had missed trial court hearing three times when called via subpoena.
The police officer was shown on video,” leading the woman termed as the “complainant” to press charges using the “no habla inglés” method. In other words, the court case was issued purely on hearsay; built on the conversation of others who spoke English i.e., a woman termed to be a “victim’s advocate” and the police officer.
In the video, the alleged “victim’s advocate” defends the complainant’s rights to visa amnesty by stating, “VAWA was made for women like the complainant” and then proceeded to make unverifiable statements about the defendant’s ex-wife, children and grandchildren; stating the ex-wife, a woman who raised three children to adulthood with a respect for education and employment, and was gainfully employed throughout most of her marriage to the defendant; had lived a bad home life.
The complainant that the alleged “victim’s advocate” defended was thirty-eight years old, had been arranged in marriage at least three times previously, never held a job or education, and never bore children.
Translation of the complainant’s statements, which were deliberately made in another language, show the complainant randomly stated, “the defendant asked the complainant to help him take care of his three and five year old granddaughters on one weekend occasion and found this to be abusive behavior on the part of the defendant.”
“The woman was never thrown out of any home or battered, and had ample time to leave the home while the defendant was at work if she was in danger; the nearest neighbor was three feet away from the front door of the home,” stated the witness that took the side of the defendant.
The witness herself held a 1995 protective order which was violated for many years; thus, she was not an advocate of the new domestic violence laws as her 1995 case had evidence of physical violence committed against her which had been shown in photographs in the case file. Further stating that her own protective order was issued using her legal name; “the complainant’s side of the case, both in divorce and criminal proceedings, showed absolutely no legal maiden name usage and no protective order hearing.”
The witness felt she had been specifically targeted by local area prosecutors at the time of the district court proceedings, as she was called in to attend Federal Jury duty on another more high profile case; the state court called her around the same time for attendance, placing the witness for the defendant at high risk through her appearance in courtrooms.
In 2018, the police officer and district attorney involved in the case lost their seats during the national mid-term elections. It was found that the initial district attorney that participated in the 2017 attack on the defendant was diagnosed with a mental illness in 2016. Nevertheless, the attack by the local area police never stopped on the defendant’s family; five women and a man that were a part of the defendant’s family which were either deceased, children, retired or gainfully employed who refused to believe the defendant was portrayed fairly were slandered via the courtroom proceeding by the police officer and the alleged “victim’s advocate.”
The defendant’s case was slightly reduced shortly after appeal petitions were completed via another district court proceeding. However, during appeals, the nursing board would attempt to remove the defendant’s licensing, altering judgment through its interference based on a police report that had been modified more than five times by prosecutors since the report had been filed in 2013. The nursing board threw away the US citizen termed “defendant,” his education and employment based on a mentally unstable district attorney, non-licensed victim’s advocate and police officer who built their case through the enjoyment of cruelty.
When you read news of cryptocurrency all you see is images of a gaudy gold coin that looks like it belongs in a gambling slot machine; but, not in your pocket. Industry providers are pushing this technology as the next level in the financial market, complete with advanced user exchange platforms that include two-factor authentication and encrypted Transport Layer Security i.e., secure hypertext transfer protocol that leverages HTTP Strict Transport Security and content-security policies that are found in most browsers; it promises the best in gambling on money.
The industry itself is stated to be highly volatile since its birthing in the 2017 Asian market even though recent financial news reports indicate that the blockchain market has “risen” in value in the year 2019. Originally introduced in Kiev, Ukraine; the bitcoin was invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 as a cross national payment system to be used in cryptographic technique.
But, this doesn’t exactly explain cryptocurrency, does it? Cryptocurrency is a digital currency that is transaction secure; the decentralized nature of blockchain makes cryptocurrency virtually immune to interference. It is encrypted using an encryption key via a T-data transaction, that subsequently routes a pointer, which is a SHA-256 hash of data, to an off-blockchain, key-value store. The pointer is then verified by its digital signature based on user and the servicing store, which is a distributed hashtable, with added LevelDB2 persistence and an interface to the blockchain. The blockchain being tamper-free, is built on an assumption that requires a sufficiently large network of untrusted network peers.
Cryptocurrency differs in the financial market due to its decentralized, cryptographic nature in technology; though a centralized cloud may be utilized to store data through third-party trust to the blockchain platform.
