How are super computers being used these few decades and into the future?
MAPPING WAR STRATEGY--EXTREMELY TARGETED URBAN WARFARE BY DRONES
DEEP STATE SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY WITH MEGA DATA COLLECTED AND PROFILED ON ALL CITIZENS
ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID OPERATIONS BEING DEVELOPED BECAUSE THEY NEED THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE X AND PLANETARY COLONIZATION
URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CITIES FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY
Now, each of these reasons for having super-duper computers is NOT IN THE COMMON GOOD. Taking all power of public policy and community planning to a global 1% is never good for 99% of citizens. War stances are never good especially geared towards urban warfare with drones. Spending every bit of a nations/GLOBAL CITY STATE'S revenue funding planetary colonization will make these few decades of soaring DEFENSE INDUSTRY BUDGETS look like child's play.
COMMON GOOD can be found in health care and medical advances when mapping human genome----understanding complex body systems---creating BIOLOGIC treatments. KNOW WHAT? It is only COMMON GOOD when all our health research was tied to PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES---FEDERAL HEALTH AGENCIES THAT WERE NOT PRIVATIZED. Now we see all that super-duper body modelling being patented and privatized at every step. Citizens are now not able to decide what treatment, where, or how----and 99% of US and global citizens will not be able to ACCESS OR AFFORD these super-duper computer modeled medical treatments.
THAT IS NOT COMMON GOOD-----TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THESE SUPER-DUPER COMPUTERS FOR GLOBAL MEDICAL CORPORATE PROFITS.
Below we see an article written by a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE grad saying PATENTING IS NOT ENOUGH----so more laws are being pushed to kill PUBLIC HEALTH and make our bodies subject to corporate medicine with no control.
When Patents Aren’t Enough: The Case for Data Exclusivity for Biologic Medicines
By Dr. Kristina Lybecker
July 9, 2014
Biologic medicines are fundamentally different from traditional “small molecule” therapies, presenting a host of new challenges in the design and enforcement of the intellectual property (IP) architecture that will protect them. Protecting the intellectual property of biologics is complicated, difficult, and essential to the future of medicine. This new frontier is also one of the remaining hurdles in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Agreement negotiations. The debate over protecting biologics focuses on a proposed twelve years of data exclusivity and the consequences this will have for international trade, global public health, and access to medicines.
The nuances of producing biologics greatly complicate the logistics of protecting their intellectual property, making patents alone inadequate for safeguarding their IP. Data exclusivity protection allows for a period of time following marketing approval during which competing firms may not use the innovative firm’s safety and efficacy data, from proprietary preclinical and clinical trial results, to obtain marketing authorization for a generic version of the drug. From the moment when the compound first shows medicinal promise, data is generated and compiled, a process that is both expensive and time consuming. Data exclusivity provides the innovative firm with a period of protection for their investment in clinical trials and data collection, regardless of the length of time required to bring the drug to market.
Although complementary, patents and data exclusivity protection incentivize innovation in different ways and serve distinct purposes. Patents provide protection for innovations that meet the standards of patentability and are novel, nonobvious, and useful. In the context of biopharmaceuticals, patents protect both breakthrough discoveries as well as incremental improvements. Due to the length of the drug-development and patent-approval processes, effective patent terms rarely correspond to FDA approval. Accordingly, in some cases innovative therapies may experience patent expiry shortly after making it to market. In contrast, data exclusivity protects the tremendous investments of time, talent, and financial resources required to establish a new therapy as safe and effective. This is accomplished by requiring competing firms seeking regulatory approval of the same or a similar product to independently generate the comprehensive preclinical and clinical trial data rather than rely on or use the innovator’s data to establish safety and efficacy of their competing product.
Alternatively, the competing firm may wait a set period of time after which they are able to utilize the innovator’s prior approval in an abbreviated regulatory approval, eliminating the need for independently generated data. Data exclusivity is not an extension of patent rights, and it does not preclude a third party from introducing a generic version of the innovator’s therapy during the data exclusivity period, provided that the innovator’s data is not used to secure marketing approval. Fundamentally, data exclusivity protection incentivizes biopharmaceutical firms to invest the necessary time and financial resources in establishing the safety and efficacy of their product and prevents competitors from free riding on these efforts for a limited period of time.
The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 provided innovative drug firms with a period of patent extension as well as a period of data exclusivity, in the hopes of providing a return on their investment and an incentive for future innovation. These protections have been crucial to the development of the innovative drugs and therapies that currently enhance and extend life. They are even more critical to the future of the biopharmaceutical industry and the development of biologic medicines that are more targeted and more complex. In an analysis of the appropriate length of data exclusivity, a financial model was utilized to determine how long the exclusivity period must be to provide a typical pioneer biologic a positive return on investment. Drawing on a representative portfolio of pioneer biologics, the break-even period ranges from thirteen to sixteen years.
An appropriate period of protection is essential if the promise of biologics is to come to fruition. Beyond the importance of biologics to public health and longevity, innovation is crucial to trade and economic prosperity. As evidence of the importance of these sectors, in 2011 IP-intensive industries exported more than $1 trillion in goods and services, which accounts for approximately seventy-four percent of total 2011 U.S. exports. Moreover, the biopharmaceutical industry is a significant contributor. The biopharmaceutical industry of the United States is the fourth-largest U.S. exporter among IP-intensive industries, with exports valued at $49.4 billion in 2010. Accordingly, the TPP Trade Agreement should include the proposed twelve years of data exclusivity and provide innovative firms with the incentives needed to continue to invest in the breakthrough therapies that will extend and enhance life for years to come.
Technology inevitably evolves faster than the legal architecture that surrounds it. The provision of data exclusivity protections is a straightforward legal step to catch up to the science that brings us biologic medicines. Biologic medicines are critical to the healthcare advances of the future, and data exclusivity is vital to innovative biologics. The period of data exclusivity provides innovators with an incentive to invest in the testing data necessary to prove a drug’s safety and efficacy by granting them a measure of certainty that they will enjoy a fixed amount of time during which they maintain proprietary control of the test data that resulted in the approval of its drug before requiring that data be made available to generic imitators. As technology changes to enable the development of new biologic vaccines and therapies, intellectual property protection must also evolve to ensure protection for these products. If we believe in the importance of biologic medicines for the future of healthcare, we must protect them.
The US used to have public universities open to all ---tied to our planetarium/astronomy science departments. This gave 99% of citizens those beautiful photos from HUBBLE----those DEEP WATER photos using telescopic science underwater. What we see today with SUPER-DUPER computers is the need to privatize research results-----no longer sharing scientific discovery with global academics---because all is now able to be patented.
The Affordable Care Act and Trans Pacific Trade Pact MOVING FORWARD no matter what the KABUKI THEATER OF TRUMP VS PUPPET CONGRESS pretends----makes sure to protect DEREGULATED, PRIVATIZED GLOBAL MEDICINE AND PATENTS especially BIOLOGIC ---using taxpayer-funded super-duper computers to model complex body systems.
NO, THIS IS NOT COMMON GOOD.
Researchers have created a breakthrough model biological supercomputer
March 3, 2016
Researchers from the EU-funded ABACUS project have created a model biological supercomputer that is both sustainable and highly energy efficient.
The model bio-supercomputer is powered by adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the substance that provides energy to all of the cells in a human body. The model is able to process information extremely quickly and accurately using parallel networks, in the same fashion that electronic supercomputers are able to process information.
However, the bio-supercomputer developed by the project team is much smaller and more energy efficient than the current generation of electronic supercomputers, being only the size of a standard-sized book.
The model bio-supercomputer was created with a combination of geometrical modelling and engineering expertise on the nano-scale. Importantly, it is the first step in showing that a biological supercomputer could realistically work in practice.
Small, portable and energy efficient
The circuit created by the researchers is around 1.5 cm square and instead of electrons being propelled by an electrical charge, as is the case with a traditional microchip, short strings of proteins (called 'biological agents' by the project team) travel around the circuit in a controlled way. These movements are powered by ATP, a biochemical that enables internal energy transfer among cells.
Traditional supercomputers use a large amount of electricity and thus heat up to such high temperatures that they need to be physically cooled in order to function effectively. To do this, many supercomputers often require their own dedicated power plant.
In contrast, due to being run by biological agents, the bio-supercomputer hardly heats up at all and is consequently much more sustainable and cost-effective. As the technology is developed further over the coming years and possible routes to larger-scale commercialisation are considered, this could become a major selling-point.
Calculating answers to major societal issues
Although the model bio-supercomputer has successfully and efficiently tackled a complex mathematical problem by using parallel computing in the same fashion as traditional supercomputers, the project team recognises that there is still a long way to go between the model and the development of a full-scale functional bio-supercomputer.
It is hoped that an eventual shift to bio-supercomputers will provide solutions to the growing problem of traditional supercomputers being increasingly unable to quickly calculate answers to some of society's most pressing issues, such as the development of new drugs and ensuring that engineering systems work as they are supposed to. For these problems, computers have to simply go through all of the possible guesses before reaching the correct answer. This means that if the problem size increases even modestly, the computer can no longer solve it quickly enough to be useful.
Next steps: From science fiction to science
The project team has already begun to explore other avenues on how to push their research even further, and hope that other scientists will be encouraged to also construct new models using alternative biological materials.
The eventual goal would be to perfect the design for a new generation of smaller, more portable and more energy efficient bio-supercomputers that can fully replace traditional supercomputers.
Although the research team believes that it will still take some time for this to become a reality, a potential mid-term solution would be to produce a hybrid design, mixing traditional and biological technologies.
The ABACUS project, which received over EUR 1, 725, 000 of EU funding, is coordinated by Lunds University in Sweden, but the research that led to the creation of the model was spearheaded by a team at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, one of the ABACUS consortium members.
Hollywood and TV at the service again of global banking already has its series of SPACE DOCTORS-----what most super-duper computer modeling is being used to address---is SPACE TRAVEL----MAINTENANCE OF HEALTH FOR SPACE TRAVELERS AND PLANETARY COLONISTS.
When we shout that massive solar panel arrays are not environmental--and they are not able a long-term energy solution for 99% of people but simply a stage of SPACE ENERGY RESEARCH being applied temporary today on Earth----this is what SUPER-DUPER SPACE MEDICINE does as well----
While today's global citizens are denied access to ordinary health care -----making it affordable means having more taxpayer money to spend on futuristic medicine for a few-----all revenue that used to fund public health for US citizens and quality health care is now being spent on SUPER-DUPER COMPUTERS---SPACE HEALTH MODELING----
Don't get angry if you are left without health care at 99% of white, black, or brown citizens----HOLD THOSE 5% TO THE 1% GLOBAL WALL STREET CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA POLS AND PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE!
Can we do both space health and cover 99% of citizens with the quality of health care access we have had in US through modern history? OF COURSE WE COULD---but the super-duper computer network and infrastructure is costing more than the Department of Defense budget.
6 Ways Medicine in Space is Completely Different from on Earth
Jun 26, 2015
You may or may not want to go to space, but here's something certain: you definitely don't want to get sick there. Ask the crew of Apollo 7, the 1960s mission in which the commander contracted a cold, spread it to the other two astronauts and all three of them spent the entire mission trapped inside a cramped spacecraft, sneezing, hacking and griping at the ground.
And that was just 11 days in Earth orbit. What about a year aboard the International Space Station (ISS)? What about a two-and-a-half-year mission to Mars. And what about something a wee bit more serious than a cold—like appendicitis or a heart attack or a severe injury? Zero-gravity plays all manner of nasty games with the bones, muscles, organs, eyeballs, the brain itself—never mind the infectious risks that come from sealing half a dozen people inside a self-contained vessel, where a virus or bacterium could simply circulate 'round and 'round, from person to person indefinitely.
These are some of the things that will be on the mind of rookie astronaut Kjell Lindgren, who will spend nearly six months aboard the ISS when he lifts off in late July as part of the station's next three-person crew. Lindgren is not just a well-trained astronaut, but a specialist in aerospace and emergency medicine—just the kind of expert who will increasingly be needed as the human presence in space becomes permanent.
"If we want to go to Mars some day," Lindgren said in a recent conversation with TIME, "if we want to get further and deeper into the solar system, we need to start thinking about these things, thinking about the capabilities we need to do an appendectomy or take out a gall bladder."
There will be no gall bladder or appendix takings while Lindgren is aloft. For now, he and the ISS flight doctors back on Earth are taking only space-medicine baby steps, learning the basics about the radical differences between medical care on the Earth and medical care off it.
Here are a few of the most vexing problems they have to learn to solve:
1. Where is that kidney again? On Earth, your organs settle into predictable positions. A doctor palpating your liver or thumping your chest knows exactly where things ought to be. In zero-g, not so much. "The organs may be displaced a little bit," says Lindgren. "They tend to shift up a little more. The heart may have a little bit of a different orientation, which may be reflected on an EKG." Other kinds of shifting or compression—of the lungs, stomach, bladder and more—can cause problems of their own.
2. Your bones hate space: Without the constant tug of gravity, your skeleton doesn't work nearly as hard, which causes it to weaken and decalcify. Astronauts spend many hours a week exercising to counteract some of that, but nothing can reverse it completely. When Russia's Mir space station was still flying, newly arriving cosmonauts were warned not to exchange traditional bear hugs with crew members who had been there for a while. The risk: broken ribs.
3. Your eyes do too: Astronauts who have been in space for long-term stays often find that their vision grows worse, and it doesn't always bounce completely back when they return to Earth. The problem is caused by fluid shifting upward from the lower body into the head, compressing the optic nerve and distorting the shape of the eyeball. Eye infections and irritation are more common too—for decidedly ick-inducing reasons. "Dust doesn't settle in the vehicle like it does on Earth," says Lindgren. "So things that are liberated, little pieces of metal from equipment or maybe dead skin just float around and cause eye irritation."
4. But your feet will thank you: You know all of those callouses that you've built up on your heel and the ball of your foot after a lifetime of walking around? Say goodbye too them. They serve a purpose, which is to cushion your foot against the shock of walking, but since you're not walking in space, you don't need them. Just beware when you remove your socks. The callouses don't tell you when they're going to slough off, so the wrong move at the wrong time could leave unsightly chunks of you floating around the cabin. (See, e.g., "ick-inducing," above.)
5. Try not to need stitches: Suturing wounds is one of the most basic things doctors and other medical caregivers learn how to do, but it will take a little extra work in space. On Earth, sutures are simply laid on a tray along with the other equipment. In space, that's not possible. "Instead of your sterile suture thread laying in a sterile field, now it's floating around and running into everything," says Lindgren. While aloft, Lindgren plans to experiment with different techniques to address this problem; no word on which of his five crewmates will volunteer to be the patient.
6. Eat your roughage: Easily the least glamorous part of space travel is the simple business of, well, doing your business. The space toilets aboard the ISS and the shuttle have come a long way from the bags and tubes of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo era. But the human body hasn't changed much in that time, and when it comes to keeping the intestines operating, a little gravity can help. One lunar astronaut who, for the sake of legacy and dignity will not be identified here, claimed that one of the best parts about landing on the moon was that things that hadn't been working at all when he was in zero-g, got moving right away in the one-sixth gravity of the moon. History is made by mortals, and no matter where they are, mortals gotta' do what mortals gotta' do.
NO ONE WILL HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE one of the doctors here in Baltimore said in 2010 during all of AFFORDABLE CARE ACT Congressional discussions-----we shouted the same because NO-----99% of citizens WILL HAVE NO HEALTH INSURANCE----
Medical debt goes down when we cannot afford to access it say global 1%-----any attempt at calling US health insurance coverage HEALTH CARE FOR ALL will simply be UNITED NATIONS PREVENTATIVE CARE ONLY.
This is the dynamics today while ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID and SPACE X PLANETARY MEDICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT replaces actual health care for 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE.
THIS IS NOT COMMON GOOD----WE DO NOT NEED SUPER-DUPER COMPUTER MODELING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENTS ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD.
We knew all major health insurance gone global would not be in these state health systems----we will only see the health insurance corporations called SOCIAL BENEFIT-----that EVERGREEN in MARYLAND. This will segue into a ONE WORLD ONE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION system.
What are global 1% telling WE THE PEOPLE is the common good of super-duper computer modeling for complex body systems will be-----we will get to be connected to TELEMEDICINE where our health care will resemble trying to get consumer response from a global CALL CENTER.
Insurers are leaving Texas' health coverage market, but other states are in worse shape
Filed under Health Care at Jun 16
Get Daily Dallas News Headlines
Eight health insurers have formally exited Texas’ individual market for health coverage, a blow to competition in the Obamacare insurance exchange north of Dallas, in Cooke, Fannin and Grayson counties along the Texas-Oklahoma border.
Statewide, though, the eight companies account for only 4 percent of the individual market, said Texas Department of Insurance spokesman Ben Gonzalez.
Still, because the withdrawals are effective for at least five years, they amount to a near-permanent shunning of a potentially lucrative book of business, both inside and outside the exchange, in the nation’s second-most-populous state.
The exits are likely to stoke the already sky-high anxiety of consumers and providers as well as insurance company officials about which insurers will remain in Texas’ individual market, to what extent and at what cost.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas is the anchor of the state's Obamacare exchange — and appears to be sticking, despite questions about continued federal subsidies for low-income customers.
Secretive talks in the U.S. Senate over the American Health Care Act, the proposed bill to replace Obamacare, and uncertainty about whether President Donald Trump’s administration will continue paying subsidies for low-income purchasers’ out-of-pocket costs have raised many questions about market stability.
Insurers have already begun scaling back options in other states, once again citing millions in losses from the Affordable Care Act.
Experts said Texas, where state GOP leaders have staunchly opposed the law and refused to run the exchange or encourage residents to buy in the exchange, is not immune to the attack of nerves.
The 'blues' are sticking
However, in a boost to the Texas exchange’s stability, it appears that the largest player, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, which is the only carrier selling in every county, will remain in the marketplace.
Blue Cross has submitted proposed products and rates for 2018 to the state insurance department, though it won’t finalize decisions on them until “early fall,” company spokesman Gustavo Bujanda said.
“We hope to again participate in the individual market, but haven't made any final decisions concerning our level of participation,” he said in a written statement.
However, top Austin health insurer lobbyist Jamie Dudensing strongly signaled Blue Cross will be back.
In a statement decrying how the eight carriers’ formal withdrawal notices “demonstrate deep instability in the individual market,” she noted the situation could be worse.
“Unlike some other states, every county in Texas will have at least one health insurance option,” said Dudensing, who is chief executive of the Texas Association of Health Plans.
Bujanda, asked if the carrier will sell exchange products in all 254 Texas counties next year, declined to comment.
Continued participation by Blue Cross is vital, said Cynthia Cox, who conducts economic and policy research on the Affordable Care Act for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
She noted that 45 counties in Ohio, Missouri and Washington face the prospect of having no insurer in those states’ exchanges next year.
In Texas, only two of the eight departing insurers, Humana and Prominence HealthFirst of Texas, were still selling in the state exchange this year, Cox noted.
No 'zero-insurance counties'
Assuming Blue Cross keeps selling border to border and no other insurers bail, there would be 97 counties with just one insurer in 2018 — up from 94 this year, she said. But there are no "zero-insurance counties" on the horizon yet, Cox said.
Along the Red River, Cooke, Fannin and Grayson counties would have just Blue Cross. Fourteen other counties, in the Panhandle and South Texas, would go from having three insurers to two, she said.
"It's a mixed bag, but it still would be a better situation than some other states are in," she said.Potentially more than offsetting the recent departures is the prospect that two insurers, Centene Corp. and Oscar Health, will expand their Texas footprint. Both have indicated they will, though vaguely.
On Tuesday, St. Louis-based Centene said despite market uncertainty, it is seeking regulatory approval to sell health plans in Texas and a handful of other targeted states in 2018. About 90 percent of its key demographic is eligible for subsidies, the announcement said. Nearly a year ago, when it appeared Fort Worth would have just one insurer in the exchange, Blue Cross, Centene expanded into Tarrant County.
New York-based Oscar, which was co-founded by the brother of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, withdrew last year from the individual market in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But it continued to operate in San Antonio and is scrutinizing new Texas markets.
Dudensing, the industry’s state trade group chief, said the individual market supplies coverage for about 1.5 million Texans. About two-thirds of them buy in Obamacare’s federally run marketplace, she said. The rest purchase policies that comply with the federal health law but outside the exchange. In addition, there’s an unknown number of Texans with “grandfathered” policies they began buying before the federal law passed in 2010.
Some brokers say carriers such as Humana no longer will offer the old, pre-Obamacare policies. The brokers complain they have too few exchange plans to offer customers. In no Texas county are more than four offered, and in 219 counties, there are just one or two, according to Kaiser’s Cox.
On Monday, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which run the Obamacare exchanges in most states, reported that about 963,000 Texans enrolled in a marketplace plan late last year or early this year and have followed up by paying their premiums.
Of them, 86 percent received a premium tax credit to assist with payments. Sixty-three percent received “cost sharing reductions” — the subsidies for low-income consumers that U.S. House Republicans have contended lack explicit legal authorization. Their future under Trump has been unclear.
Last year, several Texas health insurers requested steep rate hikes for 2017. Blue Cross sought increases of 56 percent to 59 percent on exchange products, while another insurer’s increase exceeded 70 percent. Because of the federal subsidies, most, though not all, consumers didn't feel the higher premiums' bite.
With continued federal funding of the cost sharing reductions uncertain, some states such as Iowa have requested waivers to revamp their Obamacare exchanges. Others such as Alaska and Minnesota are pushing ahead with state “reinsurance” programs that would limit rate increases. Texas leaders continue their hands-off approach, irking Dudensing and other industry figures.
Conservative Dallas health economist Devon Herrick, meanwhile, has predicted more trouble ahead for the Texas exchange.
“It’s essentially a poor risk pool, and with poverty comes health issues,” said Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. “So you have some populations that are inherently unprofitable.”
No one state has the entire solution, Herrick said.
"The overarching problem is that the current market is very unstable," he said.Liberal health insurance expert Stacey Pogue of the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities said Washington is responsible for the turbulence.
“Uncertainty being sown at the federal level — by the Senate writing a health care repeal bill in secret and the Congress and administration’s unwillingness to ensure payments due to insurers — is hurting consumers in Texas,” she said.
Find your county
To see which insurers participate in each county in the Obamacare exchange, by year, click on this Kaiser Family Foundation tool and select Texas and the year. "HCSC" is Chicago-based Health Care Service Corp., which owns Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas.
EPO is exclusive provider organization. Like a preferred provider organization or PPO, it lets you seek services without going through a gatekeeper doctor, which is the hallmark of a health maintenance organization, or HMO. But a PPO can cover some out-of-network visits, while an EPO and HMO do not, except in an emergency.
In 2016, there was one complete withdrawal, by Humana Insurance Co., and five “partial” withdrawals, in which the carrier pulled off the Obamacare exchange but did not make a full exit from the Texas individual insurance market. The partial withdrawals were by Aetna, Allegian, All Savers, Southwest Life & Health Insurance Co. and United Healthcare Life Insurance Co.
What they said ...Kaiser Family Foundation analyst Cynthia Cox: "It's a large number of companies exiting. Even if they are small companies, it's significant. It could be worse."
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas senior media manager Gustavo Bujanda: "We're working with regulators at the state and federal level to achieve a stable and sustainable market."
Centene Corp., on its expansion plans in Texas and four other states: "We are still working through the filing and review process. We will not have specific details until the review is complete."
Oscar Health chief executive Mario Schlosser: "We're confident that in the end, there will be a stable individual market next year. We're actively looking for ways to serve more members in new markets, including in the state of Texas."
Texas Association of Health Plans chief executive Jamie Dudensing: "Other states are proposing state-based solutions to address the stability of the market before the market goes from bad to worse. ... Moving forward, state policymakers need to examine state-based solutions in the wake of the federal government's inability to act."
Center for Public Policy Priorities senior policy analyst Stacey Pogue: "The companies that have announced plans to stop selling insurance to Texans not covered through their jobs cover a small share of the market today. But we may not yet know the full extent of how uncertainty caused by federal inaction will weaken the Texas market."
National Center for Policy Analysis senior fellow Devon Herrick: "The architects of the Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act are trying to fix the market. It's in our best interest to have a functioning market. We all have the same goal. But we have different ideas for how to achieve it."
Removing human emotion, compassion, and intuition from war-making is MOVING FORWARD to CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY----we are already there with CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---but MOVING FORWARD makes all this main stream in not only war but civil unrest. These super-duper military computer warfare modeling focuses especially on URBAN DRONE WARFARE because as CITIES AROUND THE WORLD are left to decay while new ones are built---there will be concentrated sovereign citizen anger and rebellion.......
Of course all that is INTERNET----SOCIAL MEDIA-----comes from DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE----all that internet was made open and free BECAUSE it was taxpayer funded. We are MOVING FORWARD to losing all access to any internet connections because we allowed ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID GLOBAL MONOPOLY for global online corporations only take control of all technology infrastructure development.
While a BRAIN -LIKE SUPER COMPUTER would likely be better than a 5% to the 1% sociopath global banking players---unfortunately those global 1% are PROGRAMMING THIS BRAIN-LIKE SUPER DUPER BIG DEAD HEAD.
'Brain-Like' Supercomputers Could Enable Better Defense Decision-Making
By Rick Docksai DoD News, Defense Media Activity
PRINT | E-MAIL | CONTACT AUTHOR WASHINGTON, Aug. 10, 2017 --
The human brain is remarkably efficient. Using a few dozen watts of energy, it performs information-processing functions that would take a conventional computer millions of watts to replicate. But a new Defense Department-funded IBM computer chip could enable machines to start catching up.
Qing Wu, an Air Force Research Laboratory principal electronics engineer, holds a TrueNorth computer chip at Department of Defense Lab Day, a biennial technology exhibit, at the Pentagon, May 18, 2017 DoD photo by Rick Docksai
The TrueNorth computer chip is a "neuromorphic" chip that mimics human neurons and performs unusually advanced computations using far less energy than conventional chips, said Qing Wu, principal electronics engineer at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The technology could be a huge boost for artificial intelligence-based defense systems and the human data analysts who use them, he added.
"This is about building more intelligent machines that will work with humans to make human operators and analysts be more effective and efficient when dealing with data," Wu said. "The major advantage of this chip is it runs machine learning algorithms -- the same ones as we run, the same functionality, same accuracy, but with much less power dissipation."
In June, IBM announced that it will build a new supercomputer powered by 64 TrueNorth chips for the Air Force Research Lab, which lab officials plan to use for analytics involving pattern and object recognition and “sensory processing” -- converting audio, video and other forms of data received by sensors into symbols that the computer can process. Though conventional computers can perform these tasks, they require huge numbers of processors, which consume heavy amounts of electricity.
TrueNorth brings the wattage down. Dharmendra Modha, the lead researcher of IBM’s brain-inspired computing group, reported in an article posted on the company's website that the TrueNorth chip uses no more than 70 milliwatts of power, which he said is “four orders of magnitude lower" than a conventional computer chip’s power consumption.
"The architecture … has the potential to revolutionize the computer industry by integrating brain-like capability into devices where computation is constrained by power and speed," Modha said in a statement in 2014, when IBM built the first chip.
A conventional chip has a central processing unit, but TrueNorth contains a million "neurons" that transmit data back and forth in a way similar to human brain neurons, Modha explained. The neurons communicate throughout the system using patterns of pulses similar to the way human neurons use electrochemical pulses, he said.
TrueNorth's neurons are packed in clusters inside interconnected "cores" across the chip, IBM officials said in the June 23 news release announcing the company's collaboration with the Air Force Research Lab. Each core also holds components for information storage, processing, and communication.
Dharmendra Modha, an IBM engineer, presents two basic neuromorphic computers that have 16 TrueNorth chips each at the IBM Almaden Research Center in San Jose, Calif., March 24, 2016. IBM is now building a scaled-up 64-chip computer for the Air Force Research Laboratory, equivalent to four of these pictured computers. It will be the largest array of TrueNorth chips yet built. Courtesy photo by Hita Bambhania-Modha
By contrast, a conventional chip stores information in a memory drive and processes it in the central processing unit, he said. It constantly shuttles the data back and forth between them and burns energy along the way. Because TrueNorth's cores do both data storage and data processing, these energy-intensive data swaps are eliminated.
The human brain also integrates thought and memory, Modha said, which partly explains why the average brain consumes only 20 watts of energy. The IBM Sequoia, one of the fastest conventional supercomputers, has less computing power than the brain and consumes 7.9 megawatts.
An AI Data-Analysis Partner
William Halal, a George Washington University professor of management, technology and innovation, and founder of the technology-forecasting think tank TechCast, said a neuromorphic computer like TrueNorth can "think" in ways few conventional computers can: It excels at parallel processing -- that is, running multiple calculations at once -- and interpreting, finding patterns or drawing conclusions from data, he said.
Halal pointed out that while these data-reading skills come naturally to humans, they're difficult for conventional computers. Where conventional computers store and process data, but need human users to tell them which data is most important and what to do with it, TrueNorth has no such limitations, he said. It could discern in advance what the user might want to know and gather data accordingly -- or connect sets of data to spot a trend all on its own.
"The real advantage to this computing is that it operates differently," Halal said. "It's more intelligent. It does things the way humans think. It offers the prospect of modeling these complex human cognitive processes that have resisted being developed with the present architecture."
TrueNorth's heightened capabilities could help human defense analysts comb through data and spot vital information more quickly, said Mark Barnell, a senior computer scientist with the Air Force Research Lab's information directorate. He said he hopes that this, in turn, could enable military planners at all levels to make better-informed decisions in less time.
"The computer could look through the data quickly and tell us if there is something interesting and if there is something worth looking more at," Barnell said. "It would close the timeline of collecting the data and disseminating information."
TrueNorth's story starts in 2008, when the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency launched its Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics program. The mission was to build computer systems whose functioning resembles a living mammal's brain -- including the brain's learning and problem-solving abilities. SyNAPSE contracted the research work to IBM and HRL Laboratories.
This program ran until 2014, by which time IBM had pioneered TrueNorth. And the research and development continues today at the Air Force Research Lab's facilities. The lab's upcoming computer will be the first time that so many chips will work together on one system, Barnell noted.
DoD and AI
Barnell said energy efficiency is one reason that he and colleagues are looking forward to this computer, but that he's anticipating something even greater: This new system, with its brain-like architecture, will be a very real step toward true artificial intelligence, he said, becoming a powerful way of doing computation that in some ways mimics biological systems.
Artificial intelligence is already integral to many DoD operations, said Craig Arndt, a Defense Acquisition University professor of systems engineering. He cites facial-recognition systems, unmanned vehicles, and "predictive maintenance" systems that identify internal mechanical problems and alert human operators of them as several examples. DoD supported development of each one and found defense-relevant purposes for each, he said.
"AI has been around for a long time, and is a very broad area of research, and DoD has been involved in that research at its service labs pretty much the entire time," Arndt said. "It has been an important area of computer science for us because of the problems it tries to solve."
Since developed nations are now to be taken down by ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global 1% they are now funding research with 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE taxpayer money to develop super-duper asymmetric drone warfare in major urban areas slated to become FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
SYRIA/IRAQ were the first two wars bringing in major urban warfare since super-duper computer warfare modeling was installed. We shout these wars are indeed fueled by global banking and yes they are being used as a research pool for developing just these kinds of weaponry. Where are the UNITED NATIONS simulations being played out? In our US southwest. The cities of course look much like our US cities.......
AS ITALO CALVINO'S BOOK------INVISIBLE CITIES -----SAYS ALL CITIES AROUND THE GLOBAL LOOK MUCH LIKE EACH OTHER-----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE RIGHT CALVINO?
Interrupting the Algorithmic Gaze?
Urban Warfare and US Military Technology
Chapter for MacDonald, F. at al (Ed.) Geopolitics and Visual Culture:
Representation, Performance, Observant Practice (Tauris)(Forthcoming)
Department of Geography
INTRODUCTION: WAR, URBANISATION AND THE ALGORITHMIC GAZE
“For Western military forces, asymmetric warfare in urban areas will be the greatest challenge of this century […]. The city will be the strategic high ground – whoever controls it will dictate the course of future events
in the world” (Dickson, 2002a, 10)
“Some people say to me that the Iraqis are not the Vietnamese! They
have no jungles of swamps to hide in. I reply, ‘let our cities be our
swamps and our buildings our jungles’” (then Iraqi foreign minister,
Tariq Aziz, October 2002, quoted in Bellamy, 2003, 3).
Western military theorists and researchers are increasingly preoccupied with how the
geographies of global south cities, and processes of global south urbanisation, might
influence both the geopolitics and the techno-science of post Cold-war political violence.
Indeed, almost unnoticed within ‘civil’ urban geography and social science, a large
‘shadow’ system of military urban research is quickly being established. Funded by
Western military research budgets, this is quickly elaborating how such effects are
allegedly already becoming manifest, and how the global intensification of processes of
urbanisation will deepen them in the future (Graham, 2004a). Such research is important
in directly constituting the imagination of future Western military operations in so-called
“urban terrain” across the global south.
Fuelled by the growing realisation that the scale and significance of contemporary
processes of urbanisation across the world might significantly reshape the geopolitics,
doctrine and realities of post Cold War Western military strategy, such research fuels a
set of techno-military discourses. The central consensus amongst the wide variety of
Western military theorists pushing for such shifts is that “modern urban combat
operations will become one of the primary challenges of the 21st century” (DIRC, 1997,
11). Major Kelly Houlgate (2004), a US Marine Corps commentator, notes already that,
“of 26 conflicts fought over [by US forces” between 1984 and 2004, “21 have involved
urban areas, and 10 have been exclusively urban”.
The widening adoption of ‘urban warfare’ doctrine follows centuries when Western
military planners preached Sun Tzu’s mantra from 1500 BC that the “worst policy is to
attack cities”. It follows a post World War II Cold War period marked by an obsession
with mass, superpower-led ‘Air-Land’ engagements centred on the North European plain
within and above the spaces between bypassed European city-regions. Whilst numerous
wars were fought by Western forces in developing world cities during the Cold war, as
part of wider struggles against independence and terrorist movements and ‘hot’ proxy
wars, such conflicts were very much seen by Western military theorists as unusual sideshows
to the imagined superpower ‘Air-Land’ and tactical and global nuclear engagements (Davis, 2004a).
In the place of such neglect of Western military doctrine which specifically addresses the
challenges of counter-insurgency warfare within cities, a highly contested, diverse and
complex set of institutional and techno-scientific battles are now emerging through which
attempts are being made to try and re-imagine and reshape Western military forces so that
counterinsurgency operations within large urban areas become one of their de facto
functions (Hills, 2004). Prevailing conceptions of Western military engagement are thus
being widely challenged to address the perceived perils of engaging in ‘military
operations on urban terrain’ (or ‘MOUT’).
When we KNOW the goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES has the US as a TRIBUTE STATE completely stripped of its natural resources, toxic pollution of soil, air, and water-----combined to what we know is 5 DEGREE CLIMATE CHANGE soaring because of all these FAKE GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION products and policies-----we know the once NORTH, CENTRAL, AND SOUTH AMERICAN COLONIES controlled by those OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE AND KINGS AND QUEENS THE GLOBAL 1%-----are set to be abandoned along with the global citizens transported to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES these few decades.
This major culling of global populations sending them to Africa----to Western hemisphere continent -----is deliberate as ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% will center in Europe -----those NORDIC nations and SIBERIA----with the global 1% abandoning what was US, Canada, Latin America to SURVIVOR MODE.
When WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% allow global 1% to install what is energy/technology/food infrastructure designed just for that temporary US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE----the span of life in these industrial Foreign Economic Zones is give or take 50 years-----we are setting the stage for 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE playing SURVIVOR AND WATER WARS against one another.
LET'S SIMPLY GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% TO THE 1% POLS AND PLAYERS----STOP MOVING FORWARD----STOP ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID AS THE ONLY ECONOMIC STRUCTURE IN TOWN.
Water Wars Part 1
The Weather Channel
Published on May 2, 2008
Explosive growth and recent droughts have made the American Southwest a hotbed of water woes. Here's the story of 2 towns caught up in a war over water.