Drones and production line equipment don’t really count as robots.  A human is always there in control.  But now we are starting to see autonomous technology in every day use.  Some examples:


Walmart’s Automated Shelf Scanner/Stocker


Walmart’s EMMA (Enabling Mobile Machine Automation) Cleaning Floors


Amazon Go (Grocery store with no check-out cashiers)

Of course, the companies say these will not replace workers, but I think  you can see above that isn’t true.  There are no cashiers at Amazon Go.  Walmart doesn’t need a custodian to mop the floors.  (Once they design a machine to clean the bathrooms, they won’t need custodians at all.)  In the meantime, humans will work side by side with robots:

You can read more about Walmart’s robots here and here.  You can read more about Amazon technology here. You can read more about where all of this will end up here.


Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and expand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e-commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny.   – Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

The richest men in the world are social media moguls.  Their companies hire tens of thousands world-wide.  Their products have infiltrated almost every aspect of our lives.  Of course, their products often let us act out bad behaviors through tweets, posts, comments, etc.  But the real dangers of social media may be in how the social media companies treat us as customers and as employees.

Read the rest of this entry »


FBI Director Comey informed members of Congress Friday that he was reopening the investigation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server.  New evidence has been found “in connection with an unrelated case.”  Read more here.

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, believes so.  After the committee reviewed the immunity deals given to Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, Chairman Goodlatte  wrote a letter to Attorney General Lynch asking for an explanation:

Please provide a written response to the below questions and make DOJ staff available for a briefing on this matter no later than October 10, 2016.

  1. Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’ and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search?
  2. Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information?  If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary
  3. Have these laptops, or the contents of the laptops, in fact been destroyed, thereby making follow up investigations by the FBI, or Congressional oversight, impossible?

Chairman Goodlatte had several other questions for the AG.  You can view the letter here.




Despite his public claims to the contrary, President Obama was aware of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email on a private server.  How do we know this?  Because he emailed her private email account, using a pseudonym to “hide” his identity.  When asked to produce these emails under a FOIA suit, the State Department refused, citing “presidential communication privilege.” (thereby confirming the emails were from the President.) Details here.