The Future is Here, Proclaims Jeff the Great

Google is one step closer to directly connecting our brains to all of the information in the world. Thats the end goal...just think about something and you'll automatically just know all. It will pop into your brain from nowhere.

Think I'm crazy? Well, I probably am but thats not the point. One of my favorite books is called The Big Switch written by Nicholas Carr. Near the end of the book, about how computing is following a similar path towards a ubiquitious commodity, Carr talks about Goolge and their founders vision for our future. Long story short, organizing the world's information, their stated mission, is only a means to the real end. The real end goal of Larry and Sergy is to 'plug' our brains directly into the internet. Google Glass is the next major step in that direction.

Here is the idea. First, we store and organize all the world's information. Next, add cameras and microphones to our daily lives. Then, begin monitoring our brain waves in order to connect brain patterns to what we see, hear, and say. With enough data and enough processing power, we can start to connect the dots between our thoughts and information.

Google Glass is a significant step in that direction. Glasses with a camera, microphone, and a heads up display. Without any action on your part, they'll be able to identify a person standing in front of you, and display relevant information about that person automatically. This is not some futuristic device that a bunch of nerds are dreaming about. Google Glass will ship to its first set of customers in the summer of 2013, with general availability by the 2013 holiday season.

Next step will be the ability for the glasses to analyze your brain waves. They'll record how your brain behaved when you saw the person standing in front of you, and how your brain behaved when the info about that person was displayed to you. With enough data like that, from you and hundreds of millions of other people, they'll eventually be able to know when you want info purely based on brain waves. Google is essentially the worlds largest research project to map the brain. Its a project that I consider to be bigger than sequencing the human genome, as the US did from 1990 through 2003.

So in the very near future, when you see me or someone else wearing those odd looking Google Glasses, dont laugh at us. Remember that we are contributing to humanity's largest research project that will lead to your grandkids having a direct thought connection to all the information ever recorded in human history.

This is gonna be big.

Jeff the Great Reveals the Truth

You are being lied to. In fact, everyone in the US is being lied to. A massive conspiracy is being perpetrated right in front of you.

The lie? The lie is that CPR works. Truth is, it doesn't. Let me explain.

I was recently reading the Wall Street Journal online when I stumbled across an interesting article from a retired Professor of Medicine about how doctors die differently than the rest of the population. The article points out that doctors are more likely to have advanced directives (what they want done or not done to save their lives) and implies that doctors are less likely to want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed.

Why wouldn't a doctor want someone to perform CPR in an effort to save their life? There are many reasons, but here is one that will surprise you. Doctors know that CPR doesn't work. Yes, you read that correctly. CPR does not work.

The same Wall Street Journal article points out that while the media depicts CPR as a lifesaving tool (communicating a 75% success rate), in real life CPR rarely works. How rare, you ask? Its bad. Real bad. The article goes on to tell us that CPR is only successful in 8% of cases. Success being defined as living at least one month after being resuscitated. So in other words, 92% of CPR recipients will either die immediately or within 30 days.

Those are some pretty poor odds.

I was reminded of this statistic during the past week when I heard that the Oregon State Legislature was considering a bill (SB 275) that would require all high school students to learn CPR as a pre-requisite for graduation. While our budgets are strained and the education provided is a joke by many measures, our elected officials are spending time (and potential education dollars) to teach our kids to do something that fails 92% of the time.

I just wish I was aware of SB 275 when I was in Salem last Monday, lobbying for support of HB 2636 to improve STEM education in our state. The ridiculous CPR bill would have been a nice example of why our education system needs to be changed and focus put on things that matter.

Jeff the Great Quells an Uprising

Recently I've noticed what may be an increasing irreverence of the law. Specifically are two very different but interesting examples.

First, the uproar over the suicide of Aaron Swartz. Not the uproar about his death specifically, but the blame that Swartz supporters are levying on others. If you are unfamiliar with the Aaron Swartz story, here is an overly simplified overview. Swartz is an internet celebrity and internet/technology advocate. He (allegedly) hacked into the MIT computer network, downloaded proprietary research from JSTOR, and then freely distributed JSTOR's property on the internet. He was charged with at least 6 felonies and faced anywhere from 6 months to 35 years in jail. He committed suicide recently, and his family reports that he took such an unfortunate and permanent action because he was so distraught over the legal action pending against him. Many Aaron Swartz supporters (and lovers of the internet for that matter) are blaming Aaron's death on the legal system.

This blows me away. Apparently some people have a hard time separating their affinity from things like logic and reason. Like it or not, breaking into a private computer network and stealing property is a crime! Swartz (allegedly) broke the law! If someone broke into your company, stole your valuable property, and gave it away to strangers for free, would you not expect them to be prosecuted?

Another example comes from my home state of Oregon where a county sheriff has warned the Obama administration that he will not enforce any new gun laws or regulations that he believes violate the Second Amendment. Yes, you read that correctly, he will not enforce the law. The problem here is that it is not a sheriff's job to decide what is or isn't law. That's why they are called law enforcement, not law makers.

Our country has arguably the most fair, transparent, and civilized legal system. The people elect representatives, who create laws, enforced by the legal system, and ultimately ratified or shot down by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court). There are fair, transparent, and civilized ways of challenging or changing the law. If society doesn't like something, they can change it. Swartz had every opportunity to a fair trial and full defense. Sheriffs and the citizens of their counties have a voice through their elected representatives and via elections.

Why do supporters of the internet and information freedom believe they get to unilaterally decide what is a crime or isn't? Would they have cared so much if Swartz wasn't an internet icon or if it were their property broken into and stolen? Why does a sheriff think he can ignore the law of the land and interpret the constitution on his own?

What happened to the rule of law and civility? This is a scary trend and I hope it does not continue.

Jeff the Great Ponders His DNA

For Christmas, I got my wife a personal genetic test for health and ancestry from a company called 23andMe. Essentially, a DNA test. After spitting in a tube and mailing it in, the company tells you all sorts of cool things like where your recent ancestors come from, where your deep genealogical roots are in the ancient world, what the chances are that you'll pass on more than 40 inherited conditions, and your chances at developing more than 250 different diseases. You also have the opportunity to contribute to important research around things like genetic diseases or even the discovery of what gene causes back hair. All that for the price of $99.

Pretty amazing to think about how far technology has come to deliver personal genetic analysis for only a hundred bucks. While this service offered by 23andMe is not a full gene sequencing, I'd like to offer an example of how far technology as come in such a short period of time. In 2005, a full genome sequencing for a single person cost approximately $17.5 million dollars. Just 7 years later in 2012, the cost had plummeted to just $7,500 (source: genome.gov). Similarly, the less complex genetic analysis at 23andMe has dropped in price. Starting out at $999 in 2007, the price dropped to to $299 and finally $99 in December of 2012.

So the price is right and I am ready to jump. Except, I have all these long term implication questions in my head. Not about how I'll handle learning about potentially scary health things or surprising ancestry, I'm fine with all that. I am worried about the privacy and legal implications.

If I become a customer of 23andMe, will I be putting my life, freedom, and/or privacy at risk in the future? Could a court subpoena my genetic information from 23andMe and use it against me in a trial? Could a health insurance company ever get their hands on my personally identifiable information and use it to effect my rates? When required to disclose health information, would I be legally and morally obligated to disclose information from the 23andMe results? Could the optionally stored saliva sample, with personally identifiable information, be handed over to anyone else in the future?

My mind is running with all sorts of crazy thoughts! Increased insurance premiums, conviction of a crime, etc, etc! Could I be denied the opportunity to be President of the United States in the future because my health isn't up to par, or because my recent ancestors were discovered to be from outside the country? Crazy thoughts, I know....but who knows what the future holds, right?

So, I'd love to hear your thoughts or if you have participated in 23andMe, your experience. If you are a legal professional, I am especially interested in your opinion.

"Support Entrepreneurs" commands Jeff the Great

Since starting my company and volunteering for Portland Startup Weekend, I have had the opportunity to be around hundreds, if not thousands, of both budding and experienced entrepreneurs. During casual conversation and formal presentations, entrepreneurs regularly share with others what they are building.  They say "I'm building an Instagram for pet photos" or "My company brings together artists and art collectors," sometimes even "I'm making the next Facebook."

One of my biggest pet peeves is when a person listening to a new business idea says "but someone has already built that!" At a recent Startup Weekend, one of the participants was excitedly pitching their new product to an official mentor who responded by saying "Company XYZ has already built that" before walking away and writing off the entrepreneur and their abilities.

Doing this is one of the most naive and unhelpful things you can say to an entrepreneur, and I am asking you to stop. Now.

Thank god Larry and Sergey didn't listen to the naysayers that likely said "but Yahoo already does that" upon hearing about Google. Thankfully, Apple didn't look at Blackberry and say "Well, someone has already made a smartphone, so we don't have to." There are 1 billion people around the world that wouldn't be connecting with friends, family, and strangers online if Mark Zuckerberg decided that the world didn't need Facebook because MySpace already existed.

Simply the existence of a product or service means nothing. Is it the best it can be? Does it serve all potential customers? These high level questions lead us into more detailed ones. Is it priced right? Do consumers want more....or less? Does it serve all the consumers it could?

Additionally, the entrepreneur you are talking to probably already knows about XYZ company that you so quickly jump to say has already built what they just pitched. You aren't telling them anything they don't already know. If someone said they wanted to start a new car company, do you think you'd need to tell them that Ford already exists?

So here is what I want you to do, here are the helpful things you can say. First, be honest and don't grin fuck them (tell them what you really think). Instead of saying that a competitor exists, approach the topic from another angle by saying "so how are you going to differentiate your product from company XYZ?" Ask what company XYZ has done right, and what company XYZ has done wrong. Ask what consumers in the industry as asking for, and ask how the entrepreneur will deliver it.

Simply stating that a competitor exists is an insult to the entrepreneurs intelligence and shows your inability to have an intelligent business conversation. However, if you approach the conversation as I have suggested above, you'll not only look more intelligent yourself, you'll be providing value to the entrepreneur through your questions. You'll give them a chance to show that they have researched the competition and that they have thought about how they'll effectively compete.