​The Cold War was a new term defining the animosity between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. Under Joseph McCarthy, in October 1947, the nation’s fear of Communism spread to Hollywood, as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held a series of hearings intended to probe subversive communism in the film industry.

The hearings resulted in contempt of Congress charges against the Hollywood Ten, a group of filmmakers who refused to cooperate with the committee and were ultimately jailed and banned from working for all of the major studios.

 The Hollywood Ten believed their interment violated their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. However, all ten were convicted of obstructing the investigation. Hollywood then started a blacklist policy, banning the work of about 325 screenwriters, directors and actors who the committee thought were either communists or had communist affiliations. Some people were able to keep working, whether it was through pseudonyms or crediting their friends
In 1960, thirteen years after the witch hunt had begun, Kirk Douglas was widely credited for helping lift the stigmatism surrounded The Hollywood Ten. His production company which was making Spartacus employed writer Dalton Trumbo under the pseudonym of Sam Jackson who was considered one of the ring leaders of the Hollywood Ten.
Douglas was sickened by the hypocrisy Hollywood showed. Everyone in Hollywood knew that pseudonyms were being used by those blacklisted including all the big studio heads. They just turned a blind eye to the practice, using a “don’t’ ask, don’t tell” policy.

Douglas wanted to make Spartacus so badly that he formed his own production company named Bryna, after his mother. He was also one of the first Hollywood stars to follow in the footsteps of Charlie Chaplin to become an independent producer.

It wasn’t until the 1960s that the ban began to lift, and finally, in 1997, the Writers’ Guild of America unanimously voted to change the writing credits of 23 films made during the blacklist period.

Today, some are making comparisons to the actors backlisted today and the MeToo movement, the actors and the producers who are accused of rape and sexual harassment. However, that’s a fundamental difference and the two time periods.

At the same time, Hollywood seems to be caught again in a rush-to-judgment atmosphere where a single accusation can deep-six a career and render a performer persona non grata in the time it takes to hit the retweet button. This type of mob behaviour can be destructive, whether we see it in Hollywood or other places.  

One of the lessons of 1947 is that, especially in times of extreme political passions, you’ve got to maintain a respect for rational dialogue and due process. Read and absorb information with healthy skepticism.   
 

​Switzerland has always been known for its banks and financial regulations. However, more and more blockchain companies are starting up their business in Switzerland using cryptocurrency as start-up capital. In fact, Switzerland is increasingly setting international standards for cryptocurrency and blockchain.

Switzerland is home to Zug, a small town turned blockchain hub which is often referred to as Crypto Valley named after California’s Silicon Valley tech hub. There are roughly 300 new cryptocurrencies opening in Zug each year. ShapeShift exchange and the Ethereum Foundation, two big cryptocurrency companies are both headquartered in Zug along with many other tech companies.

But now Switzerland and Swiss authorities are going one step further and are discussing whether they should create an online environment to test new blockchain-based applications and cryptocurrency technology. This is called a “Sandbox” because companies can test and try out new ideas and technology before they are released into the marketplace. By creating a Sandbox, authorities are hoping to attract more talent and more investment.  

Over the past months Swiss groups have examined whether and to what extent amendments to the current legislative instruments are appropriate due to the development of blockchain technology.

The groups have identified a need for action in the civil law for transfer of tokens, their treatment under insolvency law and the creation of new opportunities in the area of financial market infrastructures.

For example, a new Swiss based start-up named Alprockz is now working on a coin based on the Swiss franc, highlighting to an extent that crypto-technology is progressing with or without the support of the banks. There is also Giracoin, which is launched a new cryptocurrency on the market and is accessible to anybody in the world through an innovative mining process.

As these cryptocurrency companies seeks to expand globally, Switzerland’s central location, blockchain-friendly political and regulatory sentiment and growing blockchain business cluster is the perfect springboard from which to develop markets around the world.  

However, Switzerland must compete with countries like Liechtenstein, Gilbraltar and the Cayman Islands were the regulations are more relaxed.  While crypto-related business in Switzerland is tiny compared with its traditional banking sector, it has grown rapidly and employs hundreds of people, according to local officials. Supporters also consider it a key innovation for the future of global finance. Regulators constantly have to battle to keep the doors open on these companies while ensuring cryptocurrency companies are not breaking the law.

Swiss banks are urging the authorities to give them more clarity on the rules that apply to cryptocurrency projects before providing services to the market. Only a few of Switzerland’s 250 banks allow companies to transfer cryptocurrencies into cash, making it difficult for funds to be transferred and for cryptocurrency to be used practically.
For now, Switzerland is considered a crypto-friendly country but it’s a constant battle between banks, investors and regulators. It’s tough to say what the future holds. 

The year is 2029 and humanoid robots have taken over, killing most of humanity accept for a few renegades. We've all seen what robots are capable of in the Terminator movies and Ex Machina. But how close are these Hollywood films to reality? One might be forgiven for thinking they are simple science fiction, fantasies dreamed up by film executives.

However, they may not be as fanciful as you might think. The question is being discussed by some of the world’s leading thinkers: will robots become so powerful that there comes a time when they will be more capable than humans and being to take over?  

Artificial Intelligence and robots are amazing tools that we increasingly rely on to do everyday jobs such as drive cars, solve problems, clean houses, give us directions, and so much more.

According to filmmaker Maxim Pozdorovkin in his new documentary, “The Truth About Killer Robots” automation is killing our species.

The film is also the first ever to be narrated by a robot -- a possible sign of what's to come in the motion picture industry.

The documentary is a cautionary tale about automation and looks at what robots will be able to do in the future.
The movie considers the 3 laws for robots first imagined by Isaac Asimov in his 1942 short story "Runaround," which states that machines must not harm humans.  It presents the viewpoints of engineers, journalists, philosophers and, through archival footage, Asimov himself.

Pozdorovkin points to deaths at a car factory in Germany, in self-driving Tesla vehicles and from an explosives-carrying robot used by Dallas police to end an armed standoff. The film raises important questions about accountability, legality and morality.

The economic benefits of automation and robotics are easy to understand. Robots perform tasks faster and more productive. But what will happen to all of the people who lose their jobs to automation?

The case of the Dallas police attaching explosives to a bomb disposal robot and sending it into a building to kill a man who ambushed a group of officers was described in media reports cited in the film as a "watershed moment in police tactics." It was the first time American police used a robot to kill anyone; but probably not the last.

But it was what came afterward that interested Pozdorovkin: the Dallas police chief asked the city council for more technology, not officers, to respond to future threats. Does this mean we’ll soon be all policed by robots instead of humans? Is this the future of law enforcement?

Last month, more than 100 technology leaders, including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, signed an open letter calling on the United Nations to ban the development and use of artificially intelligent weaponry. Musk has tweeted that he fears a global arms race for artificial intelligence will cause the third World War – an apocalyptic fight not unlike the one envisioned in the opening of Terminator.

Robots and Artificial Intelligent are a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization in a way that car accidents , cancer, warfare, alcohol and drugs are now harmful. Most people reject the ideas of killer robots – or just don’t want to think about – but it’s a real problem that we need to discuss and solve.