(Spell check pending...I'm busy damn it!)
So recently I’ve been pretty obsessed with learning as much as I possibly can. No real specific topic, but I’ve always been inexplicably drawn to certain topics. Science (especially physics), technology, music, videogames, politics whatever…so anyways I often find myself fumbling around this wacky world wide web looking into all kinds of subject (always with a healthy degree of cynicism of course.) I’ve discovered a series of interesting video from an Annual conference known as the TED talks (Technology, entertainment, design) every year they have two annual conferences, one in Long Beach and on in Palm Springs. They basically gather tons of big movers and shakers from all kinds of facets of industry, science and politics…so naturally this shit is right up my alley.
The TED organization has a pretty simple but noble mission statement. I quote from their website “Our mission: Spreading ideas. We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world. So we're building here a clearinghouse that offers free knowledge and inspiration from the world's most inspired thinkers, and also a community of curious souls to engage with ideas and each other.”
There is so many amazing and/or worrying things happening now in 2010. I firmly believe that this truly is the most exciting era to be alive. People sadly take the world for granted. Anyways I’m also on the bandwagon of spreading ideas. There are discussion that people should be having, but are not. So I am periodically going to be posting videos on topics that are important to me. Since I’ve already mentioned Mr. Ray Kurzweil a few posts ago, I’m going to post a video from a session he did for TED talks. This is once again regarding the exponential increase in computing power and the huge impact it’s going to have and how it will shape things to come. Have a look. Spread this stuff around if it’s interesting to you, people really need to start talking about things that matter. Like my dick yo…just checking to see if your still paying attention…to my junk. Here it is holmes. (Run time 23min 42 seconds)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A conversation about the Nature of Wikileaks. *Not for the faint of heart*
What the hell is Wikileaks? Really bro...you should know.
For the unfamiliar I shall directly quote " WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. Since July 2007, we have worked across the globe to obtain, publish and defend such materials, and, also, to fight in the legal and political spheres for the broader principles on which our work is based: the integrity of our common historical record and the rights of all peoples to create new history.
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.
In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government. That is why the time has come for an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see."
So there that is. I'm sure you can formulate your own opinion based on that alone. But here is a brief video example of what they are offering to our world. This is a video of an American helicopter on duty seeking justification to engage the enemy in Baghdad, Iraq. The American soldiers phone in that 5 to 6 of these individuals are armed but the footage does not add up in my view. There is an obvious twist of the rules of engagement to justify the murder of this group of people. I can understand that in this region there is an obvious Anti-American sentiment, but this is just fucking disgusting. This is needless murder.
So based on the existence of wikileaks I posed this question to Facebook...
"I'm curious about what people think about Wikileaks. (http://wikileaks.org/) As per wikipedia (no actual affiliation between the two) 'Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, based in Sweden,[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organization...s, while preserving the anonymity of their sources.' Does it keep companies or governments in check or subvert our saftey for disclosure? What do you think??"
My buddy D stated this;
"Here's what I think. I agree that the public has a need to be informed in certain areas, and sometimes the red tape can be a bit too much. A site like wikileaks can be a good place to bring attention to important matters that shouldn't be a... cloud in people's minds. There is; however, a limit. It is the responsibility of wikileaks to guarantee the authenticity and the ability to sanitize intelligence such that it does not create a larger problem. That may sound hypocritical, but consider that national secrets can often have broader impacts than most can appreciate or even comprehend. Lives could be placed at risk, and international turmoil or panic could ensue."
Nick Gaston said "I think more disclosure is always a good thing, esp. in the 21st century when things can change as fast as the information flow.
I generally don't trust governments, always concerned with keeping their power and positions or corporations, a...lways looking out for their bottom line. I think it's obvious, esp. in the last 10 years or so, that there is too much even basic info that is swept under the rug in the name of national security and what information *is* released can be very misleading and manipulated. History has shown how information is manipulated at home and abroad to garner public support and the self proclaimed "intelligence agency of the people", WikiLeaks, has proven that this manipulation has gotten worse not better. I think it's a good thing that individuals within these towers of power can have an avenue and option to stand up for what they believe is wrong and let others know.
Don't take this next comment as a direct attack on the last part of your comment, D , but you bring up a good point I want to make. As far as turmoil and panic, I just can't make up my mind. On one hand, it smacks too much of the ever popular rational of: we need to suppress some of our activities for *your* own good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and insults my and a great many other people's intelligence. On the other hand even the best of us are not immune to faulty decision making, to put it nicely.
I think it's important to scrutinize every source that information comes from. Even WikiLeaks itself has a decidedly political mission and bias which should also be kept in mind, just as the bias of more mainstream sources should be scrutinized."
Matt Tobin responded "I think all information should be free and those causing harm in the world to be held accountable. Telling everyone what is going on will bring about a majority consensus...since we're all in this world together, the majority of people who agree with things will cause less problems in the world...hopefully"
and then
Patrick Adler had the following response. "Good q kev. I take a pragmatic approach to government leaks.
They should not be illegal and we can't really punish leakers for publishing information that they believe is moral.
At the same time, we should allow that some information, rela...ted to security and defense, be guarded. If there are governments making nuclear bombs than they should have every right to keep their methods secret.
So the defacto system, a kind of cat and mouse system between "leakers" and governments is acceptable. It allows for a soft check on abuses of power (like war crimes), it allows for activities that rely on secrecy, and actually it provides incentive for really sensitive information to be strictly kept"
I hope what people take away from this is the nature of the discussion. Things are changing so fast. SO FAST. We're entering this really trans formative period of information proliferation and things changing very quickly.
Please people, TALK ABOUT THIS... this is the very world we live in...things are a changing!!
I will edit this tomorrow...cus I'm sleepy.
Edit: Here is the longer version of the video for those who are interested. Name changed upon request.
For the unfamiliar I shall directly quote " WikiLeaks is a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. Since July 2007, we have worked across the globe to obtain, publish and defend such materials, and, also, to fight in the legal and political spheres for the broader principles on which our work is based: the integrity of our common historical record and the rights of all peoples to create new history.
We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information. Historically that information has been costly - in terms of human life and human rights. But with technological advances - the internet, and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.
In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their government honest, but also the people of other countries who are watching that government. That is why the time has come for an anonymous global avenue for disseminating documents the public should see."
So there that is. I'm sure you can formulate your own opinion based on that alone. But here is a brief video example of what they are offering to our world. This is a video of an American helicopter on duty seeking justification to engage the enemy in Baghdad, Iraq. The American soldiers phone in that 5 to 6 of these individuals are armed but the footage does not add up in my view. There is an obvious twist of the rules of engagement to justify the murder of this group of people. I can understand that in this region there is an obvious Anti-American sentiment, but this is just fucking disgusting. This is needless murder.
So based on the existence of wikileaks I posed this question to Facebook...
"I'm curious about what people think about Wikileaks. (http://wikileaks.org/) As per wikipedia (no actual affiliation between the two) 'Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, based in Sweden,[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organization...s, while preserving the anonymity of their sources.' Does it keep companies or governments in check or subvert our saftey for disclosure? What do you think??"
My buddy D stated this;
"Here's what I think. I agree that the public has a need to be informed in certain areas, and sometimes the red tape can be a bit too much. A site like wikileaks can be a good place to bring attention to important matters that shouldn't be a... cloud in people's minds. There is; however, a limit. It is the responsibility of wikileaks to guarantee the authenticity and the ability to sanitize intelligence such that it does not create a larger problem. That may sound hypocritical, but consider that national secrets can often have broader impacts than most can appreciate or even comprehend. Lives could be placed at risk, and international turmoil or panic could ensue."
Nick Gaston said "I think more disclosure is always a good thing, esp. in the 21st century when things can change as fast as the information flow.
I generally don't trust governments, always concerned with keeping their power and positions or corporations, a...lways looking out for their bottom line. I think it's obvious, esp. in the last 10 years or so, that there is too much even basic info that is swept under the rug in the name of national security and what information *is* released can be very misleading and manipulated. History has shown how information is manipulated at home and abroad to garner public support and the self proclaimed "intelligence agency of the people", WikiLeaks, has proven that this manipulation has gotten worse not better. I think it's a good thing that individuals within these towers of power can have an avenue and option to stand up for what they believe is wrong and let others know.
Don't take this next comment as a direct attack on the last part of your comment, D , but you bring up a good point I want to make. As far as turmoil and panic, I just can't make up my mind. On one hand, it smacks too much of the ever popular rational of: we need to suppress some of our activities for *your* own good. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and insults my and a great many other people's intelligence. On the other hand even the best of us are not immune to faulty decision making, to put it nicely.
I think it's important to scrutinize every source that information comes from. Even WikiLeaks itself has a decidedly political mission and bias which should also be kept in mind, just as the bias of more mainstream sources should be scrutinized."
Matt Tobin responded "I think all information should be free and those causing harm in the world to be held accountable. Telling everyone what is going on will bring about a majority consensus...since we're all in this world together, the majority of people who agree with things will cause less problems in the world...hopefully"
and then
Patrick Adler had the following response. "Good q kev. I take a pragmatic approach to government leaks.
They should not be illegal and we can't really punish leakers for publishing information that they believe is moral.
At the same time, we should allow that some information, rela...ted to security and defense, be guarded. If there are governments making nuclear bombs than they should have every right to keep their methods secret.
So the defacto system, a kind of cat and mouse system between "leakers" and governments is acceptable. It allows for a soft check on abuses of power (like war crimes), it allows for activities that rely on secrecy, and actually it provides incentive for really sensitive information to be strictly kept"
I hope what people take away from this is the nature of the discussion. Things are changing so fast. SO FAST. We're entering this really trans formative period of information proliferation and things changing very quickly.
Please people, TALK ABOUT THIS... this is the very world we live in...things are a changing!!
I will edit this tomorrow...cus I'm sleepy.
Edit: Here is the longer version of the video for those who are interested. Name changed upon request.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
P.W. Singer: Military robots and the future of war (TED talks session)
I posted last night something I wrote a few months ago regarding Robots and warfare. I stumbled upon this video that totally expresses my points much more eloquently.
Mr. Singer is a Sr. Fellow and Director of the 21st Century Defence Initiative run out of the Brookings Institution. CNN has named this guy to their "New Guard" List of the Next Generation of Newsmakers.
Our friends at the Financial Times have previously noted him as "Guru of the Week" for the thinker who most influenced the world that week and by Slate Magazine for "Quote of the Day."
Mr. Singer has also served as coordinator of the Obama-08 campaign’s defence policy task force. In '09, Singer was named by Foreign Policy Magazine in the Top 100 Global Thinkers List, of the people whose ideas most influenced the world that year.
SO, anyway…most of that info came directly from his website, but I've read up on him, this guy has some serious clout. I think this is worth watching. These are issues people need to start to discuss. Its 2010 people, the cold war is over and technology is changing us in almost unimaginable ways. New ideas and frank discussions are sorely needed to grapple with the new intellectual and philosophical challenges that we face, and will be facing increasingly in the future.
Mr. Singer is a Sr. Fellow and Director of the 21st Century Defence Initiative run out of the Brookings Institution. CNN has named this guy to their "New Guard" List of the Next Generation of Newsmakers.
Our friends at the Financial Times have previously noted him as "Guru of the Week" for the thinker who most influenced the world that week and by Slate Magazine for "Quote of the Day."
Mr. Singer has also served as coordinator of the Obama-08 campaign’s defence policy task force. In '09, Singer was named by Foreign Policy Magazine in the Top 100 Global Thinkers List, of the people whose ideas most influenced the world that year.
SO, anyway…most of that info came directly from his website, but I've read up on him, this guy has some serious clout. I think this is worth watching. These are issues people need to start to discuss. Its 2010 people, the cold war is over and technology is changing us in almost unimaginable ways. New ideas and frank discussions are sorely needed to grapple with the new intellectual and philosophical challenges that we face, and will be facing increasingly in the future.
Visions Of The Future: The Quantum Revolution
The last part of this documentary. Oh shit, this is the shit that I love. A dive into the weird and wonderful quantum world. We are now just beginning to realize that our human consciousness is having a direct impact on reality. Just simply being an observer changes the world around you. We have also been exploiting our new tricks to create properties not found in nature through meta-materials, quantum computing and new states of matter...love it!
Visions of the Future: The Biotech Revolution
Part 2 of this BBC doc. This is a look at how just in recent years, man has finally really started to see the big picture of genetics and how our bodies function. Huge strides towards almost unimaginable medical treatments are becoming a reality.
Visions of the Future: The Intellgence Revolution
Here's a sweet documentary about some of the things we are heading towards. This section discusses our mastery over computing and coming to terms with our abilities to mimic reality. From virtual worlds to Robotics...here it is.
Robotic Warfare: A Fucking Conundrum.
Modernity has presented humanity with a plethora of innovations that have provided fruitful economic drivers along side increasingly more frequent paradigm shifts in the human knowledge-base. It's been observed frequently that when the military complex adopts a new technology, it’s a matter of time before these innovation trickle down to the masses. We’ve seen this with microwave technology and computer networking just to cite relatable examples. In this year of 2010 we are now well on the way into the new robotic age. Companies like iRobot and their ever popular Roomba, being a shining example.
Prior to this era, robotics were implemented to replace the menial grunt work of the common assembly worker. These machines were designed to perform a single function repeatedly. This new age that we have entered into, for good or for ill has seen the sophistication and finessing of robotics within the all facets of their utility. In an effort to gain a strategic advantage in the current theatres of war, unmanned drones are becoming an increasingly attractive option, particular within the American forces.It keeps boots off the ground and enables a free and remote range of motion.Currently America employs approximately 5000 robots in Afghanistan, 1200 of which are unmanned air vehicles or UAVs like the predator drone.
This new brand of warfare presents huge moral grey area and list of very serious problems. First lets explore the conundrum of the “Cubicle Warrior”. The American predator drone is a remotely controlled unmanned air vehicle. It’s capable of prolonged surveillance and also equipped with two hellfire missiles. This machine is operated remotely by a specially trained solder in a safe faraway location. The problem presented with this model of combat is the total depersonalization of combatants. The UAV operator need not fear injury or death, while being fully capable of imparting those very things. When damage is inflicted the operator does witness the carnage with their own eyes, but through a digital representation. The operator also may pass off control of their UAV unit to another operator, then go get a coffee and take a cigarette break. The operator can end their shift, drive back their homes and spend an evening in the comfort of their family and their home. The combatants on the other side of the coin are faced with an enemy that does not sleep, feel pain or know fear. This very fact in its self could act as a rallying call to escalate their cause, to rally against what they would perceive as their technologically endowed but cowardly enemy.
Another major issue with this problem is the fact that eventually once the technology has become less expensive and available, private interests and individual persons could use this technology for their own aims abroad or within their own state. When a machine is used to commit a warcrime, who does the hammer of justice fall down upon? The machine without will of its own or an unknown operator who is secluded in another country outside of the jurisdiction of their accuser? Does the operator suffer the consequence, or their superior sitting in an office issuing orders? What happens when the technology becomes sophisticated enough to achieve autonomy and acts seemingly on its own accord? These questions currently do not have answers, and this scenario is not 10 years away, this is happening now in 2010.
We have international laws to dictate rules of engagement, but these rules currently do not have any way to define these problems. These laws, such as the Geneva convention are still reflecting a cold war age, before Moore's law acceleration has surpassed our common sense.
Prior to this era, robotics were implemented to replace the menial grunt work of the common assembly worker. These machines were designed to perform a single function repeatedly. This new age that we have entered into, for good or for ill has seen the sophistication and finessing of robotics within the all facets of their utility. In an effort to gain a strategic advantage in the current theatres of war, unmanned drones are becoming an increasingly attractive option, particular within the American forces.It keeps boots off the ground and enables a free and remote range of motion.Currently America employs approximately 5000 robots in Afghanistan, 1200 of which are unmanned air vehicles or UAVs like the predator drone.
This new brand of warfare presents huge moral grey area and list of very serious problems. First lets explore the conundrum of the “Cubicle Warrior”. The American predator drone is a remotely controlled unmanned air vehicle. It’s capable of prolonged surveillance and also equipped with two hellfire missiles. This machine is operated remotely by a specially trained solder in a safe faraway location. The problem presented with this model of combat is the total depersonalization of combatants. The UAV operator need not fear injury or death, while being fully capable of imparting those very things. When damage is inflicted the operator does witness the carnage with their own eyes, but through a digital representation. The operator also may pass off control of their UAV unit to another operator, then go get a coffee and take a cigarette break. The operator can end their shift, drive back their homes and spend an evening in the comfort of their family and their home. The combatants on the other side of the coin are faced with an enemy that does not sleep, feel pain or know fear. This very fact in its self could act as a rallying call to escalate their cause, to rally against what they would perceive as their technologically endowed but cowardly enemy.
Another major issue with this problem is the fact that eventually once the technology has become less expensive and available, private interests and individual persons could use this technology for their own aims abroad or within their own state. When a machine is used to commit a warcrime, who does the hammer of justice fall down upon? The machine without will of its own or an unknown operator who is secluded in another country outside of the jurisdiction of their accuser? Does the operator suffer the consequence, or their superior sitting in an office issuing orders? What happens when the technology becomes sophisticated enough to achieve autonomy and acts seemingly on its own accord? These questions currently do not have answers, and this scenario is not 10 years away, this is happening now in 2010.
We have international laws to dictate rules of engagement, but these rules currently do not have any way to define these problems. These laws, such as the Geneva convention are still reflecting a cold war age, before Moore's law acceleration has surpassed our common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)