Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

AcachfumExcum

"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on "Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw
Jul 242015
 

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property — whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses.

What Does the Fourth Amendment Protect?

In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” protections extend to:

The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.

When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement’s legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

What if My Fourth Amendment Rights Are Violated?

When law enforcement officers violate an individual’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, and a search or seizure is deemed unlawful, any evidence derived from that search or seizure will almost certainly be kept out of any criminal case against the person whose rights were violated. For example:

Visit link:
"Search and Seizure" and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

Online Library of Liberty

 Liberty  Comments Off on Online Library of Liberty
Jul 242015
 

Today the OLL has 1,697 titles, 467 authors, and 1,186 essays in 24 categories

News and Announcements [Archive]:

The Philosophic Radical George Grote (1794-1871) wrote this defence of democratic reform of the British electoral system in 1821. He noted the special problem posed by the concentration of political benefits being concentrated in a few hands and the costs being dispersed over very many

In the course of putting together a multi-volume collection of over 240 Leveller Tracts I came across some very interesting title pages which used typography and occasionally woodcuts to add graphical force to the political and economic arguments being made by the authors. The pamphlets were

This was the second work by George Grote on parliamentary reform. It was published on the eve of the passage of the First Reform Act of 1832 which largely achieved the goals of the Philosophic Radicals around James Mill.

In this months Liberty Matters online discussion we reassess the economic ideas of John Stuart Mill as found in his classic work Principles of Political Economy (1st ed. 1848, 7th ed. 1871) and other writings. In the Lead Essay by Steven Kates of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology it is

Read more here:
Online Library of Liberty

Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …

 Liberty  Comments Off on Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …
Jul 242015
 

Imagine you are driving a car through town, and you come to a fork in the road. You turn left, but no one was forcing you to go one way or the other. Next you come to a crossroads. You turn right, but no one was preventing you from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak of and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So you seem, as a driver, to be completely free. But this picture of your situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the reason you went left and then right is that you’re addicted to cigarettes and you’re desperate to get to the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, you feel you are being driven, as your urge to smoke leads you uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the right. Moreover, you’re perfectly aware that your turning right at the crossroads means you’ll probably miss a train that was to take you to an appointment you care about very much. You long to be free of this irrational desire that is not only threatening your longevity but is also stopping you right now from doing what you think you ought to be doing.

This story gives us two contrasting ways of thinking of liberty. On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the agent. You are free if no one is stopping you from doing whatever you might want to do. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be free. On the other hand, one can think of liberty as the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, you must be self-determined, which is to say that you must be able to control your own destiny in your own interests. In the above story you appear, in this sense, to be unfree: you are not in control of your own destiny, as you are failing to control a passion that you yourself would rather be rid of and which is preventing you from realizing what you recognize to be your true interests. One might say that while on the first view liberty is simply about how many doors are open to the agent, on the second view it is more about going through the right doors for the right reasons.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively (Berlin 1969).[1] The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin’s words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question What is the area within which the subject a person or group of persons is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that? (1969, pp. 12122).

It is useful to think of the difference between the two concepts in terms of the difference between factors that are external and factors that are internal to the agent. While theorists of negative freedom are primarily interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer interference from external bodies, theorists of positive freedom are more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously. Given this difference, one might be tempted to think that a political philosopher should concentrate exclusively on negative freedom, a concern with positive freedom being more relevant to psychology or individual morality than to political and social institutions. This, however, would be premature, for among the most hotly debated issues in political philosophy are the following: Is the positive concept of freedom a political concept? Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action? Is it possible for the state to promote the positive freedom of citizens on their behalf? And if so, is it desirable for the state to do so? The classic texts in the history of western political thought are divided over how these questions should be answered: theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, are typically classed as answering no and therefore as defending a negative concept of political freedom; theorists that are critical of this tradition, like Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and T.H. Green, are typically classed as answering yes and as defending a positive concept of political freedom.

In its political form, positive freedom has often been thought of as necessarily achieved through a collectivity. Perhaps the clearest case is that of Rousseau’s theory of freedom, according to which individual freedom is achieved through participation in the process whereby one’s community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the general will. Put in the simplest terms, one might say that a democratic society is a free society because it is a self-determined society, and that a member of that society is free to the extent that he or she participates in its democratic process. But there are also individualist applications of the concept of positive freedom. For example, it is sometimes said that a government should aim actively to create the conditions necessary for individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. The negative concept of freedom, on the other hand, is most commonly assumed in liberal defences of the constitutional liberties typical of liberal-democratic societies, such as freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and in arguments against paternalist or moralist state intervention. It is also often invoked in defences of the right to private property, although some have contested the claim that private property necessarily enhances negative liberty (Cohen, 1991, 1995).

After Berlin, the most widely cited and best developed analyses of the negative concept of liberty include Hayek (1960), Day (1971), Oppenheim (1981), Miller (1983) and Steiner (1994). Among the most prominent contemporary analyses of the positive concept of liberty are Milne (1968), Gibbs (1976), C. Taylor (1979) and Christman (1991, 2005).

Many liberals, including Berlin, have suggested that the positive concept of liberty carries with it a danger of authoritarianism. Consider the fate of a permanent and oppressed minority. Because the members of this minority participate in a democratic process characterized by majority rule, they might be said to be free on the grounds that they are members of a society exercising self-control over its own affairs. But they are oppressed, and so are surely unfree. Moreover, it is not necessary to see a society as democratic in order to see it as self-controlled; one might instead adopt an organic conception of society, according to which the collectivity is to be thought of as a living organism, and one might believe that this organism will only act rationally, will only be in control of itself, when its various parts are brought into line with some rational plan devised by its wise governors (who, to extend the metaphor, might be thought of as the organism’s brain). In this case, even the majority might be oppressed in the name of liberty.

Such justifications of oppression in the name of liberty are no mere products of the liberal imagination, for there are notorious historical examples of their endorsement by authoritarian political leaders. Berlin, himself a liberal and writing during the cold war, was clearly moved by the way in which the apparently noble ideal of freedom as self-mastery or self-realization had been twisted and distorted by the totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century most notably those of the Soviet Union so as to claim that they, rather than the liberal West, were the true champions of freedom. The slippery slope towards this paradoxical conclusion begins, according to Berlin, with the idea of a divided self. To illustrate: the smoker in our story provides a clear example of a divided self, for she is both a self that desires to get to an appointment and a self that desires to get to the tobacconists, and these two desires are in conflict. We can now enrich this story in a plausible way by adding that one of these selves the keeper of appointments is superior to the other: the self that is a keeper of appointments is thus a higher self, and the self that is a smoker is a lower self. The higher self is the rational, reflecting self, the self that is capable of moral action and of taking responsibility for what she does. This is the true self, for rational reflection and moral responsibility are the features of humans that mark them off from other animals. The lower self, on the other hand, is the self of the passions, of unreflecting desires and irrational impulses. One is free, then, when one’s higher, rational self is in control and one is not a slave to one’s passions or to one’s merely empirical self. The next step down the slippery slope consists in pointing out that some individuals are more rational than others, and can therefore know best what is in their and others’ rational interests. This allows them to say that by forcing people less rational than themselves to do the rational thing and thus to realize their true selves, they are in fact liberating them from their merely empirical desires. Occasionally, Berlin says, the defender of positive freedom will take an additional step that consists in conceiving of the self as wider than the individual and as represented by an organic social whole a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and the dead and the yet unborn. The true interests of the individual are to be identified with the interests of this whole, and individuals can and should be coerced into fulfilling these interests, for they would not resist coercion if they were as rational and wise as their coercers. Once I take this view, Berlin says, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture in the name, and on behalf, of their real selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man … must be identical with his freedom (Berlin 1969, pp. 13233).

Those in the negative camp try to cut off this line of reasoning at the first step, by denying that there is any necessary relation between one’s freedom and one’s desires. Since one is free to the extent that one is externally unprevented from doing things, they say, one can be free to do what one does not desire to do. If being free meant being unprevented from realizing one’s desires, then one could, again paradoxically, reduce one’s unfreedom by coming to desire fewer of the things one is unfree to do. One could become free simply by contenting oneself with one’s situation. A perfectly contented slave is perfectly free to realize all of her desires. Nevertheless, we tend to think of slavery as the opposite of freedom. More generally, freedom is not to be confused with happiness, for in logical terms there is nothing to stop a free person from being unhappy or an unfree person from being happy. The happy person might feel free, but whether they are free is another matter (Day, 1970). Negative theorists of freedom therefore tend to say not that having freedom means being unprevented from doing as one desires, but that it means being unprevented from doing whatever one might desire to do.

Some theorists of positive freedom bite the bullet and say that the contented slave is indeed free that in order to be free the individual must learn, not so much to dominate certain merely empirical desires, but to rid herself of them. She must, in other words, remove as many of her desires as possible. As Berlin puts it, if I have a wounded leg there are two methods of freeing myself from pain. One is to heal the wound. But if the cure is too difficult or uncertain, there is another method. I can get rid of the wound by cutting off my leg (1969, pp. 13536). This is the strategy of liberation adopted by ascetics, stoics and Buddhist sages. It involves a retreat into an inner citadel a soul or a purely noumenal self in which the individual is immune to any outside forces. But this state, even if it can be achieved, is not one that liberals would want to call one of freedom, for it again risks masking important forms of oppression. It is, after all, often in coming to terms with excessive external limitations in society that individuals retreat into themselves, pretending to themselves that they do not really desire the worldly goods or pleasures they have been denied. Moreover, the removal of desires may also be an effect of outside forces, such as brainwashing, which we should hardly want to call a realization of freedom.

Read the original:
Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of …

| Illuminati News | Dialogue with "Hidden Hand", Self …

 Illuminati  Comments Off on | Illuminati News | Dialogue with "Hidden Hand", Self …
Jul 222015
 

his self-proclaimed illuminati [def] Insider appeared on the “Above Top Secret” forum in October 2008, giving away information about the Illuminati Agenda and their goals. The reason for this, he says, is because time is right for us to know some of what is going on behind the scenes. And when he explains WHY he needs to reveal it now, it’s very convincing. In this article I will post the dialogue between the “Above Top Secret Forum” members and “Hidden Hand” in its entirety.

Please take time to read through this whole dialogue (yes, I know it’s long, but I think we all can benefit from it, even if you end up not believing what is said). When you read it, you need to have an open mind; you can’t be stuck in dogma or think you “have it all figured out” already, because then it doesn’t matter what he says, you won’t believe it.

Here are some points which makes him very believable; one being that the forum members he is communicating with make up pages after pages of random questions (as you can see in this article) and he answers them intelligently and precisely without the delay it would take for a person presenting a hoax to come up with them. This is also what the forum members notice. And he is consistent! Many of the questions are very good, deep, to the point and philosophical, and this guy (or woman, we don’t know – this being claims not to be from this Earth), manages to reply on a very deep level, and his answers don’t contradict each other. In an advanced and intelligent dialogue like this, it’s very unlikely anyone would be able to do that without giving himself away at some point. You will most certainly notice he/she is sincere.

Ever wondered who is “on top of the Pyramid?” He gives us a clue. The bloodline he represents is well above the Rothschild’s in power and in the hierarchy and is extra-terrestrial in origin. The 13 bloodlines we have been talking about thus far on this website and others, with the Rothschild’s in a top position together with the Merovingian Nobility, are quite low rank in the Big Pyramid Structure, and are the ones playing a power game here on Earth, only aware of parts of the Big Game (a need to know basis). The bloodline “Hidden Hand” is supposedly belonging to is way more advanced and higher rank.

I really think this being believes in what he is saying, and whether he is deceived himself to some degree or not, this is most probably what is driving the Illuminati. These are their goals! It leaves you with a pretty strange feeling after have read it all, but deep inside it rings true.

His answers may need to be read more than once to understand the different layers of what he is telling us. Afterwards, when you start connecting the dots you notice that a lot of pieces in the big puzzle that previously were missing and left unanswered, suddenly fit.

If you are visiting the Illuminati News website for the first time, already have a fair concept of what the Illuminati and the New World Order is about, and you only intend to read ONE article from my huge database, I would say this one would be the one to read! [You certainly don’t want to lose this page and then need to go through data recovery on your internet browser hoping you didn’t lose it so you can come back to it later!]

Follow this link:
| Illuminati News | Dialogue with "Hidden Hand", Self …

Kovalam – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Beaches  Comments Off on Kovalam – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jul 222015
 

Kovalam is a beach town by the Arabian Sea in Thiruvananthapuram city, Kerala, India, located around 16km from the city center.[1]

Kovalam means a grove of coconut trees and true to its name the village offers an endless sight of coconut trees.

Kovalam first received attention when the Regent Maharani Sethu Lakshmi Bayi of Travancore constructed her beach resort, Halcyon Castle, here towards the end of the 1920s. Thereafter the place was brought to the public eye by her nephew the Maharaja of Travancore.[2] The European guests of the then Travancore kingdom discovered the potentiality of Kovalam beach as a tourist destination in the 1930s. However, Kovalam shot into limelight in the early seventies with arrivals of the masses of hippies on their way to Ceylon in the Hippie Trail. This exodus started the transformation of a casual fishing village of Kerala into one of the most important tourist destinations in all India.[3]

Kovalam has three beaches separated by rocky outcroppings in its 17km coastline, the three together form the famous crescent of the Kovalam beach

Detour past Kovalam junction to land on Samudra Beach which is to the north of Ashoka Beach. One has the option to walk along the sea-wall too.The sight of the waves lashing on the rocks below is awesome. Shallow waters stretching for hundreds of metres are ideal for swimming. The beaches have steep palm covered headlands and are lined with shops that offer all kinds of goods and services.[6]

The larger of the beaches is called Light House Beach for its 35 metre high light house which towers over it atop Kurumkal hillock. The second largest one is Hawah Beach named thus for the topless European women who used to throng there. It was the first topless beach in India.[citation needed] However topless bathing is banned now except in private coves owned by resorts. Visitors frequent these two beaches. The northern part of the beach is known as Samudra Beach in tourism parlance. A large promontory separates this part from the southern side. Samudra Beach doesn’t have tourists thronging there or hectic business. The local fishermen ply their trade on this part. The sands on the beaches in Kovalam are partially black in colour due to the presence of ilmenite and Monazite. The normal tourist season is from September to May. Ashoka beach is also the part of Kovalam beach.

There are a large number of beach resorts in and around Kovalam. The sea port of Vizhinjam is about 3km away and famous for its special varieties of fish, old Hindu temples, big churches and a mosque. The Proposed International Trans shipment Terminal at Vizhinjam is also close to Kovalam.

Kovalam was among the most prominent tourist spots in India during the hippy era. It still has a high status among tourists, who arrive mostly from Europe and Israel.[citation needed] Kovalam is finding a new significance in the light of several Ayurvedic salons, and recuperation and regeneration resorts which provide a wide variety of Ayurvedic treatments for tourists.[7]

Kovalam assembly constituency is part of Trivandrum (Lok Sabha constituency).[8] The assembly constituency of Kovalam is represented by Jameela Prakasham of Janatha Dal. She defeated the sitting MLA Adv. George Mercier.[9][10]

Hawwah beach (Eves beach)

Read more:
Kovalam – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …

 Regenerative Medicine  Comments Off on About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …
Jul 222015
 

Dr.DorisTayloris involved in both laboratory and clinical studies using cell therapy to treat disease. Almost5 million Americans are living with heart failure and more than half a million new cases are diagnosed annually. Almost 50,000 people die each year while awaiting a heart transplant and, for a decade or more, only about 2,200 heart transplants have been performed in the entire United States. The need is dwarfed by the availability of donor organs.

This is one of the reasons there is such hope placed in the promising field of regenerative medicine. The groundbreaking work of Dr. Taylor and her team has demonstrated the ability in the lab to strip organs, including the heart, of their cellular make-up leaving a decellularized “scaffold.” The heartcan then be re-seeded with cells that, when supplied with blood and oxygen, regenerate the scaffold into a functioning heart. Dr. Taylor calls this using nature’s platform to create a bioartificial heart.

The hope is that this research is an early step toward being able to grow a fully functional human heart in the laboratory. Dr. Taylor has demonstrated that the process works for other organs as well, such as kidney, pancreas, lung, and liver where she has already tested the same approachopening a door in the field of organ transplantation.

Read more from the original source:
About Regenerative Medicine Research at the Texas Heart …

Technological singularity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Singularity  Comments Off on Technological singularity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jul 212015
 

The technological singularity is the hypothetical advent of artificial general intelligence (also known as “strong AI”). Such a computer, computer network, or robot would theoretically be capable of recursive self-improvement (redesigning itself), or of designing and building computers or robots better than itself. Repetitions of this cycle would likely result in a runaway effect an intelligence explosion[1][2] where smart machines design successive generations of increasingly powerful machines, creating intelligence far exceeding human intellectual capacity and control. Because the capabilities of such a superintelligence may be impossible for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is an occurrence beyond which events may become unpredictable, unfavorable, or even unfathomable.[3]

The first use of the term “singularity” in this context was made in 1958 by the Hungarian born mathematician and physicist John von Neumann. In 1958, regarding a summary of a conversation with von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam described “ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue”.[4] The term was popularized by mathematician, computer scientist and science fiction author Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or braincomputer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity.[5] Futurist Ray Kurzweil cited von Neumann’s use of the term in a foreword to von Neumann’s classic The Computer and the Brain.

Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045[6] whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.[7] At the 2012 Singularity Summit, Stuart Armstrong did a study of artificial general intelligence (AGI) predictions by experts and found a wide range of predicted dates, with a median value of 2040. Discussing the level of uncertainty in AGI estimates, Armstrong said in 2012, “It’s not fully formalized, but my current 80% estimate is something like five to 100 years.”[8]

Strong AI might bring about an intelligence explosion, a term coined in 1965 by I. J. Good.[9] Although technological progress has been accelerating, it has been limited by the basic intelligence of the human brain, which has not, according to Paul R. Ehrlich, changed significantly for millennia.[10] However, with the increasing power of computers and other technologies, it might eventually be possible to build a machine that is more intelligent than humanity.[11] If a superhuman intelligence were to be inventedeither through the amplification of human intelligence or through artificial intelligenceit might be able to bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than current humans are capable of. It might then design an even more capable machine, or re-write its own software to become even more intelligent. This more capable machine could then go on to design a machine of yet greater capability. These iterations of recursive self-improvement could accelerate, potentially allowing enormous qualitative change before any upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation set in.[12][13][14]

Many of the most recognized writers on the singularity, such as Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, define the concept in terms of the technological creation of superintelligence. They argue that it is difficult or impossible for present-day humans to predict what human beings’ lives will be like in a post-singularity world.[6][7][15] The term “technological singularity” was originally coined by Vinge, who made an analogy between the breakdown in our ability to predict what would happen after the development of superintelligence and the breakdown of the predictive ability of modern physics at the space-time singularity beyond the event horizon of a black hole.[15]

Some writers use “the singularity” in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as molecular nanotechnology,[16][17][18] although Vinge and other prominent writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.[7] Many writers also tie the singularity to observations of exponential growth in various technologies (with Moore’s Law being the most prominent example), using such observations as a basis for predicting that the singularity is likely to happen sometime within the 21st century.[17][19]

Gary Marcus claims that “virtually everyone in the A.I. field believes” that machines will one day overtake humans and “at some level, the only real difference between enthusiasts and skeptics is a time frame.”[20] However, many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including Paul Allen, Jeff Hawkins, John Holland, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose Moore’s Law is often cited in support of the concept.[21][22][23]

The exponential growth in computing technology suggested by Moore’s Law is commonly cited as a reason to expect a singularity in the relatively near future, and a number of authors have proposed generalizations of Moore’s Law. Computer scientist and futurist Hans Moravec proposed in a 1998 book[24] that the exponential growth curve could be extended back through earlier computing technologies prior to the integrated circuit. Futurist Ray Kurzweil postulates a law of accelerating returns in which the speed of technological change (and more generally, all evolutionary processes[25]) increases exponentially, generalizing Moore’s Law in the same manner as Moravec’s proposal, and also including material technology (especially as applied to nanotechnology), medical technology and others.[26] Between 1986 and 2007, machines’ application-specific capacity to compute information per capita has roughly doubled every 14 months; the per capita capacity of the world’s general-purpose computers has doubled every 18 months; the global telecommunication capacity per capita doubled every 34 months; and the world’s storage capacity per capita doubled every 40 months.[27] Like other authors, though, Kurzweil reserves the term “singularity” for a rapid increase in intelligence (as opposed to other technologies), writing for example that “The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains … There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine”.[28] He believes that the “design of the human brain, while not simple, is nonetheless a billion times simpler than it appears, due to massive redundancy”.[29] According to Kurzweil, the reason why the brain has a messy and unpredictable quality is because the brain, like most biological systems, is a “probabilistic fractal”.[30] He also defines his predicted date of the singularity (2045) in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower, writing that advances in computing before that date “will not represent the Singularity” because they do “not yet correspond to a profound expansion of our intelligence.”[31]

Some singularity proponents argue its inevitability through extrapolation of past trends, especially those pertaining to shortening gaps between improvements to technology. In one of the first uses of the term “singularity” in the context of technological progress, Stanislaw Ulam (1958) tells of a conversation with John von Neumann about accelerating change:

One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.[4]

Original post:

Technological singularity – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Free Speech Zone

 Free Speech  Comments Off on The Free Speech Zone
Jul 212015
 

“We don’t torture… We freedom tickle.” – John Stuart

“If I truly wanted to match Bush’s accomplishments, I would max out my credit card, take out a second mortgage and steal my mother’s Social Security. Instead, I’ll just spend it with my five kids and, in the spirit of the second Bush administration, we’re going to rent ‘Titanic.'” – Terry McAuliffe

“It’s all over but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting.” – Peter King

“When people think, Democrats win.” -Bill Clinton

“There’s a difference, when Lincoln prayed, he talked to God. When Bush prays, God talks to Bush.” – Mario Cuomo

“What you fight about is notas important as how you settle it.” – Crash N.

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – “Mahatma” Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. – A. J. Muste

Go here to see the original:
The Free Speech Zone

Amazon.com: Unforgettable Moments: Cosmic Heaven: MP3 …

 Cosmic  Comments Off on Amazon.com: Unforgettable Moments: Cosmic Heaven: MP3 …
Jul 212015
 

“).appendTo(“#navbar”)),r.html(“”),n.removeClass(“nav-subnav”),s.categoryKey&&s.digest){r.attr(“data-category”,s.categoryKey).attr(“data-digest”,s.digest).attr(“class”,s.category.data.categoryStyle),s.style?r.attr(“style”,s.style):r.attr(“style”)&&r.removeAttr(“style”);var i=function(t){if(t&&t.href){var n=”nav-a”,s=t.text,i=t.dataKey;if(!s&&!t.image){if(!i||0!==i.indexOf(e.ADVANCED_PREFIX))return;s=””,n+=” nav-aText”}var d=t.image?””:s,l=a(“”),v=a(“”+d+””);if(“image”===t.type&&(v.html(“”),l.addClass(“nav-hasImage”),t.rightText=””),t.bold&&!t.image&&l.addClass(“nav-b”),t.floatRight&&l.addClass(“nav-right”),t.flyoutFullWidth&&”0″!==t.flyoutFullWidth&&l.attr(“data-nav-flyout-full-width”,”1″),t.src){var g=[“nav-image”];t[“absolute-right”]&&g.push(“nav-image-abs-right”),t[“absolute-right”]&&g.push(“nav-image-abs-right”),a(“”).appendTo(v)}t.rightText&&v.append(t.rightText),v.appendTo(l),i&&(a(“”).appendTo(l),l.attr(“data-nav-key”,i).addClass(“nav-hasArrow”)),l.appendTo(r),r.append(document.createTextNode(” “))}};if(s.category&&s.category.data&&(s.category.data.bold=!0,i(s.category.data)),s.subnav&&”linkSequence”===s.subnav.type)for(var d=0;d

Your Music Library

#title# added to your Music Library #title# added to your Music Library #title# added to your Music Library

Fix in Music Library Close

Read this article:
Amazon.com: Unforgettable Moments: Cosmic Heaven: MP3 …

Transhuman Treachery – TV Tropes

 Transhuman  Comments Off on Transhuman Treachery – TV Tropes
Jul 022015
 

When given powers or made non-human, characters gladly betray humanity and side with their creator. Part of the Horror of being infected by The Virus is its ability to corrupt the mind of a victim, subordinating them into a Hive Mind or outright making them a sociopathic shell of their former self, intent only on killing or infecting their former loved ones. But then there’s times that a transformation doesn’t brainwash, de-soul, drive insane, or demonically possess the victim. Other times the Viral Transformation causes changes that are purely cosmetic, granting amazing abilities albeit at great cost and (usually) a horrifying appearance. So what do these unwilling tranformees do? Become Phlebotinum Rebels or Vampire Refugees and use their powers to fight these monsters? Nope. They engage in Transhuman Treachery. They sell out humanity and ally with who- or what-ever did this to them, regardless of whether or not they wanted to kill all vampires, robots, mutants, or aliens five minutes ago. There is no shock, only joy at becoming “more” than human and being able to flout society’s rules. If this Face-Heel Turn is too quick, it gives the impression that one of the other things is going, like The Dark Side, or With Great Power Comes Great Insanity. However; this trope may be justified a couple of ways. If The Mind Is a Plaything of the Body it doesn’t matter that vampire Dan doesn’t want to drink human blood, he has to, and trying to be friendly won’t last. Alternately, someone seeking the Curse That Cures may make the painful choice to switch sides to save their life. If the setting has an ongoing “race war” against what the character has become, if they don’t join their new race they’ll quickly face death. However most of the time the switch in alliances comes about with alarming speed and lack of concern. At best you’ll see these Big Bad Friends offer the transformation to a friend or loved one… and kill them if they refuse. The Dark Side, they have cookies. It seems resisting these new biological impulses or avoiding becoming drunk on power is reserved solely for protagonists with Heroic Willpower. A possible cause of Beware the Superman, this is the third sin in the Scale of Scientific Sins. Compare Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing and Species Loyalty. Contrast Monsters Anonymous. May lead to forming an Anti-Human Alliance. Opposite Trope to Pro-Human Transhuman or Humanity Is Infectious, depending on the details.

open/close all folders

Anime

Comic Books

Fanfic

Film

LARP

Literature

Live-Action TV

Tabletop Games

Read this article:
Transhuman Treachery – TV Tropes

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? – United States Courts

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? – United States Courts
Jun 022015
 

Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonablein the eyes of the law,is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.

The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure.Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search;Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946) If the search is incident to a lawful arrest;United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances;Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) If the items are in plain view;Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances. New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009),

An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot. Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

Link:
What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? – United States Courts

Court rules NSA program illegal – CNNPolitics.com

 NSA  Comments Off on Court rules NSA program illegal – CNNPolitics.com
May 082015
 

The government has argued it has the power to carry forward with the program under a section of the Patriot Act, which expires in June. Lawmakers are locked in a debate on whether or how to renew the authority, which was first passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, but has been renewed by both Presidents Bush and Obama in the intervening years.

Documents confirming the program’s existence were first revealed in June of 2013 with the leaks by former government contractor Edward Snowden.

The decision by a three-judge panel that the phone record collection program, which was mostly secret for nearly a decade, is not supported by the current version of the law, will certainly enter into the brewing political debate over renewing it.

RELATED: Why the NSA decision matters

Judge Gerard E. Lynch, writing for a three judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, said the program “exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized.”

Lynch wrote that the text of the Patriot Act “cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program.”

The Court did not address the larger question of whether the program is constitutional and sent the case back down to a lower court for further proceedings. It noted that the section of the Patriot Act that the government said authorized the law – Section 215 – is set to expire in early June.

“In light of the asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape,” Lynch wrote.

He was clearly concerned with the scope of the program. He wrote the “sheer volume of information sought is staggering.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is also running for president, defended the NSA program on the Senate floor shortly after the court decision was made public.

Follow this link:
Court rules NSA program illegal – CNNPolitics.com

NATO Twitter Response: NATO spokesman mocks Russia with geography lesson – Video

 NATO  Comments Off on NATO Twitter Response: NATO spokesman mocks Russia with geography lesson – Video
Apr 142015
 



NATO Twitter Response: NATO spokesman mocks Russia with geography lesson
NATO spokesman Jay Janzen has mocked Russia on Twitter with a cheeky 'geography lesson'. In response to a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman calling the deployment of NATO troops to …

By: UKRAINE TODAY

Read the rest here:
NATO Twitter Response: NATO spokesman mocks Russia with geography lesson – Video

Groups push to end NSA spying before June

 NSA  Comments Off on Groups push to end NSA spying before June
Apr 142015
 

WASHINGTON The National Security Agencys authority to collect the phone records of millions of people is scheduled to end on June 1, and a bipartisan privacy coalition of 39 organizations wants to make sure it stays that way.

The new coalition, Fight215.org, is asking Congress to end Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which requires phone carriers to hand over the call records of American citizens to the NSA.

While NSA surveillance has been in the news for nearly two years following the first disclosures from former NSA contractor Edward Snowdens document leak, a number of Congressional attempts to reform the agency have failed.

For example, Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, who promised during his announcement to run for the GOP presidential nomination to end the bulk collection program, voted no against the USA FREEDOM Act in Nov. 2014 because it would have extended the Section 215 program for another two years.

The coalition includes a range of organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Free Press Action Fund, DownsizeDC, TechFreedom, Fight for the Future, R Street Institute, and Human Rights Watch and the Sunlight Foundation.

Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, said in a statement calling upon Congress to act, of course the NSA plays a valuable role in protecting Americans, but it must and can do that consistent with the Fourth Amendment, which bars indiscriminate surveillance of innocent Americans with no connection to national security threats.

Click here for more from Watchdog.org.

Visit link:
Groups push to end NSA spying before June

The NSA wants front door access to your encrypted data

 NSA  Comments Off on The NSA wants front door access to your encrypted data
Apr 142015
 

Last December, I had the opportunity to travel to the Netherlands to meet with multiple European tech companies, web hosts, and other infrastructure providers. The topic of intelligence agency backdoors and US corporate involvement with such policies came up more than once, often in not-entirely-friendly ways. Its therefore refreshing to see the head of the NSA, Admiral Michael S. Rogers, state up front that the NSA isnt interested in a backdoor solution to digital surveillance. Instead, he wants a so-called front-door solution which could be even worse.

Instead of handing the NSA a unilateral window into encrypted communications taking place at Google or Apple, Rogers suggested a future in which the encryption keys to access such information would be divided between at least two groups possibly more. In the simplest example, Google would retain half the key, while the NSA held the other half. Thus, the agency wouldnt be able to unilaterally snoop inside anyones files it would need Googles support.

I dont want a back door, Rogers, the director of the nations top electronic spy agency, said during a speech at Princeton University, according to the Washington Post. I want a front door. And I want the front door to have multiple locks. Big locks.

The first problem with Rogers proposed front-door solution is that its a meaningless feel-good measure given the current regulatory structure of our national security system. Before the Snowden leaks, Google, Microsoft, and other digital providers were forbidden from disclosing that theyd received national security letters, even in aggregate. Thanks to Snowden, we now know that Yahoo went to bat for users, challenging the legality and authority of the NSA and lost, every time.

Giving half a key to Google or Yahoo would be meaningless unless the company possesses the authority to refuse to use it. In theory, the court system offers robust oversight of how such capabilities are used. In practice, the FISA court has operated more like a rubber stamp body than an organization devoted to judicial oversight. The government, as a whole, doesnt currently have a great track record of respecting suspects rights the FBI is on record as ordering local police departments to drop cases rather than disclose how secret stingray hardware may have been used in ways that fundamentally violate those suspects Fourth Amendment rights.

The other systemic problem with Rogers suggestion is that it assumes a degree of trust between corporations and government at a time when such good feelings are at an all-time low. The NSA has demonstrated no practical ability to differentiate between friend and foe. Its decision to hoover up data running across Googles transatlantic cables may have been legal, but it illustrated a total lack of respect for Google and a willingness to resort to extrajudicial methods when it was convenient.

The NSA could avoid this problem by sharing the key with government-appointed escrows rather than corporations, but this simply hides the process from public view. Thats already extremely problematic.

The technological problems with the NSAs front-door policy are formidable. The divide the key among trusted parties, approach isnt new the NSA proposed exactly this method of securing its ill-fated Clipper Chip in the early 1990s. At the time, the newly-formed EFF and other consumer advocacy agencies battled the NSAs proposed system, noting that it exposed citizens to increased surveillance while providing no assurance that the cryptographic standard, dubbed Skipjack, was actually secure.

Many of these questions would remain in any escrow system the government dreamed up today. The basic question is, is it possible to design a completely secure system to hold a master key available to the U.S. government but not adversaries, said Donna Dodson, chief cybersecurity adviser at the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technologies. Theres no way to do this where you dont have unintentional vulnerabilities.

Hackers, generally speaking, dont go after the code itself or attempt to brute-force it instead, they work to compromise the organizations that hold the keys, or find other avenues of attack. Splitting the key into parts is only an advantage if the parts cant be combined or analyzed for clues to the final key structure. In order to function properly, every escrow needs to be secure, and every one-time access key needs to be destroyed.

Read more here:
The NSA wants front door access to your encrypted data

Bitcoin Crash Culprit Success, not DDoS Hack Attack April 2015 – Video

 Bitcoin  Comments Off on Bitcoin Crash Culprit Success, not DDoS Hack Attack April 2015 – Video
Apr 142015
 



Bitcoin Crash Culprit Success, not DDoS Hack Attack April 2015
Link : https://app.box.com/s/dcppcf1dkljzj3gi8hs20bjcir9f4jut.

By: BitCoin Generator – Working 2014 April 2015

More here:
Bitcoin Crash Culprit Success, not DDoS Hack Attack April 2015 – Video

Colorado eyes ballot question to collect from corporate tax havens

 Tax Havens  Comments Off on Colorado eyes ballot question to collect from corporate tax havens
Apr 142015
 

Voters this November could determine whether corporations doing business in Colorado must report and pay state taxes on profits funneled into offshore tax havens.

Doing that would create a tax windfall of up to $150 million a year, according to a legislative analysis.

Rep. Brittany Petterson, D-Lakewood, and Rep. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette, sponsors of legislation to put the issue on the ballot, want that money earmarked for schools.

“When corporations don’t pay their taxes, kids pay the price,” said Kerrie Dallman, a high school social studies teacher in Jefferson County and president of the Colorado Education Association.

House Bill 1346 is scheduled to be heard before Colorado House of Representatives’ Finance Committee Wednesday afternoon the day income taxes are due.

“There are some corporations that don’t pay their taxes like the rest of us, unfortunately,” Foote said. “But they do get a chance to use our roads and take advantage of educated folks who work in their businesses, courts for dispute resolutions and so forth. They just don’t pay for that.”

The liberal-leaning Colorado Public Interest Research Group released a report Tuesday that indicates each small businesses in Colorado would have to pay an extra $3,165 annually to make up the money lost to corporate tax havens.

More than 300 Colorado small businesses have endorsed the bill asking for a vote.

“This bill will simply ensure that big corporations that should be paying their fair share restore funding to our state and back to our kids in their classrooms,” Petterson said.

Montana and Oregon have passed laws demanding a share of taxes from offshore accounts located in such places as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Island.

The rest is here:
Colorado eyes ballot question to collect from corporate tax havens

FCS Day 195! – Freedom! Channel Spotlight – Video

 Freedom  Comments Off on FCS Day 195! – Freedom! Channel Spotlight – Video
Apr 142015
 



FCS Day 195! – Freedom! Channel Spotlight
Freedom! Channel Spotlight, day 195! – To get a spotlight leave a comment below help your fellow partners! Today's featured channels: Qazint https://www.youtube.com/user/Qazint/featured…

By: Freedom!

More:
FCS Day 195! – Freedom! Channel Spotlight – Video




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism