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

What is Deafhood?

 Neo-eugenics  Comments Off on What is Deafhood?
Jun 192016
 

The organic cure for deafness.

DEAFHOOD IN BRIEF

Deafhood has two components:

It is a way of gathering together and framing what we already know of Deaf culture, life, politics etc.

The framing process itself reveals ways in which we can move beyond present Deaf cultural limitations resulting from the colonialism of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs).

PADDY LADD ON DEAFHOOD

The word Deafhood was first developed by Paddy Ladd in 1993. The concept was further developed through his doctoral dissertation on Deaf Culture in 1998. Ladd published a book on the subject in 2003, Understanding Deaf Culture – In Search of Deafhood. One of the books main aims is achieving Deaf unity.

Understanding the concept of colonization is an integral part of the Deafhood philosophy. The term Deafness, and others like it, are seen as arising from the colonization process. Hence there was a need to develop our own Deaf-centered term, Deafhood.

Deafhood acknowledges that ALL Deaf people embark on a journey towards deepening and refining their Deaf selves. Many are content to reside within the boundaries of existing Deaf cultures, yet some press on to stretch those boundaries.

DEAFHOOD ENCOMPASSES…

the total sum of all positive meanings of the word Deaf past, present and future

all the largest meanings of what Sign Language Peoples have been, are, and can become. Including:

– all that Deaf people have created in this world,

– all that they created which has been lost to sight (because of colonialism).

– all that they might create in future

Why another word for Deaf people?

Adapted from original article written by Nancy Mitchell Carroll and Ella Mae Lentz published in California Association of the Deaf Newsletter in 2006.

You have probably seen other people talking about the word Deafhood lately.

Why another word for Deaf people? Whats wrong with terms such as deafness, or deaf and hard of hearing? Deafhood is a term created by Dr. Paddy Ladd, a Deaf scholar in the Deaf Studies Department at the University of Bristol in England. Deafhood is found in Ladds book Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood (2003).

[We are]… people of the eye.

George Veditz

We are visually oriented in dealing with the environment. We feel most at ease using a signed language rather than a spoken language. If you fit that description, you have begun the search for Deafhood. The degree of your hearing or speaking ability does not matter. Each persons search for Deafhood occurs on all levels: physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, cultural and linguistic. And through that search, each Deaf person is linked to the amazing collective experience called the Deaf community and culture.

However, the search is not without obstacles. Those obstacles are Oralism and Audism which peaked in the early 1900s with the activities of eugenicists such as Alexander Graham Bell.

Deafhood is a process to decolonize our mind, body, and spirit from colonialism.

Paddy Ladd (2003)

Eugenics is the science of controlling the population by eliminating certain characteristics that are considered negative. This is done through selective breeding, sterilization, and at its worst, genocide. Oralism and Audism have come back more ferocious and dangerous in the 2000s with rampant mainstreaming, cochlear implants, and genetic engineering. At a 2005 California Association of the Deaf Conference, Patrick Boudreault called these tactics neo-eugenics because when it comes to Deaf people, their ultimate goal is to eradicate the

deficit, that horrible isolating disability, through technology and education.

Oralism is the educational philosophy and practice that focuses on developing speech and listening skills. This practice degrades Sign Language and claims it interferes with Deaf peoples acquisition of speech and listening skills.

The word Audism was coined in 1975 by Dr. Tom Humphries, a Deaf scholar currently working at the University of California in San Diego. Audism describes the behavior and/or attitude of an individual, profession, or institution that believes that being hearing is superior to being Deaf.

As an example, at the 2005 California Association of the Deaf conference, members voted to replace the term deaf and hard of hearing with Deafhood or Deaf in the CAD by-laws and other publications. The main reason was that the term deaf and hard of hearing has been very contentious in the Deaf community as we have tried to find an appropriate label for ourselves. The term has fostered unhealthy competition based on our varying levels of Deafness and language use. One result has been different groups of Deaf people accusing each other of rejection. The greatest success of Oralism is that groups of Deaf people are divided and one group accuses the other of being brainwashed into believing people with better hearing or speech are superior. This has caused resentments to arise.

The true success of Deafhood is when Deaf people feel at home with being Deaf and find a commonality with other Deaf people in their visual orientation and use of Sign Language. When we are secure with our own natural language and community, we can be healthier, more creative and more able to embrace the diversity that surrounds us.

The Deafhood Foundation desires to fight neo-eugenics, the oppression by Oralism and the arrogance of Audism by unifying into a political bloc those of us who seek our Deafhood. We begin by celebrating the many gifts springing out of our community, history and language. We vow not to fight against other Deaf people, but to support each other in our journeys towards Deafhood, and to challenge the influences of Oralism and Audism in our lives. We will fight against the systemic Audism prevalent in our schools, jobs, and families. We will also fight against financial interests and remove the masks of benevolence of the hearing companies or professionals that think they know all about the Deaf, but know nothing about our thoughts and souls, our feelings, desires, and needs.

We acknowledge there are people who do not see the need to search for their Deafhood. Some of those people are the ones who became Deaf in their later years, and feel they have no use for Sign Language or a Deaf identity. We understand that their primary language is spoken, their culture is hearing and naturally they may desire to restore their old identity and abilities. We know there are other organizations catering to those people and we do wish them the most happiness possible.

However, we declare that those people are also welcome to initiate their own journeys into Deafhood. To begin the journey, we encourage those people to learn and use our vibrant and exciting Sign Language, and to open themselves up to the challenges, joys and friends among other Deaf people. We will encourage them and welcome them, but we will never try to manipulate or control their bodies, their minds, or their souls as the Audists and Oralists have done to us for years.

It is essential for Deaf people to participate in this discourse as we collaborate to protect our dignity as a people, to protect our language and the right to use it and to share our Deafhood with the future generations.

For more information, e-mail info@deafhoodfoundation.org.

Here is the original post:

What is Deafhood?

Superintelligence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Superintelligence  Comments Off on Superintelligence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 172016
 

A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. “Superintelligence” may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems (e.g., superintelligent language translators or engineering assistants) whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world.

University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.”[1] The program Fritz falls short of superintelligence even though it is much better than humans at chess because Fritz cannot outperform humans in other tasks. Following Hutter and Legg, Bostrom treats superintelligence as general dominance at goal-oriented behavior, leaving open whether an artificial or human superintelligence would possess capacities such as intentionality (cf. the Chinese room argument) or first-person consciousness (cf. the hard problem of consciousness).

Technological researchers disagree about how likely present-day human intelligence is to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. A number of futures studies scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to interface with computers, or upload their minds to computers, in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.

Some researchers believe that superintelligence will likely follow shortly after the development of artificial general intelligence. The first sentient machines are likely to immediately hold an enormous advantage in at least some forms of mental capability, including the capacity of perfect recall, a vastly superior knowledge base, and the ability to multitask in ways not possible to biological entities. This may give them the opportunity toeither as a single being or as a new speciesbecome much more powerful than humans, and to displace them.[3]

A number of scientists and forecasters argue for prioritizing early research into the possible benefits and risks of human and machine cognitive enhancement, because of the potential social impact of such technologies.

Philosopher David Chalmers argues that artificial general intelligence is a very likely path to superhuman intelligence. Chalmers breaks this claim down into an argument that AI can achieve equivalence to human intelligence, that it can be extended to surpass human intelligence, and that it can be further amplified to completely dominate humans across arbitrary tasks.

Concerning human-level equivalence, Chalmers argues that the human brain is a mechanical system, and therefore ought to be emulatable by synthetic materials. He also notes that human intelligence was able to biologically evolve, making it more likely that human engineers will be able to recapitulate this invention. Evolutionary algorithms in particular should be able to produce human-level AI. Concerning intelligence extension and amplification, Chalmers argues that new AI technologies can generally be improved on, and that this is particularly likely when the invention can assist in designing new technologies.

If research into strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it would be able to reprogram and improve itself a feature called “recursive self-improvement”. It would then be even better at improving itself, and could continue doing so in a rapidly increasing cycle, leading to a superintelligence. This scenario is known as an intelligence explosion. Such an intelligence would not have the limitations of human intellect, and may be able to invent or discover almost anything.

Computer components already greatly surpass human performance in speed. Bostrom writes, Biological neurons operate at a peak speed of about 200 Hz, a full seven orders of magnitude slower than a modern microprocessor (~2 GHz). Moreover, neurons transmit spike signals across axons at no greater than 120 m/s, “whereas existing electronic processing cores can communicate optically at the speed of light”. Thus, the simplest example of a superintelligence may be an emulated human mind that’s run on much faster hardware than the brain. A human-like reasoner that could think millions of times faster than current humans would have a dominant advantage in most reasoning tasks, particularly ones that require haste or long strings of actions.

Another advantage of computers is modularity, that is, their size or computational capacity can be increased. A non-human (or modified human) brain could become much larger than a present-day human brain, like many supercomputers. Bostrom also raises the possibility of collective superintelligence: a large enough number of separate reasoning systems, if they communicated and coordinated well enough, could act in aggregate with far greater capabilities than any sub-agent.

There may also be ways to qualitatively improve on human reasoning and decision-making. Humans appear to differ from chimpanzees in the ways we think more than we differ in brain size or speed.[10] Humans outperform non-human animals in large part because of new or enhanced reasoning capacities, such as long-term planning and language use. (See evolution of human intelligence and primate cognition.) If there are other possible improvements to reasoning that would have a similarly large impact, this makes it likelier that an agent can be built that outperforms humans in the same fashion humans outperform chimpanzees.

All of the above advantages hold for artificial superintelligence, but it is not clear how many hold for biological superintelligence. Physiological constraints limit the speed and size of biological brains in many ways that are inapplicable to machine intelligence. As such, writers on superintelligence have devoted much more attention to superintelligent AI scenarios.

Carl Sagan suggested that the advent of Caesarean sections and in vitro fertilization may permit humans to evolve larger heads, resulting in improvements via natural selection in the heritable component of human intelligence.[13] By contrast, Gerald Crabtree has argued that decreased selection pressure is resulting in a slow, centuries-long reduction in human intelligence, and that this process instead is likely to continue into the future. There is no scientific consensus concerning either possibility, and in both cases the biological change would be slow, especially relative to rates of cultural change.

Selective breeding and genetic engineering could improve human intelligence more rapidly. Bostrom writes that if we come to understand the genetic component of intelligence, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used to select for embryos with as much as 4 points of IQ gain (if one embryo is selected out of two), or with larger gains (e.g., up to 24.3 IQ points gained if one embryo is selected out of 1000). If this process is iterated over many generations, the gains could be an order of magnitude greater. Bostrom suggests that deriving new gametes from embryonic stem cells could be used to iterate the selection process very rapidly. A well-organized society of high-intelligence humans of this sort could potentially achieve collective superintelligence.

Alternatively, collective intelligence might be constructible by better organizing humans at present levels of individual intelligence. A number of writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systems-based superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism.

A final method of intelligence amplification would be to directly enhance individual humans, as opposed to enhancing their social or reproductive dynamics. This could be achieved using nootropics, somatic gene therapy, or braincomputer interfaces. However, Bostrom expresses skepticism about the scalability of the first two approaches, and argues that designing a superintelligent cyborg interface is an AI-complete problem.

Most surveyed AI researchers expect machines to eventually be able to rival humans in intelligence, though there is little consensus on timescales. At the 2006 AI@50 conference, 18% of attendees reported expecting machines to be able “to simulate learning and every other aspect of human intelligence” by 2056; 41% of attendees expected this to happen sometime after 2056; and 41% expected machines to never reach that milestone.[18]

In a survey of the 100 most cited authors in AI (as of May 2013, according to Microsoft Academic Search), the median year by which respondents expected machines “that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human” (assuming no global catastrophe occurs) with 10% confidence is 2024 (mean 2034, st. dev. 33 years), with 50% confidence is 2050 (mean 2072, st. dev. 110 years), and with 90% confidence is 2070 (mean 2168, st. dev. 342 years). These estimates exclude the 1.2% of respondents who said no year would ever reach 10% confidence, the 4.1% who said ‘never’ for 50% confidence, and the 16.5% who said ‘never’ for 90% confidence. Respondents assigned a median 50% probability to the possibility that machine superintelligence will be invented within 30 years of the invention of approximately human-level machine intelligence.

Bostrom expressed concern about what values a superintelligence should be designed to have. He compared several proposals:

Responding to Bostrom, Santos-Lang raised concern that developers may attempt to start with a single kind of superintelligence.

It has been suggested that learning computers that rapidly become superintelligent may take unforeseen actions or that robots would out-compete humanity (one technological singularity scenario).[22] Researchers have argued that, by way of an “intelligence explosion” sometime over the next century, a self-improving AI could become so powerful as to be unstoppable by humans.[23]

Concerning human extinction scenarios, Bostrom (2002) identifies superintelligence as a possible cause:

When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.

In theory, since a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled, unintended consequences could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference.[24]

Eliezer Yudkowsky explains: “The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.”[25]

Bill Hibbard advocates for public education about superintelligence and public control over the development of superintelligence.

Original post:

Superintelligence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 4:58 am  Tagged with:

Communities Directory – Find Intentional Communities

 Intentional Communities  Comments Off on Communities Directory – Find Intentional Communities
Jun 122016
 

The Intentional Communities Directory is part of the Intentional Communities website, a project of the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC). Intentional Communities can update their listings online so you get the most up to date information possible. You can add your community now.

If you are looking for an intentional community, ecovillage, cohousing, commune, co-op, or other cooperative living arrangement, browse through our community lists geographic, or by type of community (ecovillages, communes, cohousing, co-ops, or christian), look at our maps, or search our database. You can filter your search on many key characteristics of each community such as location, size, etc.

You can also find communities looking for people, community homes and land for sale, and more, in the Community Classifieds.

To obtain more information about any listed community, contact that community directly using the contact information they have provided. Readers of this site are invited to comment on communities that they have direct experience with. Look towards the bottom of each community listing for a place to add your comment (you must be a registered user) or to see what other readers have to say.

This website is funded completely by donations plus volunteer/far below market rate labor. If you find this site useful we encourage you to donate to our Online Communities Directory Fund.

The FIC also sells a Communities Directory book. The 7th Edition of the Communities Directory is now available for pre-order!It will feature over 1,200 communities, plus include charts comparing communities, maps, articles, and bonus resources to help you visit, join, or create a community.

Help us promote the online Communities Directory by linking to this site. Thank you!

Read the original here:

Communities Directory – Find Intentional Communities

 Posted by at 12:41 am  Tagged with:

Artificial Intelligence | Neuro AI

 Artificial Intelligence  Comments Off on Artificial Intelligence | Neuro AI
Jun 122016
 

The phrase Artificial Intelligence was first coined by John McCarthy four decades ago. One representative definition is pivoted around comparing intelligent machines with human beings. Another definition is concerned with the performance of machines which historically have been judged to lie within the domain of intelligence.

Yet none of these definitions have been universally accepted, probably because the reference of the word intelligence which is an immeasurable quantity. A better definition of artificial intelligence, and probably the most accurate would be: An artificial system capable of planning and executing the right task at the right time rationally. Or far simpler: a machine that can act rationally.

With all this a common questions arises:

Does rational thinking and acting include all characteristics of an intelligent system?

If so, how does it represent behavioral intelligence such as learning, perception and planning?

If we think a little, a system capable of reasoning would be a successful planner. Moreover, a system can act rationally only after acquiring knowledge from the real world. So the property of perception is a perquisite of building up knowledge from the real world.

With all this we may conclude that a machine that lacks of perception cannot learn, therefore cannot acquire knowledge.

To understand the practical meaning or artificial intelligence we must illustrate some common problems. All problems that are dealt with artificial intelligence solutions use the common term state.

A state represents the status of a solution at a given step during the problem solving procedure. The solution of a problem is a collection of states. The problem solving procedure or algorithm applies an operator to a state to get the next state. Then, it applies another operator to the resulting state to derive a new state.

The process of applying operators to each state is continued until a desired goal is achieved.

Example : Consider a 4-puzzle problem, where in a 4-cell board there are 3 cells filled with digits and 1 blank cell. The initial state of the game represents a particular orientation of the digits in the cells and the final state to be achieved is another orientation supplied to the game player. The problem of the game is to reach from the given initial state to the goal (final) state, if possible, with a minimum of moves. Let the initial and the final state be as shown in figures 1(a) and (b) respectively.

We now define two operations, blank-up (BU) / blank-down (BD) and blank-left (BL) / blank-right (BR), and the state-space (tree) for the problem is presented below using these operators. The algorithm for the above kind of problems is straightforward. It consists of three steps, described by steps 1, 2(a) and 2(b) below.

Algorithm for solving state-space problems

Begin

It is clear that the main trick in solving problems by the state-space approach is to determine the set of operators and to use it at appropriate states of the problem.

Researchers in artificial intelligence have segregated the AI problems from the non-AI problems. Generally, problems, for which straightforward mathematical / logical algorithms are not readily available and which can be solved by intuitive approach only, are called AI problems.

The 4-puzzle problem, for instance, is an ideal AI Problem. There is no formal algorithm for its realization, i.e., given a starting and a goal state, one cannot say prior to execution of the tasks the sequence of steps required to get the goal from the starting state. Such problems are called the ideal AI problems.

The well known water-jug problem, the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP), and the n-Queen problem are typical examples of the classical AI problems.

Among the non-classical AI problems, the diagnosis problems and the pattern classification problem need special mention. For solving an AI problem, one may employ both artificial intelligence and non-AI algorithms. An obvious question is: what is an AI algorithm?

Formally speaking, an artificial intelligence algorithm generally means a non-conventional intuitive approach for problem solving. The key to artificial intelligence approach is intelligent search and matching. In an intelligent search problem / sub-problem, given a goal (or starting) state, one has to reach that state from one or more known starting (or goal) states.

For example, consider the 4-puzzle problem, where the goal state is known and one has to identify the moves for reaching the goal from a pre-defined starting state. Now, the less number of states one generates for reaching the goal, the better. That is the AI algorithm.

The question that then naturally arises is: how to control the generation of states?

This can be achieved by suitably designing control strategies, which would filter a few states only from a large number of legal states that could be generated from a given starting / intermediate state.

As an example, consider the problem of proving a trigonometric identity that children are used to doing during their schooldays. What would they do at the beginning? They would start with one side of the identity, and attempt to apply a number of formula there to find the possible resulting derivations.

But they wont really apply all the formula there. Rather, they identify the right candidate formula that fits there, such that the other side of the identity that seems to be closer in some sense (outlook). Ultimately, when the decision regarding the selection of the formula is over, they apply it to one side (say the L.H.S) of the identity and derive the new state.

Therefore, they continue the process and go on generating new intermediate states until the R.H.S (goal) is reached. But do they always select the right candidate formula at a given state? From our experience, we know the answer is not always. But what would we do if we find that after generation of a few states, the resulting expression seems to be far away from the R.H.S of the identity.

Perhaps we would prefer to move to some old state, which is more promising, i.e., closer to the R.H.S of the identity. The above line of thinking has been realized in many intelligent search problems of AI.

Some of these well-known search algorithms are:

a) Generate and Test Approach : This approach concerns the generation of the state-space from a known starting state (root) of the problem and continues expanding the reasoning space until the goal node or the terminal state is reached.

In fact after generating each and every state, the generated node is compared with the known goal state. When the goal is found, the algorithm terminates. In case there exist multiple paths leading to the goal, then the path having the smallest distance from the root is preferred. The basic strategy used in this search is only generation of states and their testing for goals but it does not allow filtering of states.

(b) Hill Climbing Approach : Under this approach, one has to first generate a starting state and measure the total cost for reaching the goal from the given starting state. Let this cost be f. While f = a predefined utility value and the goal is not reached, new nodes are generated as children of the current node. However, in case all neighborhood nodes (states) yield an identical value of f and the goal is not included in the set of these nodes, the search algorithm is trapped at a hillock or local extreme.

One way to overcome this problem is to select randomly a new starting state and then continue the above search process. While proving trigonometric identities, we often use Hill Climbing, perhaps unknowingly.

(c) Heuristic Search: Classically heuristics means rule of thumb. In heuristic search, we generally use one or more heuristic functions to determine the better candidate states among a set of legal states that could be generated from a known state.

The heuristic function, in other words, measures the fitness of the candidate states. The better the selection of the states, the fewer will be the number of intermediate states for reaching the goal.

However, the most difficult task in heuristic search problems is the selection of the heuristic functions. One has to select them intuitively, so that in most cases hopefully it would be able to prune the search space correctly.

(d) Means and Ends Analysis: This method of search attempts to reduce the gap between the current state and the goal state. One simple way to explore this method is to measure the distance between the current state and the goal, and then apply an operator to the current state, so that the distance between the resulting state and the goal is reduced. In many mathematical theorem- proving processes, we use Means and Ends Analysis.

The subject of artificial intelligence spans a wide horizon. It deals with various kinds of knowledge representation schemes, different techniques of intelligent search, various methods for resolving uncertainty of data and knowledge, different schemes for automated machine learning and many others.

Among the application areas of AI, we have Expert systems, Game-playing, and Theorem-proving, Natural language processing, Image recognition, Robotics and many others. The subject of artificial intelligence has been enriched with a wide discipline of knowledge from Philosophy, Psychology, Cognitive Science, Computer Science, Mathematics and Engineering. Thus has the figure shows, they have been referred to as the parent disciplines of AI. An at-a-glance look at fig. also reveals the subject area of AI and its application areas. Fig.: AI, its parent disciplines and application areas.

The subject of artificial intelligence was originated with game-playing and theorem-proving programs and was gradually enriched with theories from a number of parent disciplines. As a young discipline of science, the significance of the topics covered under the subject changes considerably with time. At present, the topics which we find significant and worthwhile to understand the subject are outlined below: FigA: Pronunciation learning of a child from his mother.

Learning Systems: Among the subject areas covered under artificial intelligence, learning systems needs special mention. The concept of learning is illustrated here with reference to a natural problem of learning of pronunciation by a child from his mother (vide figA). The hearing system of the child receives the pronunciation of the character A and the voice system attempts to imitate it. The difference of the mothers and the childs pronunciation, hereafter called the error signal, is received by the childs learning system auditory nerve, and an actuation signal is generated by the learning system through a motor nerve for adjustment of the pronunciation of the child. The adaptation of the childs voice system is continued until the amplitude of the error signal is insignificantly low. Each time the voice system passes through an adaptation cycle, the resulting tongue position of the child for speaking A is saved by the learning process. The learning problem discussed above is an example of the well-known parametric learning, where the adaptive learning process adjusts the parameters of the childs voice system autonomously to keep its response close enough to the sample training pattern. The artificial neural networks, which represent the electrical analogue of the biological nervous systems, are gaining importance for their increasing applications in supervised (parametric) learning problems. Besides this type, the other common learning methods, which we do unknowingly, are inductive and analogy-based learning. In inductive learning, the learner makes generalizations from examples. For instance, noting that cuckoo flies, parrot flies and sparrow flies, the learner generalizes that birds fly. On the other hand, in analogy-based learning, the learner, for example, learns the motion of electrons in an atom analogously from his knowledge of planetary motion in solar systems.

Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: In a reasoning problem, one has to reach a pre-defined goal state from one or more given initial states. So, the lesser the number of transitions for reaching the goal state, the higher the efficiency of the reasoning system. Increasing the efficiency of a reasoning system thus requires minimization of intermediate states, which indirectly calls for an organized and complete knowledge base. A complete and organized storehouse of knowledge needs minimum search to identify the appropriate knowledge at a given problem state and thus yields the right next state on the leading edge of the problem-solving process. Organization of knowledge, therefore, is of paramount importance in knowledge engineering. A variety of knowledge representation techniques are in use in Artificial Intelligence. Production rules, semantic nets, frames, filler and slots, and predicate logic are only a few to mention. The selection of a particular type of representational scheme of knowledge depends both on the nature of applications and the choice of users.

Planning: Another significant area of artificial intelligence is planning. The problems of reasoning and planning share many common issues, but have a basic difference that originates from their definitions. The reasoning problem is mainly concerned with the testing of the satisfiability of a goal from a given set of data and knowledge. The planning problem, on the other hand, deals with the determination of the methodology by which a successful goal can be achieved from the known initial states. Automated planning finds extensive applications in robotics and navigational problems, some of which will be discussed shortly.

Knowledge Acquisition: Acquisition (Elicitation) of knowledge is equally hard for machines as it is for human beings. It includes generation of new pieces of knowledge from given knowledge base, setting dynamic data structures for existing knowledge, learning knowledge from the environment and refinement of knowledge. Automated acquisition of knowledge by machine learning approach is an active area of current research in Artificial Intelligence. Intelligent Search: Search problems, which we generally encounter in Computer Science, are of a deterministic nature, i.e., the order of visiting the elements of the search space is known. For example, in depth first and breadth first search algorithms, one knows the sequence of visiting the nodes in a tree. However, search problems, which we will come across in AI, are non-deterministic and the order of visiting the elements in the search space is completely dependent on data sets. The diversity of the intelligent search algorithms will be discussed in detail later.

Logic Programming: For more than a century, mathematicians and logicians were used to designing various tools to represent logical statements by symbolic operators. One outgrowth of such attempts is propositional logic, which deals with a set of binary statements (propositions) connected by Boolean operators. The logic of propositions, which was gradually enriched to handle more complex situations of the real world, is called predicate logic. One classical variety of predicate logic-based programs is Logic Program. PROLOG, which is an abbreviation for PROgramming in LOGic, is a typical language that supports logic programs. Logic Programming has recently been identified as one of the prime area of research in AI. The ultimate aim of this research is to extend the PROLOG compiler to handle spatio-temporal models and support a parallel programming environment. Building architecture for PROLOG machines was a hot topic of the last decade.

Soft Computing: Soft computing, according to Prof. Zadeh, is an emerging approach to computing, which parallels the remarkable ability of the human mind to reason and learn in an environment of uncertainty and imprecision . It, in general, is a collection of computing tools and techniques, shared by closely related disciplines that include fuzzy logic, artificial neural nets, genetic algorithms, belief calculus, and some aspects of machine learning like inductive logic programming. These tools are used independently as well as jointly depending on the type of the domain of applications.

Management of Imprecision and Uncertainty: Data and knowledgebases in many typical AI problems, such as reasoning and planning, are often contaminated with various forms of incompleteness. The incompleteness of data, hereafter called imprecision, generally appears in the database for i) lack of appropriate data, and ii) poor authenticity level of the sources. The incompleteness of knowledge, often referred to as uncertainty, originates in the knowledge base due to lack of certainty of the pieces of knowledge Reasoning in the presence of imprecision of data and uncertainty of knowledge is a complex problem. Various tools and techniques have been devised for reasoning under incomplete data and knowledge. Some of these techniques employ i) stochastic ii) fuzzy and iii) belief network models. In a stochastic reasoning model, the system can have transition from one given state to a number of states, such that the sum of the probability of transition to the next states from the given state is strictly unity. In a fuzzy reasoning system, on the other hand, the sum of the membership value of transition from the given state to the next state may be greater than or equal to one. The belief network model updates the stochastic / fuzzy belief assigned to the facts embedded in the network until a condition of equilibrium is reached, following which there would be no more change in beliefs. Recently, fuzzy tools and techniques have been applied in a specialized belief network, called a fuzzy Petri net, for handling both imprecision of data and uncertainty of knowledge by a unified approach.

Almost every branch of science and engineering currently shares the tools and techniques available in the domain of artificial intelligence. However, for the sake of the convenience of the readers, we mention here a few typical applications, where AI plays a significant and decisive role in engineering automation. Expert Systems: In this example, we illustrate the reasoning process involved in an expert system for a weather forecasting problem with special emphasis to its architecture. An expert system consists of a knowledge base, database and an inference engine for interpreting the database using the knowledge supplied in the knowledge base. The reasoning process of a typical illustrative expert system is described in Fig. PR 1 in Fig. represents i-th production rule. The inference engine attempts to match the antecedent clauses (IF parts) of the rules with the data stored in the database. When all the antecedent clauses of a rule are available in the database, the rule is fired, resulting in new inferences. The resulting inferences are added to the database for activating subsequent firing of other rules. In order to keep limited data in the database, a few rules that contain an explicit consequent (THEN) clause to delete specific data from the databases are employed in the knowledge base. On firing of such rules, the unwanted data clauses as suggested by the rule are deleted from the database. Here PR1 fires as both of its antecedent clauses are present in the database. On firing of PR1, the consequent clause it-will-rain will be added to the database for subsequent firing of PR2. Fig. Illustrative architecture of an expert system.

Image Understanding and Computer Vision: A digital image can be regarded as a two-dimensional array of pixels containing gray levels corresponding to the intensity of the reflected illumination received by a video camera. For interpretation of a scene, its image should be passed through three basic processes: low, medium and high level vision . Fig.: Basic steps in scene interpretation.

The importance of low level vision is to pre-process the image by filtering from noise. The medium level vision system deals with enhancement of details and segmentation (i.e., partitioning the image into objects of interest ). The high level vision system includes three steps: recognition of the objects from the segmented image, labeling of the image and interpretation of the scene. Most of the AI tools and techniques are required in high level vision systems. Recognition of objects from its image can be carried out through a process of pattern classification, which at present is realized by supervised learning algorithms. The interpretation process, on the other hand, requires knowledge-based computation.

Speech and Natural Language Understanding: Understanding of speech and natural languages is basically two class ical problems. In speech analysis, the main probl em is to separate the syllables of a spoken word and determine features like ampli tude, and fundamental and harmonic frequencies of each syllable. The words then could be ident ified from the extracted features by pattern class ification techniques. Recently, artificial neural networks have been employed to class ify words from their features. The probl em of understanding natural languages like English, on the other hand, includes syntactic and semantic interpretation of the words in a sentence, and sentences in a paragraph. The syntactic steps are required to analyze the sentences by its grammar and are similar with the steps of compilation. The semantic analysis, which is performed following the syntactic analysis, determines the meaning of the sentences from the association of the words and that of a paragraph from the closeness of the sentences. A robot capable of understanding speech in a natural language will be of immense importance, for it could execute any task verbally communicated to it. The phonetic typewriter, which prints the words pronounced by a person, is another recent invention where speech understanding is employed in a commercial application.

Scheduling: In a scheduling problem, one has to plan the time schedule of a set of events to improve the time efficiency of the solution. For instance in a class-routine scheduling problem, the teachers are allocated to different classrooms at different time slots, and we want most classrooms to be occupied most of the time. In a flowshop scheduling problem, a set of jobs J1 and J2 (say) are to be allocated to a set of machines M1, M2 and M3. (say). We assume that each job requires some operations to be done on all these machines in a fixed order say, M1, M2 and M3. Now, what should be the schedule of the jobs (J1-J2) or (J2 -J1), so that the completion time of both the jobs, called the make-span, is minimized? Let the processing time of jobs J1 and J2 on machines M1, M2 and M3 be (5, 8, 7) and (8, 2, 3) respectively. The gantt charts in fig. (a) and (b) describe the make-spans for the schedule of jobs J1 J2 and J2 J1 respectively. It is clear from these figures that J1-J2 schedule requires less make-span and is thus preferred. Fig.: The Gantt charts for the flowshop scheduling problem with 2 jobs and 3 machines.

Flowshop scheduling problems are a NP complete problem and determination of optimal scheduling (for minimizing the make-span) thus requires an exponential order of time with respect to both machine-size and job-size. Finding a sub-optimal solution is thus preferred for such scheduling problems. Recently, artificial neural nets and genetic algorithms have been employed to solve this problem. The heuristic search, to be discussed shortly, has also been used for handling this problem.

Intelligent Control: In process control, the controller is designed from the known models of the process and the required control objective. When the dynamics of the plant is not completely known, the existing techniques for controller design no longer remain valid. Rule-based control is appropriate in such situations. In a rule-based control system, the controller is realized by a set of production rules intuitively set by an expert control engineer. The antecedent (premise) part of the rules in a rule-based system is searched against the dynamic response of the plant parameters. The rule whose antecedent part matches with the plant response is selected and fired. When more than one rule is firable, the controller resolves the conflict by a set of strategies. On the other hand, there exist situations when the antecedent part of no rules exactly matches with the plant responses. Such situations are handled with fuzzy logic, which is capable of matching the antecedent parts of rules partially/ approximately with the dynamic plant responses. Fuzzy control has been successfully used in many industrial plants. One typical application is the power control in a nuclear reactor. Besides design of the controller, the other issue in process control is to design a plant (process) estimator, which attempts to follow the response of the actual plant, when both the plant and the estimator are jointly excited by a common input signal. The fuzzy and artificial neural network-based learning techniques have recently been identified as new tools for plant estimation.

See original here:

Artificial Intelligence | Neuro AI

 Posted by at 12:38 am  Tagged with:

Tor Browser – uk.pcmag.com

 Tor Browser  Comments Off on Tor Browser – uk.pcmag.com
Jun 032016
 

Need to hire an assassin, buy some contraband, view illegal porn, or just bypass government, corporate, or identity thief snooping? Tor is your answer. Tor, which stands for “The Onion Router” is not a product, but a protocol that lets you hide your Web browsing as though it were obscured by the many layers of an onion. The most common way to view the so-called Dark Web that comprises Tor sites is by using the Tor Browser, a modded version of Mozilla Firefox. Using this Web browser also hides your location, IP address, and other identifying data from regular websites. Accessing Tor has long been beyond the ability of the average user. Tor Browser manages to simplify the process of protecting your identity onlinebut at the price of performance.

What Is Tor? Ifyou’re thinking that Tor comes from a sketchy group of hackers, know that its core technology was developed by the U.S. Naval Research Lab and D.A.R.P.A.. The Tor Project non-profit receives sizeable donations from various federal entities such as The National Science Foundation. The Tor Project has a page listing many examples of legitimate types of Tor users, such as political dissidents in countries with tight control over the Internet and individuals concerned about personal privacy.

Tor won’t encrypt your datafor that, you’ll need a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Instead, Tor routes your Internet traffic through a series of intermediary nodes. This makes it very difficult for government snoops or aggressive advertisers to track you online. Using Tor affords far more privacy than other browsers’ private (or Incognito) modes, since it obscures your IP address so that you can’t be trackedwith it. Standard browsers’ private browsing modes discard your cached pages and browsing history afteryour browsing session.Even Firefox’s new, enhanced private browsing mode doesn’t hide your identifiable IP address from the sites you visit, though it does prevent them tracking you based on cookies.

Starting Up Connecting to the Tor network entails more than just installing a browser and firing up websites. You need to install support code, but luckily, the free Tor Browser bundle streamlines the process. Installers are available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Tor Project recommends installing the browser on a USB drivefor more anonymity and portability; the driveneeds to have 80MB free space.

We tested a standard Windows installer, with choices to create desktop icons and run the browser immediately. The browser itself is a heavily modified version of Firefox 38.5 (as of this writing), and includes several security plug-ins as well as security tweaks such as not caching any website data. For a full rundown of the PCMag Editors’ Choice browser’s many features, read our full review of Firefox.

Before merrily browsing along anonymously, you need to inform Tor about your Webconnection. If your Internet connection is censored, you configure one way, if not, you can connect directly to the network. Since we live in a free societyand work for benevolent corporate overlords, we connected directly for testing. After connecting to the Tor relay system (a dialog with a progress bar appears at this stage), the browser launches, and you see theTor project’s page.

Interface The browser’s home page includes a plea for financial support to the project, a search box using the anonymized Disconnect.me search, and a Test Tor Network Settings link. Hitting the latter loads a page that indicates whether you’re successfully anonymized. We recommend taking this step. The page even shows your apparent IP addressapparent because it’s by no means your actual IP address. We verified this by opening Microsoft Edge and checking ouractual IP address on Web search sites. The two addresses couldn’t have been more different, because the Tor Browser reports the IP address of a Tor node.

The browser interface is identical with Firefox, except with some necessary add-ons installed. NoScript, a commonly used Firefox add-on, is preinstalled and can be used to block most non-HTML content on the Web. The green onion button to the left of the address bar is the Torbutton add-on. It lets you see your Tor network settings, but also the circuit you’re using: Ourcircuit started in Germany and passed through two different addresses in the Netherlands before reaching the good old Internet. If that doesn’t suit you, you can request a new circuit, either for the current session or for the current site. This was one of our favorite features.

One thing we really like about the Tor Browser is how it makes existing security and privacy tools easier to use. NoScript, for example, can be a harsh mistress, who can bedifficult to configure, and can break websites. But a security panel in the Torbutton presents you with a simple security slide. At the lowest, default setting, all browser features are enabled. At the highest setting, all JavaScript and even some image types are blocked, among other settings. This makes it easy to raise or lower the level of protection you need, without having to muck around in multiple settings windows.

Everything you do in the browser is tested for anonymity: When we tried full-screening the browser window, a message told us that that could provide sites a way to track us, and recommended leaving the window at the default size. And the project’s site specifically states that using Tor alone doesn’t guarantee anonymity, but rather that you have to abide by safe browsing guidelines: don’t use BitTorrent, don’t install additionalbrowser add-ons, don’t open documents or media while online. The recommendation to only visit secure HTTPS sites is optionally enforced by a plug-in called HTTPS Everywhere.

Even if you follow these recommendations, though, someone could detect the simple fact that you’re using Tor, unless you set it up to use a Tor bridge relay. Those are not listed in the Tor directory, so hackers (and governments) would have more trouble finding them.

One thing we noticed while browsing the standard Web through Tor was the need to enter a CAPTCHA to access many sites. This is because your cloaked URL looks suspicious to website security services such as CloudFlare, used by millions of sites to protect themselves. It’s just one more price you pay for anonymity.

We also had trouble finding the correct version of websites we wished to visit. Directing the Tor Browser to PCMag.com, for example, took us to the Netherlands localization of our website. We could not find any way to direct us back to the main URL, which lets you access the U.S. site.

The Dark Web You can use Tor to anonymize browsing to standard websites, of course, but there’s a whole hidden network of sites that don’t appear on the standard Web at all, and are only visible if you’re using a Tor connection. You can read all about it in our feature,Inside the Dark Web. If you use a standard search engine, even one anonymized by Disconnect.me, you just see standard websites. By the way, you may improve your privacy by switching to an anonymous search provider such as DuckDuckGo or Startpage.com. DuckDuckGo even offers a hidden search version, and Sinbad Search is only available through Tor. Ahmia is another search engine, on the open Web, for finding hidden Tor sites, with the twist of only showing sites that are on the up-and-up.

Tor hidden sites have URLs that end in .onion, preceded by 16 alphanumeric characters. You can find directories of these hidden sites with categories resembling the good old days of Yahoo. There’s even a Tor Links Directory page (on the regular Web) that’s a directory of these directories. There are many chat and message boards, but you even find directories of things like lossless audio files, video game hacks, and financial services such as anonymous bitcoin, and even a Tor version of Facebook. Many onion sites are very slow or completely downkeep in mind that they’re not run by deep-pocketed Web companies. Very often we clicked an onion link only to be greeted with an “Unable to Connect” error. Sinbad helpfully displays a red “Offline on last crawl” bullet to let you know that a site is probably nonfunctional.

Speed and Compatibility Webpage loading time under Tor is typicallyfar slower than browsing with a standard Internet connection. It’s really not possible to state definitively by how much your browsing will be slowed down if you use Tor, because it depends on the particular relay servers your traffic is being routed through. And this can change every time for every browsing session. As a very rough rule of thumb, however, PCMag.com took 11.3 seconds to load in Firefox and 28.7 seconds in the Tor Browser, at the same time, over the same FiOS connection on the open Web. Your mileage, of course, will vary.

As for browser benchmarks, the results hew to Firefox’s own performance, with near-leading performance on all the major JavaScript tests, JetStream and Octane, for example. Onourtest laptop, the Tor Browser scored 20,195 on Octane, compared with 22,297 for standard Firefoxnot a huge difference. The Tor network routing is a far more significant factor in browsing performance than browser JavaScript speed. That is, unless you’ve blocked all JavaScript.

Keep in mind, though, that the Tor Browser is based on the Firefox Extended Support Release versions, which updates less frequently so that large organizations have time to maintain their custom code. That means you don’t get quite the latest in Firefox performance and features, but security updates are delivered at the same time as new main versions.

There’s a similar story when it comes to standards compatibility: On the HTML5Test.com site, which quantifies the number of new Web standards supported by a browser, the Tor Browser gets a score of 412, compared with 468 for the latest Firefox version. You may run into incompatible sites, though. For example, none of the Internet speed connection test sites performed correctly in the Tor Browser.

Tor, Browser of Thunder With the near complete lack of privacy on today’s Web, Tor is becoming more and more necessary. Itlets you browsethe Web knowing that all those tracking services aren’t watching your every move. Most of us have experienced how an ad follows you from site to site, just because you clicked on, or searched for a product or service once. All that goes away.

Of course, you pay a price of extra setup and slower performance with the Tor Browser, but it’s less onerous than you may think. And the included support for fine-grain privacy and security protection is excellent. If you take your online privacy seriously, you owe it to yourself to check out the Tor Browser. For standard, full-speed Web browsing, however, check out PCMag Editors’ Choice Web browser, Firefox.

More here:
Tor Browser – uk.pcmag.com

 Posted by at 5:47 am  Tagged with:

Annotation 3 – Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on Annotation 3 – Fourth Amendment – FindLaw
Jun 012016
 

Valid Searches and Seizures Without Warrants

While the Supreme Court stresses the importance of warrants and has repeatedly referred to searches without warrants as ”exceptional,” 1 it appears that the greater number of searches, as well as the vast number of arrests, take place without warrants. The Reporters of the American Law Institute Project on a Model Code of Pre- Arraignment Procedure have noted ”their conviction that, as a practical matter, searches without warrant and incidental to arrest have been up to this time, and may remain, of greater practical importance” than searches pursuant to warrants. ”[T]he evidence on hand . . . compel[s] the conclusion that searches under warrants have played a comparatively minor part in law enforcement, except in connection with narcotics and gambling laws.” 2 Nevertheless, the Court frequently asserts that ”the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment–subject only to a few specially established and well-delineated exceptions.” 3 The exceptions are said to be ”jealously and carefully drawn,” 4 and there must be ”a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.” 5 While the record does indicate an effort to categorize the exceptions, the number and breadth of those exceptions have been growing.

Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk .–Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence. 6 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman’s stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. 7 There are, however, instances when a policeman’s suspicions will have been aroused by someone’s conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking. 8 In Terry v. Ohio, 9 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved ”patting down” the subject of the investigation for weapons.

The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him, on the basis of training and experience, to be the ”casing” of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men, identifying himself, and not receiving prompt identification, the officer seized one of the men, patted the exterior of his clothes, and discovered a gun. Chief Justice Warren for the Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable ”whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away.” 10 Since the warrant clause is necessarily and practically of no application to the type of on-the-street encounter present in Terry, the Chief Justice continued, the question was whether the policeman’s actions were reasonable. The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to ”specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a ”frisk” was required. 11 Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a ”frisk.” Because the object of the ”frisk” is the discovery of dangerous weapons, ”it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” 12 If, in the course of a weapons frisk, ”plain touch” reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object. Supp.3 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the ”plain view” doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband. Supp.4

Terry did not pass on a host of problems, including the grounds that could permissibly lead an officer to momentarily stop a person on the street or elsewhere in order to ask questions rather than frisk for weapons, the right of the stopped individual to refuse to cooperate, and the permissible response of the police to that refusal. Following that decision, the standard for stops for investigative purposes evolved into one of ”reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” That test permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow police officers to explore the foun dations of their suspicions. 13 While not elaborating a set of rules governing the application of the tests, the Court was initially restrictive in recognizing permissible bases for reasonable suspicion. 14 Extensive instrusions on individual privacy, e.g., transportation to the stationhouse for interrogation and fingerprinting, were invalidated in the absence of probable cause. 15 More recently, however, the Court has taken less restrictive approaches. 16

It took the Court some time to settle on a test for when a ”seizure” has occurred, and the Court has recently modified its approach. The issue is of some importance, since it is at this point that Fourth Amendment protections take hold. The Terry Court recognized in dictum that ”not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons,” and suggested that ”[o]nly when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” 17 Years later Justice Stewart proposed a similar standard, that a person has been seized ”only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” 18 This reasonable perception standard was subse quently endorsed by a majority of Justices, 19 and was applied in several cases in which admissibility of evidence turned on whether a seizure of the person not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion had occurred prior to the uncovering of the evidence. No seizure occurred, for example, when INS agents seeking to identify illegal aliens conducted work force surveys within a garment factory; while some agents were positioned at exits, others systematically moved through the factory and questioned employees. 20 This brief questioning, even with blocked exits, amounted to ”classic consensual encounters rather than Fourth Amendment seizures.” 21 The Court also ruled that no seizure had occurred when police in a squad car drove alongside a suspect who had turned and run down the sidewalk when he saw the squad car approach. Under the circumstances (no siren, flashing lights, display of a weapon, or blocking of the suspect’s path), the Court concluded, the police conduct ”would not have communicated to the reasonable person an attempt to capture or otherwise intrude upon [one’s] freedom of movement.” 22

Soon thereafter, however, the Court departed from the Mendenhall reasonable perception standard and adopted a more formalistic approach, holding that an actual chase with evident intent to capture did not amount to a ”seizure” because the suspect did not comply with the officer’s order to halt. Mendenhall, said the Court in California v. Hodari D., stated a ”necessary” but not a ”sufficient” condition for a seizure of the person through show of authority. 23 A Fourth Amendment ”seizure” of the person, the Court determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority. 24 Indications are, however, that Hodari D. does not signal the end of the reasonable perception standard, but merely carves an exception applicable to chases and perhaps other encounters between suspects and police.

Later in the same term the Court ruled that the Mendenhall ”free-to-leave” inquiry was misplaced in the context of a police sweep of a bus, but that a modified reasonable perception approach still governed. 25 In conducting a bus sweep, aimed at detecting illegal drugs and their couriers, police officers typically board a bus during a stopover at a terminal and ask to inspect tickets, identification, and sometimes luggage of selected passengers. The Court did not focus on whether an ”arrest” had taken place, as adherence to the Hodari D. approach would have required, but instead suggested that the appropriate inquiry is ”whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” 26 ”When the person is seated on a bus and has no desire to leave,” the Court explained, ”the degree to which a reasonable person would feel that he or she could leave is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of the encounter.” 27

A Terry search need not be limited to a stop and frisk of the person, but may extend as well to a protective search of the passenger compartment of a car if an officer possesses ”a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons.” 28 How lengthy a Terry detention may be varies with the circumstances. In approving a 20-minute detention of a driver made necessary by the driver’s own evasion of drug agents and a state police decision to hold the driver until the agents could arrive on the scene, the Court indicated that it is ”appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” 29

Similar principles govern detention of luggage at airports in order to detect the presence of drugs; Terry ”limitations applicable to investigative detentions of the person should define the permissible scope of an investigative detention of the person’s luggage on less than probable cause.” 30 The general rule is that ”when an officer’s observations lead him reasonably to believe that a traveler is carrying luggage that contains narcotics, the principles of Terry . . . would permit the officer to detain the luggage briefly to investigate the circumstances that aroused his suspicion, provided that the investigative detention is properly limited in scope.” 31 Seizure of luggage for an expeditious ”canine sniff” by a dog trained to detect narcotics can satisfy this test even though seizure of luggage is in effect detention of the traveler, since the procedure results in ”limited disclosure,” impinges only slightly on a traveler’s privacy interest in the contents of personal luggage, and does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 32 By contrast, taking a suspect to an interrogation room on grounds short of probable cause, retaining his air ticket, and retrieving his luggage without his permission taints consent given under such circumstances to open the luggage, since by then the detention had exceeded the bounds of a permissible Terry investigative stop and amounted to an invalid arrest. 33 But the same requirements for brevity of detention and limited scope of investigation are apparently inapplicable to border searches of international travelers, the Court having approved a 24-hour detention of a traveler suspected of smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal. 34

Search Incident to Arrest .–The common-law rule permitting searches of the person of an arrestee as an incident to the arrest has occasioned little controversy in the Court. 35 The dispute has centered around the scope of the search. Since it was the stated general rule that the scope of a warrantless search must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its justification permissible, and since it was the rule that the justification of a search of the arrestee was to prevent destruction of evidence and to prevent access to a weapon, 36 it was argued to the court that a search of the person of the defendant arrested for a traffic offense, which discovered heroin in a crumpled cigarette package, was impermissible, inasmuch as there could have been no destructible evidence relating to the offense for which he was arrested and no weapon could have been concealed in the cigarette package. The Court rejected this argument, ruling that ”no additional justification” is required for a custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause. 37

However, the Justices have long found themselves embroiled in argument about the scope of the search incident to arrest as it extends beyond the person to the area in which the person is arrested, most commonly either his premises or his vehicle. Certain early cases went both ways on the basis of some fine distinctions, 38 but in Harris v. United States, 39 the Court approved a search of a four-room apartment pursuant to an arrest under warrant for one crime and in which the search turned up evidence of another crime. A year later, in Trupiano v. United States, 40 a raid on a distillery resulted in the arrest of a man found on the premises and a seizure of the equipment; the Court reversed the conviction because the officers had had time to obtain a search warrant and had not done so. ”A search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest.” 41 This decision was overruled in United States v. Rabinowitz, 42 in which officers arrested defendant in his one-room office pursuant to an arrest warrant and proceeded to search the room completely. The Court observed that the issue was not whether the officers had the time and opportunity to obtain a search warrant but whether the search incident to arrest was reasonable. Though Rabinowitz referred to searches of the area within the arrestee’s ”immediate control,” 43 it provided no standard by which this area was to be determined, and extensive searches were permitted under the rule. 44

In Chimel v. California, 45 however, a narrower view was asserted, the primacy of warrants was again emphasized, and a standard by which the scope of searches pursuant to arrest could be ascertained was set out. ”When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for a search of the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’–construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

”There is no comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs–or, for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. Such searches, in the absence of well-recognized exceptions, may be made only under the authority of a search warrant.” 46

Although the viability of Chimel had been in doubt for some time as the Court refined and applied its analysis of reasonable and justifiable expectations of privacy, 47 it has in some but not all contexts survived the changed rationale. Thus, in Mincey v. Arizona, 48 the Court rejected a state effort to create a ”homicide-scene” exception for a warrantless search of an entire apartment extending over four days. The occupant had been arrested and removed and it was true, the Court observed, that a person legally taken into custody has a lessened right of privacy in his person, but he does not have a lessened right of privacy in his entire house. And, in United States v. Chadwick, 49 emphasizing a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his luggage or other baggage, the Court held that, once police have arrested and immobilized a suspect, validly seized bags are not subject to search without a warrant. 50 Police may, however, in the course of jailing an arrested suspect conduct an inventory search of the individual’s personal effects, including the contents of a shoulder bag, since ”the scope of a station-house search may in some circumstances be even greater than those supporting a search immediately following arrest.” 51

Still purporting to reaffirm Chimel, the Court in New York v. Belton 52 held that police officers who had made a valid arrest of the occupant of a vehicle could make a contemporaneous search of the entire passenger compartment of the automobile, including containers found therein. Believing that a fairly simple rule understandable to authorities in the field was desirable, the Court ruled ”that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, if not inevitably, within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary ite[m].”’ 53

Chimel has, however, been qualified by another consideration. Not only may officers search areas within the arrestee’s immediate control in order to alleviate any threat posed by the arrestee, but they may extend that search if there may be a threat posed by ”unseen third parties in the house.” A ”protective sweep” of the entire premises (including an arrestee’s home) may be undertaken on less than probable cause if officers have a ”reasonable belief,” based on ”articulable facts,” that the area to be swept may harbor an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. 54

Vehicular Searches .–In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States 55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant. 56

Initially the Court limited Carroll’s reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. 57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police. 58

The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ”the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.” 59 ”’One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.”’ 60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ”readily mobile.” 61

The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle 62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ”articulable and reasonable suspicion” Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation orsome other criminal activity. Supp.6 By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. 64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. 65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ”in plain view” inside the passenger compartment. 66

Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ”[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court’s assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.” 67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee’s automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. 68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner’s property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 69

It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers 72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container. 73

Vessel Searches .–Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 74 the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, 75 and hence had ”an impressive historical pedigree” carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ”important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area” justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ”But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established ‘avenues’ as automobiles must do.” 76 Because there is a ”substantial” governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ”especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,” the Court found the ”limited” but not ”minimal” intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable. 77 Dis senting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving ”a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers’ discretion or any safeguards against abuse.” 78

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] E.g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 453 (1948); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 -29 (1967); G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 352 -53, 355 (1977).

[Footnote 2] American Law Institute, A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Tent. Draft No. 3 (Philadelphia: 1970), xix.

[Footnote 3] Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454 -55 (1971) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)); G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 352 -53, 358 (1977).

[Footnote 4] Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499 (1958).

[Footnote 5] McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948). In general, with regard to exceptions to the warrant clause, conduct must be tested by the reasonableness standard enunciated by the first clause of the Amendment, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968), and the Court’s development of its privacy expectation tests, supra, pp.1206-09, substantially changed the content of that standard.

[Footnote 6] United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). See supra, p.1209.

[Footnote 7] Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 16 -17 (1948); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62 – 63 (1968).

[Footnote 8] ”The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on ‘probable cause.”’ Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 454 (1957).

[Footnote 9] 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Only Justice Douglas dissented. Id. at 35.

[Footnote 10] Id. at 16. See id. at 16-20.

[Footnote 11] Id. at 20, 21, 22.

[Footnote 12] Id. at 23-27, 29. See also Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (after policeman observed defendant speak with several known narcotics addicts, he approached him and placed his hand in defendant’s pocket, thus discovering narcotics; impermissible, because he lacked reasonable basis for frisk and in any event his search exceeded permissible scope of weapons frisk); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (acting on tip that defendant was sitting in his car with narcotics and firearm, police approached, asked defendant to step out, and initiated frisk and discovered weapon when he merely rolled window down; justifiable); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (after validly stopping car, officer required defendant to get out of car, observed bulge under his jacket, and frisked him and seized weapon; while officer did not suspect driver of crime or have an articulable basis for safety fears, safety considerations justified his requiring driver to leave car).

[Footnote 3 (1996 Supplement)] Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).

[Footnote 4 (1996 Supplement)] Id. at 2237, 2139. In Dickerson the Court held that seizure of a small plastic container that the officer felt in the suspect’s pocket was not justified; the officer should not have continued the search, manipulating the container with his fingers, after determining that no weapon was present.

[Footnote 13] In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), a unanimous Court attempted to capture the ”elusive concept” of the basis for permitting a stop. Officers must have ”articulable reasons” or ”founded suspicions,” derived from the totality of the circumstances. ”Based upon that whole picture the detaining officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Id. at 417-18. The inquiry is thus quite fact-specific. In the anonymous tip context, the same basic approach requiring some corroboration applies regardless of whether the standard is probable cause or reasonable suspicion; the difference is that less information, or less reliable information, can satisfy the lower standard. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).

[Footnote 14] E.g., Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (individual’s presence in high crime area gave officer no articulable basis to suspect him of crime); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (reasonable suspicion of a license or registration violation is necessary to authorize automobile stop; random stops impermissible); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (officers could not justify random automobile stop solely on basis of Mexican appearance of occupants); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980) (no reasonable suspicion for airport stop based on appearance that suspect and another passenger were trying to conceal the fact that they were travelling together). But cf. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (halting vehicles at fixed checkpoints to question occupants as to citizenship and immigration status permissible, even if officers should act on basis of appearance of occupants).

[Footnote 15] Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979).

[Footnote 16] See, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (reasonable suspicion to stop a motorist may be based on a ”wanted flyer” as long as issuance of the flyer has been based on reasonable suspicion); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 , (1989) (airport stop based on drug courier profile may rely on a combination of factors that individually may be ”quite consistent with innocent travel”).

[Footnote 17] 392 U.S. at 19 , n.16.

[Footnote 18] United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).

[Footnote 19] See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), in which there was no opinion of the Court, but in which the test was used by the plurality of four, id. at 502, and also endorsed by dissenting Justice Blackmun, id. at 514.

[Footnote 20] INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).

[Footnote 21] Id. at 221.

[Footnote 22] Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 (1988).

[Footnote 23] 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991). As in Michigan v. Chesternut, supra n.22, the suspect dropped incriminating evidence while being chased.

[Footnote 24] Adherence to this approach would effectively nullify the Court’s earlier position that Fourth Amendment protections extend to ”seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975), quoted in INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S., 210, 215 (1984).

[Footnote 25] Florida v. Bostick, (1991).

[Footnote 26] Id. at 2387.

[Footnote 27] Id. The Court asserted that the case was ”analytically indistinguishable from Delgado. Like the workers in that case [subjected to the INS ”survey” at their workplace], Bostick’s freedom of movement was restricted by a factor independent of police conduct–i.e., by his being a passenger on a bus.” Id.

[Footnote 28] Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (suspect appeared to be under the influence of drugs, officer spied hunting knife exposed on floor of front seat and searched remainder of passenger compartment). Similar reasoning has been applied to uphold a ”protective sweep” of a home in which an arrest is made if arresting officers have a reasonable belief that the area swept may harbor another individual posing a danger to the officers or to others. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990).

[Footnote 29] United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). A more relaxed standard has been applied to detention of travelers at the border, the Court testing the reasonableness in terms of ”the period of time necessary to either verify or dispel the suspicion.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 544 (1985) (approving warrantless detention for more than 24 hours of traveler suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling).

[Footnote 30] United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983).

[Footnote 31] Id. at 706.

[Footnote 32] 462 U.S. at 707 . However, the search in Place was not expeditious, and hence exceeded Fourth Amendment bounds, when agents took 90 minutes to transport luggage to another airport for administration of the canine sniff.

[Footnote 33] Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). On this much the plurality opinion of Justice White (id. at 503), joined by three other Justices, and the concurring opinion of Justice Brennan (id. at 509) were in agreement.

[Footnote 34] United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).

[Footnote 35] Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158 (1925); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 (1925).

[Footnote 36] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762 , 763 (1969).

[Footnote 37] United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973). See also id. at 237-38 (Justice Powell concurring). The Court applied the same rule in Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260 (1973), involving a search of a motorist’s person following his custodial arrest for an offense for which a citation would normally have issued. Unlike the situation in Robinson, police regulations did not require the Gustafson officer to take the suspect into custody, nor did a departmental policy guide the officer as to when to conduct a full search. The Court found these differences inconsequential, and left for another day the problem of pretextual arrests in order to obtain basis to search. Soon thereafter, the Court upheld conduct of a similar search at the place of detention, even after a time lapse between the arrest and search. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974).

[Footnote 38] Compare Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927), with Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 (1931), and United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 (1932).

[Footnote 39] 331 U.S. 145 (1947).

[Footnote 40] 334 U.S. 699 (1948).

[Footnote 41] Id. at 708.

[Footnote 42] 339 U.S. 56 (1950).

[Footnote 43] Id. at 64.

[Footnote 44] Cf. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 764 -65 & n.10 (1969). But in Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957), the Court held that the seizure of the entire contents of a house and the removal to F.B.I. offices 200 miles away for examination, pursuant to an arrest under warrant of one of the persons found in the house, was unreasonable. In decisions contemporaneous to and subsequent to Chimel, applying pre-Chimel standards because that case was not retroactive, Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 (1971), the Court has applied Rabinowitz somewhat restrictively. See Von Cleef v. New Jersey, 395 U.S. 814 (1969), which followed Kremen; Shipley v. California, 395 U.S. 818 (1969), and Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30 (1970) (both involving arrests outside the house with subsequent searches of the house); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 -57 (1971). Substantially extensive searches were, however, approved in Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 (1971), and Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 (1971).

[Footnote 45] 395 U.S. 752 (1969).

[Footnote 46] Id. at 762-63.

[Footnote 47] Supra, pp.1206-09. See, e.g., Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 492 , 493, 510 (1971), in which the four dissenters advocated the reasonableness argument rejected in Chimel.

[Footnote 48] 437 U.S. 385 (1978). The expectancy distinction is at 391.

[Footnote 49] 433 U.S. 1 (1977). Defendant and his luggage, a footlocker, had been removed to the police station, where the search took place.

[Footnote 50] If, on the other hand, a sealed shipping container had already been opened and resealed during a valid customs inspection, and officers had maintained surveillance through a ”controlled delivery” to the suspect, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the container and officers may search it, upon the arrest of the suspect, without having obtained a warrant. Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983).

[Footnote 51] Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640, 645 (1983) (inventory search) (following South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)). Similarly, an inventory search of an impounded vehicle may include the contents of a closed container. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987). Inventory searches of closed containers must, however, be guided by a police policy containing standardized criteria for exercise of discretion. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990).

[Footnote 52] 453 U.S. 454 (1981).

[Footnote 53] Id. at 460 (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969)). In this particular instance, Belton had been removed from the automobile and handcuffed, but the Court wished to create a general rule removed from the fact-specific nature of any one case. ”’Container’ here denotes any object capable of holding another object. It thus includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and the like. Our holding encompasses only the interior of the passenger compartment of an automobile and does not encompass the trunk.” Id. at 460-61 n.4.

[Footnote 54] Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). This ”sweep” is not to be a full-blown, ”top-to-bottom” search, but only ”a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found.” Id. at 335-36.

[Footnote 55] 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Carroll was a Prohibition-era liquor case, whereas a great number of modern automobile cases involve drugs.

[Footnote 56] Id. at 153. See also Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694 (1931); Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251 (1938); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). All of these cases involved contraband, but in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), the Court, without discussion, and over Justice Harlan’s dissent, id. at 55, 62, extended the rule to evidentiary searches.

[Footnote 57] Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 458 -64 (1971). This portion of the opinion had the adherence of a plurality only, Justice Harlan concurring on other grounds, and there being four dissenters. Id. at 493, 504, 510, 523.

[Footnote 58] Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964); Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 391 U.S. 216 (1968).

[Footnote 59] Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 761 (1979).

[Footnote 60] Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974) (plurality opinion), quoted in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12 (1977). See also United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 896 (1975); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 561 (1976); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 367 -68 (1976); Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 424 -25 (1981); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807 n.9 (1982).

[Footnote 61] California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 (1985) (leaving open the question of whether the automobile exception also applies to a ”mobile” home being used as a residence and not ”readily mobile”).

[Footnote 62] Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (roving patrols); United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975). Cf. Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980). An automobile’s ”ready mobility [is] an exigency sufficient to excuse failure to obtain a search warrant once probable cause is clear”; there is no need to find the presence of ”unforeseen circumstances” or other additional exigency. Pennsylvania v. Labron, 116 S. Ct. 2485, 2487 (1996).

[Footnote 5 (1996 Supplement)] Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 663 (1979) (discretionary random stops of motorists to check driver’s license and registration papers and safety features of cars constitute Fourth Amendment violation); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (violation for rovingpatrols on lookout for illegal aliens to stop vehicles on highways near international borders when only ground for suspicion is that occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry). In Prouse, the Court cautioned that it was not precluding the States from developing methods for spotchecks, such as questioning all traffic at roadblocks, that involve less intrusion or that do not involve unconstrained exercise of discretion. 440 U.S. at 663.

[Footnote 6 (1996 Supplement)] An officer who observes a traffic violation may stop a vehicle even if his real motivation is to investigate for evidence of other crime. Whren v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996). The existence of probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred establishes the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops regardless of the actual motivation of the officers involved, and regardless of whether it is customary police practice to stop motorists for the violation observed.

[Footnote 63] Deleted in 1996 Supplement.

[Footnote 64] Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (upholding a sobriety checkpoint at which all motorists are briefly stopped for preliminary questioning and observation for signs of intoxication). See also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (upholding border patrol checkpoint, over 60 miles from the border, for questioning designed to apprehend illegal aliens).

[Footnote 65] Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983) (holding that contraband found in the course of such a search is admissible).

[Footnote 66] Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983). Similarly, since there is no reasonable privacy interest in the vehicle identification number, required by law to be placed on the dashboard so as to be visible through the windshield, police may reach into the passenger compartment to remove items obscuring the number and may seize items in plain view while doing so. New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986).

[Footnote 67] Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261 (1982). See also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67 (1975); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807 n.9 (1982).

[Footnote 68] Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974). Justice Powell concurred on other grounds.

[Footnote 69] Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976). See also Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (1967); United States v. Harris, 390 U.S. 234 (1968). Police, in conducting an inventory search of a vehicle, may open closed containers in order to inventory contents. Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987).

[Footnote 70] United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948). While Di Re is now an old case, it appears still to control. See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 94 -96 (1979).

[Footnote 71] Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).

Read more here:
Annotation 3 – Fourth Amendment – FindLaw

 Posted by at 2:44 pm  Tagged with:

Boston SEO Services 508-561-8276 | SEO in Boston, MA

 SEO  Comments Off on Boston SEO Services 508-561-8276 | SEO in Boston, MA
May 292016
 

Do You Have A Great Looking Website But Its Lacking Visitors?

As you have probably now realized a great looking website is only part of the puzzle when it comes to marketing online now, you need TRAFFIC

Thats where we come in, using our process we will hunt down the best traffic for your business and make Google send it to you. We know exactly how to make Google LOVE your website and put it in front of more customers and clients.

Stop losing money to your competitors and turn your website into a money making machine.

There are 2 major factors when it comes to getting customers online.

Boston SEO Services has a proven track record of search engine domination. Find out how our Boston SEO Companycan take you to the top of Google.

SEO for national IT company

SEO for medical practice

SEO for our own company Boston SEO Services

SEO for marketing website

Keyword ranking increase for analytical lab

Keyword ranking increase for local construction company

Boston SEO Service can get your company to #1 in the real Google search results. Dominate the search results by using our industrial strength search engine optimization.

We are Bostons #1 ranking website for many search engine optimization and web design search terms. This is not by mistake, we know exactly what is needed to get a website ranking on the first page of Google for very competitive search terms. Our search rankings are solid and have held up to the latest Google algorithm updates and in most cases get stronger.

Most likely, if you arrived at this web site, you are looking for a way to increase your presence of the internet. Maybe you have tried to optimize your website yourself and have become frustrated in the lack of results that you are getting. Or, even more frustrating would be that you have spent thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for search engine optimization without any increase in visibility or return on investment. You may have even had a top ranking website that has drastically dropped in the search rankings after a Google update. This can leave you feeling helpless and that your website is floating aimlessly in the massive Google ocean. SEO still works and we can help your business succeed online.

Our Boston SEO and web design company provides industrial strength search engine optimization and web design. What that means is that we focus on results and not the packaging. In other words, like industry professionals that use products that arent available to the general public, our search engine optimization and web design services are not your run of the mill, cookie cutter types of solutions. With this type of individualized attentionwe are limited to the number of clients that we can take on at any given moment, so please contact us to find out if there are any spots currently open for SEO Boston or Boston Web Design.

Most people treat the search engines like a phone book and now with more and more people using portable handheld devices, people are finding it easier to speak or type something into their smart phone than it would be to call information or use the phone book. Think about it, when was the last time you looked something up or called 411 for information. Not only that, but the majority of people look to the internet for solutions to their problems. That being said, sadly most people will not search past the first or second page of search results even though there are many more useful website beyond those pages. Being in the first 10-15 search results will have a dramatic impact on your companies online success.

Most people treat the search engines like a phone book and now with more and more people using portable handheld devices, people are finding it easier to speak or type something into their smart phone than it would be to call information or use the phone book. Think about it, when was the last time you looked something up or called 411 for information. Not only that, but the majority of people look to the internet for solutions to their problems. That being said, sadly most people will not search past the first or second page of search results even though there are many more useful website beyond those pages. Being in the first 10-15 search results will have a dramatic impact on your companies online success.

Find out why we are the best seo company in the USA

Summary

Title

Boston SEO | SEO Boston

Description

Welcome to Boston SEO Services. We are the #1 choice for many SEO search terms according to the real Google search results. Call our Boston SEO experts today to get started on your way to #1 in the real Google search results.

See more here:
Boston SEO Services 508-561-8276 | SEO in Boston, MA

Search Engine Optimization Leads – Boston SEO

 SEO  Comments Off on Search Engine Optimization Leads – Boston SEO
May 292016
 

There are millions of people searching the internet right now.

By sourcing more internet leads.

You came here looking for SEO, but what you really want is more customers. The customer is only going to work with you if the experience drives them to actually take action, and provide their information. That cant happen if they dont like your site, its not mobile-friendly, no phone number, you have broken links, or a number of other reasons.

We approach SEO from the customer experience level, putting a magnifying glass over the process behind converting traffic, into leads, into customers. This procedure helps us get you better leads, and you can convert better leads into great customers. We do this by baking our advanced SEO Strategy into your websites architecture, creating great content, implementing social media optimization campaigns, designing better CTAs or call to action buttons, and optimizing your websites code for faster load time and higher search engine visibility.

There are millions of people searching the internet right now.

Original post:
Search Engine Optimization Leads – Boston SEO

 Posted by at 6:43 am  Tagged with:

Phoenix SEO -1st Page or FREE Service- Best SEO Company Phoenix

 SEO  Comments Off on Phoenix SEO -1st Page or FREE Service- Best SEO Company Phoenix
May 282016
 

Contact us with questions or to get started! (480) 740-6064

Solar Flare Marketing specializes in Phoenix SEO and local internet marketing to help companies increase their visibility online. These businesses know their customers are searching on the internet, but more specifically, theyre looking on the first page of the search engines for products and services. If your business website doesnt show up there, your competitors are going to get all those customers. Our job is to make sure your website gets found on the first page of Google.

We can give your website the traffic boost youre looking for and make sure YOUR business is seen by prospects when they are searching for a your product or service. Dont pay Google a never ending fortune in PPC fees to appear on the first page of the search results. When your website is properly optimized, it will not only appear on the first page of ALL the major search engine results organically, but it will also convert much more of your traffic into actual paying customers.

Our goal as your Phoenix SEO company is to generate a higher ROI through website optimization and ranking on top of the search engines than you can get from any marketing method available. We are committed to giving you only the best service, consultation and implementation, no matter if your business is located in Arizona or 2,500 miles away.

So how do we do this? The short answer is our experience and expertise means we know the current landscape of the online advertising world inside and out. We know how to get the customers and clients you need to pick up the phone and call you so your business can thrive.

Search engine optimization is a constantly changing and shifting world. What worked a year ago probably isnt working today. In fact, trying to do today what you did a year ago to properly optimization your website for the major search engines will most likely get you penalized and leave you worse off than you were when you started.

Our job as the #1 SEO agency in Phoenix is to follow the latest trends and keep up with the changes. We are constantly researching, testing and implementing solutions for our clients. We cant see the future, so we cant tell you how things will be a year from now, but we know whats working today, and we can use that information to place your site ahead of your competitors.

Ultimately, our focus for your business is to get your website to the top of the search results today, and to keep it there for as long as youre in business. Choosing us for your search engine optimization means making a investment in your business that will provide a fantastic ROI for years to come.

Keywords are king when it comes to search engine marketing. You can do everything else right, but if your keywords arent properly optimized, youre not going to get very far with your online lead generation efforts.

Weve been in the business so long that keywords are second nature to us. After you tell us the details of your business, we will be able to draft the best set of working keywords to include on your website. Working with Solar Flare Marketing for your SEO in Phoenix means dissecting your website so its perfectly optimized and most importantly, converts visitors into customers. We also know what keyword density work best: put in too few keywords, and the search engines dont pick it up, put in too many and you get penalized for over-optimization.

We specialize in local website marketing and working with small to mid-sized companies that need more customers in their geographical area. Dentists, doctors, electricians and plumbers are great examples of the types of local businesses that need to find new customers that are located close to their natural service area. If your target customers are located close to your business, but are finding your competitors first, we can help change that.

Things are done a bit differently depending on how much national exposure you need. Were experienced in both Phoenix internet marketing and national e-commerce consulting. If youre a local business, youre going to want to focus on SEO Phoenix and picking up local clients and customers. But if you sell nationwide, or are completely web-based, then youll need national or even global appeal as well.

Either way, hiring Solar Flare Marketing as your Phoenix SEO agency can help you with expert online marketing consulting. Whether youre trying to attract local patients into your office, generate a steady flow of leads for your service business or bring the world into your online store, we know how to get you the customers you need to make the most out of your business.

Website marketing and consulting isnt just about keywords and rankings. Its also about the appeal of your website and converting the traffic into new customers and sales. For example, if you have a high bounce rate, or people hit the back button quickly after visiting your website, then youre going to have a low conversion rate. We can point you in the right direction or make the changes for you to ensure your website converts at a high rate. Our goal is to bring people to your site and convert them into paying customers. The end results is your Arizona business will make more money and enjoy a fantastic ROI on your SEO investment.

When you choose Solar Flare Marketing for your Phoenix SEO services, youre choosing success for your business. With our expertise and experience, we can make the most out of your website and bring you more money than you could have ever made before. No matter if you want to keep your marketing in the local area, or if you want to dominate the nation, we can help you supercharge your business with our affordable internet marketing campaigns that are designed specifically for YOUR business and your budget.

Call the best SEO company in Maricopa County

or

fill out our marketing discovery form to get started!

Excerpt from:
Phoenix SEO -1st Page or FREE Service- Best SEO Company Phoenix

 Posted by at 4:42 am  Tagged with:

Home – Birmingham SEO Agency

 SEO  Comments Off on Home – Birmingham SEO Agency
May 222016
 

Get On Page One Of Google

Dominate the search engines by getting to the top spot, with superior SEO services. No other marketing company comes close to the results that we provide you, and you can guarantee that they will be scratching their heads to how in the world we are putting your website on page one. Many marketing agencies will promise you everything you want to hear just to make the sale, however we provide real results that you can rely on.

Get your business in front of more people on the internet. Its no question that traffic provides the lifeblood to businesses, and without it they will fail to grow and eventually run out of cash. No other form of online advertising provides the explosive growth and potential that search engine optimization gives you. Although we dont promise any more customer conversions, we can guarantee that you will get in front of a heck of a lot of them.

Better results than traditional advertising media such as radio and print, because clicks beat bricks and the current moment. Its now official. Online sales and e-commerce is rapidly becoming a force to be reckoned with, and anyone who isnt ahead of the curve will be left in the dust. Quit relying on old ways to get your business in front of people, and fast forward to accelerate your growth with internet marketing.

See more here:
Home – Birmingham SEO Agency

Rocket SEO | Affordable Search Engine Optimisation in …

 SEO  Comments Off on Rocket SEO | Affordable Search Engine Optimisation in …
May 212016
 

Search Engine Optimisation

Speak to our experienced link building team about your SEO needs. We source and build a wide array of links from trusted sources to ensure your site gains natural backlink authority, safeguarding longevity and stability for your ranks.

Getting your house in order is vital to being correctly and properly ranked. Our on-site SEO team will check the nuts and bolts of your site and suggest proven changes that will bring you much needed traffic and increased organic ranks across the board.

Received a manual action notice from Google? Don’t panic, all is not lost! Our teams proven track record of successfully having penalties revoked by Google is second to none. Speak to us for help today and get your business back on track.

Social signals are more important than ever in your quest for online exposure. We know how to utilise social media to your best advantage for SEO and online reputation enhancement. If you want to get ahead, you need to get social!

Whether youre a small local business, a national brand or someone with huge global ambitions, we have the knowledge and capability to tailor an effective internet marketing strategy to suit your needs.

With so many internet marketing options out there, its easy to feel confused and frustrated about where to go and who to trust with your SEO requirements. Our message is simple judge us by our results!

Weve worked with dozens of firms just like you who had one common goal. That goal was to find more customers via the search engines.

We treat each of our clients with equal importance and dedication to ensure you feel that your trust and investment in us is valued. Thats why more and more businesses are turning to Rocket SEO because we deliver the very best results and return on your investment.

We want you to be happy so its our job to ensure that we provide you with a quality service that includes full transparency, detailed monthly reporting and that all-important friendly customer service.

We aim to build long-term relationships with our clients so when you work with us, you know you are getting a solid UK based search engine optimisation team behind you that is there when you need us.

Need a reputable and affordable SEO service? Speak to ustoday.

See the original post:
Rocket SEO | Affordable Search Engine Optimisation in …

What is SEO (search engine optimization)? – Definition from …

 SEO  Comments Off on What is SEO (search engine optimization)? – Definition from …
May 172016
 

Search engine optimization (SEO) is an area of website development that seeks to improve the way content is ranked by search engines in organic search results. Various approaches are taken to achieve that goal, including making sure the website architecture makes it easy for visitors to find content and that pages are mobile-friendly and load quickly.

Although there are legitimate companies that help Web sites improve their rankings, according to Google’s page about SEO, most such offers that arrive in e-mail messages are of little-to-no value. The search engine’s own Webmaster often gets SEO marketing offers suggesting that Google doesn’t show up well in search results (which is quite unlikely). Google’s recommendation for Webmasters? “Reserve the same skepticism for unsolicited e-mail about search engines as you do for “burn fat at night” diet pills or requests to help transfer funds from deposed dictators.”

Instead of trying to game the system, sites should focus on providing visitors with useful content and a good user experience (UX). Partly because of the proliferation of bogus offers, the term search engine optimization has gotten a negative reputation in some circles. To put the focus on the website visitor, it has been suggested that acronym SEO should stand for search experience optimization.

Before starting an SEO project, site owners should carefully read through the webmaster guidelines that each search engines provides and follow recommended best practices. Not only will doing so help pages rank better, but failure to follow recommendation could result in the site being improperly indexed. Worse still, the site could be completely blacklisted from the search engine. Certain black hat SEO techniques, such as keyword stuffing, are considered to be the SEO equivalent of spamming, and search engines will penalize them.

This was last updated in November 2015

Continue reading here:
What is SEO (search engine optimization)? – Definition from …

Expert Local SEO Agency & Services Company In Charlotte NC

 SEO  Comments Off on Expert Local SEO Agency & Services Company In Charlotte NC
May 122016
 

The fact is, there has never been a better time to have an active SEO optimization campaign. Google (and others) have made many changes to their ranking algorithms over the last few years. As a result, spammy websites that used black hat SEO techniques have been removed from the search results. This has created an opportunity for companies who rely on SEO expert services from a reputable agency to get top local search engine rankings in the Charlotte market.

As a Charlotte NC SEO services firm, we provide expert local SEO and other internet marketing services that drive highly targeted traffic to your company web site. With the experience, knowledge, resources, servicesand tools that our agencyoffers combined with the passion you have foryour own business we can work together to successfully grow yourlocal Charlotte online presence with a well-executed local SEO and internet marketingstrategy.

No matter what type of company you have, the10+ years of internet marketing experience our SEO agency provides will help you achieve the online marketing goals of your company website. We look forward to working with you and getting your Charlotte area company better rankings in the search engines.

Read more here:
Expert Local SEO Agency & Services Company In Charlotte NC

 Posted by at 10:43 pm  Tagged with:

Affordable SEO by Salterra helping your company rank, ALL …

 SEO  Comments Off on Affordable SEO by Salterra helping your company rank, ALL …
May 122016
 

Why is Blogging so important to SEO?

Having a blog is one of the easiest ways to increase your websites rankings in the search engine. Lets face it, we ALL have something to say! Dont believe me?? Check out the concept of social media, its a perfect platform for every one of us to speak out mind, and share our pictures of randomness. Lets just make it work for you and your business. The important details that will enhance your site; like SEO strategies, relevant keywords and relevant content are in the blog just pick a topic and stay consistent. Optimizing your website helps search engines read and understand your content, strengthens your reputation, and increases the chances of dominating the search engine. (This is one place where domination isnt necessarily a bad thing) Here I will share with you the most important aspects of optimization and having a blog:

Sweet, sweet SEO dreams! What!? you dont dream of SEO? I bet your dream of expanding your business and building an empire! Its definitely a similar strategy. Search engine optimization is easier with a website that is optimized for CMS (Content Management Systems) and Blogging. This is mainly because the program handles all data and keyword tags. Link metrics are built behind the scenes in a CMS, so optimization is easier and the Google bots can easily pick up your data. (You remember us talking about the bots before, dont you? They are good, no worries) This data stores important and relevant information inside your content such as: Titles Descriptions Headers Internal links New pages Sitemaps SEO friendly URLs Plugins and Extensions This saves you much time and optimizes the linking potential; like a well oiled machine. Link structure is important, and CMS systems typically are easy for search engines to index because they create good internal link structures. Proper internal linking is important, as it sub-categorizes all your content for the search engines. Another quick tidbit to think about is SEO friendly images, they will let search engine spiders understand your content more efficiently. Even if I lost you back at the content list, just know that we at Salterra are working diligently to make your empirical dreams come true!! Call us today.

View original post here:
Affordable SEO by Salterra helping your company rank, ALL …

 Posted by at 10:43 pm  Tagged with:

The Posthuman Manifesto by Robert Pepperell, Kritikos V.2 …

 Posthuman  Comments Off on The Posthuman Manifesto by Robert Pepperell, Kritikos V.2 …
May 042016
 

Volume 2, February 2005

ISSN 1552-5112

an international and interdisciplinary journal

of postmodern cultural sound, text and image

Robert Pepperell

1. It is now clear that humans are no longer the most important things in the universe. This is something the humanists have yet to accept.

2. All technological progress of human society is geared towards the transformation of the human species as we currently know it.

3. In the posthuman era many beliefs become redundant not least the belief in human beings.

4. Human beings, like gods, only exist inasmuch as we believe them to exist.

5. The future never arrives.

6. All humans are not born equal, but it is too dangerous not to pretend that they are.

7. In the posthuman era, machines will no longer be machines.

8. It is a deficiency of humans that they require others to tell them what they already know. It is only then they will believe it.

9. Posthumanists do not fall into the trap of imagining a society where everything works well. Economic and political theories are as futile as long-range weather predictions.

10. Surf or die. You cant control a wave, but you can ride it.

11. We now realise that human knowledge, creativity and intelligence are ultimately limited.

12. Complex machines are an emerging form of life.

13. A complex machine is a machine whose workings we do not fully understand or control.

14. As computers develop to be more like humans, so humans develop to like computers more.

15. If we can think of machines then machines can think; if we can think of machines that think, then machines can think of us.

If consciousness is a property that emerges from a specific set of conditions, in order to synthesise it we do not need to re-model it from the top-down. We only need to recreate the conditions from which it might emerge. This requires an understanding of what those conditions are.

1. Consciousness is not exclusively restricted to the brain.

2. Consciousness is the function of an organism, not an organ.

3. One does not understand consciousness by studying the brain alone.

4. The mind and the body act together to produce consciousness. If one is absent consciousness ceases. There is no pure thought isolated from a body. In order to function the brain must be connected to a body, even if the body is artificial. Consciousness is an effect that arises through the co-operation of a brain and body; we think with our whole body.

5. Consciousness can only be considered as an emergent property. In this sense it is like boiling: given sufficient heat, gravity and air pressure the water in a kettle will start to boil. We can see what boiling is, we can recognise it as something to which we give a name, we do not consider it mysterious, yet we cannot isolate it from the conditions which produced it. Likewise, consciousness is a property that emerges from a given set of conditions.

6. To say that conscious thought is not exclusively a function of the brain does not deny that the brain has a significant part to play.

7. Human bodies have no boundaries.

8. No finite division can be drawn between the environment, the body and the brain. The human is identifiable, but not definable.

9. Consciousness (mind) and the environment (reality) cannot be separated; they are continuous.

10. There is nothing external to a human, because the extent of a human cannot be fixed.

11. If we accept that the mind and body cannot be absolutely separated, and that the body and the environment cannot be absolutely separated, then we are left with the apparently absurd yet logically consistent conclusion that consciousness and the environment cannot be absolutely separated.

12. First we had God, humans and nature. The rationalists dispensed with God, leaving humans in perpetual conflict with nature. The posthumanists dispense with humans leaving only nature. The distinctions between God, nature and humanity does not represent any eternal truth about the human condition. It merely reflects the prejudices of the societies that maintained the distinctions.

13. Idealistic and materialistic philosophical views both assume a division between the thing that thinks and the thing that is thought about between the internal mind (brain) and external reality (environment). Remove this division and both views become redundant.

14. The idealists think that the only things that exist are ideas; the materialists think that the only thing that exists is matter. It must be remembered that ideas are not independent of matter and that matter is just an idea.

15. Most philosophical problems are debates about language. They arise because of the mistaken assumptions a. that language is consistent and b. that because a word exists there must exist a thing that it represents and c. that the things that are represented should, in themselves, be consistent.

16. Logic is an illusion of human imagination. Truth and falsity do not exist in nature other than in human thought.

1. Science will never achieve its aim of comprehending the ultimate nature of reality. It is a futile quest, although many scientists do not acknowledge this yet. The universe(s) will always be more complex than we will ever understand.

2. The posthuman abandons the search for the ultimate nature of the universe and its origin (thus saving a lot of money in the process).

3. The posthuman realises that the ultimate questions about existence and being do not require answers. The answer to the question Why are we here? is that there is no answer.

4. To know the ultimate nature of the universe would require knowing everything about the universe, everything that has happened and everything that will happen. If one thing were not known it would imply that all knowledge of the universe is partial, potentially incomplete and, therefore, not ultimate

5. No scientific model can ever be complete, but will always be partial and contingent. For any model to be complete it would have to take all influential factors into account, no matter how insignificant. Since this is impossible the scientist must make an arbitrary decision about which ones to ignore. Having ignored some factors their model is incomplete, although this does not mean it isnt useful.

6. The posthuman accepts that humans have a finite capacity to understand and control nature.

7. All origins are ends and all ends are origins. Chaos theory has often been illustrated with the image of a butterflys wing-flap causing a thunderstorm on the opposite side of the globe. Whilst this might illustrate the sensitivity of systems to initial states, it does not take into account what caused the butterfly to flap its wings a gust of wind?

8. Logic that seems consistent at the human scale cannot necessarily be applied to the microcosmic or the macrocosmic scale.

9. Our knowledge about the universe is constrained by the level of resolution with which we are able to view it. Knowledge is contingent on data data varies with resolution.

10. Scientists give privilege to order over disorder on the assumption that they are gradually discovering the essential laws of nature. This is a fundamental error; nature is neither essentially ordered or disordered. What we perceive as regular, patterned information we classify as order; what we perceive as irregular, unpatterned information we classify as disorder. The appearance of order and disorder implies more about the way in which we process information than the intrinsic presence of order or disorder in nature.

11. Science works on the basis of an intrinsic universal order. It assumes that all phenomena are subject to physical laws and that some of those laws are well understood, some partially understood, and some unknown. The posthuman accepts that laws are not things that are intrinsic to nature, nor are they things which arise purely in the mind and are imposed on nature. This would reinforce the division between the mind and reality which we have already abandoned. The order that we commonly perceive around us, as well as the disorder, is not a function exclusively of either the universe or our consciousness, but a combination of both, since they cannot really be separated.

12. Everything that exists anywhere is energy. Beside the fact that all material processes are energetically driven, energy has two major properties:

a. It manifests in an infinite variety of ways

b. It perpetually transforms

13. The appearance of matter is an illusion generated by interactions among energetic systems at the human level of resolution.

14. Humans and the environment are different expressions of energy; the only difference between them is the form that energy takes.

15. The posthuman is entirely open to ideas of paranormality, immateriality, the supernatural, and the occult. The posthuman does not accept that faith in scientific methods is superior to faith in other belief systems.

1. Order and disorder are relative, not absolute, qualities. The proof that order and disorder are relative qualities lies in the fact that they define each other.

2. Anything we perceive can be considered to contain different degrees of order and disorder. The perception of order and disorder in something is contingent on the level of resolution from which it is viewed.

3. What we perceive as ordered and disordered is often culturally determined. Logicians will assert that there are mathematical ways of defining disorder, entropy and complexity ways that are independent of human subjectivity. Whilst these definitions may be useful in certain applications they remain open to relativistic interpretation.

4. In posthuman terms, the apparent distinctions between things are not the result of innate divisions within the structure of the universe, but rather are jointly a product of:

a. the way in which the sensual processes in living entities operate.

b. the variety of ways in which energy is manifested in the universe.

5. The ways in which energy manifestations are perceived by an observer can always be described with two simple qualities continuity and discontinuity. Continuity is non-interruption of space-time. Discontinuity is a rupture in space-time. Both qualities can be discerned in all events depending upon how they are viewed. More importantly, they are both experienced simultaneously.

6. Energy manifestations should not be thought of as intrinsically continuous or discontinuous; that is, there are no absolute qualities of energy. Energetic states will appear as either continuous or discontinuous to an observer depending upon their viewing position. The quality of (dis)continuity is context sensitive.

7. What distinguishes things from one another is the perceived dis-continuities they display. The difference in manifestations of energy between a philosopher and a chair allows them each to be distinguished.

8. The level of complexity in a system cannot be defined in objective (that is, absolute) terms. Complexity is a function of human cognition, not an intrinsic property of anything we might look at.

As long as models about how the brain might work are defective (being based on fallacious assumptions), the creation of a synthetic consciousness will be impractical.

1. Human thought is something that occurs in co-operation with the human body. It is not necessary to identify precisely where it occurs because it does not occur precisely in any part.

2. It is tempting to think of thoughts as blocks of data in the brain. This would be a mistake since it reinforces a static view of mental activity. A thought is a path through the cognitive medium. Think of it like this: taking the London Underground map as an analogy of how the mind works, some people would say, Each of the stations on the map represents one of our thoughts and the lines represent the links between them. The lines are what enable us to get from thought to thought. The posthuman argues A thought is not a station on the map but the route from one station to another. That is, a thought is actuated in the process of traveling, rather than being a particular destination.

More:
The Posthuman Manifesto by Robert Pepperell, Kritikos V.2 …

 Posted by at 5:44 am  Tagged with:

Web SEO – W3Schools

 SEO  Comments Off on Web SEO – W3Schools
Apr 242016
 

Have you ever used a search engine? Do you wonder how to get listed?

This page will help you to get listed in the most popular search engines.

Search engine optimization (SEO) is the process of improving the ranking (visibility) of a website in search engines. The higher (or more frequently) a web site is displayed in a search engine list (like Google), the more visitors it is expected to receive.

SEO considers how search engines work, what people search for, and which search terms (words) are typed. Optimizing a website may involve editing the content to increase its relevance to specific keywords. Promoting a site to increase the number of links, is another SEO tactic.

Effective search engine optimization may require changes to the HTML source code of a site and to the site content. SEO tactics should be incorporated into the website development and especially into the menus and navigation structure.

Another class of techniques, known as black hat SEO or spamdexing, uses methods such as link farms, keyword stuffing and article spinning that degrade both the relevance of search results and the quality of user-experience with search engines. Search engines look for sites that employ these techniques in order to remove them from their indices.

Web search engines (like Google) automatically add new web sites to their search index every time they crawl the web.

If your web site is new and unknown, it may take some time before your site is “discovered”.

Luckily most search engines invites you to submit your site: *

Google: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url

Yahoo: http://search.yahoo.com/info/submit.html

Bing: http://www.bing.com/webmaster/SubmitSitePage.aspx

Open Directory: http://www.dmoz.org/help/submit.html

Normally you will have to enter the full URL of your site (including the http:// prefix).

When you submit your site to a search engine, you only need to specify the top-level (home) page. You do not need to submit each page. The search engine will find the rest based on your links (keep your navigation menus tidy).

Sometimes you can also add keywords that describe the page, but don’t expect these to affect how your site is ranked or listed.

* Not all submitted URLs will be added, and you cannot predict or guarantee when or if your site will appear in a search result.

See the original post here:
Web SEO – W3Schools

 Posted by at 7:42 pm  Tagged with:

Top SEO Company, Affordable SEO Services and Hosting

 SEO  Comments Off on Top SEO Company, Affordable SEO Services and Hosting
Apr 242016
 

Off-Page SEO mainly concentrates on everything that is OUTSIDE of your website, outside your control and by linking to relevant high ranked links out there.

There are many techniques that can be used to improve the position of websites on the search engine results pages.

People tend to connect off-page optimization with link building, but it’s only a fracture of that.

Mainly it’s talking about your promotion methods and techniques.

Search Engine Optimization (on and off site), does not end with a step or two, or by using magic tricks or shortcuts,

It is long, hard work that needs to be accomplished one step at a time, with creativity and passion.

Eventually, what is it that we want? To rank as high as possible on search engines? Then know this: harder you work for it, the more chance you are going to see it.

By harder we mean that you need to be ACTIVE, all the time, in all relevant places to your niche, websites, web-pages or blogs with a solid trust-flow and traffic.

The more credible the site that links to you (other sites, pages or blogs linking to you) makes it more likely that you will see amazing results coming in your way, ranking wise.

Here are some categories that are directly related to Off-Page SEO:

Article Submissions, Social Networking, Business Reviews, Press Releases, Blogging, Local Listings, Blog Marketing, Forum Marketing, Search Engine Submission,

Directory Submission, Social Bookmarking, Link Baiting, Media Sharing, Video Sharing, Local Listings and Activity on major platforms.

Learn more about Off-Page SEO

Read this article:
Top SEO Company, Affordable SEO Services and Hosting

Portland SEO Expert | Search Engine Optimization Pros

 SEO  Comments Off on Portland SEO Expert | Search Engine Optimization Pros
Apr 242016
 

To expand your business reach, you need to use effective and helpful methods. In the highly advanced world of today, websites are an effective medium that businesses use for promoting their activities and events. There are many things that you need to consider before you start to make use of search engine optimization services.

They include the following: your visitors interests, the scope and size of your business and much more. PDX SEO is a great option if you are looking to generate massive amounts of traffic to your website. We have an entire team of experienced SEO professionals ready to assist you. Our knowledge of Search Engine Optimization will help to set your business apart from your competitors.

The following are some of the major benefits that a Portland SEO Firm can provide to you:

Create a user-friendly and functional website:

PDX SEO assists business owners, particularly those who are new to creating websites, build a friendlier, faster and better website for their online business. When it comes to Search Engine Marketing, it involves focusing on the quality of the user experience that your visitors have as much as it does to please the search engines.

When your visitors are pleased with your website, the search engines will also be happy. SEO involves the rearrangement of links and the architecture of the website to make navigating through the pages of a website a much easier thing to do. PDX SEO utilizes first-rate on-page SEO methods to improve your visitors user experience, which creates several long term and short term benefits.

Generate traffic:

One of the greatest advantages you will get from hiring a Portland SEO Company is all of the added traffic that is generated for your site. The main way this is achieved is through selecting the proper keywords. It has been repeatedly proven that it increases the amount of traffic to a website.

Our firms art of SEO also helps you convert your visitors into customers. The experts at PDX SEO ensure that they use only the finest and most effective Search Engine Optimization methods that can increase your website traffic significantly. The more traffic that you receive, the higher the sales will be for your business.

Stay ahead of your competition:

One of the easiest and fastest ways to get ahead of the competition is to optimize your website with help from experts in Portland Search Engine Optimization. Consider two businesses that are selling the same products and the same prices within the same industry. One has a non-optimized web presence, and the other one utilizes SEO.

With everything else being equal, the business that has an optimized website will be much more successful since it can obtain many more customers via Search Engine Marketing. This will allow the business to expand much faster.

Improve your brands credibility:

Obtaining the top rankings position will provide you with a significant number of impressions. That is why getting your website to the top spots in the results pages provides your website with increased exposure. There is a simple reason for this: everybody trusts that Google and other popular search engines will deliver results that are the most relevant to their queries.

When you hire Portland SEO services, it will normally result in your site ranking at the top of the search results. That means that the more high ranking pages you have, the more chances you have of your target customers seeing you and your brand improving.

High Return On Investment:

It will require an initial investment to have your website built and to hire a Portland SEO Agency for providing various SEO services. However, since those services can be expected to produce great results, you will be able to generate a great return on investment. Whether your site is a non-commerce or e-commerce website, PDX SEO can offer you a quantifiable result and will monitor your progress.

Therefore, you will not need to worry about gaining your initial investment back. They are equipped with all of the necessary tools for tracking virtually all aspects of the SEM services they are providing, including conversion rates, daily ranking changes and increases in traffic. They offer a comprehensive analytic program with the ability to drill down to see website metrics, demographic information and other types of engagement metrics, allowing you to have a clear view of the areas that you can improve upon.

Find potential customers:

When you hire PDX SEO, if you have the ability to target precisely the type of audience that you want, which is those people that are especially searching for the services and products that you offer. That will certainly lead to an increase in sales overall as well as profit margins.

Improve conversion rates

Portland SEO service companies ensure that your site is optimized well. That means that it is compatible with various mobile devices, is easy and convenient to use and that it runs fast. Another thing that will improve conversions is to have a mobile-friendly website.

Provides permanent results:

Unlike traditional advertising methods, Portland SEO services can deliver long-term results. The effects that you can achieve from SEO services that are of high quality will not stop suddenly after you stop using the services of the professional SEO firm. Some maintenance work will need to be done to make sure that your website stays in the top spot. However, if you get it into that position, there is a very good chance that other websites will have a tough time trying to surpass you in the rankings.

Long term results:

Unlike other methods such as PPC, you can enjoy ranking on the major search engines on a long term basis with assistance from Portland SEO. This can prove to be among the best marketing strategies that you can use since their services are so cost-effective and affordable.

If you are thinking about using Portland SEM services to take care of your business SEO needs, then there are a few things that you need to carefully consider. First of all, research the track records of several service providers to determine how capable the firms will be regarding the type of work that you need for them to do for you. Ask if they can customize their services to provide solutions to you that specifically meet your business needs. Also, be sure to compare the prices being charged by several service providers to ensure that the rates are reasonable. After you have completed this process, you can then hired Portland SEM services to help your business achieve its objectives.

PDX SEO is a great way to promote your services and products to a broad range o customers. It will provide your business with increased visibility, and each day of the year.

Read the original post:
Portland SEO Expert | Search Engine Optimization Pros

Kansas City SEO Search Engine Optimization | (913) 489-7866

 SEO  Comments Off on Kansas City SEO Search Engine Optimization | (913) 489-7866
Apr 182016
 

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is the processin which you move your Kansas City business Website closer to the organic first page rankings of Google, Yahoo and Bing.

Its not technical. Its not magic. Its just dedicatedhard work done by people who know what it takes to get asite moving towards the first page of the most popular search engines. SEO is not Search Engine Marketing (SEM), or themore common term Pay-Per-Click.

Your SEO journey to optimized page one search results, starts with afree evaluation of where you currently stand for the key wordsthat are important to your company.

It doesnt matter what city you are in, or what type of business you run, we CAN get your Kansas City, Overland Park, Olathe, Kansas business Web site moving to the first page of Google.

It all starts with a phone call (913) 489-7866where we explain what it actually takes, and what it costs to get on the first page of Google.

We do have the skills and experience to inexpensively move your Kansas City site way up the list in Google. But how high up the list is a factor of many things, all of which we can help you understand, implement on your site.Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is not Search Engine Marketing (SEM), there is a significant difference between the two.

Just to make sure were talking the same terms

Kansas City SEO is not the Kansas City Pay-Per-Click (PPC) ads at the top of a Google search result screen.

SEO are the organic results below the ads in Google.

We do provide (PPC) support to clients. The cost of PPC is determined almost 100 percent by how much the competition is currently paying Google to be at the top the ad section. To be at the top of the ads you have to be willing to pay more to Google than your competition is paying. PPC is simple, inexpensive (less than $500) to set up, but can be expensive to run monthly depending on what your competition is currently paying to Google. Theres no way to know this Google cost without doing a couple hours of analysis at our hourly rate of $80.

SEO is a long term marketing strategy where you try to get your site to show up well in the organic (below the ad section in Google). You cannot pay Google to be in the organic section, so you have to spend more time on SEO than your competition to get to the top of the organic section.

SEO is a marathon, not a sprint. You have to just spend the time and, depending on whos already on the first page of Google, it could take more than a year to get on the first page of Google in the organic section. Its just depends on how much time you want to spend. Time = money. Someone has to spend the time doing these sixthings.

1. Do the analysis and come up with the top key words you want to be found for in Google.

2. Modify your Web site content one time in support ofthe top key words you want to be found for in Google.

3. Continually, on your Web site provide the consumer with fresh new information forthe top key words you want to be found for in Google. (Blogging is a good way to do this on your site)

4. Be bigger on the Internet than your Web site forthe top key words you want to be found for in Google. (Social media)

5. Have a marketing strategy that gets lots of people visiting your Web site. Google loves a busy traffic Web site.

6. Make your Web Design Responsive or Mobile.

If you do thesesixthings above, and never stop, you will see upward movement for your Key Words in the Google search results. The closer you get to page one results in Google, the more you have to work. Remember, you have to bump off those already on the first page of Google by doing more than they are. They got to the first page by working at it.

So the cost of doing items 1 thru 6above vary based on the current competition and what you have to do more than they are currently doing. All the 6above are time activities. Whos going to spend the time doing them.

We are proud to offer the following additional list of services:

Kansas City Website Development

Kansas City Search Engine Optimization( SEO )

Kansas City Web Design Services for Non-Profits

Kansas City Mobile Responsive Web Design

Kansas City WordPress Web Designers

Visit link:
Kansas City SEO Search Engine Optimization | (913) 489-7866

 Posted by at 4:42 am  Tagged with:

KC SEO | WebWorks of KC | Search Engine Optimization

 SEO  Comments Off on KC SEO | WebWorks of KC | Search Engine Optimization
Apr 182016
 

What is Kansas City Search Engine Optimization?

Kansas City Search engine optimization(SEO)is the process of making a website more visible in a search engine’s “natural” unpaid “organic” search results for your business, product or blog in the local Kansas City market. High-quality on-site search engine optimization leads to a higher ranking and more prominent listing in the search results for a search term. The higher a website ranks results in more visitors to a website, leading to more sales and leads for a business from the website.

Whether you have a large business or a small business, whether you are in Kansas City, MO or Tallahassee, FL – If your business website does not appear on the first page of Google search results, chances are your business needs an improved search engine optimization strategy, schedule a free Kansas City Search Engine Optimization (SEO) consultation and learn how your website can get a higher ranking in Google, Yahoo! and Bing searches.

View post:
KC SEO | WebWorks of KC | Search Engine Optimization

 Posted by at 4:42 am  Tagged with:



Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution