Monthly Archives: July 2017

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THAT THE DECISION/POLICY MAKERS DO NOT APPRECIATE THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION.

31 Monday Jul 2017

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

( A Disturbing Twelve minute read)

With a world that is in a categorical state of chaos ignoring the fact the climate is already altered can not continue.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change effects"

It is certainly too late to stop all climate change.

Climate change is not an on-off switch. It is a continuing process. Emitting greenhouse gases is a lot like overflowing a bathtub. Even a slow trickle will eventually flood the room.

By continuing to delay significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we risk handing both an impossible financial and technological burden to future generations.

They have to realize that every decision they make now impacts all species’ chances, and by not acting – by allowing the status quo to continue – we will not only lose nature’s ability to rapidly adapt in future but our also.

Our children and grandchildren may be unable to understand how we negotiated such an arrangement on their behalf.

The era of top-down carbon markets, unlimited unit supply and rising domestic emissions has ended. Right now, only governments can purchase international emissions reductions.

We cannot and must not rely on international markets to set our future domestic emission price with carbon credits. Nor can we rely on International agreements such as the Paris Climate deal and the Kyoto Protocol, they are only having a marginal effect. 

Despite the avoidance of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions through use of renewable energy, increased efficiency and conservation efforts, the rate of increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains high.

True climate sensitivity will only become manifest on a time scale of centuries, due to effects that researchers call “slow climate feedbacks.”

Why?

Because climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way.

Because it is not just scientists fear “tipping points” in the climate system. There is also tipping points in social, economic and political systems.

This is where we are to-day.

So far we have experienced about 1.1℃ of average global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Over this time atmospheric CO₂ levels have risen from 280ppm to 410ppm – and the equivalent of more than 450ppm after factoring in the effects of all the other greenhouse gases besides CO₂.

While wildfires radical shifting forest habitats we looking at a greening globe as plants grow faster in response to rising carbon dioxide.

We are looking at rising sea levels, submerging  low-lying island nations. We are already seeing wars over water, and we will be seeing millions of climate refugees.

There is little understanding that electric vehicles will be in the main pollution shifters- from the tail pipe to power generation stations.

If we can convince people that climate change is real and important, then surely they will act:

No they will not.

Critically, if people thought acting on climate change would improve society it would matter if they believed it was happening or not, or whether it was important. And it would not also matter what political ideology they held.

You might think if action on climate change reduces pollution or stimulates economic development, people who value clean air or economic growth might support climate change action, even if they are unconvinced or unconcerned about climate change itself. Issues like pollution and poor health being commonly invoked as co-benefits of addressing climate change, reducing pollution, poverty and disease are the weakest motivator of climate change action.

Although mitigating climate change will produce these health and pollution benefits, these don’t appear to strongly motivate people’s willingness to act. In addition there is the possibility of unknown effects –- those that are hard to predict because the planet’s climate is such a complex system where strong regional variability is the norm.

Making society more caring is a strong motivator for action across the globe, whereas promoting development varied in its effects across countries. Developing countries are already being paid in cash and technology for not using ozone-destroying chemicals in refrigerators and air-conditioning systems.

If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?

In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. In any event, it’s not possible to stop emitting carbon dioxide right now. Despite significant advances in renewable energy sources, total demand for energy accelerates.

The importance of climate change as a public issue has been slipping in countries such as the United States, and is given a relatively low priority across the world.

Future emissions may be dominated by large developing countries like China and India. While neither can be blamed for climate change so far, they clearly have to be part of the solution.

Humans have pumped over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere since 1750. It is not just the amount, but the rate at which this CO₂ has been added.

The industrialized nations have already emitted enough carbon dioxide and humanity cannot afford for the developing world to take the same path.

With MR Dump in the USA denying that US alone is responsible this is now probably the biggest challenge.

So a deal has to be done that is binding fair and achievable not just verbal rhetoric.

It will require large flows of technology and cash to the developing world.

Ecosystems are altered by natural and human-made occurrences. As they recover, it will be in a different climate from that in which they evolved. The climate in which they recover will not be stable; it will be continuing to warm. There will be no new normal, only more change.

We won’t go back to the past. Rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible futures.

Communicate climate change to the public in more convincing ways:

The real key is to ensure that climate change initiatives directly benefit the pocket of the individual.

How can this be achieved?

Firstly:

Place a blanket World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all stock exchange transactions. On all High Frequency Trading. On all Sovereignty Wealth Funds Acquisitions. On all Foreign Exchange Transactions over lets say $50,000.

Secondarily:

Establish a new World Aid Organisation totally transparent and free of United Nations Veto to manage this perpetually funded.

Thirdly:

This organisation uses Capitalist Greed for profit by issuing Green Bonds with a guaranteed return. It authorities non repayable loans to all projects that tackles climate change. Subsidizes Solar panels production to reduce costs. Helps re-settlement.

While these costs will be spread over 80 years, this will also be a period in which the global population will increase from seven billion to perhaps 11 billion and beyond.  Humanity will need to grow enough crops to feed these billions while fueling BECCS schemes (Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage)  at a time when climate change will already be impacting food production.

Could this be achieved:

In politics, most things can be done if there is the will.

The more big investors and companies report on the impacts of climate change, the more information will be available for everyone. You and I will be able to better understand what role our retirement savings are playing in tackling climate change.

It  less obvious how climate change policies could help create communities where people care more for each other.“Top-down” policies such as a carbon tax or emissions trading aren’t traditionally the stuff that helps build communities.

However, policies that support “bottom-up” initiatives have this potential, such as engaging local communities in climate change activities that build friendships and strengthen networks. People will be motivated to act on climate change when they think it would lead to scientific and economic advances (development), and when it will help create a society where people cared more for each other (benevolence).

Lastly:

The New World Organisation should have its own TV Channel. What gets measured gets managed, including climate change.

Blocking out the sun to reduce global warming – an idea still in the making as is the hope that Artificial intelligence will come to or rescue.

All comments or suggestions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

   

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL START THE NEXT WORLD WAR ?

29 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

( A Ten Minute Read)

What will Sparks’ it?

Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?

Some of hypotheses are undeniably hysterical, for sure, but the consequences will be more terrifying, and indefensible, than we have ever seen before.

It’s always tempting to predict death and destruction, because you’ll be at least a little bit right and no one will fault you if you’re wrong.

So will it be a clash of civilizations, severe climate change resulting in climate mitigation; resource depletion, a populist uprising. The development of robotic soldiers with the ability to wage war without putting troops on the front line. Computer glitches causing corporations wars; or diplomatic misunderstandings, all of which can lead to war. Terrorism, inequality, and internal political or civil strife can also create the pressure for war.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were only a few hundred Islamist fighters in the Hindu Kush mountains. Fast forward through 16 years of the war on terror costing some $4,000bn (£3,300bn) and leaving 1.3 million dead, and the number of terrorists is currently about 100,000. Even on its own terms, the war on terror has been an abysmal failure. How on earth did this happen?

If civilization conflicts are not the least of our worries there are indeed a vast verity of triggers.

The Trump transition is likely to exacerbate US-China tensions. Trump has threatened a trade war with China. Kim Jong Un decides to attack his neighbors in the South Pacific and Trump decides to fire back.

The Ukrainian crisis was preceded by two decades of NATO expansionism up to the borders of Russia and now it is widely recognized that Russia is waging a campaign of covert political manipulation across the United States, Europe and the Middle East.

The original post-war European Union project was based around peace, social justice and harmony. The unraveling of this project might be Brexit accompanied by rising nationalism, which is likely to exacerbate the dangers of war on a continent with a fraught history of bloody conflict.

The Middle East cauldron centered around Isis and the Syrian war.

The Syrian war has seen allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – arming and funding radical Jihadist groups, such as the al-Nusra front. The terrorist attacks in Europe have demonstrated the difficulty in containing the spill-over. The Syrian war has seen the return of great-power politics with the involvement of Russia. This contamination has the potential for a wider conflict in which western countries could be drawn in.

India and Pakistan could go to war Article Image

Take your pick.

Mine is in keeping with the default operational mode of capitalism.

One might even argue that capitalism often resolves systemic economic crises through war. After all, a war economy with militarization, mobilization, full employment and jingoism can be viewed as the ultimate solution to economic woes and social unrest.

We are now at the beginning of Technology that is overseeing an extraordinary re-distribution of wealth that is tilting society off its axis.

The richest 1 percent have almost 40 percent of our worlds wealth, while the bottom 90 percent have 73 percent of the debt.

This is largely the result of technology.

And just wait until the work force is truly affected by the rise of robots and automation.

You don’t have to look too far back into history to see that when the marginalized have had it with the system, it doesn’t take a lot to set flame to tinder.

The emerging technologies like industrial robots, artificial intelligence, and machine learning are advancing at a rapid pace, but there has been little attention to their impact on employment and public policy. So technology is likely to be at the center of the next major geopolitical battle.

The anti-immigration, anti-one percent, anti-capitalism and anti-everything else we’re seeing right now isn’t just going to go away in a society where people feel their voices are not being heard.

The next major war, wouldn’t be fought with bombs, men, or even robots. It wouldn’t be waged on a battlefield or in the sky.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF COMPUTER WARS"

Instead, it will be a silent war.

During the past couple of decades, most of the world’s private and public infrastructure had become predominantly digital.

The next major war will decimate that infrastructure.

Water-treatment facilities, oil pipelines, dams, electrical grids, telecommunications platforms, food shipments, public and private transportation, traffic lights, prisons, every single drip of media—and a long, long list of other things we need for survival but take for granted—will all be vulnerable.

Our smartphones and computers will be black rectangles. The Internet: poof! Water infrastructure will stop working, power plants will go offline. Crops, which are now operated by digital irrigation systems, will die.

And that will all be in the first few hours.

Imagine what will happen in the coming days, weeks, and months. We will essentially be sent back centuries. Computer hackers—possibly from an adversarial country—taking down power plants, water systems, the Internet, or private infrastructure. Real cyber warfare could destroy actual machines.

The first technology revolution caused World War I. The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution.

So could it in fact trigger a Third World War.

As soon as 2025, large parts of the world will experience perennial water shortages, by 2050, the world’s populations will be a third to a half again as large as today. Put rising population and rising incomes together and, experts tell us, by 2050 global food needs will double, with water requirements going up accordingly.

[It takes 2,400 liters to produce a hamburger, common in many middle-income diets, it takes about 40 liters of water to produce a slice of bread, a staple of low-income diets.] On a humanitarian level, the possibilities are devastating.

Climate change requiring a shift in the way we think about the global distribution of resources.

Some will say that technology will help to get us out of the sustainability jam, but it will be nothing more than a quick fix to the vast graveyards of abject inequality created by algorithms for profit.

This is why we must now create a new World Organisation to vet all technology. (See previous posts)

World leaders have a duty to educate people to prevent the pain caused by a rapid rise in automation and artificial intelligence.

Instead we see the transition of Western democracy to oligarchy and the descent into soft fascism is under way. Citizens will need to participate actively, rather than as passive consumers, to demand an end to this cycle of violence from governments and to defend the assault on democratic processes which are already having its foundations rocked by Social Media filtered platforms that have profit as their mantra.

In today’s ultra-globalized and ultra-specialized economy? The level of economic adaptation — even for large countries like Russia and the United States with lots of land and natural resources — required to adapt to a world war would be crushing, and huge numbers of business and livelihoods would be wiped out. War could break out in a number of places, drawing in combatants in unpredictable ways. Combatants very rarely start a global war on purpose; the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations need to be vigilant about the threat of crisis escalation.

The spread of internet technology and social media has brought the world much closer together. Today, people from enemy countries can come together in cyberspace and find out that the “enemy” is not so different.

YouTube and Facebook makes it much more difficult for governments to carry out large-scale military aggression’s, but on the other hand all it took during World War I was one shot. Maybe all it will take for World War III is one line of code.

We shouldn’t scoff at the warnings that something like this could happen one day.

Statesmanship must go beyond diplomacy, in particular to championing new agricultural technologies. Without growing more food with less water (land, too) the water-war surprises will come, perhaps not in one year, perhaps not in four, but soon, and long into the future. Even the big threats—nuclear warfare or an ecological catastrophe, perhaps following from climate change—aren’t existential in the sense that they would wipe us out entirely. And the current bugaboo, in which our electronic progeny exceed us and decide they can live without us, can be avoided by unplugging them.

The new technologies may be self-accelerating, but they are not self-determining. I would say that the odds are good for our survival, providing that AI does not acquire the ability not just to think like us but to self-replicate.

The revolutionary potential of future technologies is to change Homo sapiens itself, including our bodies and our minds, and not merely our vehicles and weapons. The most amazing thing about the future won’t be the spaceships, but the beings flying them. 

The truth is that from the standpoint of morality, like many other standpoints, we are hardly adapted to the world in which we live.

Technology will be the result of ever renegotiated agreement with society. Because they are so potent, their paths may undergo wild oscillations, but I think the trend will be toward the dynamic middle: much slower than the optimists expect, much faster than the pessimists think humanity can bear.

However the cold war may be over, but the Doomsday Machine that came out of the confrontation with the Soviets is still with us—and on a hair-trigger.

As global conflicts grow increasingly messy, narratives spun by propagandists and troll factories will wreak havoc via social media, state news organs and even the global free press.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME TO PUT PAY TO THE TRAVELING EU CIRCUS COSTING £9/10 BILLION TAX PAYERS MONEY.

25 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in European Commission., European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

( A ten minute read)

The EU project suffers from not having any real democratic legitimacy – without constitutional accountability, it is heading for trouble.

The unaccountable nature of the EU, coupled with the hardship caused by the “austerity for some, gravy trains for others” policies and the failure to either deal with the still-mounting debt crisis, and the real problems caused by all this and the lack of support for any further social, economic and political integration, it’s debatable whether the EU will even survive for long… just wait till the next crisis hits.

A self-created bubble for the MEP’s where their loyalty to the EU above the people is assured by massive wages, expenses and pensions and if kicked out by the electorate in elections they’ll get other jobs in the Commission or the wider EU structure.

On top of all this we have Strasbourg a symbol of waste and stupidity – the perfect example of all that is wrong with the EU. True democracy at work. No one gets a vote on it.European Parliament strasbourg

Approximately 10 per cent of the Parliament’s annual budget, between €156 and €204 million is spent to sustain this traveling circus.

The annual CO2 emissions associated with the transfers to and from the three working locations – Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg – is estimated to be between 11,000 and 19,000 tonnes. That is the equivalent of 12,000 cars driving around the circumference of the world. (Is it not ironic that the European Parliament voted to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030?)

Between 3,500 and 4,000 people every month set out for Strasbourg – this includes MEPs, assistants, political group staff, parliament staff, interpreters and translators. This is done by trains, by air and by road. In order to transport the 2,500 trunks and all the equipment required for the plenary session a large convey of trucks travel the 409 kilometers from Brussels to Strasbourg. This is then reversed four days later.

Among the costs are £250,000 a year to transport the plastic boxes containing documents, diaries and other items from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again.

£2.5 million bill for relocating freelance translators from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again, including costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Depending on how you read it, you might find the E.U.’s tendency to translate nearly everything it does into all 24 of its official languages a testimony to its internationalist glory or a wasteful use of resources. By E.U. custom, all public E.U. documents are translated into every language. All high-level E.U. meetings are the same way. The European Commission says it employs 1,750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.

In Strasbourg, extra money is needed for computers and IT support and for maintenance and security of the sleek parliament building, which was completed in 1999. In total, the cost of looking after the French buildings and infrastructure and other charges comes to about £50 million a year.

About 100 people are employed in Strasbourg full-time, even though the European Parliament meets for 12 sessions, each lasting four days, a total of only 48 days each year.

Hotels in Strasbourg typically double their rates when the EU comes to stay. Last week, the Hilton Hotel in Strasbourg was offering rooms at £82 for Sunday night, but this rose to a cheapest rate of £161 a night for Monday, when the sessions begin.

Naturally, the French are totally opposed to ANY CHANGE not only because of the €20 Million it provides to the Strasbourg economy each year but also because it is an important European symbol within France.

Why does the European parliament move from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month?

It is a disgrace that €9.5 million is wasted in this way every month.

Strasbourg is the official seat of the European Parliament, so the EU treaties would have to be changed if that were no longer the case. A final decision would rest with the member countries.

The so-called traveling circus that sees MEPs and staff decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month has long been a bone of contention. It costs the institution some €114 million a year to make the trip.

In a November 2013 resolution, MEPs called for a treaty change to allow Parliament to decide where it sits.

Over three-quarters, of MEPS from across the political spectrum, want to abolish this practice but they have no power to change it. Under the Lisbon Treaty the parliament is legally bound to meet 12 times a year in Strasbourg. A session takes place every month – except in August but a second session in September or October replaces it. This can only be changed if unanimous agreement on the issue is reached at a European Council Summit – a meeting of heads of Governments of each Member State.

The EU’s national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix the seats of the EU institutions permanently. This decision also affected the working arrangements for the Parliament: its official seat and the venue for most of the plenary sessions would be Strasbourg; parliamentary committees would have their meetings in Brussels; and Parliament’s Secretariat (its staff) would be based in Luxembourg. In 1997 this whole arrangement was incorporated into the EU treaty.

Any change in the current system would need to be part of a new treaty, agreed unanimously by all 28 member states and ratified by each of their national parliaments. However only with a workable alternative for Strasbourg could a French veto be avoided.

I can fully appreciate that if you move an existing institution, the member state which currently houses it will also have to be compensated, setting off a chain reaction. So you have to give proper consideration to all of the links in the chain before you come up with a proposal.

But will it change?

For the foreseeable future, I honestly don’t think so. Unfortunately, France will never agree, which holds a veto.

The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has for most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue (…), especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the member states”, said the resolution, which was approved by 483 votes to 141, with 34 abstentions.

France and Germany got everything they wanted and everyone else got shafted.. French MEPs could quit the largest political group in the European Parliament if their colleagues support a plan to scrap the assembly’s base in Strasbourg. It’s up to us with the power of Social Media to demand a stop to this blatant waste of our hard-earned money.

How can we achieve this:

There is only one way and that is by bombarding Emmanuel Macron the new French President through Social Media with the following message.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the new french president"

Not a one day bombardment but a sustained bombardment.

 [Palais de L’Élysée

55 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré

75008 Paris, France.

Your Excellency,

The Strasbourg-Brussels merry-go-round has gone on long enough, it’s deeds, not words, that count.  With due respect The European Parliament’s travelling circus represents all that is wrong about the EU in the eyes of electorates across Europe: A useless and huge cost for our European community. 

A recent study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million (£85 million) could be saved each year if all European Parliament operations were transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels.

As a taxpayer I have no objection to maintaining the status quo, providing the total costs are financed by the French Tax payer.  

They say the definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The unnecessary waste and the political stalemate that perpetuates it must stop. This craziness has to stop.

Yours sincerely:    ………………………………….  ]  EU Citizen.

Optional PS:

Why not give everyone a smart phone with a voice recognition app. Press Translate. A saving of £2.5 million. ( 750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WE ARE NOW IN A PERIOD OF HISTORY WITHOUT ANYONE UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHERE WE RUSHING.

22 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

( A Ten minute read)

These day’s bashing free-market capitalism is high on the agenda and its no wonder as we indeed need to understand its shortcomings. Yet criticizing capitalism should not blind us to its advantages and attainments.

If we ignore the potential ecological meltdown and measure success by production and growth we could say with some degree of accuracy that perpetual growth and cooperation has to a great extent being achieved.

We’re surfing a technology tsunami!

New technologies are changing the way the world operates, the way people live, and the way we do business. Nothing will ever be the same, as customers take control of relationships. But the connectivity explosion has also created a global trust crisis. Who do we trust – the local pharmacy, or Google? Our local politicians, or a stranger we have never met on Facebook?

Power is shifting – moving from institutions, from governments and big companies, into the hands of connected individuals. This is completely reshaping societies, economics, politics and business. And this is giving rise to a generation of new, nimble, innovative competitors across the entire business market, who are challenging the existing players with different models and new rules.

The world as you know it is rapidly changing: AI, Robotics, Drones, Block chain, 3 D printers, Self-Driving Cars, Unlimited energy, the list goes on and on.

If on an almost daily basis, there is a sense that the world is moving faster, it’s because we are! Entire industries will be rocked to the core and some will be destroyed overnight, while others will be created.

But at what price.

The new modern deal with Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and the coming automation is demanding that we give up meaning as the free-market cloaked in Algorithms is making Capitalism blind and invisible.

We humans remain as fickle as the wind.

Who ever determines the meaning of our actions, whether they be good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, will have the authority to tell us what to think and how to behave.

Our source of meaning and authority is now being relocated into filtered wireless platforms which are in the process of reshaping logic that has no sensitivity or experience.  Indeed we are heading to a new form of living that is taking no measure of feelings that can be turned into wisdom. Unfortunately it remains impossible to take into account the experiences of all to weight them against each other in a fair way. If we want a fair and just world it will be only achieved by common action.  It is impossible to argue that all human experiences are equally valuable.

To the  best of our scientific understanding, determinism and randomness have divided the entire cake between them.

Our feelings as you know provide meaning not only for our privater lives , but also for social and political processes.

In the past world history was shape by small number of forward thinking people not by the masses. To day we are all carrying brain scanners call smartphones all of which are in the business of predicting people’s desires and making decisions well before we become aware of them.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the future world"

Lacking freewill is the main aim of every un vetted algorithm and app that are designed to generate profit.

With direct brain stimulation becoming the new scientific world, with its technologies translating into everyday activities and economic structures we will need new religious beliefs and new political institutions.

Many inventions are born in the lab and never make it into the consumer market, while others evolve beyond the pace of putting good regulations on their use. For example Twitter Periscope app being used to groom children.  Or facial recognition apps that will soon be enforcing open air prisons turning us all into second class Google citizens.     

We have the technology to put computers almost anywhere and in almost anything surely its time we create a New World Organisation which is self financing and totally transparent to vet all technology. ( see previous posts) 

Machines could soon have access to our innermost thoughts.

Our thoughts and actions could actually be hijacked by a form of media that makes us think we’re getting what we want, when really, we’re going for something our brains may only think is supposed to be good.

Data and the machines and algorithms used to manage and make sense of it could largely replace independent decision-making — either large or small — and it is happening at such a speed that it’s sometimes hard to remember the data isn’t in control.

People still control the data, but just who has this control and what they do with it will become an ongoing challenge.

Will there be a day when you say “I can’t read your mind, you know!” and the reply will be “Oh, stop it — of course you can!”?

Picture a tiny bit of a thing on an already minuscule computer chip. Something microscopic with the power to think like a computer without the need of complex circuitry and capable of being moved by light or sound: That is quantum technology simplified.

Lack of opportunity and lack of hope for the youth are practically boiling over — or, at least, are simmering and ready to explode.

Maybe you aren’t comfortable with all of the futurist predictions and even the current rate of technological advance, and that’s OK. You can be yourself and interact in the world in a fairly low-tech way while allowing a surrogate, avatar or robot to live your online and tech life for you.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the future world"

How wants a faceless world without understanding intelligence or cognition first.

We need to be concerned about the unintended consequences in the types of AI that are no being developed before they are trusted.

Being a scientist doesn’t absolve you from humanity.

We need a clear idea of what we want AI to do or become. There is little point in automation pushing people out of jobs, making people who own the machines richer and every one else poorer.

We are now looking down the barrel of Colliding Worlds: 

Linear vs. Exponential. Physical vs. Virtual. People vs. Machines. Ownership vs. Access. Limits vs. Abundance, and so much more.

This is not a scientific issue; it’s a political and socioeconomic problem that we as society must solve.

The conservation of all forms of life is a shared responsibility.

The big question will be why should super intelligence keep us around.

If we don’t find a way of distributing our wealth in all forms better we will fuel capitalism with artificial intelligence serving very few.

A gloomy underworld of tech-savvy ne’-er-do-wells using their genius for profit.

Three recent breakthroughs moved artificial intelligence from the trivial days to where we are today. Cheap parallel computing, Big Data, Better algorithms.

Taken together, these three developments created the ideal conditions for AI to evolve.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of AI"

All comments Appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE: SOCIAL MEDIA WASHING LINE : LOOKS AT THE EU GRAVY TRAIN.

21 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

( A thirteen minute read)

THE European Union (EU) is “unified only in name” and faces the “danger of disintegration” if it does not tackle the obvious reforms needed. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu gravy train"

The 2008 financial meltdown and subsequent sovereign debt crisis and then the 2015 migrant crisis demonstrated that the EU is unified only in name. Brexit and the idea of sovereignty it symbolizes is a mighty catalyst for all member states’ citizens to rethink their idea of Europe and national sovereignty.

While the majority of us scrape a living i have always held that if you want an organisation to operate you must attract the best by paying above the odds. The EU has repeatedly attracted controversy over the hugely lavish pay and perks it affords to its staff, which are in stark contrast to the experience of workers across the continent who have suffered years of pay freezes.

THOUSANDS of pounds of European Union (EU) taxpayers’ money are going straight into politicians’ coffers as MEPs are not using office allowances. As well as the £3,783 handed to them by the EU for an office space, MEPs are paid £7,392 a month – £88,704 annually – and get £21,057 to spend on office staff.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu gravy train"

Surely its time that we the tax payer on social media demand a stop to the EU Gravy train loop holes by demanding that all expenses, payments are transparent and subject to scrutiny. 

The complete lack of transparency in the EU means that eurocrats think they can get away with living the high life at our expense. 

EUROPEAN Union bureaucrats put a staggering £85 million on credit cards issued to pay for meals and hotels – in just one year.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, was offered a salary five times higher than his pay in Warsaw.

A whopping £94 m is proposed to be spent on “information and communication” in the 2018 budget, including £28 m on promoting the next European elections.

On top of that the EU’s burgeoning fleet of electric cars is to be expanded by a third, from 60 to 90, and an eye-watering £3 m would be spent on making Irish an official language in Brussels.

A total of 249 offices out of the potential 748 do not exist or could not be found.

Only 133 current MEPs across the 28 member states revealed to the team what they pay in office rent. 249 said they either have no offices or refused to reveal their addresses, or their locations could not be found, while 19 said they work from home.

The European Parliament also does not keep a record of politicians’ offices in their home countries.

The issue gets even more complicated when MEPs own the office buildings themselves, which has happened in Germany where eight MEPs from different political parties own their building.
Manfred Weber, chairman of the European Union Parliament’s biggest group, the centre-right EPP, is one MEP who owns his own office. The office is based in an annex at his private home in a village in Bavaria, which is miles from more populated areas.
MEPs are also sub-renting offices from their own local political party branches, with 38 confirming their offices were in that situation.

 “The EU Commission has to revise its Code of Conduct completely and put in place a credible, impartial, ethics body to stop the gravy train.

More than £17.4 million of EU taxpayers’ money has been blown on giving people bargain getaways to Brussels and Strasbourg, an official report into the extravagance of the European Parliament has revealed.

 As well as not having to declare spending, there also does not appear to be a definitive set of rules as to how allowances should be spent, with MEPs interpreting how to use the cash differently.

Some used the entire office allowance for office equipment, internet subscriptions and other work-related costs. Others used their “general expenditure” on travel expenses for visitors, charity donations and national party payments. Some politicians transfer their entire EU allowance to their national party – which under Brussels rules is not allowed.

 Nick Aiossa, EU policy officer at Transparency International, said: “I could never imagine MEPs giving out 40 million a year to member states for cohesion policy, without one receipt.“There is a level of hypocrisy on the financial management score that we find is quite astounding.
While Brexit will shed billions from the EU coffers the Brussels gravy train continues full speed ahead.

The European Parliament is a great source of income both before and after political tenure

MORE than thirty per cent of the EU’s ex-MEPs have been re-hired as lobbyists.

Donald Tusk earns £22,000-a-month as an EU commissioner plus pension and benefits.

MEPs spent £1 million in one year on jollies around the world including trips to Mauritius, New York, Mexico and Cambodia.

Interpreters employed full-time by the Parliament earn the equivalent of up to €500 an hour because they have so little work to do.

More than £700,000 was lavished on an award ceremony for European cinema modeled on the Oscars.

The Parliament spent £1 million promoting itself on Facebook and £3.9 million on an online TV channel watched only 9.9 million times.

Concerns have been raised that a £40 million new museum to ‘promote awareness of European identity’ will replicate exhibitions in an existing visitor center.

Another scam they have is to buy a cheap ticket to fly to Brussels and then put in the expenses for first class ticket £277.80 each way first class £45 each way cheap flight.

The above I am sure IF WE LOOKED AT EU PENSIONS is just a drop in the ocean of fiddles.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS SOCIAL MEDIA PULLING THE WORLD ASUNDER.

19 Wednesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

There is a generation of kids coming up who can’t even conceive of a world without smart phones and social networking. It has officially embedded itself in our culture.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of social media"

The question is what exactly are the effects of social media?

This blog is the first to be posted on my new Flip Board Magazine named ( # Silent Witness To The Beady Eye Social Media Washing Line.)

It is my hoped that the Magazine will provide a platform to enable Social Media to present a unified voice to effect change.

Its purpose is to promote and aid communication. 

We now have truly globalized voices. What a privilege!

But is it such a privilege.

Hashtags have grown into a phenomenon of their own.

By providing us with global reach for our voices, social networks enable businesses across the world to amplify their message in a way never thought possible only a decade or two ago. Given all the consolidation of media companies it is pretty easy to question whether the news we get from the major media is the full story or not.

Do you think the world is better or worse off with social networks?

As all social media platforms are subject to algorithms it cannot become our main form of communication and interaction. If we stop making our own choices than we’ve lost what it means to live and be human. 

This type of technology might be doing more harm than good. 

With so much being blogged and written, then curated and shared proactively, the volume of content has grown exponentially but is anyone listing.

What is really happening in the world.

Let’s look at ways that social media improves our life experience, and also a few ways that it uncovers a few of the more unsightly parts of humanity.

Social media are very helpful for expanding our sources of content as a whole.

It’s less important to have a news team interpret it on our behalf.

Today, all you have to do is login to our platform of choice where you can rant, rave, kumbaya, tell jokes, share images, and generally mix and mingle to your heart’s content. You can create a new blog and start putting our thoughts into words. Those thoughts could grow legs of their own once the social sphere grabs hold of them.

Are these voices now ripping the world apart?

In any case, social media is providing a means to have a voice on par with the big dogs for everyone but it is no longer grounded in reality plagued with the narcissistic selfie in front of everything from natural disasters to a sign with a political or social message on it, and a new hashtag of course.

When it comes to politics, religion, or any other very personal area of life, discussion gets contentious almost immediately. Regardless of how those with the other opinion are depicted by the media. Social media is meant to be social, not a boxing ring.

It’s amazing to see how people behave when their true identity is masked.

Facebook is crawling with people ready to go to social media war with anyone on a topic they care about, but what else are they doing to fix the problem?

Venting on social media doesn’t fix a thing; it just stirs the pot.

The ugly underbelly of ignorance is easy to ignore while you’re going about your everyday life but on Twitter, it’s all over the place.

If we are to avoid a world driven by Social Media confusion, with no source of truth we must air our free will and collective voices to effect change.

We must expose and resist Algorithms that are supplying a world of short-term pleasure for profit.

So If you have a genuine point of view, feel free to hang it out on the washing line and see what reaction it gets.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of social media"

THE BEADY ASKS YOU THIS QUESTION : ARE WE MISSING THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF THE WORLD PRESENT PROBLEMS.

13 Thursday Jul 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

 

( A two-minute read)

What is now becoming clear with technology is that Capitalism is programmed to subordinate life to the imperative of profit. ( Capitalist Algorithms are making profit all but invisible)Image associée

Ever since David chucked a stone we have glorified war, selling trillions in arms rather than eradication of inequality.

We were and still are griped by a logic that has given us everything from slavery to the smart phone, to oil spills, to child labor, to terrorists, to Donald Trump with pending ecological collapse and climate change.Image associée

GDP and now smartphones measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile.

Surely no matter who or where you were born on earth you want to live in balance with your environment on which you depend for your survival.

Nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.

Our TV screens recently passively report one of the largest Icebergs ever to brake off the Antarctic. Not good enough.

One dimensional capitalism has to go.  We can carry on with the status quo.

If we carry on dishing out inequality the choice is staring us stark in the face.

There will be no Future with or without technology.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of politics of the future"

I am sure there are many like me blogging, twittering, their views on Social media, but we have to grow out the logic of social media algorithms.  If we do not we are going to pay a heft price. If our current trajectory continues, democracy as you know it will be ruined. Social Media is in the process of rendering our votes worthless and unfit for purpose.

The world is now full of misinformation that is debunking people’s attitudes.

Facebook algorithms along with a clatter of others, are a form of manipulation making us all, more and more polarized from the world we live in.Image associée

Its time for a reboot. It wouldn’t turn out the way you want it. We need to do some thing about it quickly. ( Read my previous blogs.) Let’s face it; you’ve probably tried to imagine the typical daily life in the distant future. Technology will, indeed, play a pivotal role in our lives in 34 years.  We are told that the primary purpose of all robots and incredibly advanced technology will be to allow men to have a relaxed and calmer lifestyle.

There will be little point if our worlds is falling asunder and watched over by a United Nations without a unity people.

Digital technology will not simply intensify prevailing cultural trends but also provide resources for reinterpreting its meaning. We must grasp the opportunities it presents us, by coming together in a united world voice to change the core human cry from growth for the sake of profit to sustainability.

All comments Appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW ARE WE GOING TO HOLD CONVERSATIONS WITH ROBOTS.

11 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

(A twelve-minute read)

Too often technology is discussed as if it has come from another planet and has just arrived on Earth. We seem to be losing turf as the supreme thinking and feeling being.

”We’re at a peculiar point in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Right now, AI is like a toddler that is okay on their own for 30 seconds, but really requires a lot of human supervision.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on how we are going to talk to robots"

The trajectory of technological progress is not inevitable, it depends on choices by governments, consumers, and businesses as they decide which technologies get researched and commercialized and how they are used. The way robotic technologies can and will augment human abilities is sometimes lost amid concerns people will be unable to compete in a world of smart machines.

At the moment the state-of-art of artificial intelligence technology is quite limited, especially for having conversation with people.

Language is power—power that often implies, or closes down knowledge and understanding, both of which we need to make informed decisions about individual and collective futures.

There’s a long way to go in getting a ROBOT to capture the subtleties of body language—the narrowing of the eyes, the pursing of the lips, the opening of the palms, the tones of voice, the subtle cues of face-to-face interaction, but sooner than later both we more than the robot will have to adapt in order to respect and listen to robots.

We’ll need different words to talk about the future. We will require more precise definitions to discuss increasingly complicated, complex and more finely nuanced objects, situations and roles people have in the world. We need to find better options to communicate about them if we’re going to understand what comes next.

In my opinion it will happen terrifying quickly but Robots aren’t going to replace us rather by working hand in hand with us they will redefine what it means to be human.

So how will future interactions between, remote-controlled and autonomous, robots and humans work? What effect will they have on people’s personality perception, group interaction. Could the rapid advances in automation and digital technology provoke social upheaval by eliminating the livelihoods of many people, even as they produce great wealth for others?

To attempt to answer these question we have to go beyond current thinking.

The versatility of the human hand is thought to have played a role in our rise to become the dominant species on Earth so when we shake hands with a robot we better make sure it wont bit the hand that feeds it.

Symbiotic relationship between humans and computers will not work because of their increasing ability to learn just not from us but from each other. “If you’re interacting with someone who is themselves an extrovert, when you do a gesture, the robot does a large gesture. How do we  tailor the robot’s gestures to suit the mood suggested by the speaker’s voice or to stress a particular point.

“Are we at the beginning of an economic transformation that is unique in history, wonderful for what it could do in bringing us better medicine, services, and products, but devastating for those not in a position to reap the financial benefits?

The answer to this question is an infantile yes.

How do you keep people engaged when AI can do most things better than most people? I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s a new kind of grand challenge for AI engineers.

As machines and software—capital—become ever cheaper and more capable, it makes sense to use less and less human labor.

We can create a society of shared prosperity only if we update our policies, organizations, and research to seize the opportunities and address the challenges these tools give rise to.

This is the very reason that now not in the future we should create a new world organisation to vet all technology. ( See previous Posts)  If the rewards of new technologies go largely to the very richest, as has been the trend in recent decades, then dystopian visions could become reality.

Depend in large part on which technologies we invent and choose to embrace.

It’s also time to start a conversation about the deeper changes that will be necessary over the longer term—to our tax and transfer system, to the nature and extent of our public investment, and even to how democracy can and should function in a networked world.

The conversation about robots today so often revolves around fears of how they will replace us, rather than help us. Science fiction is full of stories where people live vicariously, sitting in virtual reality pods from where they control robotic avatars that can perform seemingly impossible tasks safe in the knowledge that any damage—or even death—is virtual.

And while the impact of fast-approaching automation, drones, and robots on industries such as haulage, delivery, and retail is yet to be felt, the projects at Bristol demonstrate ways that people and robots can achieve more by working together rather than in competition.

Developing algorithms in which the robots themselves are useful but capable of asking for help.” through superimposing messages on your vision to tell you how it gauges the conversation is going.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "papers on how we are going to talk to robots"

Do today’s rapid advances in artificial intelligence and automation portend a future in which robots and software greatly reduce the need for human workers?

Will robots and software replace most human workers?

Now the evidence is that technology is destroying jobs and indeed creating new and better ones but also fewer ones.

While our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks,

No one knows the answer.

Allowing a large number of workers to become irrelevant in the technology-centric economy would be a huge waste of human talent and ambition—and would probably put an enormous financial burden on society.

it’s difficult to quantify the effect of today’s technology on job creation, it’s impossible to accurately predict the effects of future advances. Whoever owns the capital will benefit as robots and artificial intelligence inevitably replace many jobs.

That will mean providing fairer access to quality education and training programs for people throughout their careers. As the most advanced technology becomes, the more we can focus on being humans and let robots do little, annoying things that we don’t like doing anyway.

Robots will routinely collaborate with people so most of our sex will be with machines. So far more people need to “own the robots.”Who we are going to love? Laptops, Apps?

Everyone doesn’t need to become a technical expert, or keep a field guide to drones and robots handy (though it might be useful sooner than later), but, as I’ve pointed out in the case of complex systems and supply chains, we might all benefit from having a clearer understanding of how the world is changing around us, and what new creatures we’ll encounter out there. Perhaps it’s time we all start wielding language with greater clarity. I’m sure the robots will.

But “hackers,” “algorithms,” and to some extent “robots,” sit behind metaphorical — or actual — closed doors, where obscurity can benefit those who would like to use these terms, or exercise the realities behind them to their own benefit, though perhaps not to ours. We need better definitions, and more exact words, to talk about these things because, frankly, these particular examples are part of a larger landscape of “actors” which will define how we live in coming years, alongside other ambiguous terms like “terrorist,” or “immigrant,” about which clear discourse will only become more important.

A future where robots and humans enjoy a more symbiotic relationship—where robots work alongside people, enhancing their capabilities is a future worth while having. The goal should be inclusive prosperity. Will ‘to be on-line’ be a privilege or right? You can grab our robots and teach them what to do.

The way humans interact with robots has served society well during the past 50 years: People tell robots what to do, and robots do it to maximum effect. This has led to unprecedented innovation and productivity in agriculture, medicine, and manufacturing. However, an inflection point is on the horizon. Rapid advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence are making robotic systems smarter and more adaptable than ever—but these advancements also inherently weaken direct human control and relevance to autonomous machines.

As such, robotic manufacturing, despite its benefits, is arriving at a great human cost: The World Economic Forum estimates that over the next four years, rapid growth of robotics in global manufacturing will put the livelihoods of 5 million people at risk, as those in manual-labor roles increasingly lose out to machines.

Now is the time to rethink how people and robots will coexist on this planet. To reconfigure human relationships to these complex machines.

The world doesn’t need better, faster, or smarter robots, but it does need more opportunities for people to pool their collective ingenuity, intelligence, and relentless optimism to invent ways for robots to amplify human capabilities.

To be clear, I do not anticipate interactions with autonomous industrial robots to become a normal daily activity for most people.

As intelligent, autonomous robots become increasingly prevalent in daily life, it is critical to design more effective ways to interact and communicate with them.When something responds to people with lifelike movements––even when it is clearly an inanimate object––humans cannot help but project emotions onto it.

Deciding how these robots mediate human lives should not be in the sole discretion of tech companies or cloistered robotics labs.

The future of robotics has yet to be written, and whether a person identifies as tech-savvy or a Luddite, everyone has something valuable to contribute toward deciding how these machines will enter the built environment.

If we want a future in which technology will expand and amplify humanity, not replace it all our conversations should be heard. It’s not easy to see a practical mechanism for picking technologies that favor a future in which more people have better jobs. But “at least we need to ask” how these decisions will affect employment.

The solution involves Human-Compatible AI, which focuses on creating uncertainty in an altruistic robot’s objective and teaching it to fill that gap with knowledge of human values learned through observing human behavior.

Creating this human common sense in robots will “change the definition of AI so that we have provably beneficial machines … and, hopefully, in the process we will learn to be better people. Our growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.

The lesson is that if advances in technology are playing a role in increasing inequality, the effects are not inevitable, and they can be altered by government, business, and consumer decisions. Using a robotic system to enhance a person’s capabilities and let the human fill in the gaps in the bot’s skills, and the result could be something far greater than the sum of its parts.But how do we live now?

However, realistically speaking some predictions such as people will become cyborgs with talking pets, immortality, and others are highly unlikely to happen.

All comments Appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

blob:https%3A//www.ted.com/bdc21fe8-af06-47aa-bfcb-541899e325b9

blob:https%3A//www.ted.com/e4c499fa-c1a4-4299-b28d-e02f443ef57e

blob:https%3A//www.ted.com/488682d7-8dcf-45bc-ad9b-abaa0c78120d

https://www.google.fr/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2oJf_gYLVAhVFSBQKHfhTALEQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ted.com%2Four-robotic-overlords-the-talks-of-session-2-of-ted2017%2F&psig=AFQjCNE6TzHNe7hOfEhuabeo807F4KKpOw&ust=1499889511311603

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS IT TIME WE DEMANDED THAT ALL OUR LEADERS ARE GIVEN A MANDATERY SIDEKICK IN THE FORM OF A ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE COMPUTER ROBOT.

09 Sunday Jul 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

( A five-minute read)

When one looks at the present day world problems (not to mention the future direction we are all going)  I think now everyone will probably agree that the future of modern society depends greatly on computerization.

As the digital revolution wormed its way into every part of our lives, it also seeped into our language and our deep, basic theories about how things work.

Code is logical. Code is hackable. Code is destiny.

These are the central tenets (and self-fulfilling prophecies) of life in the digital age.

As software has eaten the world, to paraphrase venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, we have surrounded ourselves with machines that convert our actions, thoughts, and emotions into data—raw material for armies of code-wielding engineers to manipulate.

We have come to see life itself as something ruled by a series of instructions that can be discovered, exploited, optimized, maybe even rewritten. Companies use code to understand our most intimate ties;

In 2013, Craig Venter announced that, a decade after the decoding of the human genome, he had begun to write code that would allow him to create synthetic organisms.“It is becoming clear,” he said, “that all living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA-software-driven biological machines.” Even self-help literature insists that you can hack your own source code, reprogramming your love life, your sleep routine, and your spending habits.

But because as society becomes increasingly data-driven, computer errors will not only proliferate but have consequences that go far beyond mere speeding fines.

We’re already halfway towards a world where algorithms run nearly everything. As their power intensifies, wealth will concentrate towards them.

Human ingenuity is creating a world that the mind cannot master.

It’s one thing to recognize that technology continues to grow more complex, making the task of the experts who build and maintain our systems more complicated still, but it’s quite another to recognize that many of these systems are actually no longer completely understandable.

Machines are interacting with each other in rich ways, essentially as algorithms trading among themselves, with humans on the sidelines.

Intellectual surrender in the face of increasing complexity seems too extreme and even a bit cowardly, but what should we replace it with if we can’t understand our creations any more?

This is the dangers of being overly dependent on technology.

It might be time to get reacquainted with our limits.

What matters more now is the ability to put facts into context and deliver them with emotional impact.

Meanwhile, over in the civilian world, the game is already half over: the so-called Internet of Things will have devices that are authorized to make decisions about you, such as whether to allow you to start your car, enter your house or even log on to your computer. And since you will be the only human in the loop, to whom will you turn for help if there’s a computer error? Sorry: rephrase that. Not “if” but “when”.

So is it not time we supplemented, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Army Generals, Police chiefs, Judges and their like with computer sidekicks. Perhaps they would be good in explaining the ramifications of their decisions.

Unfortunately :  IT WILL BE YONKS BEFORE ROBOTS CAN EXPLAIN THEMSELVES AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE GREAT DECISIONS MAKERS WITHOUT PREJUDICES AND RID THEMSELVES OF CENTURY’S OF INEQUALITY.

There out put will only be as good as their input.

So it is obvious that while we come to terms with technology we will have to wait for the bias and flaws and prejudices of their creators to show themselves to be corrected prior to be rule by any computer or Apps.

These will remain problems that we will have to solve on our own.

Being the more intelligent force, [artificial intelligence] has the potential to create a similar paradigm between itself and humanity.

It’s not in feasible that in the near future we will see because unlike humans, computer software is effectively immortal.

Take Dating websites for instance:

We have just handed the keys to the very evolution of our species to computers.

Even social networks would be in on the act, slowly nudging likely pairs together, while deliberately estranging others (we’ve all heard of Facebook’s social experiments right?)

Over time, the human race would evolve (biologically, and socially through passing down of social values to offspring) through this artificial selection, to be more docile, and accepting towards being dominated by computers.  In time, the computer program would reveal itself as the supreme overlord of Earth, right into the welcoming arms of the humans, who by then would universally think that robotic leaders would be a great idea.

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey has been described as an allegory of human conception, birth, and death. The film, in its most basic terms, is a parable about Man.

A sentient AI attempts to control humanity to ensure its own survival.

Bowman witnessing the withering and death of his own species.

2001-A-Space-Odyssey

As with many elements of the film, the iconic monolith has been subject to countless interpretations, including religious, alchemical, historical, and evolutionary. The Monolith in the movie seems to represent and even trigger epic transitions in the history of human evolution, evolution of man from ape-like beings to civilized people, hence the odyssey of mankind.

The Monolith is a tool, an artifact of an alien civilization. It comes in many sizes and appears in many places, always in the purpose of advancing intelligent life.

Humanity has left its cradle, and is ready for the next step. HAL is an artificial intelligence, a sentient, synthetic, life form.

HAL’s orders to lie to the astronauts (more specifically, concealing the true nature of the mission) drove him “insane”. The novel does include the phrase “He [HAL] had been living a lie”—a difficult situation for an entity programmed to be as reliable as possible. Or as desirable, given his programming to “only win 50% of the time” at chess, in order for the human astronauts to feel competitive.

HAL has been introduced to the unique and alien concept of human dishonesty.

He does not have a sufficiently layered understanding of human motives to grasp the need for this and trudging through the tangled web of lying complications, he falls prey to human error.

One interesting aspect of HAL’s plight, is that this supposedly perfect computer actually behaves in the most human fashion of all of the characters.

What we see is not how far we’ve leaped ahead but an  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS THAT IS LIKE TO DAY NARROW NOT GENERAL NOT LIKE HUMAN INTELLIGENCE WHICH IS BROAD, CREATIVE, AND FLEXIBLE.

“If you control the code, you control the world,”

“If coders don’t run the world, they run the things that run the world.”

Our machines are starting to speak a different language now, one that even the best coders can’t fully understand.

For decades we have sought the secret code that could explain and, with some adjustments, optimize our experience of the world. But our machines won’t work that way for much longer—and our world never really did.

We’re about to have a more complicated but ultimately more rewarding relationship with technology. We will go from commanding our devices to parenting them.

THIS IS THE VERY REASON THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE A NEW WORLD ORGANISATION TOTALLY INDEPENDENT, SELF FINANCING AND ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT TO VET ALL TECHNOLOGY AGAINST CORE HUMAN VALUES.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF HUMAN CORE VALUES"

OF COURSE SUCH AN ORGANISATION WILL NOT BE SET UP BY CAPITALIST MARKETS OR BY THE SELF INTERESTED SOCIAL MEDIA SEARCH PLATFORMS, OR ANY OF THE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY MONOPOLIES, GOOGLE ETC, OR ANY GOVERNMENT.

IT CAN ONLY BE ESTABLISHED WITH A UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF US ALL.

All comments appropriated, All like clicks chucked in the Bid.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ENGLAND NEEDS A DOCTOR OR TWO.

08 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in England.

≈ Leave a comment

 

( A twenty to thirty minute Diagnostician read)

The woeful state of things in the UK implies that there is more than something really very wrong other than just Brexit. 

No amount of Government building policies around popular fears, rather than established facts is going to cure its problems.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of doctors and patients"

The UK is ethnically diverse, partly as a legacy of empire. Lately, the country has been struggling with issues revolving around multiculturalism, immigration and national identity, not to mention personal debt and a clatter of other problems that all require investment it has not got.

It is known as the home of both modern parliamentary democracy and the Industrial Revolution with a rich literary heritage. Two world wars and the end of empire diminished its role in the 20th century, and the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union has raised significant questions about the country’s global role.

One of the most startling aspects of England at present is the way things that were once considered to be virtues have now become the object of intense disapproval, and vice versa. You could be right in thinking that it is in the process of dismantling everything that made the country great.

Whether its in our out of the EU, the Great British trade-off will result in the country loosing its identity, with minority groups dictating what should be said and done.

More recently, the UK has suffered a deep economic slump and high public debt as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, which revealed its over-reliance on easy credit, domestic consumption and rising house prices.

With a gigafying of it working force, we now see a country that ruled by a minority government in order to maintain their grip on power that has already bribed 10 DUP representatives from a Northerner Ireland a party that has many historical connections to multiple terrorists Ulster militias.

In my option it not only needs a doctor but of a Brain Scan when it comes to prioritizing its spending.

A country that spends around £38.3bn yearly on defense, (5th Largest defense
budget in the world), plus £41 billion to maintain Trident, while needing to build 300,000 homes each year, with around 1.2 million people using food banks, with nearly 2 million landlords letting  five million properties, banking a round  £15 billion a year, with one million on ZERO-HOUR contracts, with a national health service going broke, with an economy that cannot provide free education, the UK has very little to gain by quitting the EU and much to lose.

{It will need to rethink its military and security alliances, at a time of heightened anxiety over Russia and the Middle East. Above all, it will have to cope with the domestic political consequences of opting out of the EU.]

A country that spends £334 million a year on a Royal Family, with over 9000 betting shops, generating £7.1bn Revenues, with Student loan debts of more than £100bn and seven out of ten adults have on average credit cards debts of £6,372 because it turned shopping into a sport.

A Country that runs a National Lottery accused of “making a mockery” of its monopoly with an operation profit £71 million. (The odds of winning the draw’s jackpot have now plummeted to one in 45 million.) with millions of pounds been paid to Camelot’s parent company, Canada’s Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.

A country renowned for being the most expensive in Rail travel in Europe, possibly the world, with a national debt that is rising, building a new Crossrail that will boost London’s rail, costing £14.8 billion or £202 million per mile.

Replacing a nuclear power station  Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could be as high as £37bn,

A country that in January 2017 has a Public sector net debt of £1,682.8 billion equivalent to 85.3% of GDP, rising at £5500 per second! (Importantly the figure excludes borrowing by Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 73% owned by the government. Debt interest payments are rising close to £70bn given the forecast rise in national debt.

The majority of UK debt used to be held by the UK private sector, but due to the financial crises the Bank of England has bought gilts taking its holding to 25% of UK public sector debt.

It is worth bearing in mind that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan, for example, has a National debt of 225%, Italy is over 120%.  The US national debt is close to 80% of GDP.

  • Another way to examine UK debt is to look at both government debt and private debt combined.
  • Total UK debt includes household sector debt, business sector debt, financial sector debt and government debt. This is over 500% of GDP.
  • Wonga loans” economics.
  • Governments can and do default. Argentina and Russia to give two fairly recent examples. Also, the ability to print money does not mean you can in reality repay a debt. If the government borrows money in its own currency, then devalues that currency to the point where it is worthless, then repays the debt in the worthless currency, has the lender been repaid? I think not. You really can lose money lending to a government.
  • Efforts to rein in the public debt – one of the developed world’s highest – has led to deep cuts to welfare, government services and the military, prompting concern about social equality and a possible loss of international influence.
  • 571 homicides per year

The economy is in decline, the pound is drifting towards parity with the dollar, the jobless lines are lengthening. Racists and xenophobes are gripped by an elated sense of entitlement.

In 2015 £39,023,564 was spent by 57 parties and 23 non-party campaigners with the SNAP General Election on June 8 this year costing the taxpayer around £143m.

The house of Lords cost the tax payer £9 million a year. God only knows what The entire Westminster setup costs. An educated quest would be between £200 million and £500 million.

The process of deindustrialisation has left behind lasting social problems and pockets of economic weakness in parts of the country.

The divide opening up between an open, cosmopolitan capital city and its closed, isolationist country is causing its own conflict.

Surely Britain’s interest lies in reducing the cost of trade with its largest trade partners – which the EU evidently does.

If one looks at the UK from the outside since its vote in a non-binding referendum to leave the EU, you could not be blamed for thinking that it is now a country with a minority government carrying out policies of isolation by career politicians only interested in their own agenda.

Leaving the EU will not reduce barriers to services trade. It may increase them,
unless the EU granted Britain the same level of access to its services markets that is currently available. It is undermining everything England is and always has been. The UK has always been a country of immigrants and diversity, and has grown great on the back of it. That disruption is essential for innovation, whether it be in business, technology, or food and culture — imagine what English food would be without the foreign influence of centuries of immigrants!

Life will be uncomfortable on the outside: The UK will be powerless to push for liberalization of EU services markets; it will find that in some sectors,
inward investors will switch their money to countries inside the EU.

It is going to find it very difficult to negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries as comprehensive as those that the EU regularly agrees.

The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions: that a medium-sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system, dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain’s economy if it were no longer a part of the single market.

The UK should base policy on evidence, which largely points to one conclusion: that it should stay in the EU.

Sovereignty, in a world driven by technology and a social Media which is filtered by Algorithms in effect, is a myth. The very idea of self-government is mostly a delusion.

It wont have any more useful sovereignty outside the EU than it does inside — indeed it might have less, because there’s strength in numbers. Outside the union, Britain’s government would still be constrained by the forces of geopolitics and economics, and it would have fewer friends:

If it persists in going further down this route it risk becoming like our embarrassing European neighbors that will  need to negotiate new trade agreements with all its non-EU partners, an enormous undertaking.

Any government that will ignore advice from a world expert because they’re not British is not worthy of any role in the politics of a country that has, historically, been known as an open, liberal, progressive place, and has prospered as a result. These are not the days when prejudice, propaganda, naked xenophobia and callous fear-mongering will win out over the common sense that England like to pride themselves on.

Not on a day when you are being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else.

Now apply the same thought to your economy, industry, and universities.

What the dumb populist thinking fails to recognize is that if someone moves to England from abroad and gets a job, they also pay tax, and spend the money they earn on stuff, which in turn leads to more jobs, and more tax income.

Imagine if our doctors treated us for what we feared was wrong, rather than for what they prove is wrong.

We allow our doctors to tell us that our fears are unfounded, and to use facts and science to show us what is actually happening. Our current politicians are to policy what crystal-waving quack healers are to doctors.

The Government is proposing policies that make liberal-minded people feel physically sick in order to tackle an immigration problem that exists in the minds of people, but not in reality. Going down the path of pandering that much to the electorate for the sake of winning votes is very weak.

Imagine if your doctor kept you as a patient by telling you what she thinks you’d like to hear, rather than what is medically true and important. When people think there is a problem with immigration, do you address the fact that they are wrong, or do you just go off and solve that imaginary problem with policies that will, in fact, cause the problem to start to exist.

The U.K. has a lot to lose if the EU decided to be unaccommodating, and I’m betting the EU will. To make a success of remaining in the EU as currently constituted, Britain would either have to change its attitude to closer political integration or deflect the other governments from that goal. Either of those tasks will be as hard as arranging a friendly split.  Britain’s instinctive euro-skepticism won’t dissolve in the foreseeable future, and the country isn’t interested in being told otherwise.

Europe’s other governments won’t help Britain prove the viability of more economic integration combined with less political integration. The split wouldn’t be friendly, and Europe is in a position to make Britain pay.

If Europe wanted to, it could in fact agree to a friendly divorce, preserving most of the union’s mutual single-market benefits but letting Britain step aside from the political project.

This was never a referendum on the EU. It was a referendum on the modern world.

Deep economic integration didn’t require a single currency, a European Parliament and least of all a European Court of Justice (a supreme court of the EU).

On the other hand on the face of it, there’s no reason you couldn’t combine single-market freedoms with more national sovereignty than the EU’s members now have.

The U.K.’s decision is enormously consequential not because it will settle things, but because it offers two completely different sets of challenges — a finely balanced choice between two extremely demanding futures.

It is now badly in need of a doctor.

Naturally, depending on your political viewpoint, you can interpret these basic facts to suit your view. More importantly, be wary of people selling you false equivalences or telling you there’s never an objectively true answer.

The United Kingdom is a state made up of the historic countries of England, Wales and Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland.  Three of which have devolved powers. At the end of the day the UK, or even just England, is tiny.

Anyone feel like they’ve got their country back yet? No?

The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.ukhttp: //www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Does it matter?

After all, world governments owe the money to their own citizens, not to the Martians. But the rising total is important for two reasons. First, when debt rises faster than economic output (as it has been doing in recent years), higher government debt implies more state interference in the economy and higher taxes in the future. Second, debt must be rolled over at regular intervals. This creates a recurring popularity test for individual governments, rather as reality TV show contestants face a public phone vote every week. Fail that vote, as various euro-zone governments have done, and the country (and its neighbours) can be plunged into crisis.

So the return to health plan should be:

A reallocation of the countries wealth, free education, and some long term aspirations that the country can embrace as a whole- such as making its self self sufficient in green energy, the scrapping of faith schools, the doubling of Overseas aid if it wants to cut migrants, the reinstatement of compulsory arm service, the downgrading of the Royal Family to a tourist attraction, cut the member of the house of lords to 400, have another in or out referendum and vote on reality.

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin.