Author Archives: bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS RELIGION DISAPPEARING IN THE QUICKSILVER OF TECHNOLOGY.

19 Monday Jun 2017

Posted by in Religion for a digital age., Technology

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS RELIGION DISAPPEARING IN THE QUICKSILVER OF TECHNOLOGY.

Tags

,

( A five minute read)

We all know the way religious scriptures are read can influence how they are interpreted.

Apps like YouVersion, which has been installed more than 260 million times worldwide since its launch in 2008 and similarly popular apps exist for the Torah and Koran are tweeting out filtered Bible verses which are allowing a private expression of faith to take place between a person and their phone screen.

A new kind of mutated religion for a digital age.

It’s no longer necessary to set foot in a church or a mosque.

The ubiquity of smartphones and social media makes them hard to avoid, but are they both changing the way people practise their religion.

The importance of the web in everyday life – from banking to shopping to socialising – means that religious organisations must migrate their churches and temples to virtual real estate in order to stay relevant and to be where the people are.

(Credit: Getty Images)

Azerbaijani Muslims pray at the end of Ramadan (Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)

 

 

 

 

Religion was important just a century or so ago, but now it is at lowest rates of belief in the world. Very few societies are more religious today than they were 40 or 50 years ago.

Now we have more and more societies following many of the ethics of the secular world. Known as moralistic therapeutic deism, this form of belief is focused more on the charitable and moral side of the Bible – the underlying tenets of religion, rather than the notion that the Universe was created by an all-seeing, all-powerful leader.

These Societies are being supercharged by the internet and social media creating a sort of Pick-and-mix religious beliefs which means people can avoid doctrines that do not appeal to them.

Quite how interacting with the Bible or the Koran in bite-sized nuggets might affect people’s views of either remains somewhat unknown, but reading the Bible or Koran or any religious writings in this way is changing people’s overall sense of it.

If you go to the Bible/ Koran as a paper book, they are quite large and complicated and you’ve got to thumb through it to find what you are looking for. With the mobile phone Bible or Koran we have more access to more information, more viewpoints, and we can create a spiritual rhythm and path that’s more personalised.

Although Capitalism, access to technology and education also seems to correlate with a corrosion of religiosity in some populations. Technology is shaping religious people themselves and changed their behaviour. You just go to where you’ve asked it to go to, and you’ve no sense of what came before or after. A lot of people who consider themselves to be active Christians may not strictly even believe in God or Jesus or the acts described in the Bible.

A rabbi reads during Purim festivities (Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)

It is becoming less about the preacher in the pulpit,and more about the Tweet.

When you read the Bible on a screen you end up reading the text as though it was Wikipedia.

The text read on screens is generally taken more literally than text read in books. It’s a flat kind of reading, which the Bible or the Koran or for that matter any Scriptures were not written for.

Overly literal interpretations of religious texts can lead to fundamentalism. The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, as “a new kind of realm for the mind”.

(Getty Images) (Credit: Getty Images)

Even if we lose sight of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu gods and all the rest, superstitions and spiritualism will almost certainly still prevail, and as climate change wreaks havoc on the world in coming years and natural resources potentially grow scarce, then suffering and hardship will fuel religiosity.

The greatest danger of the web is not that it will kill or change religion, but that, we will see the differences in our faiths because of our desire to find our own kind.

The web has not de facto increased inter-faith communication. It is not being used for inter-religious dialogue or diversity.

Religious leaders will have to get used to the idea of being more accountable and transparent in their dealings and of having to engage, on equal terms, with those who stand outside the traditional hierarchies.

Can it be, then, that the more information at our disposal, the more we stop to wonder whether our God, our church, and our supposedly holy books are really as believable as they once seemed?

People become their Internet selves to such an extent that these selves become their “real” selves. Does this somehow switch them off from their former core beliefs? Or could it be that some religions are so rigid, so literal, so supposedly inviolable that they don’t sufficiently allow for critical thought?

Pope Francis has 3.8 million Twitter followers. Miley Cyrus has almost 17.7 million.

When a new technology, such as the printing press or the Internet, unleashes massive cultural change, the challenge to religion is immense. Cultural developments change how God/Mohammed , or the ultimate, is thought of and spoken about.

If there is a battle between generations about the shape of the future, it is one played out not in public life but within families.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ONE WOULD HAVE TO FEEL A TOUCH OF SYMPATHY FOR THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

16 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Commission., European Union., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ONE WOULD HAVE TO FEEL A TOUCH OF SYMPATHY FOR THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

Tags

 

( A twenty-minute read)

Recent events in the Uk with the tragic loss of lives are more than lamentable as they have occurred mainly due to man-made decisions, to either save money or conduct phony wars.

It is now inconceivable that they are heading for another man made disaster in a few days without any clear sense of what its wants to achieve all just because a small percentage of its people voted in a referendum a year ago without any clear sense of the alternatives to EU membership.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations"

While the clock is ticking here are a few plain truths:

If the UK wants access to the single market when it has left the EU, it will have to accept three things:

1)  Continued budget contributions
2)  Continued free movement of labour,
3) Continued supremacy of EU law over British law in the single market.

4) Crashing out of the EU without a trade deal is the “alternative to membership with the most negative long-term impact.

5) Some British eurosceptics believe that Britain could negotiate a special status of ‘half-membership’, whereby the UK would remain a full, voting member of the single market, but ditch most other EU policies. However, this would require the existing treaties – which allow no such special status – to be revised, which is not a viable possibility at the moment. In any case, most member-states and the EU institutions believe that allowing such a status for Britain could provoke similar requests from others, possibly leading the entire Union to unravel. So half-membership is not an option.

6) One simple option would be for Britain to join the European
Economic Area (EEA) – the ‘Norwegian’ option. Britain would then be outside the common agricultural and fisheries policies. But its economic relationship with the EU would not change significantly: it would pay nearly as much into the budget as it does today, free movement of labour would continue, and the UK would have to apply the single market’s rules and regulations without having a vote on them.

7) Most other options would involve the negotiation of a withdrawal treaty between the UK and the EU. If that is the result:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations"

Here are the options.

One possibility would be a withdrawal treaty leading to a customised relationship. The best possible outcome for the British, under this option, would be something akin to the Norwegian option but without EEA membership. Britain would gain as much access to the single market as it was prepared to accept EU rules, without having a vote on them; to make payments into the EU budget; and to tolerate free movement of labour.

The Swiss option is unlikely to be on offer from the EU. Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral agreements with the EU. The country is part of the single market for goods, but not services. A similar status for Britain would be highly costly for the City of London. But the EU is very unhappy with the
relationship, because it has to negotiate constantly with the Swiss to make sure that their rules are equivalent to the EU’s evolving acquis communautaire. And since the Swiss voted to impose quotas on immigration from the EU in 2014, the EU has demanded a new agreement which would make Switzerland automatically update its rules to match those of the EU, as well as accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Britain could join the EU’s customs union, like Turkey – accepting the EU’s external tariffs without having a say on the setting of those tariffs. The UK would then not face tariffs in exporting to the EU, and it would have access to the single market in goods, in exchange for signing up to all the relevant EU rules. But it would not have access to services markets and Turkey, like Switzerland and Norway, does not
benefit from the free trade agreements (FTAs) that the EU negotiates with other parts of the world.

A free trade agreement is one of the more likely options, but the main benefit of most FTAs is merely tariffs that are lower than those prescribed by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Most FTAs do not cover services, regulatory convergence or public procurement. If Britain sought to negotiate a more substantive FTA than any existing template – giving it good access to the EU’s single market– the other member-states would insist on mechanisms for ensuring that it automatically adopted new EU rules, and for policing the agreement. They would also demand payments into the EU budget and free movement of labour.

Britain could simply trade with the EU under WTO rules. The WTO sets upper limits on the tariffs that countries can impose. So British exports to the EU would be subject to the EU’s common external tariff. And the WTO has made little progress in freeing up services, which would restrict the City of London’s access to the EU market. British exporters to the EU would also face the same non-tariff barriers that most non-EU countries, like Russia and China, have to put up with. As for trading with the rest of the world, the UK would no longer enjoy the benefits of the 60-odd FTAs that the EU has negotiated with other countries. The British would have to negotiate new agreements from scratch; but in doing so – as with any other FTA that the UK pursued – they would have much less clout than the EU as a whole.

Withdrawal would create enormous legal headaches for EU companies and individuals currently in Britain, and for British ones elsewhere in the EU.

After the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972, the British government would have to hurry to draft new laws covering farming, fishing, competition policy, regional aid, environmental standards and much else, to avoid a regulatory
vacuum.

To the extent that the UK retained any access to the single market, the government would also need a mechanism for adopting new EU regulations and directives as they emerged. British citizens and companies in other member-states would lose rights derived from EU law.

The British government would need to negotiate an accord with the rest of the EU on reciprocal rights. If, as is likely, a post-Brexit government made it harder for EU citizens to live, work or study in the UK, Britons wishing to remain in or move to the continent would face similar problems. 40 per cent of THE UK HIGH TECH workforce is currently made up of EU nationals not to mention the NHS

If there is a change of mind and the UK at any point wish to rejoin the European Union, it would need to make an application to do so, the same as all other non-member states.

The first problem is the euro.

This time a ‘half-member’ solution is not possible.

Ordinarily new member states of the European Union are expected to adopt the euro and to join the currency union. The UK, of course, opted out of that, however it might not be quite as easy to resist the Euro on re-admission.

Where does all of the above leave us.  In short, if the UK chooses to leave the EU, it will be left between a rock and a hard place.  A Disaster.

The conclusion should be clear: none of the options available to the UK, in case it were to decide to withdraw from the EU are attractive. Any option would take the UK in one of two directions:

 The UK would become a kind of satellite of the EU, with the obligation to transpose into its domestic law EU regulations and directives for the single market.

 The UK would suffer from higher barriers between its economy and its main market, obliging the government to start trade negotiations from scratch, both with the EU and with the rest of the world, without having much bargaining power.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of sinking ships"

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS SOCIAL MEDIA ALL ITS MADE OUT TO BE.

15 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by in Social Media, Social Media., The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS SOCIAL MEDIA ALL ITS MADE OUT TO BE.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A seven to ten minute read)

I know that there are already many opinions out there about the effects of social media, but they all seem to miss the most important fact when addressing the subject.

Social media or as I like to call it Living Algorithms Intelligence feeds on beliefs not truths, till these beliefs become collectively believable, turning Social Media into a new form of religion. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of social media"

You might think that this is a heresy, but the definition of religion in regarding its association with science is on the whole misunderstood.

Just how does science/ technology relate to religion? They don’t know each other and never will.

However most religions argue that you simply cannot understand the world without them.

This is no longer true.

Social media is now woven into the texture of the relationships in people’s everyday lives.

Social media being used to actually reinforce traditional groups, such as family, castes, and tribes, and to repair the ruptures created by migration and mobility.

Religion is defined by its social function and is anything that confers superhuman legitimacy on human social structures. Religion asserts that humans are subject to a system of moral laws that we did not invent and that we cannot change.

Through filters Social media is becoming a toxic mirror of religion.

Social media favors the bitty over the meaty, the cutting over the considered.

It is not just us but our religious and political discourse is shrinking to fit our smartphone screens. Time and again we are informed that the Internet is transforming human life towards a more enlightened and creative existence.

The public is constantly told that Big Data and the Internet of Things are about to revolutionize human existence. Claims that digital technology will fundamentally transform education, the way we work, play and interact with one another suggest that these new media will have an even greater impact on our culture than the invention of writing, reading and religion.

Just a few years ago, social media was a fairly obscure concept. Now Social media is a broad category that includes social networking sites, blogs, online review sites and photo- and video-sharing sites. It also includes sites where users can “check in” at their location, such as a restaurant or movie theater, and share their experiences and opinions.

Social media includes both sites run by the company, such as its own blog or website, and third-party sites where users can “friend” or “follow” each other.

Predictably the Internet is also an object of glorification by its technophile advocates.

The culture of everyday life has become entwined with the Internet. There is little doubt that the digital technology and social media has already a significant impact on culture.

(Take the example of radicalized jihadist youth in the West. In many cases the Internet has been represented as a powerful technology that incites young Muslims to become radicalized. Often the term“sudden radicalization” is used to highlight the power of social media to swiftly convert otherwise confused young Muslims into hardened extremist jihadists.

The social media provides a medium through which pre-existing sentiments can gain greater clarity, expressions and meaning. It provides a medium for the kind of interaction that can throw up new ideas, new symbols, new rituals and new identities. In this sense it has helped stimulate the emergent Western jihadist youth sub-culture and arguably its online expressions have exercised an important influence on its offline trajectory.)

Through the Internet the segmentation of social experience is refracted and given greater momentum through its powerful technological dynamic. This amplification and intensification of social trends constitutes the immediate impact of the Internet on the everyday culture. If the experience of printing serves as a precedent, it is likely that digital technology will not simply intensify prevailing cultural trends but also provide resources for reinterpreting its meaning.

Authority and respect don’t accumulate on social media; they have to be earned anew at each moment.

However today, with the public looking to smartphones for news and entertainment, we seem to be at the start of the third big technological makeover of modern life both politically/ electioneering and religious beliefs.

The Internet and the social media are powerful instruments for mobilization of people is not in doubt.

However, it is not its own technological imperative that allows the social media to play a prominent role in social protest. Rather the creative use of the social media is a response to aspirations and needs that pre-exist or at least exist independently of it.

This technology ought to be perceived as a resource that can be utilized by social and political movements looking for a communication infrastructure to promote their cause.

Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace allow you to find and connect with just about anyone making it difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media.

All this provides an illusion of control: The line between a “like” and feeling ranked becomes blurred.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of social media"

It’s not about don’t spend time on Facebook, but just be aware of what it might be doing to you. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction.

We have all witness the election of  Donald Trump with a vast web audience—four million followers on Twitter alone is the first candidate and now president optimized for the Google News algorithm.

Even though the ease of social media communication brings major benefits to previously excluded populations, this may not have any overall impact on social differences, or oppression offline.

Poverty restricts the amount of time people can spend on the internet. People avoid political and religious postings. Social media serve local purposes, instead of breaking down international boundaries.

Populations in different parts of the world may use local or regional platforms and their own online “dialects” which keeps people separated and distinct, not united. For some people living away from their family, it can become the main place they live, where they spend most of their time. 

Once you send out a message like this one via social media, you can’t take it back even if you delete it. In addition, anything you post is considered public information, and you could see it quoted in the media.

Yet, social media certainly adds crucial new elements:  Technology, along with globalization and economic trends, has made “power easier to get, but harder to use or keep” and that brings us to the present dilemma.  We now know how to disrupt, but we still have no clear formula for bridging the gap from disruption to legitimacy. Memes have become our moral police.

 Power is no longer absolute, but must be grounded in shared principles.  If the social contract is breached, there will be a heavy price to pay and social media will play a major part in exacting that price.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERESA MAY’S HAS LOST HER GRIP ON REALITY.

13 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by in ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., Politics., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERESA MAY’S HAS LOST HER GRIP ON REALITY.

Tags

,

 

(A ONE MINUTE READ)

Delusional Theresa May’s unholy alliance with the grasping Orangemen from Northern Ireland plunges the British Government in a shameful direct link to joining the funding of terrorists, criminals and bigots who even prey on their own community.  

Shocking and shameful!

The game’s over, She couldn’t negotiate her way out of a soggy paper bag, never mind secure a good Brexit deal.

HERE IS WHO THE DUP REALLY ARE:

The DUP have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups.

Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians.

They recently used their role in government in Northern Ireland to set up a subsidy scheme for biofuels, which gave those who bought into it more money than they had to pay out.

The Northern Irish exchequer ended up paying out around half a billion pounds to those who knew about the scheme.

Former First Minister Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance.

Their deputy leader and leader in Westminster is North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds (above) has the 13th highest expenses of any MP.

Their most famous politician was Ian Paisley, one of the founders of the party.

We can only hope that the breathtaking delusion of Conservative is indeed hurtling them towards the exit door.

Relying on grasping Orangemen from Northern Ireland to survive in power is the 21st Century version of frightened Anglo-Saxons paying protection money to marauding Danish invaders.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: SOMEONE HAS TO SAY THE TRUTH. THERESA MAY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK, HAS OPENED THE BACKDOOR OF NO 10 TO THE BRITISH TALIBAN.

11 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: SOMEONE HAS TO SAY THE TRUTH. THERESA MAY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK, HAS OPENED THE BACKDOOR OF NO 10 TO THE BRITISH TALIBAN.

 

 

(A ONE MINUTE READ)

With this deal the Tories have wilfully imperilled three decades of Irish-British peace, of good relations between Ireland and Britain, and risked plunging IRELAND back into a new era of conflict.

The Conservative Party, a wink-and-a-nod acknowledgement which will give 17th century Protestant fundamentalism a platform to preach its archaic world-view in the 21st century.

From opposing civil rights to denying climate change, the creationist-believing Ulster Trumps have been offered a warm welcome in Downing Street.

The Tories will now need to seek the approval of the DUP, so the DUP will need to seek the approval of the UDA, UVF and RHC.Northern Ireland - The Last Remnant Of The British Colony In Ireland

Its simply staggers belief.

During the Troubles had connections to multiple Ulster militias.

The DUP are the most arrogant, duplicitous, hypocritical bunch of charlatans to ever enter electoral politics. They have a line of scandals and corruption as long as you like, and every one of their scandals would end careers in GB but they get away with it because of the extremely tribal nature of NI politics.

Everyone knows how horrible the IRA is, but most have heard nearly nothing about the Loyalist paramilitaries, who actually targeted mostly civilians and killed more civilians than the IRA over the course of the Troubles.

They also initiated the violence that started the Troubles. The IRA was inactive and had no popular support until the Loyalist groups began killing innocent people for being Catholic.

There is no excuse for what the IRA did, but even less for what some of the Loyalist terrorists did.

Yet people don’t even know what they did…and that is not an accident.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE: SAY’S MRS MAY IS NOW THE LEADER OF A NEW TERRORIST GROUP: THE TORY/ DUP COALITION.

10 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: SAY’S MRS MAY IS NOW THE LEADER OF A NEW TERRORIST GROUP: THE TORY/ DUP COALITION.

 

( A two-minute read)

The idea that the DUP IS NOW IN POWER in Westminster WITH MRS TERRORIST MAY should worry us all.

With strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups Mrs May AND HER new-found friends SHOULD BE ON THE TOP OF THE ENGLISH TERRORIST SUSPECTS LIST. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the dup"

Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians. Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance.

One of the things the group did was collaborate with other terrorist organisations such as the Ulster Volunteer Force to smuggle arms into the UK, including RPG rocket launchers.

The Tories to end an election campaign which they spent attacking Corbyn for his alleged links to former Northern Irish terrorists by going into coalition with a party founded by former Northern Irish terrorists is a deep irony.

The DUP also fights hard against women’s right to choose to have an abortion, making them the biggest pro-forced pregnancy party in the UK. The results in Northern Ireland are utterly grim for the many women each year who need an abortion

They are climate change deniers, using their role in government in Northern Ireland to set up a subsidy scheme for biofuels, which gave those who bought into it more money than they had to pay out. The Northern Irish exchequer ended up paying out around half a billion pounds to those who knew about the scheme, leading to a scandal known as ‘cash for ash’, and a major investigation into whether DUP staff and supporters personally benefitted.

They have fought to stop equal marriage, making Northern Ireland the only part of this archipelago without equal relationship rights.

The party backed Brexit.

We don’t know what the DUP will demand from the Tories in exchange for supporting them but if the Queen had any decency she would have shown the door of Buckingham palace to Mrs May and her new friends before she sells arms to the IRA.

THE REVERENT Ian Paisley must be chuckling in his grave.

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the dup"

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE NEW TYPE OF NON- CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE DRIVEN BY NON-CONSCIOUS ALGORITHMS IS GOING TO DESTROY WHAT IS LEFT OF DECENCY IN THE WORLD. (Guest post an unknown source.)

Featured

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Facebook

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE NEW TYPE OF NON- CONSCIOUS INTELLIGENCE DRIVEN BY NON-CONSCIOUS ALGORITHMS IS GOING TO DESTROY WHAT IS LEFT OF DECENCY IN THE WORLD. (Guest post an unknown source.)

Tags

, ,

 

( A six-minute read)

The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.

The fact is, as time goes by it will be easier and easier to replace humans with computer algorithms, not because they are getting smarter and smarter but because humans are professionalising.

One would have to say are we all such naive bonkers that we are going to allow algorithms dictate our lives.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

The answer so far appears to be yes. We are going to become militarily and economically useless.

Technical difficulties or political objections might slow down the algorithmic invasion of the job market but while the systems might need humans, it will not need individuals.

These systems will make most of the important decisions depriving individuals of their authority and freedom.

They are already assembling humans into dividuals ie. humans are becoming an assemblage of many different algorithms lacking a single inner voice or a single self.

Its time we realized that if we continue down this path allowing large corporations platforms to introduce algorithms willy nilly with no overall vetting as to whether they comply with our values we will be replacing the voter, the consumer, and the beholder.

The Al algorithm will know best, will always be right, and beauty will be in the calculation of the algorithm. Individualism will collapse and authority will shift from individual humans to autonomous networks.

People will not see themselves as individuals but as collections of biochemical mechanisms that are constantly monitored and guided by a network of electronic algorithms.

We are already crossing the line. Most of us use Apps without any thought whatsoever.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of algorithms"

You might say that every age has its organizing principles.

The nineteenth century had the novel, and the twentieth had TV; in our more modern times, they come and go more quickly than ever—on Web 1.0 it was the website, for example, and a few years later, for 2.0, it was the app.

And now, another shift is underway:

Today’s organizing principle is the algorithm. (Though you could productively argue that our new lingua franca will either be artificial intelligence or virtual reality.)

Algorithms rule the modern world, silent workhorses aligning data sets and systematizing the world. They’re everywhere, in everything, and you wouldn’t know unless you looked. For some of the most powerful companies in the world—Google, Facebook, etc.—they’re also closely held secrets, the most valuable intellectual property a company owns. 

Perhaps it is naïve to believe algorithms should be neutral? but it’s also deceptive to advance the illusion that Facebook and the algorithms that power it are bias-free.

They are not neutral.

Facebook is intended to be the home of what the world is talking about. Their business model depends on it, even if that’s an impossible goal. As such, with now well over a billion users, and still growing, it’s worth asking:

What role should Facebook play in shaping public discourse? And just how transparent should it be?

After all, Facebook is mind-boggling massive.

It accounts for a huge portion of traffic directed to news sites; small tweaks in its own feed algorithm can have serious consequences for media companies’ bottom lines.

What can be done? ( See previous posts)

Evolution will continue and will need to do so if we humans are to exist.

We therefore should welcome all technology that enhances our chances of this existence in as far that it equates to human values.

All Algorithms that violate these values for the sake of profit or power should be destroyed.

After all if humans have no soul and if thoughts, emotions, and sensations are just biochemical algorithms why can’t biology account for all the vagaries of human societies.?

If Donald Trump is the best that twitter Algorithms can produce it appears to me that there is a long way to go and it’s not too late to change course.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the beauty of the earth"

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: Ever bomb, bullet, death of a loved one gives birth to a potential Terrorist.

07 Wednesday Jun 2017

Posted by in Extremism., Terrorism.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: Ever bomb, bullet, death of a loved one gives birth to a potential Terrorist.

Tags

, ,

( A seven minute read)

When it comes to putting a finger on the reasons for Extremism Terrorism we can all cite, 9/11, Iraq, Syria, the Lebanon, Yemen, Pakistan, indeed the list is endless.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of extremism"

We all also know that terrorism roots are hidden the shadows of history. Pathways to terrorism are in fact a politicisation of violence.

Ever bomb, bullet, death of a loved one gives birth to a potential Terrorist, however equally important are the social psychological or psycho-social causes of extremism.

Hundreds of millions have been invested in counter-terrorism policies and
interventions.  Yet more than 12 years after the September 11 attacks, there is widespread recognition that governments still find it challenging to measure the effectiveness of their counter terrorism work and to learn from it.

For what it is worth here is my simplistic overview of what causes people to turn to act of unadulterated Barbarism along with a few suggestions to countermand them.

Terrorism research has indicated that neither poverty nor socio-economic deprivation are direct root causes of terrorism. The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research … The overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don’t necessarily hold radical beliefs.

This appears to point to that it is very significant to understand why certain individuals develop radical tendencies while others do not.

The underlying reason for extremist aggression is the natural response to frustration. This frustration acting in concert and symbiotically with the violent nature of people has become a real threat to state survival and social solidarity.

Emphasising only one possible cause of terrorism and extremism is all about politics.

With the government calling on police officers, intelligence agents, community workers and even teachers to voice ‘early signs’ of radicalization, it is crucial to understand what radicalization really is – and what causes it.

What we need instead is a sincere effort to actually think about and solve the problem of violent extremism. Governments should “stop being brainwashed by the notion of ‘radicalisation’. There is no such thing. Some people when they’re young acquire extreme views; many of them just grow out of them.

The real reasons are much more complicated.

There are many reasons behind why an average person may do something harmful to an innocent person while seeing it as a good deed.

These reasons are multi-dimensional and to explain them in simple, tip-of-the iceberg terms will only add to the confusion, rather than bring meaningful understanding.

Put generally, a few of these reasons are the world’s lack of a moderate, moral and fair role model, in addition to a lack of access to proper education in many places, lack of basic resources for many people, too much repression, autocratic rulers, closed-minded and egocentric leaders, personality factors, family upbringing, a tarnished sense of pride, among many others.

There is much less chance of any young person becoming radicalized if they have not viewed their life through a prism of discrimination or deprivation, have not seen particular events, such as the Iraq war, as requiring a direct and personal response and have not joined groups with violent ideologies and aims.

Individual socio-psychological factors, include grievances and emotions such as: alienation and exclusion; anger and frustration; grievance and a strong sense of injustice; feelings of humiliation; rigid binary thinking; a tendency to misinterpret situations; conspiracy theories; a sense of victimhood; personal vulnerabilities; counter-cultural elements.

These are contributed to by : Social factors, Political factors, Ideological/religious factors Culture and identity crisis, Trauma and other trigger mechanisms, Group dynamics Radicalizers/groomers. Social media.

Hatred spreads hatred only, a dull and meaningless life fuels this hate.

It is no secret that most people who engage in terrorist violence today come from marginalised neighborhoods or ghettos.

Violent extremism is an extension of radicalization from a relatively benign expression of a viewpoint to the use of violence to achieve a particular goal.

What can be done to make a difference?

All of those countries that sell arms to promote their economies should be crying wolf, they should be a shamed and have sanctions placed on them.

The police and relevant agencies might require closer relationships in the future with companies such as Facebook and Google to assist them in identifying red flags for vulnerable individuals.  However, what needs to be clear as well is that Internet Service Provider (ISP) are not watchdogs in the service of the government’s.

The ISP needs to focus on online content and messaging, rather than exploring how the internet is used by individuals in the process of their radicalization. As society increasingly embraces the internet, so opportunities for those wishing to use it for terrorism have grown. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of extremism"

There is an assumption that the internet plays a part in some individuals’ radicalization… but [there are] no large-scale studies showing this to actually be the case or measuring the extent of the internet’s role in such processes.

Theology remains the prevalent scapegoat for extremism, but each human is an independent moral agent and must be judged for their own actions and choices.

At the end, targeting extremism is about targeting ideas more than individuals.

On a global scale, radicalisation and extremism have led people to travel to conflict zones to fight in foreign wars. If they were not effects on the way out they will certainly be by the time they wish to return. Different individuals have different motivations for engaging in such behaviour, making it hard to pinpoint exactly when alarm bells should sound for family, friends or authorities.

Effective counter-radicalization programs must be inclusive of local minority
communities and their leaders. Top-down policies are unlikely to succeed.

Radicalization and violent extremism will continue to be issues of concern, but to those that have lost love one it is too late to introduce Prevent strategy. They have only consolation, to honor their pain and loss by forgiveness, not by turning the other cheek but by grasping and living their lives to the full, adding there voices to hope and love, as an extremist does not think this way.

Overall, the more virtue a person uses to bring unconditional good to this world, the more he has climbed up the ladder of humanity.

There is no denying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam contain in their sacred books verses and chapters that are distasteful, awkward, unpleasant, and (especially from our modern point-of-view) morally dubious. Not only scholars of religion, but all those who attempt to take those scriptures seriously, are forced to grapple with those issues.

I think that blaming the texts themselves is somewhat misleading—especially since the vast majority of these religions’ adherents show no inclination to act out the troubling content of their own faiths’ sacred texts.

Forming the mind and shaping the heart:

These, I believe, are two simple but equally necessary approaches which are incumbent upon all of us, to help stem the tide of radicalization—not by circumventing our sacred texts, but by delving into them more profoundly, in ways that offer greater benefit for everyone.

The Question is:

How can democracy respond to extremism without undermining its own democratic credentials?

Harmony and Tolerance have to be earned by affording opportunity to all, not inequalities or diluting Human Rights laws.

Terrorism is a strategy of weakness that is hoping to provoke their enemies into overreacting. In essence terrorism is a show that is designed to capture our imaginations, and make us feel as if we are sliding back into medieval chaos.

In most cases the overreaction to terrorism poses a far greater threat to our security than the terrorists themselves.

They may provoke us but in the end it will depend on our reactions.

With the coming era of Artificial Intelligence inequality is going to contribute to our disturbed world far beyond terrorism if we don’t vet all AI Algorithms to ensure they comply to our human values. ( See previous posts) 

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of extremism"

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGHT ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Commission., European Union., France., The New year 2017, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGHT ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

 

( A eighth minute read)

We all know that the Union is in need of reform, but what exactly are we talking about.

Nobody would seriously argue that the EU doesn’t need to evolve, to do so it must fundamental reform.

It has not delivered the prosperity and growth it promised; the euro has turned out to be part of the problem rather than the solution; the EU’s share of world GDP is set to fall sharply. Moreover, no one is clear what the EU is for, or how ever closer union can be matched with expanding borders and huge disparities of income and culture. The European Union project has been rocked by a series of scandals

Here are a few reforms that are blatantly obvious and need  implementation to save millions of euros.  

The First Reform:

According to a report from the EU’s own internal Audit Service (IAS) an estimated £4.5 billion of the EU’s annual budget is wasted each year. The administrative budget of the IAS totals €18.77 m in 2016 and €19.22 m in 2017.

Although the Commission remains responsible for the implementation of the EU budget, the actual management and control of EU funds and programmes is delegated to Member State authorities, which select beneficiaries and distribute funds.

Cohesion policy accounts for 37 % of spending from the EU budget and is to be some 350 billion euro for each of the periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.

It is the Member States’ responsibility to detect, correct and prevent errors in the first instance.

Better regulation is a pressing problem.

Next:

It is time that the blatant absurdity and farce of the EU travelling circus, that requires the moving nearly four thousand trunks of documents between Luxembourg and Strasbourg ever month – stops.

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

The problem is simple:

The French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge.

The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992,  which can only be revoked should all member states agree it. 

In all, the EU admits that the monthly Strasbourg sitting, which lasts just four days, costs an additional £93 million a year.

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.

It is beyond comprehension that this state of affairs is tolerated.

If Emmanuel Macron France’s new youngest ever president, who says the country had chosen “hope” and promising to relaunch the flagging European Union doing away with this gross misuse of EU funds would show he is serious.

Next: 

MEP’s > “gravy train” salaries and perks.

MEP perks receive free haircuts and 52 gallons of petrol a month.

Maltese MPs get 240 litres of petrol a month.

Two Conservative UK  MEPs have each pocketed over £1 million in taxpayer salary and expenses payments in just five years.  Both men receive a salary of £76,292 a year, plus £2,670 in pension contributions.

Over five years, on top of this figure, Mr Ashworth claimed: £181,705 for subsistence; £164,627 in travel expenses; £222,560 in UK office allowances and £116,000 for his wife’s salary between 2010 and 2014, when the practice was banned.

Mr Karim claimed the same salary and pension contribution package as well as: £159,858 in subsistence allowance; £189,420 in travel expenses and £289,038 in UK office costs.

Both men also have offices provided in Brussels. Both men took home over £1 million over the five-year period, over £200,000 a year.

Nigel Farage claimed over £15,000 in expenses to pay for his bodyguards. The EU has been billed for their services, which include arranging food and drink. One bill for just five events came to almost £60,000, covered by expenses paid to Mr Farage’s Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, which receives £2.5million a year in EU funding. 

French MEPs earn 740% more than average French citizen Lavish, expenses and allowances – entitlements that are worth over £415,000 a year each. 

As well as staff allowances, MEPs are able to earn up to £91,000 a year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure. MEPs still vote on their own salaries and perks.

The EU pay divide

The “subsistence allowance” or “per diem” of £258 is paid in cash without any proof of expenditure, when MEPs sign an attendance register in Brussels or the Strasbourg seat of the parliament.

The annual cost of a MEP sitting in the EU assembly is £1.79 million each a year. The European Parliament, with 766 MEPs, cost £1.3 billion in 2012.

Here is the breakdown of an MEP salary:

[The standard monthly payment for all MEPs is 7,957 euros (£6,537). MEPs also get a flat-rate monthly allowance of 4,299 euros to cover office expenses, such as office rent, phone bills and computer equipment.

In addition, MEPs can claim for travel related to their official duties in Brussels and Strasbourg. In the past they could claim for an expensive flexible economy class flight even if they flew low-fare. But under the new rules they have to submit their ticket (which can be business class on air, or first class on rail) and will be reimbursed for what they paid.

A separate annual travel allowance – 4,243 euros maximum – covers official trips to other destinations. And they can claim for up to 24 return journeys in their home country.

MEPs also get a daily subsistence allowance – now 304 euros – for attendance at parliamentary sessions. It is intended to cover things like hotel bills and meals.

And they are entitled to reimbursement of two-thirds of their medical expenses.]

Then there are the 28 EU Commissioners, all of them on a basic salary of

€20 666 per month.

Jean-Claude Juncker, 61, President of the European Commission  Salary: £245,629 plus a residential allowance of £36,844 and a monthly expense allowance of £1,135. Pension of £52,500 for life from age 65.

The salaries and allowances of the MEPs of the 27 EU states now total £137 million.

The figure is almost ten times higher than the average EU wage of £18,617 a year.

But this does not include the cost of the £217,000 office allowance available to each MEP.

The receipt-free allowances system must stop. 

Next reform:  Is the Euro.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Euro"

Only by changing the eurozone’s rules and institutions can the euro be made to work.

To achieve the more radical – but necessary – reforms for the Euro, a new treaty will be required.

A major priority for this new treaty would be to create a single fiscal authority for the euro area and to change the ECB’s mandate, so that it could become a full lender of last resort in extreme circumstances.

Euro area citizens need to be given a real choice between continued fragmentation (which leaves the euro exposed to structural weaknesses and recurrent crises), and greater integration (which pools more sovereignty at the same time as it strengthens the governance of EMU).

Abandoning the convergence criteria, which require deficits to be less than 3% of GDP.

Change the mandate of the European Central Bank, which focuses only on inflation, unlike the US Federal Reserve, which takes into account employment, growth, and stability as well.

Lastly, the high rates of unemployment in many euro-area countries are a source of concern. Reforms to harmonize employment protection legislation and integrate outsiders in the labour market should be implemented.

The EU employs more than 55,000 staff from its 28 member states. The majority work for the European Commission which employs about 33,000 officials, temporary staff, contract staff, and special advisers.

Last Reform:Image associée

It is no good just taking the standard nation-based model of representative democracy and applying it to the unique contours of European governance

‘Democracy’ explicitly recognises that the EU lacks a coherent, unified ‘people’, and should therefore encourage the participation of separate ‘peoples’ within the European structure.

If the EU is truly a democracy then the best way of closing the gap between citizens and institutions is to empower the demoi. Finding new ways for the national public to discuss, engage with and interact with the EU is the best way of enhancing their role. To do so, the European Parliament should be made more representative, but by increasing the role of citizens and national parliamentarians in the EU structures the EU can be made more open to bottom-up influence.

Multiple levels of engagement should be created so as to give citizens the maximum capability to engage with the EU’s structures. Such a structure would not be perfect. No democratic structure is. But it remains the best way of creating a more democratic European Union. Make European structures more open to national influence; and give citizens a more direct involvement in EU policymaking.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

https://youtu.be/PZz3dXCG3Oo?list=PLO1bi4VeyTW7iLDXBKYxh_rG_ovxGkihz

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THAT’S TRUMPED IT FOR ME.

02 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Climate Change., Environment, Humanity., Natural World Disasters, Paris Climate Change Conference 2015, Post - truth politics., Sustaniability, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, United Nations, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THAT’S TRUMPED IT FOR ME.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A four-minute read)

Climate change is real and so are its effects, despite what Trump and his 22 Republican senators might stubbornly, short-sighted and nonsensical choose to believe.

Indeed, that climate change is real and caused by human activity is no longer an issue up for debate. That time has long passed.

It’s true that the train may be out of the station when it comes to avoiding climate change altogether, but we can still attempt to mitigate and alleviate the worst of the effects.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change"

The fact that an agreement was achieved was a breakthrough. Never before have 195 countries agreed to some form of emissions reductions, even if they aren’t exactly binding.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced he was pulling United States out of the agreement, which means the US would join Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations that did not agree to the pact. Even Palestine and North Korea signed it.

In that context, Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, the most promising global initiative addressing climate change, seems like a big deal. And it is, but not because his decision to withdraw will catapult us toward assured and quick global demise.

It is perhaps the best thing that could happen for the future of the agreement and, by side effect, the planet. After all, the accord is largely a voluntary gentleman’s agreement.

Trump’s decision might actually have a positive effect on the future of climate negotiations, freeing world leaders to pull together a stronger agreement that forces greater action.

It sends the message that the agreement is more about symbolism than action. Despite all of the fanfare that went on at the time, it seems that there are currently only 3 European Union countries pursuing climate policies that put them in line with the agreements made at the Paris Climate Change Talks.

The great majority of countries want to rig the law with loopholes so they can continue business as usual.

Some of the primary  loopholes in question, are the use of higher baselines for measuring CO2 emissions reductions and a greater use of forestry credits (tree planting as an offset). Also, 9 member states “want to exploit the ETS’s huge surplus of 100 million allowances, worth an expected €2 billion, to help them meet their emissions obligations on paper.”

In effect, the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable country run by an administration that explicitly prioritizes corporate greed, short-termism, isolationism and nepotism over science, reason, growth and global sustainable prosperity.

The response to such a senseless act by the Trump administration should be a renewed and strengthened international commitment to combat climate change and the maintenance of a global climate governance regime that will be effective in keeping global warming below the critical 2 degrees Celsius.

This will never be achieved.

Why ?

Because man down through the age has demonstrated that he is incapable of cooperate with each other in large groups.

The modern deal offers power provided we renounce our belief in a great cosmic plan that gives meaning to life. On an individual level we are inspired to constantly increase our income and our standard of living. Greed comes easily to humans.

Don’t worry,  The ecological meltdown is going to be great.Image associée

God like technology has it downside, like how or what is going to control these structures as traditional political structures can no longer process the data fast enough to produce meaningful visions.

We live in a world full of small interest groups and ruthless billionaires, we becoming chips enabled and manipulated by algorithms.

An international fund to help countries transition to green economies and cope with climate change will have an expected $100 billion US dollars per year. So far, only $62 billion US dollars has been gathered.

The whole thing will end in gridlock.

The climate change narrative is beginning to change.

There is only one way to stop climate change and that is to place a world aid commission of 0.05% on all transactions that exploit us and the world for profit sake.

For Example:  High Frequency Trading, Sovereign Wealth Fund Acquisitions, Foreign Exchange Transactions over 50,000$, World Lotteries etc.

This will create a perpetual funded world aid fund to address climate change and the inequality that drives it.

Failure to act—or worse, acting to exacerbate—climate change could have lasting implications for the entire planet. The world has already burned more than two-thirds of the carbon that is expected to raise global temperatures by 2 degrees celsius (the previous target)–a catastrophic threshold.

If developing nations followed similar development trajectories as the US, for instance, then there would be no possibility for keeping climate change under control.

Emissions targets will never be legally binding, but report cards and updated promises are binding. No penalties will be given out for countries who fail to meet targets.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨