China is building a vast civilian surveillance network

From Business Insider.com (Apr. 29):

China is setting up a vast surveillance system that tracks every single one of its 1.4 billion citizens — from using facial recognition to name and shame jaywalkers, to forcing people to download apps that can access all the photos on their smartphones.

The growth of China's surveillance technology comes as the state rolls out an enormous "social credit system" that ranks citizens based on their behaviour, and doles out rewards and punishments depending on their scores.

……………….

1. Using facial recognition technology that can pick people out of massive crowds.

At least 16 cities, municipalities, and provinces across China have already started using a facial recognition system that can scan the country's entire 1.4 billion-strong population — with 99.8% accuracy, Chinese state media reported.

China's facial recognition surveillance has already proven to be eerily effective: Police in Nanchang, southeastern China, managed to locate and arrest a wanted suspect out of a 60,000-person pop concert earlier this month, the state-run Xinhua news agency said.

……………..

2. Getting group chat admins to spy on people.

China holds people criminally liable for content posted in any group chat they initiate on messaging apps. The regulation applies even to private and encrypted apps, such as WhatsApp.

The government also requires tech companies to monitor and keep records of conversations for six months, and report any illegal activity to authorities.

3. Forcing citizens to download apps that allow the government to monitor their cell phone photos and videos.

The government has forced Uighurs, an ethnic minority in western China, to download an app that scans photos, videos, audio files, ebooks, and other documents, the US-government funded Open Technology Fund said.

The app, named 浄网 (pronounced "jingwang" in Mandarin Chinese, and literally means "cleansing the web"), extracts information including the phone number and model, and scours through its files, the Open Technology Fund reported.

It also warns users to delete files it deems dangerous and sends information about those files to an outside server.  [read more]

Talk about Big Brother watching you! George Orwell would be impressed.

The other ways that China is monitoring its citizens are:

1. Watching how people shop online.
2. Having law enforcement officers wear special glasses to identify people in crowded places, like streets and train stations.
3. Installing 'robot police' in train stations that scan people's faces and match those of wanted fugitives — like this one in Zhengzhou, central China.
4. Using facial recognition technology to root out jaywalkers.
5. Stopping pedestrians at random to check their phones.
6. Tracking people's social media posts, which can be linked to the user's family and location.
7. Building predictive software to aggregate data about people — without their knowledge — and flag those they consider threatening.

The In-N-Out Burger Boycott Shows that Under Socialism, Those Who Don’t Obey Won’t Eat

From FEE.org (Sept. 4):

Last week, Eric Bauman, the chair of the California Democratic Party, called for a boycott of the popular California hamburger chain In-N-Out Burger.

What was In-N-Out Burger’s crime? Los Angeles Magazine reported that the burger chain had contributed to the Republican Party.

Bauman tweeted a link to the story about the contribution and called the chain “creeps:”

Et tu In-N-Out? Tens of thousands of dollars donated to the California Republican Party... it’s time to #BoycottInNOut—let Trump and his cronies support these creeps... perhaps animal style!

Californians were not ready to give up eating at the popular chain. John Vigna, communication director for the California Democratic Party, announced the chair’s tweet was “just his personal view.” Vigna added, “Democrats are very fired up. Chair [Bauman] is definitely giving voice to a feeling a lot of people have right now.”

What Vigna calls “giving voice,” many of us might call bullying. It is hard to interpret the call for a boycott of In-and-Out as anything but a sign of California’s further descent into totalitarianism. Those who don’t support the ruling political regime will have their economic livelihood threatened.

Current events and history warn us: A political party demanding loyalty to the party as a condition for doing business is a terrible path to go down.  [read more]

The article goes on to say that these boycott tactics were used in the past by Hitler and currently by Venezuelan despot Nicolás Maduro. Both, by the way, are socialists.

Dick Morris: Bill Designed To Solve Crime Problem Is Really No Solution at All

From The Western Journal.com (Dec. 16):

Legislation nearing passage in the Senate will reverse decades of progress in reducing crime.

Originally designed by Republicans to improve conditions in prisons, the bill has been hijacked by Democrats* to slash sentences and release dangerous criminals.

But, because of its earlier incarnation, President Donald Trump, perhaps impelled by advice from his son-in-law Jared Kushner (whose father was in prison), is backing the bill.

He’s mistaken. It’s a bad piece of legislation.

The bill, called the First Step Act, would:

1. Immediately make retroactive Obama’s Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that reduced crack penalties to the lower levels imposed for cocaine possession. The theory was that blacks used crack and whites used cocaine. But the bill equalized the sentences by lowering the crack penalties. It should have raised the cocaine sentences instead. This change will trigger the almost immediate release of 2,600 federal prison inmates.

2. Give judges the authority to bypass federal sentencing guidelines and impose lower sentences, precisely the kind of judicial discretion that led to the slap-on-the-wrist sentences that caused the crime wave of the 60s and 70s.

3. Dilute the “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing provisions imposing 25-year terms for a third felony conviction.

4. Increase time off sentences for all criminals — violent and otherwise — by one week per year served, allowing the release of 4,000 inmates the day the law takes effect.

The bill is really the “first step” in pursuing the Democrats’ agenda of decriminalizing crime by sharply reducing the number of people in prison.  [read more]

*The Left always hi-jacks good legislation and makes it bad.

The New Farm Bill Is So Bad That Supporters Don’t Want Its Details Released

From The Daily Signal.com (Dec. 7):

The current farm bill process is eerily similar to what happened with Obamacare.

In 2010, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., infamously uttered, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

A recent statement by the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., regarding the farm bill brings back bad memories.

As reported by Agri-Pulse: “Peterson acknowledged that the other negotiators didn’t want to talk about details of the bill until closer to the final votes. ‘There’s concern on some of the members’ part that when people find out what’s in the bill it will start unraveling,’ he said.”

The farm bill is already expected to be a disaster, from failing to strengthen work requirements in the food stamp program to failing to make even minor reforms to the out-of-control farm subsidy system (and actually making subsidies worse).

……………

Think about how bad the bill must be in light of what already has been reported about the bill. For example, we already know about, based on reports, the following absurdities in the bill:

The bill would protect farmers when commodity prices increase, not just decrease. The existing Price Loss Coverage program (one of the major subsidy programs) pays farmers when commodity prices fall below a price fixed in law (known as a reference price). The bill reportedly will make it possible for these reference prices to increase when prices increase, thereby ensuring farmers could continue to get taxpayer-funded subsidies.

The bill expands payments to non-farmers. One of the most egregious aspects of the current farm subsidy system is its payments to individuals who by any reasonable definition are not farmers.

What does the bill do? It makes this problem even worse by making it possible for “non-farming” cousins, nephews, and nieces to receive subsidies.

The bill completely ignores the massive cost overruns of the two new major subsidy programs, which are greater than 70 percent more expensive than what was projected. Congress created two major new subsidy programs last farm bill, namely the Price Loss Coverage and the Agricultural Risk Coverage programs. When the last farm bill was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the costs of these programs would be about $18 billion over their first five years.  [read more]

Yea, the bill doesn’t sound good especially the “payments to non-farmers” part. I have cousins who are farmers. Should I get a subsidy when I am not a farmer?

How State Religion Made the Czechs the Least Religious People in Europe

From FEE.org (Sept. 4):

In all the articles about last week’s 50th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Prague, few took note of one of its enduring scars: widespread atheism. Some may be surprised to learn that the Czech people are the most irreligious people in Europe, not just because of decades of government-sponsored atheism, but because of centuries of government-enforced religion.

The Communist Co-Opting of Religion

When Communist officials first came to power in Czechoslovakia in 1948, undermining and eradicating religion became a top priority. The Marxists tried to co-opt the Roman Catholic Church with a “patriotic” organization, loyal to the regime, known as Catholic Action. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.) However, the Vatican quickly condemned the government’s creation.

The government began paying priests’ salaries—something not a single priest refused—in order to win their loyalty. The Office of Religious Affairs placed some of its loyal priests in positions of ecclesiastical authority. Yet the bishops maintained fidelity.

Failing at counterfeiting, the government resorted to confiscation. Prague ordered all monasteries closed on April 13, 1950, resulting in a massive seizure of church property. The Communist government plundered 429 buildings belonging to male monastic orders, 670 buildings belonging to female orders, some 2,000 works of art, another 2,000 historical artifacts, and 1.8 million books. This does not include the massive destruction of precious historical items, carried out on such a scale that even former Czechoslovakian Prime Minister Zdeněk Fierlinger lamented it.

……………..

“Force Is Never a Victory”

“The Communists, both yours [Russian] and ours, were always enemies of the Church,” a former Orthodox Archbishop of Prague told a Russian media outlet.

When it came to the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Communists sought “only liquidation,” the then-archbishop said in 2011. “We Orthodox know that such force is never a victory.”

“That the Czechoslovakian party members supposedly helped the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia was only their cunning maneuver,” he said. “In fact, the Communists only injured the work of Orthodoxy.”

……………

A Pox on Both Their Houses-of-Worship

Within a few decades, the state went from favoring to outlawing the Roman Catholic Church. Both sides used the State to wage war against one another, and the souls of the faithful became their casualties.

In the end, the Czechs declared a pox on both their houses-of-worship. The Czech Republic today has the highest level of atheism in Europe. Numbers vary—some place the number of atheists at two-thirds of the population or more—but all surveys find a majority of Czechs profess no belief in God.

That does not mean that the Czech people feel no yearning for communion with God. Such a state is an anthropological impossibility. However, as one writer in the Guardian put it, today in the Czech Republic “small evangelical and charismatic denominations are thriving.” Precisely those churches that have never used the State to “compel them to come in” are most likely to see the faithful enter.

Christians tempted to praise a large “Christian” government whose interventionist policies “help evangelize” must study the example of Czechoslovakia. If it is accurate that “government is not reason, it is not eloquence,” neither is it persuasion—and in the wrong hands, it quickly burns those who so recently controlled it. A state that can banish other denomination’s clergy one year can banish yours the next. The government that can seize control of your enemy’s churches can expropriate yours, as well.

The cautionary tale of recent history is: The Church that lives by the State shall die by the State.  [read more]

This is probably why the Constitution has the first amendment in it: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” The Founders were very weary of state sponsored religions. They knew from experience.

Man, 69, sues to lower age 20 years: ‘You can change your gender. Why not your age?’

From The Blaze.com (Nov. 8):

Emile Ratelband, a 69-year-old Dutchman, is suing to legally change his age.

Ratelband reasons that he lives in a society where people can change their genders, so to him, it only makes sense that he can change his age.

But why?

Ratelband cites several reasons as to why he wants to lower his age from 69 years to 49 years.

The Dutchman, who is a motivational speaker and media personality in the Netherlands, says that he'd likely have better luck dating, gaining employment, and making large purchases, such as homes or vehicles, if he were younger on paper.

“When I'm 69, I am limited,” he explains. “If I'm 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work.”

Ratelband adds, "When I'm on Tinder and it says I'm 69, I don't get an answer. When I'm 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position."

“You can change your name. You can change your gender. Why not your age?” he asks.  [read more]

He does have a point. He is just participating in identity politics. Why stop with age? Why can’t a short person identity with a tall person? Short people can be discriminated against too. Why can’t a fat person identify with a skinny person? I could keep on going, but I won’t. The world is slowly going insane.

More articles on identity politics:

• If Gender Is Subjective, Makes Sense Age Should Be, Too
• We Have an Identity Problem

The 3 Big Differences Between Conservatives and Progressives

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 2):

What’s the difference between a conservative and a progressive?

Here are three examples.

No. 1: Conservatives and progressives have different views about individuals and communities.

Conservatives ask: “What can I do for myself, my family, my community, and my fellow citizens?”

Progressives ask: “What is unfair?” “What am I owed?” “What has offended me today?” “What must my country do for me?”

The traditional American ethic of achievement gives way to the progressive ethic of aggrievement.

……………….

No 2.: Conservatives and progressives have different views about diversity and choice.

For progressives, different ethnicities and gender identities are welcomed but a variety of opinions and ideas are not.

Just look at two areas of public life dominated by the left. On college campuses free speech is under attack. If you’re a conservative working at a social media company or using one of their platforms to share your views, you may find your job eliminated or your account deleted.

And when it comes to choice, progressives love the word, but they don’t want it to apply to our decisions on education, health care, and even how and where we live out our religious faith.

Conservatives take a different approach.

Parents, not the zip code they live in, should choose the school that is best for their child.

We all need health care, but we don’t all need the same kind or same amount. And while people should be free to live as they choose, no one should be forced to endorse or celebrate those choices if it violates their religious beliefs.

Conservatives say people should have choices. Progressives say one political solution fits all.

No. 3: Conservatives and progressives have a different view of “We the People.”

Whether it’s the Second Amendment, immigration, or putting limits on abortion, if we the people don’t pass laws progressives approve, they turn to judges, executive orders, and government bureaucrats behind closed doors to overturn the will of voters.

Whatever one may think about the wisdom of hiking the minimum wage, banning plastic straws, or removing controversial historical monuments, conservatives believe voters closest to the issues should be the ones making such decisions for their communities—not lawmakers in Washington or a panel of judges fives states away.

To sum it up, conservatives believe in individual rights, not special rights. Conservatives believe in allowing Texas to be Texas and Vermont to be Vermont. And conservatives believe we the people can vote with our feet about where we want to live and what laws we want to live under. [read more]

7 Things I'd Do if I Wanted to Keep Poor People Poor

Commentary from Brian Balfour on FEE.org:

If I wanted to keep poor people poor, there are several government policies I would favor. Let's count them down.

1: An Expanding Welfare State

For starters, I would advocate for a robust and ever-expanding welfare state—programs like Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc.

I would recognize that an effective recipe for keeping poor people poor is to create incentives that push them into decisions that prevent them from climbing out of poverty.

…………

2: Progressive Taxation Policy

If I wanted to keep poor people poor, I also would finance the welfare state poverty trap through punitive taxes on the job and wealth creators of society.

The key ingredient to economic growth, and thus a higher standard of living for society’s poor, is through productivity gains made possible by capital investment. High marginal taxes on profitable companies and small businesses alike discourage capital investment. As businesses decide to either not expand or take their businesses to more investment-friendly countries, job opportunities dry up.

3: Increase the Minimum Wage

If I wanted to keep poor people poor, I would advocate for higher government-enforced minimum wages. The law of supply and demand tells us that the higher the price of a good or service, the less of it will be demanded (other things held equal, of course). The demand for low-skilled labor is no exception. Minimum wage laws are an effective tool to cut off the bottom rung of the career ladder. [read more]

The Left likes all the policies above and the other four which are:

1. Support Restrictive “Green Energy” Policies
2. Increase the Business Regulatory Burden
3. Inflate the Money Supply
4. Impose High Tariffs

How Marijuana Harms a Developing Baby’s Brain

From Scientific American.com (Nov. 7):

SAN DIEGO—Marijuana has been legalized in some capacity in 31 U.S. states, in large part due to a softening stance around the potential harms of the drug and recognition of its medical benefits. As a result, cannabis has become the most commonly used illicit drug during pregnancy.

One recent study revealed that in 2016 7 percent of pregnant women in California used marijuana, with rates as high as 22 percent among teenage mothers. In Colorado 69 percent of dispensaries recommended the drug to pregnant women to help with morning sickness.

Whereas marijuana is not a major health risk for most adults, prenatal drug exposure can be harmful to unborn babies. Previous research has shown infants exposed to cannabis in the womb are 50 percent more likely to have a lower birth weight. Now three new studies presented Tuesday at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting here suggest prenatal cannabis exposure—at least in rodents—could have serious consequences for fetal brain development. “There’s become this relaxation—in part because [marijuana] is becoming legal in many states around the country—that it’s fine,” says Yasmin Hurd, who is director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and was not involved in the new research. But, she adds, just because a drug is not very dangerous to adults does not mean it is harmless to the developing brain.

In one study researchers at Washington State University in Pullman showed rat pups born to mothers exposed to high amounts of cannabis vapor during pregnancy had trouble with cognitive flexibility. [read more]

China Plans To Launch Multiple Artificial Moons Into Orbit By 2022

From The Daily Wire.com (Oct. 20):

In a move that could save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual electricity costs, the Chinese government is planning to launch a "fake moon" into space in 2020.

The moon, according to China Daily, is actually an "illumination satellite" featuring reflective panels. These panels will catch and release light from the sun just as the moon does, although Wu Chunfeng, head of Tian Fu New Area Science Society in Chengdu, says the satellite has the potential to be approximately eight times as bright as the natural celestial reflector.

The satellite will allegedly be able to adjust its brightness, aim light in different directions (a possible aid in times of disaster), and limit or expand its ground coverage, which could range from 6 to 50 miles in diameter.  [read more]

Ethanol Is Terrible for Health and the Environment, but Government Keeps Backing It

From FEE.org (Aug. 19):

When the elected officials and bureaucrats who run a government want to stack the deck in favor of a politically connected special interest, they have three main ways that they can go about it:

1. They can subsidize the special interest, often using taxpayer cash.
2. They can penalize the competition of the special interest, often through tariffs.
3. They can mandate that people do business with the special interest.

Each of these actions is economically harmful as government-backed subsidies, penalties, and mandates all impose unnecessary costs on regular people. Worse, they often lead to predictable, if often unintended, consequences that do serious damage beyond what they do to personal finances.

In the case of ethanol in the United States, the federal government has employed all three measures over the years, frequently with bipartisan political support. Its subsidies keep afloat politically connected businesses that wouldn’t otherwise be able to keep themselves in business. Its tariffs have kept consumers from being able to buy cheaper sources of ethanol on the global market. And its mandate to put an increasing amount of corn-based ethanol into fuel makes food more expensive.  [read more]

4 Big Threats Pence Says China Poses to US

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 5):

The Chinese have attempted to spy on some 30 U.S. companies, the White House says, also warning that Beijing is meddling with U.S. elections.

Those are among the reasons Vice President Mike Pence amplified the Trump administration’s assertion that it will no longer play nice with the Chinese communist regime.

“Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States,” Pence said Thursday, speaking at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

……………….

Here are four key threats Chinese policies pose to the U.S., according to the vice president.

1. Cyber Espionage

Chinese spies found vulnerabilities in the U.S. technology supply chain to infiltrate computer networks of nearly 30 U.S. companies, including Apple and Amazon, as well as banks and federal contractors, Bloomberg Businessweek first reported Thursday, the same day Pence took China to task.

……………..

2. Election Meddling

China is pushing a propaganda war in the United States, with an eye on both the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential election, Pence said, regarding Chinese election meddling.

“There can be no doubt: China is meddling in America’s democracy,” he said.

He noted that the U.S. intelligence community says that China “is targeting U.S. state and local governments and officials to exploit any divisions between federal and local levels on policy.”

…………….

3. Squeezing US Companies

Pence called out Google for its seeming willingness to work with the Chinese government.

“Google should immediately end development of the ‘Dragonfly’ app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers,” he said in his Thursday speech.

Pence also noted that Chinese officials tried to influence business leaders.

“In one recent example, China threatened to deny a business license for a major U.S. corporation if they refused to speak out against our administration’s policies,” Pence said.

………………

4. Military Buildup

The vice president also warned of China’s military buildup.

“China now spends as much on its military as the rest of Asia combined, and Beijing has prioritized capabilities to erode America’s military advantages on land, at sea, in the air, and in space,” Pence said.  [read more]

And the Left is worried about Russia. Yea, right. Although, Russia isn’t exactly our friend either.

5 Signs You’re In The Midst Of A Moral Panic

From The Daily Wire.com (Sept. 29):

Moral panics, or instances of mass hysteria, have occurred throughout history. Two of the most notorious are the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s and the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and '90s. The panics almost exclusively involve women and children and fears for their safety, especially from sexual abuse.

We are in the midst of another such panic, but despite the similarities to past episodes, we are still unable to recognize it as such. The current panic has been playing out in the military and on college campuses for nearly a decade, but with the advent of the #MeToo movement, the mass hysteria is creeping into our regular legal system as well. The following are five of the biggest signs that we are experiencing another bout of mass hysteria, this time over sexual assault and harassment.

1. Due Process Goes Out The Window

Due process is the cornerstone of our legal system, but in times of mass hysteria, it becomes the enemy. In Salem, those accused of witchcraft were presumed guilty and, in many cases, denied counsel. The only evidence presented against them was an accusation.

………

2. “Believe The Victim”

This may be the biggest tell of a moral panic. An accusation, we’re told, is sufficient enough. With due process being considered anathema to victims, accusations are all the evidence needed. During the Little Rascals case in North Carolina, some jurors didn’t believe the accusations, but during deliberations were bullied by other jurors if they didn’t believe the children.

Parents of children involved in the Little Rascals case told Frontline: “No child would lie about something like this.” In Wright’s article about the Ingram case in Washington, he wrote:

“These two hypotheses form the intellectual frame of the Ingram investigation: first, that the depth of the repression is a function of the intensity of the trauma; and, second, that victims must be believed. Once a victim’s account is believed, the evidence in a case may be stretched to fit it. Often, it’s a big stretch.” Paul Ingram himself said of his daughters, who made the accusations against him: “They wouldn’t lie about something like this.”  [read more]

The other three signs are:

3. Misleading And Faulty Statistics

4. Evidence, Schmevidence

5. Pseudo-Scientific Theories About Memory Reign Supreme

5 of the Worst Economic Predictions in History

From FEE.org:

Uncertainty makes human beings uncomfortable. Not knowing what’s going to happen in the future creates a sense of unrest in many people. That’s why we sometimes draw on predictions made by leading experts in their respective fields to make decisions in our daily lives. Unfortunately, history has shown that experts aren’t often much better than the average person when it comes to forecasting the future. And economists aren’t an exception. Here are five economic predictions that never came true.

1. Irving Fisher Predicting a Stock Market Boom—Right Before the Crash of 1929

Irving Fisher was one of the great economists of the first half of the 20th century. His contributions to economic science are varied: the relationship between inflation and interest rates, the use of price indexes or the restatement of the quantity theory of money are some of them. Yet he is sometimes remembered by an unfortunate statement he made in the days prior to the Crash of 1929. Fisher said that “stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau (…) I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months." A few days later, the stock market crashed with devastating consequences. After all, even geniuses aren’t exempt from making mistakes.

2. Paul Ehrlich on the Looming "Population Bomb"

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich published a book where he argued that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the following decades as a result of overpopulation. He went as far as far as to say that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over (…) nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Of course, Ehrlich’s predictions never came true. Since the publication of the book, the death rate has moved from 12.44 permille in 1968 to 7.65 permille in 2016, and undernourishment has declined dramatically even though the population has doubled since 1950. Seldom in history has someone been so wrong about the future of humankind.

3. The 1990s Great Depression that Never Happened

Economist Ravi Batra reached the number one on The New York Times Best Seller List in 1987 thanks to his book The Great Depression of 1990. From the title, one can easily infer what was the main thesis of the book, namely: An economic crisis is imminent, and it will be a tough one. Fortunately, his prediction failed to come true. In fact, the 1990s was a period of relative stability and strong economic growth, with the US stock market growing at an 18 percent annualized rate. Not so bad for an economic depression, right? [read more]

The other two wrong predictions:

4. Alan Greenspan on Interest Rates

5. Peter Schiff and the End of the World

Don’t always believe the experts. Everyone can be wrong even them.

Professor: Here are the 3 most destructive ideas colleges are teaching students today

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 17):

Jonathan Haidt, a professor at New York University and co-author of “The Coddling of the American Mind,” joined Glenn on Monday’s episode of “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” to discuss how good intentions have led to bad ideas, which are setting up younger generations for failure.

Haidt and co-author Greg Lukianoff observed “strange things” happening on college campuses around 2016, such as speakers being shouted down for having different points of view or the idea that students need a warning before they read a Greek myth or a book that contains any violence.

“They were catastrophizing. ‘Oh, if a speaker comes to campus, people will die.’ This is disordered thinking,” Haidt explained. “Colleges are somehow conveying these ideas that are really, really bad for students and students are taking them to heart and thinking themselves into a depression.”

Haidt went on to list the three most destructive ideas that are being propagated on college campuses.

1. The idea that what doesn’t kill you, makes you weaker.
2. Always trust your feelings.
3. Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

To convince students of all three is to set them up for a life of weakness, complaint, grievance and failure, Haidt concluded. [read more]

College students these days are getting infantilized.

Trump administration will close the Palestine Liberation Organization office in DC

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 10):

The Trump administration announced Monday that it will close the main office for the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington, D.C.

…………….

What happened Monday?

The Trump administration gave official notice to the PLO that it would be closing their office in Washington, D.C. National security adviser John Bolton said that the decision had been influenced by the PLO’s lack of cooperation on the peace process in the Middle East.

“The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel,” Bolton said on Monday. “The Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel.”

……………

What else?

This follows the State Department announcing in August that it would cut more than $200 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian authority. The State Department cut the funds after it conducted a review and decided that the funds were not being spent “in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer.”  [read more]

It’s about time. PLO is just a terrorist organization.

The Future of A.I. Cannot be Centrally Planned

Commentary by Tom Worstall on FEE.org:

Quite the most amusing part of the current debate about Artificial Intelligence is the manner in which we are recapitulating two of the big mistakes of the 20th century. These are the Socialist Calculation delusion and what we might call the New Soviet Man delusion.

Alchemical AI and the Knowledge Problem

An example of the Socialist Calculation fallacy comes to us most vocally from Ali Rahimi, who argues that AIs are being built by alchemy rather than science. In this version of events, the machines are just bodge jobs, processing lots of data to see what fits. As he says, “I would like to live in a society whose systems are built on top of verifiable, rigorous, thorough knowledge, and not on alchemy.”

This sounds reasonable enough in some contexts; after all, I’ve always preferred my nuclear plants to be built by those who know what they’re doing. It’s a less salient critique when it comes to societies and economies, however—as Hayek and Mises famously pointed out, some things are just too complex for us to be able to grasp in such a thorough manner.

Indeed, throughout a developed economy we used bodge jobs of processed data without quite grasping the detailed processes at work. We don’t know how many apples will be eaten next year so we leave it to market processes. As Hayek insisted, these are the only computing engine we have capable of doing the data processing to produce useful information.

…………….

As the Guardian quite rightly asks, who could have known that the 19th-century switch from whale oil to kerosene would ultimately lead to the development of plastics? And what plan started in 1880 would have given us a world either with or without plastics? None, clearly, for no one even knew of the possibility. The same is true when we try to work out what effects AI will have in decades to come—in both cases, total ignorance is not a good basis for crafting a plan.

Homo Sovieticus Does Not Exist

The other error is what I would call the New Soviet Man problem. This describes the idea that while the joys of socialism didn’t suit actual human beings too well, Soviet government would eventually create a whole new kind of human who would absolutely love it. Of course, homo sovieticus never did quite materialize.

This brings us to another common argument about AI—that it should not incorporate the things we know about actual human beings.

For example, we know that some to many humans are racist, misogynist, greedy, and short-termist. AI, too, can pick up those foibles, and can definitely show what we would call prejudice.

Insisting they do not is to miss the point entirely. The only possible use of AIs is to provide us with knowledge about the world we live in, knowledge we cannot derive purely from logic but which can only be gained through data processing.

After all, the world is full of deeply prejudiced human beings. An AI which didn’t account for that would have little value in describing our world. That’s why we should not just want, but must absolutely insist that AIs do incorporate our errors.

The New Soviet Man mistake would be to try to design AIs for a world free of humans with all their messy, illogical behavior. It is also, of course, an argument against the various alternatives to free-market capitalism. Sure, if humans didn’t respond to incentives then a rigidly enforced equality of outcome might work just fine. In the real world, incentives are important and any system which doesn’t allow for a degree of inequality arising from application or effort isn’t going to work. The AI mistake is subtly different but based upon the same underlying error. [read more]

7 of Pelosi’s Priorities as Democrats Take Back the House

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 7):

Democrats’ success Tuesday in retaking the House majority appeared to put Nancy Pelosi of California at the top of a short list for the speakership.

Pelosi has listed top priorities she hoped to tackle with a new Democratic House majority next year, in addition to what Republicans expect to be attempts to roll back last year’s GOP tax reform package, block planned new tax cuts for the middle class, and resist more cuts in government spending.

…………….

Here’s a look at what Americans might expect if Pelosi, who was House speaker from 2007 through 2010, regains the top leadership post:

1. More Investigations of Trump

Democrats will have the power to conduct congressional oversight when they take over the House in January, opening the door to a wide range of investigations of President Donald Trump’s administration.

………………

2. Campaign Finance Reform

Pelosi also made it clear to the Harvard students that campaign finance reform was at the top of Democrats’ agenda.

In an interview with Politico, she said a campaign finance reform package would be the first bill proposed in a new Democrat-controlled Congress.

“People believe you that if you want to reduce the goal of money in politics … then they trust you to do the right thing,” Pelosi said in the interview.

The package could include a ban on gerrymandering of congressional districts, expanded mandates to disclose political donors, and restoration of select enforcement provisions in the Voting Rights Act, The New York Times reported.

3. More LGBT Protections

…………….

4. Legal Status for ‘Dreamers,’ No Border Wall

While Trump and congressional Republicans ran on a platform that promoted stricter immigration laws and enhanced border security, Democrats focused their immigration message on protecting immigrants brought here illegally as children (so-called Dreamers) and fervently opposing a border wall.

Democrats downplayed the importance of the “caravan” of more than 5,000 persons from Central American countries, according to most estimates, that is headed for the U.S.-Mexican border.

…………

5. Push for New Gun Laws

Pelosi has been at the center of the gun debate for much of the past decade, pushing for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of every major shooting.

…………

6. Changes to Obamacare

Pelosi has said to expect measures from Democrats to lower health care and prescription drug costs, already a much-publicized priority of the Trump administration.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said that if they controlled the House they would seek to improve the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, rather than replace it.

………………

7. More Infrastructure Spending

Democrats and Republicans alike have pledged to pass legislation to repair the nation’s infrastructure, and Pelosi has highlighted infrastructure as an area ripe for bipartisanship in the now-divided government.

The difference between the two parties on the issue, however, is a common point of contention between Democrats and Republicans, including how much to spend.

Democrats have prepared more liberal approaches, proposing detailed plans in a $1 trillion infrastructure package resisted by Republicans who are concerned about federal spending and looming deficits.  [read more]

In other words, the same old boring platform. What no less gov’t or lowering taxes? Oh, wait they want to raise taxes. I forget. Campaign finance reform to the Dems mean making it harder for their enemies to campaign and raise money.

Killer robot TERROR: UK and US warned AI brains can be 'radicalised' for MASS MURDER

From The Daily Star (Sept. 9):

US and UK manufacturers have been told future robot minds are capable of mass murder.

The warning comes after a Campaign to Stop Killer Robots report said autonomous machines used for warfare are poised for mass production.

But computer engineer Subhash Kak said machines this advanced in future could be radicalised like the human mind.

The Oklahoma University lecturer told Daily Star Online: "Given the level of current technology, the danger of self-radicalisation does not exist at this moment.

"On the other hand, malfunctioning robot brains may produce behavior like that of radicalized humans.

"The appeal to self-radicalized youths by leaders of extremist religious groups, that has led to many terror incidents in the UK in recent years, is like the use of self-radicalized robot minds.

"There could be a bug in the code." [read more]

Could be a topic of concern. Extremist religious groups? Sounds like Islamists too me. I don’t believe the article is talking about extreme Quakers or Methodists.

Why Is the Nanny State so Popular?

From FEE.org (Aug. 8):

Bans on plastic straws, soda taxes, bans on diesel cars, the crackdown on smoking, restrictions on alcohol consumption: the list of restrictions on people's personal freedoms is steadily increasing. But why is the Nanny State so popular?

………

The theory of the brainwashed consumer

The idea that the consumer needs a centralized authority telling him or her how to behave, derives from the fundamental idea that he or she is inept at making rational decisions. It is interesting to see how the topic is addressed, in the example of restrictions on marketing for products: parents are seen as influenced by their own children, who themselves have been brainwashed by companies. As marketing becomes synonymous with manipulation, manipulated consumers need someone to protect them.

The basic flaw is a misunderstanding between "manipulation" and "marketing", two words which are not pointing to the same type of strategy. Governments seem to believe that all types of advertising mislead consumers about the product, when this is actually a more exceptional case. When Volkswagen manipulated their vehicles in order to show a lower emissions output, they were giving consumers false information about their product.

………….

But the idea of consumer protection remains important for governments because consumers have been taught to perceive themselves as victims. For this purpose, multiple European countries already have ministries for consumer protection. Much like the Ministry of Truth, it's a question of who gets to decide how the consumer is really protected, instead of letting that decision up to the individual.

The Nanny State is popular because people have lost trust in their own abilities to make their own decisions for themselves, not because they have actually lost them. Governments feed on the idea of the irresponsible individual, because confident consumers won't accept the mere existence of paternalism. If we want to defeat the Nanny State, we need not only oppose the individual policies that governments introduce, we also need to empower individuals to believe in their ability to act as responsible individuals. [read more]

It’s true that consumers don’t act responsibility sometimes. But consumers don’t need over-regulation because the powers-that-be don’t act responsible either and make stupid laws. Which is worse? An individual consumer making a bad decision or a gov’t leader(s) with power making a bad law (Obamacare for instance) that could potentially effect every citizen?

What’s not stated in the article is that the elitist Left believe they don’t make mistakes—that they are perfect. Therefore they make laws they deem are “good” for everyone else except themselves. They aren’t the brainwashed after all. They’re the brainwasher. (Just joking! I think…)

New Voter Fraud Cases Show Need to Secure Our Elections

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 31):

If Americans cannot say with certainty that their votes will be counted, that the process is free of fraud, and the outcome is valid, what incentive do they have to turn out in the first place?

Unfortunately, the latest news on the election integrity front is less than inspiring.

In August, the Justice Department announced it was prosecuting 19 foreign nationals for illegally voting in North Carolina—some of them in multiple elections. Those prosecutions are ongoing.

A month later, Californians learned—just weeks before a tremendously consequential election—that a “processing error” had led to 1,500 people being improperly registered to vote in their state, including at least one noncitizen.

Unbelievably, this is only the latest in a series of snafus that have plagued the state’s new “motor voter” law. Earlier this year, the state Department of Motor Vehicles botched 23,000 registrations and double-registered potentially tens of thousands more.

Just this week, The Heritage Foundation has added 20 new cases to its online election-fraud database, which now documents 1,165 proven cases of election fraud spanning 47 states. And 1,011 of these cases resulted in criminal convictions.

The new entries run the election fraud gamut, but voters heading to the polls may find one from Philadelphia particularly disturbing.

The members of the election board responsible for administering polling station 43-7 during a March 2017 special election abused their authority to deny voters an opportunity to freely cast their ballots.

According to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Calvin Mattox, Wallace Hill, Thurman George, and Dolores Shaw employed “harassment and intimidation against voters who wanted to vote for candidates of their choice—but not the candidate being pushed by the city’s Democratic Party machine.” [read more]

The cases above are far more damaging to the election process than any foreign country’s meddling. Although, that is bad too.

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

Commentary from Perry Bacon Jr. on Five Thirty Eight.com (July 18, 2017):

The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources. What’s a reader to do?

………………….

1. Multiple sources add up. When an outlet says “six White House officials” or “seven Department of Justice officials,” it’s providing a level of precision that makes me more likely to trust the story. This does not necessarily mean that the story is correct. But it does suggest it was thoroughly reported. A recent New York Times story, for example, described something top White House adviser Jared Kushner was saying in private meetings, according to “six West Wing aides.” Six people are less likely to be wrong than one — and this also indicates that the reporter was cautious and diligent enough to seek confirmation with more than one person.

2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious. Trust a source who says something happened; distrust a source who says something might happen.

………………

I’m more dubious of stories that claim insider knowledge about future events, for three reasons. First, they are almost impossible to disprove in any way.  …..A second concern, related to the first, is that the nebulous nature of these speculative stories creates an incentive for reporters to write them. …..Thirdly, sources have an incentive to encourage these kinds of speculative stories. If you are someone in the White House who does not like Priebus or you want to take his job, anonymously leaking that Trump is considering replacing Priebus is a great tactic.

…………….

3. Specifics matter. What information does the story give you about its sources? The more, the better.

…………..

4. Consider the outlet and the reporters. If, say, Nate Silver, Harry Enten and I co-write a story with unnamed sources about Hillary Clinton’s campaign decisions in 2016, there are reasons for readers to trust that story. All three of us have long records covering electoral politics. If the three of us wrote an article claiming that Kushner had a secret meeting with a Russian oligarch, full of unnamed sources, you should be more skeptical, since we are not regularly breaking news about Kushner’s activities.

……………..

5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate. Another thing to make you trust a story: When an official spokesperson offers a “denial” that really isn’t a denial. [read more]

Interesting, good advice.

The Good Intentions Fallacy Is Driving Support for Democratic Socialism

From FEE.org:

When doctors of the ailing George Washington bled him, they were motivated by good intentions; and their unscientific medical practice arguably hastened Washington’s death.

Politicians who trust their seat-of-the-pants good intentions inevitably become authoritarians. They are relying on the limits of their error-prone minds and not on proven principles that promote human flourishing.

Those who rely on their good intentions to guide their actions are arrogant rather than humble. They have little respect or understanding for, as Hayek put it in his essay “Individualism: True or False,” the “spontaneous collaboration of free men [that] often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend.”

When Hugo Chavez, the father of Venezuela’s nightmare, passed in 2013, President Carter praised Chavez’s bold leadership saying, "We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized.”

Professor Owen Williamson of the University of Texas at El Paso might say President Carter had fallen victim to the logical fallacy, The Argument from Motives: “Falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's apparent purity of motives or lack of malice.”

In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman argued that there were two threats to freedom, external and internal. In 1962, Friedman pointed to the Soviet Union as an external threat. Seeing an internal danger, Friedman argued, is more difficult because it is “far more subtle”:

It is the internal threat coming from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they are anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident of their own ability to do so. Yet if they gained the power, they would fail to achieve their immediate aims and, in addition, would produce a collective state from which they would recoil in horror and of which they would be among the first victims.

That "concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it” has become among Friedman’s most famous ideas. His warning is ignored today by those believing the “good intentions” of politicians, such as Bernie Sanders or congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will render their destructive policies harmless.  [read more]

Dick Morris: Clinton’s Ties to the Uranium Scandal Continue To Grow

From Western Journal.com (Sept. 1):

Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager John Podesta (and his former partner in their lobbying business), was paid $180,000 by the Russian-owned company Uranium One to push for Clinton’s approval of its acquisition of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium mines, a project near and dear to Vladimir Putin’s heart.

So let’s detail Moscow’s efforts to get the Clintons to approve the uranium acquisition:

1. The Russians paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech in Russia a few weeks before Hillary Clinton had to vote on the acquisition.

2. Moscow directed ten spies in America to infiltrate Clinton’s political apparatus to push her to back the uranium deal. The operations of these spies, disguised as Americans, are the theme of the TV drama The Americans.

3. Tony Podesta was paid $180,000 by Uranium One to push for the deal.

4. The New York Times reported that “in total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatom.”

Yet, with all of these connections between Uranium One and the Clintons and all the payments that might have, in fact, been bribes, the Department of Justice’s investigator probing the Clintons, John Huber, has yet even to interview Doug Campbell, the FBI undercover informant who had infiltrated Uranium One, according to Campbell’s attorney Victoria Toensing. [read more]

Yea, this scandal should be investigated by the Justice Dept. And it is completely ignored by the fake news community.

Scientists create a clock so accurate it won't lose time for 40 million years

From CNET.com (Sept. 3):

The Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillator is one of the most precise clocks ever invented -- and it's not just keeping time, it's keeping Australia safe.

Researchers at the Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing (IPAS) in Adelaide, Australia in conjunction with Cryoclock, have, for the past 20 years been working on developing the Oscillator which they have dubbed the "Sapphire Clock."

It is 1,000 times more precise than any other commercial system currently available and ticks 10 billion times per second. The  "cryogenic" in the device's real name comes from the 1,200-carat sapphire crystal that needs to be cooled to minus 267 degrees Celsius (around 449 degrees Fahrenheit) -- only a few degrees above absolute zero.

The idea to harness the amazing properties of sapphire came from Andre Luiten, director of IPAS, during his PhD project before moving to Adelaide in 2013.  [read more]

Wow, that’s one accurate clock. Then again who will be around to check the accuracy.

Understand How Insurance Works Before Debating Health Care Policy

Commentary from Gary M. Galles on FEE.org (Aug. 7):

Unfortunately, if accurately applying principles of insurance is the standard, both single-payer and Obamacare fans compare poorly to pots calling kettles black. Their preferred policies sharply conflict with insurance principles on multiple fronts.

Insurance Is All About Risk and the Unknown

Insurance is about reducing risk from uncertain events. It makes outcomes for a group with similar risks more predictable. But that must be weighed against the additional administrative and other costs of insurance. That would mean that people would not insure against what would happen for certain nor where there is only a small amount of risk reduction provided if they were spending their own money.

Insuring things which would occur with certainty, say certain inoculations and annual checkups, offers no risk reduction.

…………….

Insurance Is Not About Price Controls or Mandated Coverage

The price controls government health care proposals incorporate also violate insurance principles. For instance, my age makes my actuarial risk roughly six times that of my students. Pooling risks among those similarly situated with me can benefit us; pooling risks among those similarly situated with my students can benefit them. Insurance is based on pooling risks among people whose risks are comparable. But incorporating more people with risk differentials (say, 6 to 1) that are different from their premium differentials (say, 3 to 1) forces the overpriced people to subsidize the underpriced people. That is not motivated by insurance principles. It is wealth redistribution.

It is redistribution, not insurance, which motivates that, and explains why Obamacare imposed penalties to force the losers to accept a bad deal. [read more]

Open Borders Bring a Higher Risk of Disease

From The Daily Signal.com:

The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that all immigrants and refugees undergo a medical screening examination to determine whether they have an inadmissible health condition.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has technical instructions for medical examination of prospective immigrants in their home countries before they are permitted to enter the U.S. They are screened for communicable and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, mumps, and HIV. They are also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The CDC also has medical screening guidelines for refugees. These screenings are usually performed 30 to 90 days after refugees arrive in the United States.

But what about people who enter our country illegally? The CDC specifically cites the possibility of the cross-border movement of HIV, measles, pertussis, rubella, rabies, hepatitis A, influenza, tuberculosis, shigellosis, and syphilis.

Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent in South Texas, warned: “What’s coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone. We are starting to see scabies, chickenpox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, and different viruses.”

Some of the youngsters illegally entering our country are known to be carrying lice and suffering from various illnesses. Because there have been no medical examinations of undocumented immigrants, we have no idea how many are carrying infectious diseases that might endanger American children when these immigrants enter schools across our nation. [read more]

This is just plain sense but nobody wants to talk about especially the Left. If someone brings this issue up the Left calls them a racist or an anti-immigrant. This could be why diseases that were once thought long dead are coming back. Poor countries are breeding ground to poor sanitation which spreads diseases.

AI could make MRI scans as much as 10 times faster

From Popsci.com (Aug. 21):

Getting an MRI means being in a noisy, claustrophobia-inducing tube. For many, that's no fun. For others—like children or the very unwell—it’s worse. So to make these diagnostic tools run even faster, researchers are exploring incorporating a new tactic: using artificial intelligence to take the raw data generated by the MRI machine and create readable images.

The reason MRI scans are slow, explains Daniel Sodickson, a professor in the department of radiology at NYU School of Medicine, is that they need to capture all the data necessary to generate a nice image for a radiologist to interpret. A knee scan can take around 15 to 20 minutes; a brain, 30 minutes; imaging a heart can last an hour. But what if you could run that machine faster and still get a usable image?

Using AI, “it may be possible to capture less data, and therefore image faster, while still preserving—or even enhancing—all the rich information content of the magnetic resonance images,” Sodickson says.

Here’s how they’d do it: They’d run the MRI scan faster, gathering less raw data in the process. But instead of interpreting that raw data the traditional way—which involves a tried-and-true non-AI mathematical process—they train artificial intelligence to do the data-to-image conversion. If researchers try to interpret the fast-MRI data the traditional way, the results are bad, because there’s not enough data in the first place. With AI, they are better. [read more]

Better than Self-Esteem Is Reality-Esteem

From FEE.org:

Since 1966, the American Freshman Survey has tracked the attitudes of first-year college students. Over time, there has been a dramatic increase in the percentage of freshman seeing themselves as above average or even gifted, even as measured abilities have gone down. Students’ self-reported “drive to succeed” has gone up, as the time students spend studying has gone down.

Among students, narcissism has increased while performance has declined.

Researchers, led by famed psychologist Roy Baumeister, conducted an extensive review of scholarly literature to examine links between self-esteem and academic and job performance. Little evidence was found to support the idea that increasing self-esteem is the pathway to success.

Are interpersonal relationships strengthened by higher levels of self-esteem? Again researchers say no:

People with high self-esteem claim to be more popular and socially skilled than others, but objective measures generally fail to confirm this and in some cases point in the opposite direction… People who have elevated or inflated views of themselves tend to alienate others.

Have we put the cart before the horse? To accomplish almost all worthwhile goals, we need more than our “boldest self.” We need the cooperation of others. Without a vibrant society, we can achieve little on our own. What we seem to lack these days is not self-esteem but esteem for liberty that promotes human cooperation.

A focus on self-esteem does not lead to healthy individualism. In his essay“Individualism: True and False,” F.A. Hayek warned against “rationalistic pseudo-individualism” which holds that everything can be controlled by a perfectible human mind. True individualism, on the other hand, Hayek writes, “is a product of an acute consciousness of the limitations of the individual mind which induces an attitude of humility toward the impersonal and anonymous social processes by which individuals help to create things greater than they know.”  [read more]

The author says we should seek self-respect rather than self-esteem. Good advice. A lot of dictators have great self-esteem. But how many of those respected? Probably not very many.

How to Make a Robot Use Theory of Mind

From Scientific American.com (Aug. 17):

Imagine standing in an elevator as the doors begin to close and suddenly seeing a couple at the end of the corridor running toward you. Even before they call out, you know from their pace and body language they are rushing to get the same elevator. Being a charitable person, you put your hand out to hold the doors. In that split second you interpreted other people’s intent and took action to assist; these are instinctive behaviors that designers of artificially intelligent machines can only envy. But that could eventually change as researchers experiment with ways to create artificial intelligence (AI) with predictive social skills that will help it better interact with people.

A bellhop robot of the future, for example, would ideally be able to anticipate hotel guests’ needs and intentions based on subtle or even unintentional cues, not just respond to a stock list of verbal commands. In effect it would “understand”—to the extent that an unconscious machine can—what is going on around it, says Alan Winfield, professor of robot ethics at the University of West England in Bristol .

Winfield wants to develop that understanding through “simulation theory of mind,” an approach to AI that lets robots internally simulate the anticipated needs and actions of people, things and other robots—and use the results (in conjunction with pre programmed instructions) to determine an appropriate response. In other words, such robots would run an on-board program that models their own behavior in combination with that of other objects and people.

“I build robots that have simulations of themselves and other robots inside themselves,” Winfield says. “The idea of putting a simulation inside a robot… is a really neat way of allowing it to actually predict the future.”

“Theory of mind” is the term philosophers and psychologists use for the ability to predict the actions of self and others by imagining ourselves in the position of something or someone else. Winfield thinks enabling robots to do this will help them infer the goals and desires of agents around them—like realizing that the running couple really wanted to get that elevator.

This differentiates Winfield’s approach from machine learning, in which an AI system may use, for example, an artificial neural network that can train itself to carry out desired actions in a manner that satisfies the expectations of its users. An increasingly common form of this is deep learning, which involves building a large neural network that can, to some degree, automatically learn how to interpret information and choose appropriate responses.  [read more]

6 Times Foreign Powers Meddled in Our Elections

From The Daily Signal.com (Aug. 17):

A foreign government sought to influence the U.S. presidential race to benefit a favored candidate by pushing stories into the American media, working through an ambassador, and instigating what could be called collusion with the candidate.

This was 1796 and the culprit was France. Fast forward 200 years, and China tried to influence a presidential election. Two decades after that, it’s Russian meddling.

Top Trump administration officials announced earlier this month that Russian operatives are trying to interfere with the 2018 midterm elections, as they did with the 2016 presidential election. The U.S. government, they said, is taking actions across agencies to prevent it from happening again.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted more than two dozen Russian individuals and entities for cybercrimes, including pushing misinformation to undermine the 2016 election.

Then, as now, there was no evidence votes were changed. Instead, foreigners spread money or propaganda for the purpose of influencing the election.

……………….

The Soviet Union meddled in U.S. elections at least as far back as 1948, said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College.

“Liberals never gave a damn about Russian meddling in American elections until 2016,” Kengor told The Daily Signal. “They care now because Hillary Clinton lost.”

Here are six key examples of foreign influence in U.S. elections.

1. France and the 1796 Election

The outgoing administration of President George Washington wanted American neutrality in the war between Britain and France. However, the leader of the Democratic-Republican party, Thomas Jefferson, was avidly pro-French and believed the United States owed a debt to the country that helped it gain independence from the British.

Chief Justice John Jay went to Britain to hammer out an agreement, the Jay Treaty ratified in 1795, pledging U.S. neutrality in the conflict and establishing peace—at least for a time—between the U.S. and Britain.

Washington didn’t seek a third term, but his vice president, Federalist John Adams, was running to succeed him and was pro-British.

France’s ambassador to the United States, Pierre Auguste Adet, was among French officials and diplomats who openly expressed support for Jefferson and attacked Adams and the Federalists. So it wasn’t a covert operation.

…………..

2. World War II and the 1940 Election

Some recently reported Russian methods are surprisingly similar to how an ally interfered with the 1940 presidential election, planting fake news stories in newspapers and making public what were believed to be private communications.

President Franklin Roosevelt wanted to intervene in World War II, but the American public and Congress—remembering World War I—had little appetite for what seemed like another European gambit.

Britain, besieged by Nazi Germany, thought one way to get American help was to reshape American public opinion.

“This was literally a matter of changing the establishment’s view of U.S. support for the war,” said Morris, who writes about British espionage in the 1940 election in his book “Rogue Spooks.”

The British Security Coordination, a front corporation for British intelligence in the United States, had offices inside the U.S. that conducted espionage and planted fake news stories in American media to tilt public opinion, according to information declassified in 1999. [read more]

The other four foreign powers were: Soviet Union in 1948, 1960, & 1980; and China in 1996.

The Wisdom of Eric Hoffer, Part II

From FEE.org:

He [Eric Hoffer] caught the attention of the powerful and the influential. President Eisenhower distributed copies of The True Believer to friends. Indeed, Hoffer was known as “Ike’s Favorite Author.” Eric Sevareid of NBC News brought Hoffer into the homes of millions of Americans with a 1967 television interview. President Reagan bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on him shortly before the longshoreman philosopher’s death in 1983.

Some of the worst tyrannies of our day genuinely are “vowed” to the service of mankind, yet can function only by pitting neighbor against neighbor. The all-seeing eye of a totalitarian regime is usually the watchful eye of the next-door neighbor.

The intellectual craves a social order in which uncommon people perform uncommon tasks every day. He wants a society throbbing with dedication, reverence, and worship. He sees it as scandalous that the discoveries of science and the feats of heroes should have as their denouement the comfort and affluence of common folk.

The corruption inherent in absolute power derives from the fact that such power is never free from the tendency to turn man into a thing, and press him back into the matrix of nature from which he has risen. For the impulse of power is to turn every variable into a constant, and give to commands the inexorableness and relentlessness of laws of nature. Hence absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. The taint inherent in absolute power is not its inhumanity but its anti-humanity.

The significant point is that people unfit for freedom—who cannot do much with it—are hungry for power. The desire for freedom is an attribute of a "have" type of self. It says: leave me alone and I shall grow, learn, and realize my capacities. The desire for power is basically an attribute of a “have-not” type of self. If Hitler had had the talents and the temperament of a genuine artist, if Stalin had had the capacity to become a first-rate theoretician, if Napoleon had had the makings of a great poet or philosopher they would hardly have developed the all-consuming lust for absolute power.

The best education will not immunize a person against corruption by power. The best education does not automatically make people compassionate. We know this more clearly than any preceding generation. Our time has seen the best-educated society, situated in the heart of the most civilized part of the world, give birth to the most murderously vengeful government in history. Forty years ago the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead thought it self-evident that you would get a good government if you took power out of the hands of the acquisitive and gave it to the learned and the cultivated. At present, a child in kindergarten knows better than that.

No matter how noble the objectives of a government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion—it is an evil government.

[read more]

Eric Hoffer has described the Left perfectly.

Scientists have developed a 'GPS' system that can track inside the human body

From Cnet.com (Aug. 20):

Using the Global Positioning System satellites in orbit around the Earth, Google can pinpoint the restaurant's location, tell you how far away from the restaurant you are and how long it will take you to get there.

Now apply that philosophy to the human body. In diseases such as cancer, you might want to find a tumor -- but you can't use a GPS to do that.

Until now.

Researchers at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, led by Professor Dina Katabi, have developed ReMix, an "in-body GPS system" that utilizes wireless technology to locate ingestible implants inside the human body.

Current methods of looking inside the human body can be highly invasive, forcing physicians to send cameras snaking down throats or through incisions. With ReMix, you could theoretically ingest an implant that can be tracked externally. If that implant honed in on tumors it would provide doctors a way to improve targeted therapy options.

It doesn't use the satellites orbiting the Earth, however.

Testing ReMix involved attaching a "small marker" to a fake tumor inside a transparent container full of animal tissues. The marker itself only acts as a reflector, bouncing the wireless radio signal back out, and thus does not require a power source. [read more]

4 Key Facts About ICE, and What Could Happen If It’s Abolished

From The Daily Signal.com (Aug. 18):

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials on Aug. 14 arrested and deported an illegal immigrant who is wanted in El Salvador on murder charges.

Brian Alejandro Martinez reportedly had been arrested and freed several times in New Jersey and New York. ICE officials criticized authorities in Middlesex County, New Jersey, for releasing Martinez without notifying the federal agency.

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent years has had to contend with “sanctuary” policies by cities and counties that protect illegal immigrants, the agency now faces a push by some in Congress to abolish it.

……………

The House adopted a resolution last month supporting ICE agents, but 167 Democrats refused to vote for it.

…………….

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are among Democrats who have said they support getting rid of ICE.

Just 25 percent of voters say they are for abolishing the agency, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll released last month.

……………

Primarily an immigration enforcement agency that doesn’t operate on the border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement still performs other functions. Here are four major facts about ICE, and what could happen if it ceases to exist.

1. Protecting Minority Communities

If ICE were abolished, minority communities would be disproportionately harmed, said Matthew T. Albence, the agency’s executive associate director for enforcement and removal.

……….

2. Enforcing Immigration Law

When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, it established ICE as the enforcement arm while U.S. Customs and Immigration Services would be in charge of naturalizing legal immigrants.

The 9/11 Commission noted that terrorists involved in the 2001 attacks exploited U.S. immigration rules and some of the hijackers violated the terms of their visas.

………….

3. Targeting Smugglers of People, Drugs, Guns

Immigration and Customs Enforcement also combats the smuggling of people, drugs, money, counterfeit merchandise, and weapons into the United States. This includes confronting sexual trafficking, and in some cases, fighting child pornography.

ICE made more than 11,000 arrests related to weapon offenses in fiscal year 2017, according to the White House.

The agency is also responsible for “repatriation of cultural treasures,” or returning expensive items stolen from another country.

………………

4. Preventing Terrorism

ICE also specializes in identifying dangerous individuals before they enter the United States, or finding them after they illegally enter.

The agency’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit is comprised of two divisions: the Terrorist Tracking and Pursuit Group and the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System Exploitation Section.

The terrorist tracking group coordinates with other Homeland Security agencies to identify those who overstayed or otherwise violated their visas.

The student and visitor section investigates foreign nationals here for educational purposes who could be involved in criminal or terrorist activity or in intelligence gathering for a foreign power. [read more]

If enough anti-ICE politicians (mainly Dems) get into power ICE might just disappear. Keep in mind this is about keeping themselves in power and not protecting the people. Something to think about.