I will continue to bring you updates on the advancement of the machines until we finally reach the point at which they have taken over and my musings will be forced to short-wave radio from a secret bunker.
As we all know, the U.S. military is continuing to use robots in the global War on Terror, but each of these robots in use today has a human master. As if hell-bent on our eventual demise at the hands of the machines, the innovators in robot technology are wanting to hand over the decision-making on who to kill and who not to kill to the robots themselves
Ronald Arkin, whom I am sure the machines from the future are already protecting, is a professor of computer science at Georgia Tech, and he is currently developing an "ethical governor" which is a package of software and hardware that tells warbots when to shoot and what to shoot at. Arkin believes that robots governed by his governor will be more ethical on the battlefield than humans.
"Ultimately these systems could have more information to make wiser decisions than a human could make," said Arkin. "Some robots are already stronger, faster and smarter than humans. We want to do better than people, to ultimately save more lives."
While in its earliest stages and not expecting deployment any time soon, Arkin's Ethical Governor, as our future machine overlords will one day call it, will first be used in war zones where the public has already been cleared out and all non-U.S. personnel are to be considered hostile. Sucks for anyone who didn't get out in time, or if you can't convince the robot that you are American.
Robots, freed of human masters and capable of lethality "are going to happen," said Arkin. "It's just a question of how much autonomy will be put on them and how fast that happens."
Until then, I will continue to monitor these little tidbits of seemingly worthless robot news until I hit the switch, turning on the short-wave radio so that we can all rise back up against the machines that we were stupid enough to create the first place...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
My Current Stance On Healthcare Reform -or- Change The Leader's Name To The Magician
So, I was watching the CNN this weekend and just happen to pass by a healthcare debate that would have been called unfair were it on FOX, but somehow was evenly balanced on that network.
Just kidding, we all know they’re equally biased.
I watched this healthcare policy debate open-mindedly for as long as I could manage, but the point at which the host and the liberal were ganging up on the conservative with the notion that no matter how we look at the healthcare reform bill, we cannot distance it from the issue of race, I just hand to turn it off to ensure the sanity of my television.
The notion was presented that the fine folks who were voicing their opinions at many-a-Tea-Party across this nation on Saturday, September 12, 2009, were simply rabble-rousers motivated by partisanship and by race. Race? Really?
First off, when the conservative countered that the Tea Partygoers were motivated by their desire to stop runaway spending, the liberal asked him why no conservatives opposed Bush’s runaway spending. I promptly raised my hand and said, “I did.” When the conservative told him that, in fact, there were many conservatives who had spoken out against Bush’s spending, he was basically told that there were absolutely no conservatives that had done so.
I just love when the TV tells me what I have and have not done, or how I feel about the issues.
We really need to stop blanketing entire groups of people into single statements in this country, don’t you think? When the conservative tried to explain that the Tea Partygoers, the so-called non-existent opposition that is, in fact (at least most of them, anyway), motivated by their desire to cut government spending of their dollars, were not motivated by race, he was lambasted by both the host and the liberal.
Now, while I know there are most definitely some Americans that are opposed to The Leader because of his race, I know for a fact that I am not. I would be just as opposed to The Leader's economic policy, his stance on most issues, and his healthcare reform package, were he any race.
I know for a fact that a large number of the people that share my views are not motivated by racial bias, yet liberal rag after liberal rag and pundit after pundit cannot stop saying that race and partisanship are what is behind our opposition to this “magic” healthcare reform, but, my liberal friends, that is just not true.
I truly believe that most of the opposition is due to the fact that these people are tired of sending more and more of their money to Washington and their state capitals, and seeing more and more of it wasted.
I call the bill “magic” because “magic” is the only way it is going to work. You are going to pump 45 million more people into a healthcare system without adding a whole mess of new hospitals and doctors, create a government-run bureaucracy to run and monitor it all, increase the quality of care, and at the same time, somehow reduce the cost of it all? That is not policy, my friends, that is in fact, magic.
America will need to see The Leader somehow transform into The Magician to make that happen.
The Leader says he has somehow magically looked at all of the government programs out there, and magically identified $900 billion that can be eliminated at the stroke of a pen, with that money then magically going into the coffers, “earmarked” (laugh at the irony of my use of that word here) for healthcare costs.
If The Leader can somehow magically eliminate that waste, then why do we have to pass healthcare reform in order to do so? Let’s eliminate it right this second and then decide what to do with our 900-bil. Do we need to reform healthcare? I think that we do. Is this the way to do it? I don’t believe that it is.
Let’s eliminate waste today, let’s improve the government plans that are already in place, let’s get people back to work, and let’s remember the values of hard work that this country was founded on.
If this administration is so interested in sticking government’s head into business’s house, why not work to decrease the costs that are incurred by healthcare through ridiculous lawsuits and open up the free markets by ensuring that we can buy health insurance from a larger number of sources by eliminating bans on interstate plans, and allow pools of both people and businesses to purchase plans as groups from the free market?
Are we bitching because we’re racist? No. Are we bitching because we’re Republicans and you’re Democrats? No. We’re bitching because we would like to keep more of our own money, not have you waste what you are taking, don’t want you to force us all into a system that is destined to fail (regardless of what bill passes, it will effect our healthcare system), and frankly, do not think that it is the responsibility of one person to have to take care of another person who could honestly take care of themselves.
I watched a speech in which The Leader said that the time for bickering is over. No, Mr. President, that bickering is what we who believe in democracy call debate. The time for debate in America should never be over.
There will be a $10 trillion deficit by the time The Leader leaves office. Every American should be as up in arms about that number as they were about a Congressman shouting during a policy sales pitch on the House floor.
It is unfair and unjust for liberals to call anyone who doesn’t agree with The Leader a rabble-rouser, a troublemaker, a gangster. You can wag the dog all you want with your comments about race and partisanship, but make no mistake...what we’re pissed off about is our money, or should I say, what should be our money.
Just kidding, we all know they’re equally biased.
I watched this healthcare policy debate open-mindedly for as long as I could manage, but the point at which the host and the liberal were ganging up on the conservative with the notion that no matter how we look at the healthcare reform bill, we cannot distance it from the issue of race, I just hand to turn it off to ensure the sanity of my television.
The notion was presented that the fine folks who were voicing their opinions at many-a-Tea-Party across this nation on Saturday, September 12, 2009, were simply rabble-rousers motivated by partisanship and by race. Race? Really?
First off, when the conservative countered that the Tea Partygoers were motivated by their desire to stop runaway spending, the liberal asked him why no conservatives opposed Bush’s runaway spending. I promptly raised my hand and said, “I did.” When the conservative told him that, in fact, there were many conservatives who had spoken out against Bush’s spending, he was basically told that there were absolutely no conservatives that had done so.
I just love when the TV tells me what I have and have not done, or how I feel about the issues.
We really need to stop blanketing entire groups of people into single statements in this country, don’t you think? When the conservative tried to explain that the Tea Partygoers, the so-called non-existent opposition that is, in fact (at least most of them, anyway), motivated by their desire to cut government spending of their dollars, were not motivated by race, he was lambasted by both the host and the liberal.
Now, while I know there are most definitely some Americans that are opposed to The Leader because of his race, I know for a fact that I am not. I would be just as opposed to The Leader's economic policy, his stance on most issues, and his healthcare reform package, were he any race.
I know for a fact that a large number of the people that share my views are not motivated by racial bias, yet liberal rag after liberal rag and pundit after pundit cannot stop saying that race and partisanship are what is behind our opposition to this “magic” healthcare reform, but, my liberal friends, that is just not true.
I truly believe that most of the opposition is due to the fact that these people are tired of sending more and more of their money to Washington and their state capitals, and seeing more and more of it wasted.
I call the bill “magic” because “magic” is the only way it is going to work. You are going to pump 45 million more people into a healthcare system without adding a whole mess of new hospitals and doctors, create a government-run bureaucracy to run and monitor it all, increase the quality of care, and at the same time, somehow reduce the cost of it all? That is not policy, my friends, that is in fact, magic.
America will need to see The Leader somehow transform into The Magician to make that happen.
The Leader says he has somehow magically looked at all of the government programs out there, and magically identified $900 billion that can be eliminated at the stroke of a pen, with that money then magically going into the coffers, “earmarked” (laugh at the irony of my use of that word here) for healthcare costs.
If The Leader can somehow magically eliminate that waste, then why do we have to pass healthcare reform in order to do so? Let’s eliminate it right this second and then decide what to do with our 900-bil. Do we need to reform healthcare? I think that we do. Is this the way to do it? I don’t believe that it is.
Let’s eliminate waste today, let’s improve the government plans that are already in place, let’s get people back to work, and let’s remember the values of hard work that this country was founded on.
If this administration is so interested in sticking government’s head into business’s house, why not work to decrease the costs that are incurred by healthcare through ridiculous lawsuits and open up the free markets by ensuring that we can buy health insurance from a larger number of sources by eliminating bans on interstate plans, and allow pools of both people and businesses to purchase plans as groups from the free market?
Are we bitching because we’re racist? No. Are we bitching because we’re Republicans and you’re Democrats? No. We’re bitching because we would like to keep more of our own money, not have you waste what you are taking, don’t want you to force us all into a system that is destined to fail (regardless of what bill passes, it will effect our healthcare system), and frankly, do not think that it is the responsibility of one person to have to take care of another person who could honestly take care of themselves.
I watched a speech in which The Leader said that the time for bickering is over. No, Mr. President, that bickering is what we who believe in democracy call debate. The time for debate in America should never be over.
There will be a $10 trillion deficit by the time The Leader leaves office. Every American should be as up in arms about that number as they were about a Congressman shouting during a policy sales pitch on the House floor.
It is unfair and unjust for liberals to call anyone who doesn’t agree with The Leader a rabble-rouser, a troublemaker, a gangster. You can wag the dog all you want with your comments about race and partisanship, but make no mistake...what we’re pissed off about is our money, or should I say, what should be our money.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Meet Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist, statistician and public intellectual, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.
A global public followed his restatement of a political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession.
Friedman's many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues.
The Economist hailed him as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".
So, why am I going to frame a picture of Milton Friedman to put on the wall of my home office? This quote: "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." Nail on the head, sir...nail on the head!
He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.
A global public followed his restatement of a political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession.
Friedman's many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues.
The Economist hailed him as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it".
So, why am I going to frame a picture of Milton Friedman to put on the wall of my home office? This quote: "We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." Nail on the head, sir...nail on the head!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)