Happy Monday, freaks!
So, if you're reading this, than it is safe to assume you have survived all the doom and gloom prophecies for the tenth anniversary of 9/11. And for that, I salute you!
In the vein of prophecy, check out this story today from the great news cannon across the pond.
From BBC: Supercomputer predicts revolution
As the story goes, a Kalev Leetaru of the University of Illinois Institute for Computing in the Humanities, Arts and Social Science has unveiled a new software program which he claims was able to predict the hot spots of the Arab Spring, as well as provide a surprisingly narrow search radius for Osama bin Laden before his death. Of course, all of these predictions were handled in hindsight, so one has to wonder how much the facts are being distorted to support the end result here.
Leetaru's program works by assimilating millions of media articles, and then dissecting them into two separate variables: mood, and location. Location is simple enough, as the computer simply takes any locations named in the article and translates them into coordinates to be plotted on a graph. The enumeration of mood is slightly more tricky. Defining mood levels, or "automated sentiment mining", was performed by analyzing the articles for key words, such as "terror", "horrific", or "nice", and then in a flash of computer wizardry, likely involving gremlins with flame-throwers, stamps a mood definition to pair with the location of the article.
Using these information sets, Leetaru was able to produce a graph over time displaying what he claims to be an accurate predictor of the mood of a given location. Indeed, the graph created for Egypt not only shows the fall of Mubarek, but also several other high tension periods in Egypt's recent history. It was able to do the same with Libya, and was also able to predict bin Laden's location within 200km of his lair in Pakistan.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and it remains to be seen whether Leetaru's expensive computer magic will be worth its salt when it comes time to predict a revolution that hasn't happened yet. But for those of us who have so little faith in the validity of anything that comes through the pipe-lines of the international media, than it would appear that Mr. Leetaru and his device are already beginning from a losing position.
No more than the rest of us, though.
Besides, I can't be the only person who feels that we might be allowing the computers to do a little bit too much of our thinking these days. Do we really need to take that extra step to have a machine predict when people have been pushed to the point of violent rebellion in the streets? Seems to me a decidedly inhumane response to such a humanitarian problem.
Besides, God Help Us if the machines were to go down.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Do YOU Remember??
If your internet experience has been anything like mine this morning, than you too have been bombarded with queries demanding if you remember. Do you remember where you were when the first plane hit? Do you remember where you were when Bush declared war on terrorism? Do you remember where you were when Saddam Hussein was hanged in the streets? Or, a much less frequently asked question, do you remember where you were when you first heard a 9/11 conspiracy theory?
It's damn near impossible to escape the knee-jerk sentimentality that poisons the air waves. "Never Forget!", comes the admonishment from millions of bumper stickers and glazed-eyed reporters from coast to coast. Indeed.
Yes, I do remember where I was on September 11th, 2001. I was in my first month of high school, wandering around lost in the hallways in a new town when I heard an uproar coming from a nearby assembly room. What was meant to be a quick peak of investigation turned into me skipping the rest of my classes and staying glued to the television that had been set up to broadcast the news coverage of the attacks. I remember being overcome with a bevy of emotions; from fear to confusion, anger to grief, and all intertwined with an undercurrent of shock and disbelief. I don't think anyone can say that they honestly took the news in stride.
It seems to me that ten years ago today the circus came to town, set up shop, and has since refused to vacate the premises. Cancer-growled carnival barkers sounding more demonic than a Tom Waits album played backwards screaming up a frenzy of fear, war, and death. Whether you subscribe to the party line that a small and determined group of hate-filled Arabs want nothing more than to bring the very roof down upon your head; or the more fringe belief that the terror attacks were in some way orchestrated by the very powers responsible for our safety in order to begin a war fueled by greedy industrial interests, the fact of the matter is there are some frighteningly malevolent entities pulling at some important strings far beyond the vision of the average citizen.
I just think it is time that we as a nation matured beyond the point of commemorating such an historic event with what amounts to a series of Hallmark card quotations. "We will never forget," or "All gave some, but some gave all," and the list goes on. And if I see one more Facebook status update displaying a cute ASCII art American Flag asking to "pass it on if you're a true American," I'm going to be sick.
Maybe it's time we put all of this in the past, where it belongs. I'm not saying we should forget the sacrifices made by Americans on that day, or that we should stop caring about the countless people who lost someone close to them that day. But maybe, just maybe, it is time we stopped letting these memories control our political theater. Maybe it is time that we begin to strive for a better world, rather than spend so much time defending the institutions that have led us to this impasse.
It's damn near impossible to escape the knee-jerk sentimentality that poisons the air waves. "Never Forget!", comes the admonishment from millions of bumper stickers and glazed-eyed reporters from coast to coast. Indeed.
Yes, I do remember where I was on September 11th, 2001. I was in my first month of high school, wandering around lost in the hallways in a new town when I heard an uproar coming from a nearby assembly room. What was meant to be a quick peak of investigation turned into me skipping the rest of my classes and staying glued to the television that had been set up to broadcast the news coverage of the attacks. I remember being overcome with a bevy of emotions; from fear to confusion, anger to grief, and all intertwined with an undercurrent of shock and disbelief. I don't think anyone can say that they honestly took the news in stride.
It seems to me that ten years ago today the circus came to town, set up shop, and has since refused to vacate the premises. Cancer-growled carnival barkers sounding more demonic than a Tom Waits album played backwards screaming up a frenzy of fear, war, and death. Whether you subscribe to the party line that a small and determined group of hate-filled Arabs want nothing more than to bring the very roof down upon your head; or the more fringe belief that the terror attacks were in some way orchestrated by the very powers responsible for our safety in order to begin a war fueled by greedy industrial interests, the fact of the matter is there are some frighteningly malevolent entities pulling at some important strings far beyond the vision of the average citizen.
I just think it is time that we as a nation matured beyond the point of commemorating such an historic event with what amounts to a series of Hallmark card quotations. "We will never forget," or "All gave some, but some gave all," and the list goes on. And if I see one more Facebook status update displaying a cute ASCII art American Flag asking to "pass it on if you're a true American," I'm going to be sick.
Maybe it's time we put all of this in the past, where it belongs. I'm not saying we should forget the sacrifices made by Americans on that day, or that we should stop caring about the countless people who lost someone close to them that day. But maybe, just maybe, it is time we stopped letting these memories control our political theater. Maybe it is time that we begin to strive for a better world, rather than spend so much time defending the institutions that have led us to this impasse.
Here's what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace.It's Just A Ride.
Bill Hicks
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What is "Material Support"?
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
As we gear up for the tenth anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, there has been no shortage of coverage from every imaginable information source. From CNN to Al-Jazeera, FOX News to Twitter, and everything in between, the deluge of drivel pouring through hyperspace is staggering to say the least. Here's an interesting piece I stumbled across today.
From Salon.com: The criminalization of speech since 9/11
In this article by Justin Elliot, he discusses the impact that blind patriotism has had on the right to free speech in the decade after 9/11. Elliot gives the example of a 24-year old Virginia man who was arrested last week for posting a YouTube video of a propaganda tape from a known Pakistani terrorist organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT. Officially, the man who posted the video, Jubair Ahmad, is being charged with providing "Material Support" to an officially designated terrorist group.
The immediate question is, what constitutes "Material Support"? If you had asked me outside of the context of this article, I would have guessed that material support would be supplying money or weapons to a terrorist group, or providing them with safe haven. I certainly wouldn't imagine that something as benign as posting a YouTube video could result in such a dramatic response. Of course, I haven't seen the offending video myself, but it would seem to me that one would be better served pursuing those perpetrating the acts committed on the film rather than those distributing them.
It all comes back to this elusive legal term, "Material Support." Jeremy Elliot provides the following definition in his article:
Now, I'm not arguing that supporting violent terrorist groups by distributing their propaganda should be encouraged. In fact, I find it to be down right tasteless. But setting the precedent for arresting citizens for posting content to public websites like YouTube is a frightening concept. Why not simply take the video down, like they do with so many clips that are guilty of copy-right infringement? Why lock a man in a cage when he has himself committed no act of violence?
Surprisingly enough, this "Material Support" law has been in place since long before 9/11. Back in 1969 the Supreme Court held that First Amendment rights took precedence in such cases regarding the distribution of propaganda, saying that "even advocacy of violence can be criminalized only when it is intended to result in imminent criminal conduct and if it is likely to produce imminent criminal conduct." Yet, with the ever expanding usage of political rhetoric to fit the needs of the governing machine, this definition has been scrapped in favor of one that allows for more government control on free speech. In the Supreme Court case last year of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, it was ruled that "the government can in fact criminalize speech, including speech that advocates only lawful activity, in part on the theory that speech might legitimize a terrorist group." How's that for hypocrisy in the land of the free??
So be careful the next time you post a video supporting the acts of fringe groups like Anonymous. Certainly their recent crusade against the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority of San Francisco can be seen as damaging to economic interests by disrupting the traffic of workers on their commute. How long until the caveat of the designated terrorist groups being foreign is discarded, and every group that sets their voice against the government is considered an enemy of the state? Call me misanthropic, but in my eyes this is only a stone's throw away from the stories out of China of peaceful bloggers disappearing in the night. To the FEMA camps with you, peaceful dissenters!
Hope that gave you something to chew on, kids.
Enjoy The Ride.
All thought-crimes will be persecuted to the full extent of the law.
As we gear up for the tenth anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, there has been no shortage of coverage from every imaginable information source. From CNN to Al-Jazeera, FOX News to Twitter, and everything in between, the deluge of drivel pouring through hyperspace is staggering to say the least. Here's an interesting piece I stumbled across today.
From Salon.com: The criminalization of speech since 9/11
In this article by Justin Elliot, he discusses the impact that blind patriotism has had on the right to free speech in the decade after 9/11. Elliot gives the example of a 24-year old Virginia man who was arrested last week for posting a YouTube video of a propaganda tape from a known Pakistani terrorist organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT. Officially, the man who posted the video, Jubair Ahmad, is being charged with providing "Material Support" to an officially designated terrorist group.
The immediate question is, what constitutes "Material Support"? If you had asked me outside of the context of this article, I would have guessed that material support would be supplying money or weapons to a terrorist group, or providing them with safe haven. I certainly wouldn't imagine that something as benign as posting a YouTube video could result in such a dramatic response. Of course, I haven't seen the offending video myself, but it would seem to me that one would be better served pursuing those perpetrating the acts committed on the film rather than those distributing them.
It all comes back to this elusive legal term, "Material Support." Jeremy Elliot provides the following definition in his article:
What does the material-support law say, exactly?Of course, you can see how such a wide definition can easily be interpreted to fit the needs of the controlling political body, as nearly every act of protest, even peaceful acts, can be seen to have an adverse effect on at least one of the described targets; be it national defense, foreign relations, economic interests, or some combination therein.
It gives the government the power to designate non-U.S. groups as foreign terrorist organizations based on very broad criteria. That includes whether the group has used or threatened to use a weapon against personal property; whether the group's activities undermine our national defense, foreign relations or economic interests. What is most problematic about the law, though, is "material support" has been interpreted so broadly. It is used regardless of whether the provider has the intent to support terrorism, or whether any specific act of terrorism has taken place or is being planned, and even to include pure speech and advocacy.
Now, I'm not arguing that supporting violent terrorist groups by distributing their propaganda should be encouraged. In fact, I find it to be down right tasteless. But setting the precedent for arresting citizens for posting content to public websites like YouTube is a frightening concept. Why not simply take the video down, like they do with so many clips that are guilty of copy-right infringement? Why lock a man in a cage when he has himself committed no act of violence?
Surprisingly enough, this "Material Support" law has been in place since long before 9/11. Back in 1969 the Supreme Court held that First Amendment rights took precedence in such cases regarding the distribution of propaganda, saying that "even advocacy of violence can be criminalized only when it is intended to result in imminent criminal conduct and if it is likely to produce imminent criminal conduct." Yet, with the ever expanding usage of political rhetoric to fit the needs of the governing machine, this definition has been scrapped in favor of one that allows for more government control on free speech. In the Supreme Court case last year of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, it was ruled that "the government can in fact criminalize speech, including speech that advocates only lawful activity, in part on the theory that speech might legitimize a terrorist group." How's that for hypocrisy in the land of the free??
So be careful the next time you post a video supporting the acts of fringe groups like Anonymous. Certainly their recent crusade against the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority of San Francisco can be seen as damaging to economic interests by disrupting the traffic of workers on their commute. How long until the caveat of the designated terrorist groups being foreign is discarded, and every group that sets their voice against the government is considered an enemy of the state? Call me misanthropic, but in my eyes this is only a stone's throw away from the stories out of China of peaceful bloggers disappearing in the night. To the FEMA camps with you, peaceful dissenters!
Hope that gave you something to chew on, kids.
Enjoy The Ride.
All thought-crimes will be persecuted to the full extent of the law.
Friday, September 9, 2011
I bet this will make you feel old.
20 years ago today, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was commercially released as a single.
Stay tuned throughout the weekend, where I will be giving an in-depth look into another anniversary that is fast approaching. Bet you can't guess what it is...;-)
Keep your fingernails clean, kids. Stay out of trouble.
Stay tuned throughout the weekend, where I will be giving an in-depth look into another anniversary that is fast approaching. Bet you can't guess what it is...;-)
Keep your fingernails clean, kids. Stay out of trouble.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Vive La France!
Say what you will about this story, but hell, it's certainly different.
From Life's Great Clues: Alien chip found in the skull of Napoleon Bonaparte
French doctor Andre Dubois, on a grant from the French government, was performing an examination of the exhumed skeleton of general Napoleon Bonaparte in an effort to discover the root of the man's famed short stature. Hoping to see if a pituitary disorder was to blame for Bonaparte's diminutive height, Dubois instead stumbled upon what he claims to be an advanced microchip embedded in Napoleon's skull. A microchip which he claims is extraterrestrial in origin.
Even more interesting, Dubois claimed that the microchip had been implanted in Napoleon at a young age, explaining that the bone of his skull had partially grown around the implant. Apparently, when Napoleon was 25 he was captured and briefly imprisoned during the Themidorian coup in July of 1794. Yet no record of this arrest exists, and the only piece of corroborating evidence is that Napoleon did in fact disappear for several days. Shortly after his return to his troops he began his stellar rise through the ranks. Within a year of his disappearance Napoleon was in charge of all French troops in Italy, and less than a decade after had crowned himself emperor of France, postulating that all of this history occurred at the behest of an invisible alien hand tampering with the course of human development.
Of course, it is more than possible that all of this is just another internet hoax. But for me, personally, this is one legend I'd rather not have debunked. I get too much enjoyment out of the thought that extra terrestrial beings chose a pint-sized war monger as their instrument for causing turmoil across Europe, bent on some convoluted goal that is beyond our understanding. Something about the prospect of a midget general as the unwitting champion of alien forces just makes me giggle inside.
Enjoy the day, kids. It's only getting weirder.
From Life's Great Clues: Alien chip found in the skull of Napoleon Bonaparte
French doctor Andre Dubois, on a grant from the French government, was performing an examination of the exhumed skeleton of general Napoleon Bonaparte in an effort to discover the root of the man's famed short stature. Hoping to see if a pituitary disorder was to blame for Bonaparte's diminutive height, Dubois instead stumbled upon what he claims to be an advanced microchip embedded in Napoleon's skull. A microchip which he claims is extraterrestrial in origin.
Even more interesting, Dubois claimed that the microchip had been implanted in Napoleon at a young age, explaining that the bone of his skull had partially grown around the implant. Apparently, when Napoleon was 25 he was captured and briefly imprisoned during the Themidorian coup in July of 1794. Yet no record of this arrest exists, and the only piece of corroborating evidence is that Napoleon did in fact disappear for several days. Shortly after his return to his troops he began his stellar rise through the ranks. Within a year of his disappearance Napoleon was in charge of all French troops in Italy, and less than a decade after had crowned himself emperor of France, postulating that all of this history occurred at the behest of an invisible alien hand tampering with the course of human development.
Of course, it is more than possible that all of this is just another internet hoax. But for me, personally, this is one legend I'd rather not have debunked. I get too much enjoyment out of the thought that extra terrestrial beings chose a pint-sized war monger as their instrument for causing turmoil across Europe, bent on some convoluted goal that is beyond our understanding. Something about the prospect of a midget general as the unwitting champion of alien forces just makes me giggle inside.
Enjoy the day, kids. It's only getting weirder.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words...
...or a little jail time, depending on what you're shooting.
From TechDirt.com: Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'
Ooh boy...here we go.
So, the police department in Long Beach, CA is causing some waves in the media this week after detaining a tourist for taking pictures of a refinery last month. In defense of their actions, the police laid down some self serving rhetoric about the need to remain vigilant in the face of possible terrorist plots for the defense of the nation. Indeed. Should a police officer come across a shady individual photographing the support structures of a suspension bridge for a lengthy period of time, or perhaps the security measures for a nuclear power plant, odds are you may want to detain the individual for a moment or two.
However, the words used by the department to outline their responsibilities in detaining possible trouble makers are that it is the responsibility of the police to detain an individual who is taking pictures that have "no apparent aesthetic value." Ho-ho! How's that for an open-ended definition??
Now granted, the images taken of the refinery aren't something that I would immediately frame and hang on the wall. But who am I, or any police officer for that matter, to determine the aesthetic value of a photograph? Sure, I may think the picture is ugly as sin, but that doesn't mean the photographer needs to be detained by the police under suspicion of terrorism.
Kinda brings you back to the golden days of the moral battle against pornography. The Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, defined pornography as anything that "causes sexual thought, and has no artistic merit." Sounds like an acceptable definition, until you realize that just about every commercial you see on television is, by that definition, blatant pornography and thus not suitable for our children. Hooray for double standards!
Anyway, while the Long Beach police department have admitted that none of their officers have undergone any sort of specific training to ascertain what may be considered as being devoid of aesthetic value, they still will be held responsible for approaching individuals taking "suspicious" pictures, and detaining these people.
So watch where you point those cameras, kids. You might be a terrorist and not even know it! Or even worse, a pornographer!!
From TechDirt.com: Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'
Ooh boy...here we go.
So, the police department in Long Beach, CA is causing some waves in the media this week after detaining a tourist for taking pictures of a refinery last month. In defense of their actions, the police laid down some self serving rhetoric about the need to remain vigilant in the face of possible terrorist plots for the defense of the nation. Indeed. Should a police officer come across a shady individual photographing the support structures of a suspension bridge for a lengthy period of time, or perhaps the security measures for a nuclear power plant, odds are you may want to detain the individual for a moment or two.
However, the words used by the department to outline their responsibilities in detaining possible trouble makers are that it is the responsibility of the police to detain an individual who is taking pictures that have "no apparent aesthetic value." Ho-ho! How's that for an open-ended definition??
Now granted, the images taken of the refinery aren't something that I would immediately frame and hang on the wall. But who am I, or any police officer for that matter, to determine the aesthetic value of a photograph? Sure, I may think the picture is ugly as sin, but that doesn't mean the photographer needs to be detained by the police under suspicion of terrorism.
Kinda brings you back to the golden days of the moral battle against pornography. The Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, defined pornography as anything that "causes sexual thought, and has no artistic merit." Sounds like an acceptable definition, until you realize that just about every commercial you see on television is, by that definition, blatant pornography and thus not suitable for our children. Hooray for double standards!
Anyway, while the Long Beach police department have admitted that none of their officers have undergone any sort of specific training to ascertain what may be considered as being devoid of aesthetic value, they still will be held responsible for approaching individuals taking "suspicious" pictures, and detaining these people.
So watch where you point those cameras, kids. You might be a terrorist and not even know it! Or even worse, a pornographer!!
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
BACK in the saddle again!
What's up freaks??
I'm Back!!
Unfortunately, as the song goes, my brain is just a jellyfish in the ocean of my head. And there is no way I can force myself to provide you loyal readers with something worth reading. Just wanted to shoot something out to let you all know that I will be returning tomorrow in force. The electricity is back on, and moe.down is behind us. No obstacles remain to prevent me from blowing your minds.
So until then, check out this clip from the weekend's festivities. It was one helluva high time.
"And the colored girls go: 'do-doodoo, do-doodoodoo'"
I'm Back!!
Unfortunately, as the song goes, my brain is just a jellyfish in the ocean of my head. And there is no way I can force myself to provide you loyal readers with something worth reading. Just wanted to shoot something out to let you all know that I will be returning tomorrow in force. The electricity is back on, and moe.down is behind us. No obstacles remain to prevent me from blowing your minds.
So until then, check out this clip from the weekend's festivities. It was one helluva high time.
"And the colored girls go: 'do-doodoo, do-doodoodoo'"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)