Jen’s Update: She’s Back at Home

TR has another update for us:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008 05:09 PM, CST Back Home in Tennessee Entry by TR (Going Back to Ohio Tomorrow) Say what you will about us Herzogs, but we definitely get around! Ha ha! Not much to report other than my sister & Matthew returned from Birmingham Tuesday evening as planned. The techs are not really qualified to give an initial reading of the scans — they were just checking her blood and radio levels anyway. So hopefully March will just be windy and uneventful! She’ll go back for more tests in about a month — the MRI showing the effectiveness of treatment is still scheduled for Memorial Day timeframe. We had an Accu-Router Board Meeting at my parents’ house today and my sister was her normal insightful, feisty self! Having worked with the company for 8 years, her input is very valuable! Just please pray that she gradually regains her strength and she’s able to grace all of us with her presence a little more! It taks a big effort for her to do little things you and I take for granted, and the steroids for preventing the brain swelling are still taking their toll. Lent & Easter are times for spiritual renewal and miracles — may God continue to work His magic in all of our lives! – TRH

Read Journal

There is HOPE for America, yet

Now if I can just keep you away from Drudge. 

From Zogby International:

Internet is the top source of news for nearly half of Americans; Survey finds two-thirds dissatisfied with the quality of journalism

Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news, a new We Media/Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The survey also found that while most Americans (70%) think journalism is important to the quality of life in their communities, two thirds (64%) are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities.

Meanwhile, the online survey documented the shift away from traditional sources of news, such as newspapers and TV, to the Internet - most dramatically among so-called digital natives - people under 30 years old.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, an increase from 40% who said the same a year ago. Younger adults were most likely to name the Internet as their top source - 55% of those age 18 to 29 say they get most of their news and information online, compared to 35% of those age 65 and older. These oldest adults are the only age group to favor a primary news source other than the Internet, with 38% of these seniors who said they get most of their news from television. Overall, 29% said television is their main source of news, while fewer said they turn to radio (11%) and newspapers (10%) for most of their news and information. Just 7% of those age 18 to 29 said they get most of their news from newspapers, while more than twice as many (17%) of those age 65 and older list newspapers as their top source of news and information.

If you need a tube, use the PC. The TV owns most of us…

Automated Killer Robots ‘Threat To Humanity’

Published on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by Agence France Presse

Automated Killer Robots ‘Threat to Humanity’: Expert

Increasingly autonomous, gun-totting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP.

“They pose a threat to humanity,” said University of Sheffield professor Noel Sharkey ahead of a keynote address Wednesday before Britain’s Royal United Services Institute.

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world — from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones — can already identify and lock onto targets without human help.

There are more than 4,000 US military robots on the ground in Iraq, as well as unmanned aircraft that have clocked hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-caliber machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by US arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, said Sharkey.

But up to now, a human hand has always been required to push the button or pull the trigger.

It we are not careful, he said, that could change.

Military leaders “are quite clear that they want autonomous robots as soon as possible, because they are more cost-effective and give a risk-free war,” he said.

Several countries, led by the United States, have already invested heavily in robot warriors developed for use on the battlefield.

South Korea and Israel both deploy armed robot border guards, while China, India, Russia and Britain have all increased the use of military robots.

Washington plans to spend four billion dollars by 2010 on unmanned technology systems, with total spending expected rise to 24 billion, according to the Department of Defense’s Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032, released in December.

James Canton, an expert on technology innovation and CEO of the Institute for Global Futures, predicts that deployment within a decade of detachments that will include 150 soldiers and 2,000 robots.

The use of such devices by terrorists should be a serious concern, said Sharkey.

Captured robots would not be difficult to reverse engineer, and could easily replace suicide bombers as the weapon-of-choice. “I don’t know why that has not happened already,” he said.

But even more worrisome, he continued, is the subtle progression from the semi-autonomous military robots deployed today to fully independent killing machines.

“I have worked in artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination terrifies me,” Sharkey said.

Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology, who has worked closely with the US military on robotics, agrees that the shift towards autonomy will be gradual.

But he is not convinced that robots don’t have a place on the front line.

“Robotics systems may have the potential to out-perform humans from a perspective of the laws of war and the rules of engagement,” he told a conference on technology in warfare at Stanford University last month.

The sensors of intelligent machines, he argued, may ultimately be better equipped to understand an environment and to process information. “And there are no emotions that can cloud judgement, such as anger,” he added.

Nor is there any inherent right to self-defence.

For now, however, there remain several barriers to the creation and deployment of Terminator-like killing machines.

Some are technical. Teaching a computer-driven machine — even an intelligent one — how to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or how to gauge a proportional response as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, is simply beyond the reach of artificial intelligence today.

But even if technical barriers are overcome, the prospect of armies increasingly dependent on remotely-controlled or autonomous robots raises a host of ethical issues that have barely been addressed.

Arkin points out that the US Department of Defense’s 230 billion dollar Future Combat Systems programme — the largest military contract in US history — provides for three classes of aerial and three land-based robotics systems.

“But nowhere is there any consideration of the ethical implications of the weaponisation of these systems,” he said.

For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems. “We have to say where we want to draw the line and what we want to do — and then get an international agreement,” he said.

© 2008 Agence France Presse

Due to my work, which incorporates robots quite often, this may not be as far-fetched as people imagine. Obviously, there are already over 4,000 robots in operation in Iraq alone (this blows my mind and never expected numbers like that). I will admit that it appears to be a safer alternate to some personnel related issues, but robots are no smarter than the guy programming it (or defeating the safety systems, which can be done and results in accidents and death more frequently than is let on).

Must be a helluva business to be in.

The Dems are just as rabidly crazy as the THUGS

I took their link down from my BlogRoll because of it. No need to ask who it was. But the point is that there are democratic sycophants, just as ideologically ignorant and brainwashed as those on the Right that call themselves republicans, but  are truly reTHUGlicans. What we see in the Democratic debates is EXACTLY who they want us to see. And the Pale Riders of the world jump on board like some foaming mouthed idiot.

I don’t fall into either group, but when you address those that try to force you in their group, like the democratic ideologue Pale Rider, they are just as bad, if not worse, than the THUGS in their treatment.

Rednecks, don’t be fooled by those who are no different than Bush in any real way. Don’t listen to the garbage spewed by the left as if it is truth, any more than the fools on the right. There is not a hill’s beans worth of difference, and that is EXACTLY the way they planned and implemented it.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is just more of the same old shit we have had for 7 years. Packaged a bit different, but we will not see much “change” with her (or Obama). The Missouri Fool may think so, but that is what fools do. The Missouri Fool certainly cannot debate or discuss, so no one would really know for sure. Just mouth and a lot of it.

Does this make me unserious to say that the dems are no different than what we now have? To suggest that we are simply voting for the least of the evils presented?

Pale Rider, the democratic party weenie holder, thinks so.

Well, to hell with Democrats and the Pale Asshole. I’m no ones patsy, even tho he doesn’t mind being one.

I also don’t befriend dickheads. Life is too short and there are truly friendly people around, whereas that nincompoop is hardly that.

UPDATE:

from Margaret Kimberly at the Black Agenda Report, words that may explain why “progressives” are caving to the non-progressives running (be it Obama or Clinton):

Progressives Cave to Obama

The progressive movement is on its death bed, in critical condition for many reasons. Activists are demoralized after George W. Bush cheated his way into office, committed crimes against humanity, and subverted the constitution without punishment or even serious risk of political damage. Eight years of evil doing have taken their toll on activists’ willingness to take action.

The Democrats are not blameless. The prospect of a Hillary Clinton nomination was another slap in the face to the most loyal Democratic voters. The Yale educated lawyer claimed she didn’t know the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq was just what it said. The sorry excuses went on forever and the disgust only grew. Her vaunted inevitability silenced Democrats, who prepared to hold their noses and support the lesser of two evils.

I contend that many who call themselves progressives have simply done what they think is expedient… joining the unprogressive bandwagon that “pretends” to bolster our ideals. Never mind that Clinton actually voted for something that’s name was very clear about its purpose. She can’t lie now.

They can’t lie about their contributions and their careful word parsing about bringing troops home from Iraq or adding more money to the military budget or addressing the gorilla in the room… health insurance companies and single-payer, NOT-FOR-PROFIT  healtcare. They dance all around the issues and take extra time to spar over details of their identical plans, that anyone paying attention understands they aren’t fighting for us, as much as they are fighting for their coffers.

I wish those that called themselves liberals and progressives were able to admit this without fear of hurting Democrats”. Pitiful.

The end of movement politics has infected nearly everyone, like a mysterious illness in a science fiction film. If a movement still existed, MoveOnwould not have made an Obama endorsement via popularity contest. They never bothered to make demands of him, to ask questions before giving him their support. Their endorsement is worthless because it gives Obama cover and asks nothing in return.

MoveOn spreads the conventional wisdom that super delegates are more likely to be pro-Clinton and are willing to subvert the popular will on her behalf. They have even circulated a petition to prevent super delegates from choosing the nominee. What MoveOn doesn’t say is that both Clinton and Obama have used their political action committees to make contributionsto super delegate campaign funds. They also fail to mention that Obama leads in making these contributions.

His PAC has given $698,200 to super delegates. Hillary Clinton has made $205,500 in contributions to super delegate coffers. In other words, Obama is more adept at buying votes than Clinton. “Yes we can” indeed.

MoveOn is not alone. It is incomprehensible that The Nation magazine endorsed Obamaafter making the following statement. “This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for post-partisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years.”

If The Nation has so many qualms about Obama, why endorse him at all? The editors could have simply made a statement of non-support for Obama or Clinton. The sad plight of progressives is all too obvious. “While his rhetoric about ‘unity’ can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought.” The Nation should explain to readers why Democrats ought to “redefine the center” with independents and Republicans instead of having their own agenda and fighting to make it a reality.

If even The Nation bows down in thrall of the over hyped “center,” then all hope for true change is gone. In other words, capitulation is the order of the day, and Obama makes it more palatable than Hillary Clinton does.

Even some of the staunchest “liberal” organizations find it necessary to capitulate to those who don’t represent their interests. Of course you argue, who else are you going to vote for? McCain? Nader?

No. What I’m saying is that if you actually have honor and integrity, you should at least ask, push, demand from those who seek your endorsement that they give you SOMETHING. ANYTHING! You owe that party nothing. They owe you everything. Take some of it back.

After eight years of Clintonian triangulation, and another eight years of Bush lawlessness, the center isn’t what is used to be. The center will accept an occupation of Iraq, as long as there is pretense that it will end. The center will not undo the Bush attacks on the Constitution. The center will tell black people that they are “90% of the way” towards equality. Actually, Obama already declared that “there is no black America” so the fight for equality will become irrelevant.

Black voters are overwhelmingly pro-Obama. Now supposedly anti-war and progressive organizations have also thrown in the towel. Race pride, however misguided in this case, explains Obama’s appeal to black Americans. White progressives have no such excuse. Nevertheless they have chosen to suspend disbelief and jump on the winning bandwagon.

The stampede to Obama reveals the emptiness of the Democratic left. They are every bit as cynical as the man they support. They want a seat at the table. They don’t really care what is decided at that table as long as they are included. Pro-war, anti-war, who cares? Just spell the name right on the White House invitation and let the triangulation begin.

Unless we truly begin to demand that our voices be heard and adhered to (we ARE the majority, dangit), then they will continue to pass the mantle back and forth to those who are controlled by Big Money (which doesn’t give a rat’s ass about your interests).