Tag Archives: freedom

Random Paranoid Thought on Future Tech

Posted on by
Reply

In just 15 years, [Ray, inventor, futurist, and a director of engineering at Google] Kurzweil believes, the human brain will become a hybrid of biology and technology, and we will “put gateways to the cloud in our brains.” And as the cloud becomes more and more advanced and is able to store increasing amounts of information, so too will our brains. By the late 2030’s or early 2040’s, Kurzweil said, the majority of brain function, at least in terms of information processing and thought processes, will be non-biological.

Our brains in the cloud. Hmm…. With the cloud’s notoriously poor security. Our brains get snooped on or hacked by anyone with a kiddy script or by any government with a wild bug up its….

Or peer pressure not just up close, but inside, as the denizens of that cloud decide they don’t like what you’re doing or thinking. So they think otherwise, en masse, from within your own brain.

Like I said, paranoid. Or not.

American Security

Posted on by
2

Thinks about the Obama administration’s current, and ongoing, failure regarding the Office of Personnel Management. After having “lost” the background check data it had “stored” in its computer facility last fall, the Inspector General of OPM said that

parts of its network should be shut down because they were riddled with weaknesses that “could potentially have national security implications.”

OPM didn’t bother. Now we learn that People’s Republic of China hackers (should we start calling them invaders?) entered OPM’s computer network and stole the personal data of all 2+ million Federal employees and the personal data of a skosh under an addition 2 million past Federal employees. As The Wall Street Journal put it,

[T]his isn’t a James Bond movie. It’s a Dilbert cartoon.

The WSJ goes on to say that the Federal bureaucracy can’t protect its data. I say, given the long-term duration of these hacks, including those by Russian and Iranian hacks and that IG recommendation, it’s not a matter “can’t.” The Feds refuse to try.

Are these hacks or an ongoing invasion?

The episode is one more confirmation that China is waging an unrelenting if unacknowledged cyber war against the United States.

Does Obama care at all about the security of the United States or of individual Americans?

Partition

Posted on by
Reply

Has President Barack Obama acquiesced in the partition of Ukraine?

At the G-7 meeting last Sunday, Obama appears to have written off the concept of restoring occupied Crimea to Ukraine.

[Obama’s Press Secretary Josh] Earnest said whether to keep or impose additional economic sanctions against Russia will depend on whether the country decides to keep its end of the so-called Minsk agreement, updated after Moscow annexed Crimea last year, not whether it returns the peninsula.

With Earnest’s voice, Obama talked also about the need for the G-7 to

show unity in confronting Russia over actions in Ukraine.

Meaning Obama wants everyone to stand together and in unison shake their fingers very firmly at Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Will Obama acquiesce to the further partition of Ukraine and allow Russia to keep the eastern provinces currently occupied by Russian forces and paramilitary forces?

Artificial Markets

Posted on by
Reply

The Car Battery and battery car industries are two, and the situation hasn’t gotten any better in the three years since Mike Ramsey’s piece in The Wall Street Journal.

Since 2009, the Obama administration has awarded more than $1 billion to American companies to make advanced batteries for electric vehicles. Halfway to a six-year goal of producing one million electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, auto makers are barely at 50,000 cars.

Two of those companies, in fact, have since gone bankrupt: Fisker Automotive and A123 Systems now are wholly owned by People’s Republic of China’s Wanxiang Group Corporation. Without repaying us American taxpayers.

The underlying problem isn’t unique to the Obama administration; his has just been the most recent and most egregious. The plain fact is that government stinks at creating industries and at creating markets. Only free markets—only people acting voluntarily and freely in accordance with their own wishes and needs—can do that. Free markets won’t always succeed at that, either, but in that case, the only ones who suffer losses are those who (voluntarily) made the bet. On the other hand, if they succeed, everyone gains to some degree.

When governments fail at this, though, everyone loses to some degree. Worse, while the same universal gain results from a government success, even neglecting greater friction losses from government involvement, there will have been no choice in the matter.

If the thing can’t survive without government intervention, it’s not ready for market. If it’s not ready for market, it’s…inappropriate…for taxpayers to be forced to prop it up with their tax money.

“Discrimination”

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court on Monday said a Muslim woman who applied to work at Abercrombie & Fitch Co can raise discrimination claims without proving the company intentionally avoided hiring her because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

So, I can cry discrimination on no better complaint than that I have one? I don’t even have to show that there’s a foundation for one?

Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, thought there ought to be a reason.

I agree with the Court that there are two—and only two—causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as understood by our precedents: a disparate-treatment (or intentional-discrimination) claim and a disparate-impact claim. Our agreement ends there.   Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

The majority should have listened better to Thomas.

The Supreme Court’s ruling can be seen here.