Category Archives: Predictive Programming

Government decrees all dogs shall now be microchipped

dog_2368173b
The number of patients treated in hospital for dog bites has more than doubled in a decade to more than 6,000 a year Photo: GEOFF PUGH

All puppies will now have to be microchipped to make it easier to trace the owners of dangerous dogs.

Telegraph | Feb 5, 2013

By Peter Dominiczak

Ministers will say that compulsory microchipping will ensure that all dogs can in future be traced back to their owners, who will then be held accountable for the animal’s behaviour.

There have been growing calls for the Government to take action amid concern from animal charities about dangerous dogs being used as weapons and status symbols.

Under the measures to be unveiled by Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, dog owners will also now face prosecution if an animal attacks anyone in their home.

Those plans will be welcomed by postmen, who have campaigned for a new law ensuring that dog owners are prosecuted even if their dog attacks someone on private property.

Current rules mean that legal action is only taken if a dog attacks a person on public land.

The number of patients treated in hospital for dog bites has more than doubled in a decade to more than 6,000 a year.

Groups including the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust have called for compulsory microchipping to create a clear link between dogs and their owners.

The electronic chips hold an electronic record of their owner’s name and addresses, as well as a unique identity number.

Implanting can cost as little as £5, however the Telegraph understands that the scheme could be subsidised to avoid pet owners being forced to pay for the chips.

Ministers believe the effect of the new rules will be near-universal coverage of British dogs within little more than a decade.

Recent surveys have suggested there are about 8.3 million dogs in Britain. More than half already have microchips.

Animal charities say there is a growing problem of people abandoning dogs.

Defra last year estimated there are about 125,000 strays in England and Wales.

About 6,000 healthy animals are destroyed each year because they have no permanent home.

Northern Ireland last year became the first part of the UK to introduce a law on microchipping.

Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative MP for Romford, welcomed the announcement and said that the moves will also prevent local authorities from having to spend “huge amounts of money” kennelling lost dogs.

“This is an extremely positive way forward,” he said. “It is the welfare of the animal that we should be putting first.”

Ministers last year announced that owners of dangerous dogs which attack people in public will face stiffer penalties, including up to 18 months in prison.

$1 Trillion Platinum Coin: Yes, It Really Originated In A ‘Simpsons’ Episode

forbes.com | Jan 13, 2013

Sunday mornings represent prime time for political dicussions. Let’s limit ours to silly policy, platinum and The Simpsons. 

First off, let’s get this out of the way: The $1 trillion platinum coin will not happen. “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” says a Treasury spokesman.

Now, speculation and chatter swirled for weeks about the possibility, and more importantly, the fiscal feasibility, behind the trillion-dollar coin. Some very smart folks—right down to a former U.S. mint chief—suggested the Treasury could take advantage of a loophole, mint a $1 trillion platinum coin and ship it to the Federal Reserve. In theory it would then allow the U.S. to keep paying its bills, even though the country surpassed its $16.4 trillion debt limit. Another solution: Perhaps the government can issue IOU’s that we redeem at our local Wells Fargo or Bank of America.

Treasury, Fed Oppose Using Platinum Coin to Avoid Debt Ceiling

The coin thing sounded great, though, right? Well, it sounded a bit far-fetched…even more so when you consider that fiscal theorem originated in Los Angeles, not Washington D.C. It is, in fact, ripped right from the halcyon days of the late 1990s—when Butterfinger BB’s still existed, and The Simpsons was in its ninth season. In that stretch of episodes, there was one called The Trouble With Trillions, an amusing romp that alluded to Stark Trek and included Fidel Castro.

The Trouble with Trillions
Johnson sends Homer on a secret mission. They reveal that in 1945, President Harry Truman printed a one trillion-dollar bill (with his photo on it) to help reconstruct post-war Europe.

Here’s a succinct episode synopsis from Ed Yardeni, a widely followed economist, that my colleague, Chris Helman, unsurfaced for us from a Yardeni client note:

In 1945, President Harry Truman secretly printed a one-trillion-dollar bill with his photo on it. He did so to help pay for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. He entrusted Montgomery Burns with the mission of transporting the large denomination to the Europeans. However, the money never arrived, and the FBI suspects Burns kept the money. That’s the premise of an episode of The Simpsons, first aired on April 5, 1998 titled, “The Trouble with Trillions.” Homer Simpson is caught cheating on his taxes and is turned into an informant by the FBI. Along the way, the bill is stolen by Fidel Castro.

I looked for the episode on YouTube. Alas, Fox and News Corp. keep a tight lid on copyright content. I found only this, the bit in which Castro makes off with the $1 trillion bill:

That Yardeni included it in his daily market musings reflects how ridiculous the whole thing became. A discussion over an idea dreamt up more than a decade earlier as a Simpsons plot device.

Sandy Hook: Mind control flicker effect

Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasn’t been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isn’t in the mind of the viewer.

nomorefakenews.com | Dec 19, 2012

by Jon Rappoport

uncle-confirms-adam-lanza-on-psychiatric-medication-before-sandy-hook-shootings-No, I’m not talking about the flicker of the television picture. I’m talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience.

 The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example.

First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. It’s a story. It has a plot.

In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information from…where?

How the Newtown massacre became a Mind-Control television event

Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials.

In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators.

The anchors are PR people for the cops.

This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing.

The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We don’t what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We don’t know what mistakes they were making. We don’t know what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We don’t know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence.

Read More

Ron Paul’s transhumanist Bilderberg financier Peter Thiel looks forward to a computerized system of robotic justice after “Singularity”

Peter-Thiel-007

Will the Singularity Improve the Legal System? Peter Thiel Seems to Think So

The future of law will be computerized.

betabeat.com |Dec 7, 2012

By Patrick Clark

Here’s a Friday afternoon head-scratcher: What will legal systems look like in 1,000 years? No, really. If our arbiters of right and wrong become more highly automated, will we be smoothing over the imperfections of Lady Justice, or placing our respective fates in the hands of heartless machines. What will sentencing guidelines be like after the singularity?

If it’s not clear yet, we’ve been reading an account of a Peter Thiel guest lecture in a Stanford Law School course on legal technology. This is not for the faint of heart.

“So the set of all intelligent machines would be the superset of all aliens,” write Blake Masters in an essay describing the lecture. “The range and diversity of possible computers is actually much bigger than the range of possible life forms under known rules.”

In other words, who the hell knows. But also, probably we would be better in the hands of computers, and maybe here’s how:

Our human-based legal system is dependent on the arbitrariness of the actors, that’s sometimes bad, and sometimes good. Bad in the case of a biased jury or a pissed off judge. Good because if we all got hauled into court every time we broke the law we’d spend our lives shuttling back-and-forth from jail.

But if automated legal technology means fewer law-breakers escape the long arm, something will have to give:

If uniformly enforcing current laws would land everyone in jail, and transparency is only increasing, we’ll pretty much have to become a more tolerant society.

In which case, we may join Mr. Thiel in looking forward to a Hal of justice.

Related

Rise of the machines, end of the humans?

Bilderberg steering committee member is Ron Paul’s biggest campaign donor

PayPal founder Thiel: More gigantic corporate monopolies would be better

Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It

Ron Paul Owned and Operated by National Security State “Spook Central” Billionaire

JPMorgan Chase Presents Leadership Award to Peter Thiel at First Annual StartOut LGBT Entrepreneurship Awards

Risk of a Terminator Style Robot Uprising to be Studied

terminator

technorati.com | Nov 27, 2012

by Adi Gaskell

In the movie Terminator, machines had grown so intelligent that by 2029 they had effectively taken over the planet, seeking to exterminate what remained of the human race along the way.

While that is firmly in the camp of science fiction, a team of researchers from Cambridge, England, are investigating what risk, if any, technology poses to mankind.

The research, conducted by the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CESR), will look at the threat posed by technologies such as artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and climate change.

While many of us may think it unlikely that robots will take over Earth, the scientists at the center said that dismissing such possibilities would in itself be ‘dangerous’.

“The seriousness of these risks is difficult to assess, but that in itself seems a cause for concern, given how much is at stake,” the researchers wrote on a website set up for the center.

The CSER project has been co-founded by Cambridge philosophy professor Huw Price, cosmology and astrophysics professor Martin Rees and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn.

“It seems a reasonable prediction that some time in this or the next century intelligence will escape from the constraints of biology,” Prof Price told the AFP news agency.

“What we’re trying to do is to push it forward in the respectable scientific community.”

Ban ‘killer robots’ rights group urges


A screen shot from Terminator Salvation. File picture. Image by: Industrial Light & Magic.

Hollywood-style robots able to shoot people without permission from their human handlers are a real possibility and must be banned, campaigners warn.

Sapa-AFP | Nov 20, 2012

The report “Losing Humanity” – issued by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic – raised the alarm over the ethics of the looming technology.

Calling them “killer robots,” the report urged “an international treaty that would absolutely prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons.”

The US military already leads the way in military robots, notably the unmanned aircraft or drones used for surveillance or attacks over Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere. But these are controlled by human operators in ground bases and are not able to kill without authorisation.

Fully autonomous robots that decide for themselves when to fire could be developed within 20 to 30 years, or “even sooner,” the 50-page report said, adding that weapon systems that require little human intervention already exist.

Raytheon’s Phalanx gun system, deployed on US Navy ships, can search for enemy fire and destroy incoming projectiles all by itself. The X47B is a plane-sized drone able to take off and land on aircraft carriers without a pilot and even refuel in the air.

Perhaps closest to the Terminator-type killing machine portrayed in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s action films is a Samsung sentry robot already being used in South Korea, with the ability to spot unusual activity, talk to intruders and, when authorised by a human controller, shoot them.

Fully autonomous fighting machines would spare human troops from dangerous situations. The downside, though, is that robots would then be left to make nuanced decisions on their own, the most fraught being the need to distinguish between civilians and combatants in a war zone.

“A number of governments, including the United States, are very excited about moving in this direction, very excited about taking the soldier off the battlefield and putting machines on the battlefield and thereby lowering casualties,” said Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch.

While Goose said “killer robots” do not exist as yet, he warned of precursors and added that the best way to forestall an ethical nightmare is a “preemptive, comprehensive prohibition on the development or production of these systems.”  Jody Williams, the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said in Washington that the prospect of killer robots “totally freaked me out.”  “I had visions of the Terminator,” she said.

“The thought that this development was proceeding without any public discussion I found more reprehensible than most military R&D because I really believe that this would… totally transform the face of warfare.”

The problem with handing over decision-making power to even the most sophisticated robots is that there would be no clear way of making anyone answer for the inevitable mistakes, said Noel Sharkey, professor of robotics at University of Sheffield.

“If a robot goes wrong, who’s accountable? It certainly won’t be the robot,” he said.

“The robot could take a bullet in its computer and go berserk, so there’s no way of really determining who’s accountable and that’s very important for the laws of war.”

Mind controlled android robot: Interactive Digital Human group, working towards robotic “re-embodiment”

Mind controlled android robot

Published on Nov 12, 2012 by Diginfonews

Mind controlled android robot – Researchers at the CNRS-AIST Joint Robotics Laboratory and the CNRS-LIRMM Interactive Digital Human group, working towards robotic re-embodiment

http://www.diginfo.tv/v/12-0199-d-en.php

DigInfo TV

BCI Controlled Humanoid Robot