A company paper* Google published internally earlier this year and which I got hold of outlined some of Google’s big goals and directions for 2006. The list included several items, for example:
Google wants to have an improved infrastructure to make their engineers more productive. This includes allowing employees to have a universal search tool “containing all public Google information searched on all Google searches.” Google also wants to build 10MW of green power to be on track to be carbon neutral. (They also want to reduce “Borg disk waste” by 50%… hmmm, Borg?)
Google wants to be the best in search – no surprise here. To reach that goal, Google wants to have the world’s top AI research laboratory. They are also focusing on getting rid of spam in the top 20 user languages, and increasing the accuracy of information they collect (through measures such as annotation). Another part of improving search is to always launch crucial user interface updates “that people love.”
Google wants to push their ad system. E.g. in 2006, one of their aims was to sell $1B of new inventory. Google feels that if they make the world’s inventory available “marketers will come.”
Google also wants to push their communities and content. According to the papers Google published, Google Video has 50% of the world’s “online video attention” (a number that’s hard to believe, and especially interesting because Google still ended up buying YouTube). Google also emphasized that a fifth of all communication bandwidth – on Google-owned properties, I suppose – is read through Gmail.
Google tries to make sure their tools are running everywhere. In around mid-2006, according to their internal numbers 60 Million Google Packs had been installed, but they still want to increase the deployment… especially for “novice users.”
Google is always focusing on innovation. One of their top goals in 2006 thus was to “increase the scale of innovation,” even as the internal headcount grows (a growth which dozens of engineering scouts located around the world ensure).
One more specific objective Google outlined as company goal earlier this year in another paper** available to me was to internally test a Google News prototype during the fourth quarter. This “radically improved” prototype should allow “other news sources, and organizations and individuals mentioned in news stories to debate specific points.” I wonder what that means… anyone? I’m as puzzled about this as I am about the “Onebox @ 100% via SETI” mentioned elsewhere in the document (though unless Google is looking for extra-terrestrials, SETI is probably the code name for some internal infrastructure)… or the abbreviations “FIGSCJKR spam,” and “EFIGSCJKR” (the latter being something where Google wants to beat Yahoo).
In the meantime, Marissa Mayer was responsible to ensure that any site with over 10 million page views (per day? month?) renders in a second or less 95% of the time. Other teams saw their goals outlined by terminology such as “70% user happiness” (Gmail 2.0), “host XXM photos, up from XM” (Picasa Web), “an additional XXk machines for production indexing” (index freshness), “reduce bad landing page impressions by 20%” (ads), or “Playbacks: XXM/day” (Google Video). If Google’s “release frenzy” often appears chaotic from the outside, their internal goals do look very precise and organized… and almost every goal has a number attached to it, even when it’s a seemingly fuzzy area like user happiness.
Another interesting feature foreshadowed in the Google papers was to grab relevant locations & dates from web pages allowing users to “view results on a timeline of map.” Keep in mind the papers are older by now so this might be what has already been released as Google News Archive search last month, or the Google Trends site.
While the documents do not mention the goal of trying to decrease Google self-censorship in China, there was mention of a Chinese “Knowledge Search Beta.”
All in all, Google is trying to improve existing products and launch new ones – but not too many in order to not become disorganized, as they publicly stated, too (the document contains the simple directive “Count total number of Google products and reduce by 20%”). They also always focus on leading in search through a variety of features like index freshness & quality, as well as onebox results like Google Base or Google Co-op… and possibly, some day, paid results as well, according to one of their objectives (my emphasis – and again note the last bit may refer to Google’s already released News Archive search):
Launch Google Archive Search with XXXM docs and Google.com integration as well as [a] Paid Content results section on Google.com
[Thanks John, Tony & M. for advice, and thanks A.!]
*The document is titled “Big Goals and Directions – 2006”.
**The second document is titled “Objectives and Key Results – Q3 2006 Company OKRs”.
“I AM continually shocked and appalled at the details people voluntarily post online about themselves.” So says Jon Callas, chief security officer at PGP, a Silicon Valley-based maker of encryption software. He is far from alone in noticing that fast-growing social networking websites such as MySpace and Friendster are a snoop’s dream.
New Scientist has discovered that Pentagon’s National Security Agency, which specialises in eavesdropping and code-breaking, is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in internet technology – specifically the forthcoming “semantic web” championed by the web standards organisation W3C – to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals.
Americans are still reeling from last month’s revelations that the NSA has been logging phone calls since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The Congressional Research Service, which advises the US legislature, says phone companies that surrendered call records may have acted illegally. However, the White House insists that the terrorist threat makes existing wire-tapping legislation out of date and is urging Congress not to investigate the NSA’s action.
Meanwhile, the NSA is pursuing its plans to tap the web, since phone logs have limited scope. They can only be used to build a very basic picture of someone’s contact network, a process sometimes called “connecting the dots”. Clusters of people in highly connected groups become apparent, as do people with few connections who appear to be the intermediaries between such groups. The idea is to see by how many links or “degrees” separate people from, say, a member of a blacklisted organisation.
By adding online social networking data to its phone analyses, the NSA could connect people at deeper levels, through shared activities, such as taking flying lessons. Typically, online social networking sites ask members to enter details of their immediate and extended circles of friends, whose blogs they might follow. People often list other facets of their personality including political, sexual, entertainment, media and sporting preferences too. Some go much further, and a few have lost their jobs by publicly describing drinking and drug-taking exploits. Young people have even been barred from the orthodox religious colleges that they are enrolled in for revealing online that they are gay.
“You should always assume anything you write online is stapled to your resumé. People don’t realise you get Googled just to get a job interview these days,” says Callas.
Other data the NSA could combine with social networking details includes information on purchases, where we go (available from cellphone records, which cite the base station a call came from) and what major financial transactions we make, such as buying a house.
Right now this is difficult to do because today’s web is stuffed with data in incompatible formats. Enter the semantic web, which aims to iron out these incompatibilities over the next few years via a common data structure called the Resource Description Framework (RDF). W3C hopes that one day every website will use RDF to give each type of data a unique, predefined, unambiguous tag.
“RDF turns the web into a kind of universal spreadsheet that is readable by computers as well as people,” says David de Roure at the University of Southampton in the UK, who is an adviser to W3C. “It means that you will be able to ask a website questions you couldn’t ask before, or perform calculations on the data it contains.” In a health record, for instance, a heart attack will have the same semantic tag as its more technical description, a myocardial infarction. Previously, they would have looked like separate medical conditions. Each piece of numerical data, such as the rate of inflation or the number of people killed on the roads, will also get a tag.
The advantages for scientists, for instance, could be huge: they will have unprecedented access to each other’s experimental datasets and will be able to perform their own analyses on them. Searching for products such as holidays will become easier as price and availability dates will have smart tags, allowing powerful searches across hundreds of sites.
On the downside, this ease of use will also make prying into people’s lives a breeze. No plan to mine social networks via the semantic web has been announced by the NSA, but its interest in the technology is evident in a funding footnote to a research paper delivered at the W3C’s WWW2006 conference in Edinburgh, UK, in late May.
That paper, entitled Semantic Analytics on Social Networks, by a research team led by Amit Sheth of the University of Georgia in Athens and Anupam Joshi of the University of Maryland in Baltimore reveals how data from online social networks and other databases can be combined to uncover facts about people. The footnote said the work was part-funded by an organisation called ARDA.
What is ARDA? It stands for Advanced Research Development Activity. According to a report entitled Data Mining and Homeland Security, published by the Congressional Research Service in January, ARDA’s role is to spend NSA money on research that can “solve some of the most critical problems facing the US intelligence community”. Chief among ARDA’s aims is to make sense of the massive amounts of data the NSA collects – some of its sources grow by around 4 million gigabytes a month.
The ever-growing online social networks are part of the flood of internet information that could be mined: some of the top sites like MySpace now have more than 80 million members (see Graph).
The research ARDA funded was designed to see if the semantic web could be easily used to connect people. The research team chose to address a subject close to their academic hearts: detecting conflicts of interest in scientific peer review. Friends cannot peer review each other’s research papers, nor can people who have previously co-authored work together.
So the team developed software that combined data from the RDF tags of online social network Friend of a Friend (www.foaf-project.org), where people simply outline who is in their circle of friends, and a semantically tagged commercial bibliographic database called DBLP, which lists the authors of computer science papers.
Joshi says their system found conflicts between potential reviewers and authors pitching papers for an internet conference. “It certainly made relationship finding between people much easier,” Joshi says. “It picked up softer [non-obvious] conflicts we would not have seen before.”
The technology will work in exactly the same way for intelligence and national security agencies and for financial dealings, such as detecting insider trading, the authors say. Linking “who knows who” with purchasing or bank records could highlight groups of terrorists, money launderers or blacklisted groups, says Sheth.
The NSA recently changed ARDA’s name to the Disruptive Technology Office. The DTO’s interest in online social network analysis echoes the Pentagon’s controversial post 9/11 Total Information Awareness (TIA) initiative. That programme, designed to collect, track and analyse online data trails, was suspended after a public furore over privacy in 2002. But elements of the TIA were incorporated into the Pentagon’s classified programme in the September 2003 Defense Appropriations Act.
Privacy groups worry that “automated intelligence profiling” could sully people’s reputations or even lead to miscarriages of justice – especially since the data from social networking sites may often be inaccurate, untrue or incomplete, De Roure warns.
But Tim Finin, a colleague of Joshi’s, thinks the spread of such technology is unstoppable. “Information is getting easier to merge, fuse and draw inferences from. There is money to be made and control to be gained in doing so. And I don’t see much that will stop it,” he says.
Callas thinks people have to wise up to how much information about themselves they should divulge on public websites. It may sound obvious, he says, but being discreet is a big part of maintaining privacy. Time, perhaps, to hit the delete button.
From issue 2555 of New Scientist magazine, 09 June 2006, page 30
To what length will Gore go to save the earth? Can the man who ‘created the Internet’ take the next step and ‘create’ the artificial intelligence driven Technological Singularity in time ‘to save the earth’?
“This is by far the most serious crisis civilization has ever faced”. –Al Gore [Link]
Al Gore made a good presentation, and a great documentary. The best keynote “Powerpoint” type presentation you will find anywhere. I was impressed with some of his mentions on motivational concepts like “Boiling Frog Syndrome“, which are good concepts or counter-directives for people to apply to just about everything. I must add that BFS is actually a myth, but still a great analogy for people to understand the incrementalization that goes on against what’s best for the people and the world.
It must be pointed out that for the reason of it “trying to change your mind” it’s “propaganda“, especially because it contains certain emotional triggers. It’s not really that ‘bad’ of propaganda (assuming his data is accurate) as he uses personal life experiences as metaphors instead of exclusively using raw fear driven media and dialog. A key part in his solution was actually caring about making a difference as individuals, which is one that people need exposure to, and he was rather inspirational about it.
However, there’s a darker side to this whole Al Gore and his obsession with saving the planet issue. How far will Gore go to ensure that Earth survives under the feet of Mankind? Driven by the motivation that the point of no crossing back could be within 10 years from today, Gore has, since he “lost” the election in 2000, delivered over 1000 keynote speeches on global warming, and his film appears to be the ultimate product of his speech giving skills.
Also, in his spare time since Election 2000, he’s been serving on the Senior Board of Directors at Google & Apple Computer. That’s a good hobby place for Gore, as he’s always had a knack for science, and also just so happens to be driven by fears of a “Malthusian” (man-made) global warming ‘prophecy’. It’s fun to use the term prophecy here, just as it appeared fun to Al when he cited the Book of Revelation in his blockbuster film debut.
There’s no doubt that Gore is well known for his global warming endeavers, but what is probably even more well known is how he “created” the Internet. What’s less known is his lip in helping to coin the phrase “Information Superhighway”, which was repeatedly used in TV Land’s heart-throb movie “The Cable Guy”.
This stems from the exact same time as his well known 1986 “National Science Foundation Authorization Act”, which was, in part, for the establishment of a global warming policy. What’s typically overlooked is the 2nd part of that same Act that was for the drive for the NSF/DARPA “supercomputing” program, which was a keystone event in what became the Internet as we know it today.
Then, only 2 years later, in 1988, Gore argued to:
“ESTABLISH A HIGH-CAPACITY NATIONAL RESEARCH COMPUTER NETWORK, DEVELOP AND DISTRIBUTE SOFTWARE, DEVELOP ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS,“
Al also campaigned for U.S. President that year, and according to him, his main goal of that campaign was more about increasing awareness of global warming than it was about actually winning.
It seems that Gore’s weather hobby projects always seem to go hand in hand with his supercomputing and artificial intelligence hobby kits.
Speaking of hobby kits, Google was originally funded by the government NASA/DARPA/NSF agencies during Al’s tenure as U.S. Vice President. Not only that, but according to en ex-CIA whistleblower, the CIA was also instrumental in funding Google at this time and throughout their early money-less years.
Gore surely tapped into certain offices at the CIA for added science project fun, before “losing” the election, sort of like he did with NASA all throughout his vice presidency. It’s too bad the “Republicans” blocked the launch of his (finished) satellite, which was designed to ‘float’ perfectly in a zero-counter-gravity spot between the earth and the sun, and provide nonstop 24 hour video feed, of the best possible camera angle, for free to everyone on the Internet. Perhaps the “Big Business” Republicans didn’t want for there to be license free video of earth, but this argument is of least concern here.
In more recent times, during Gore’s tenure on the Senior Board of Directors at Google, NASA has publicly announced a partnership with Google:
“to work together on a variety of areas, including large-scale data management, massively distributed computing, bio-info-nano convergence, and encouragement of the entrepreneurial space industry. The new building [1 million square foot complex] would also include labs, offices, and housing for Google engineers.“.
Before NASA and Google had announced this ‘merger’, Gore’s darling, NASA had already been well underway in their “Intelligent Archives” (IA) project. IA is literally intended to be an artificial intelligence supercomputing platform ‘to take NASA to the moon and mars’. Its predicted capabilities include handy skills such as:
“large scale data mining”, “self-awareness”, “acting on information discovered”, “extracting new information from its data holdings” (i.e. predicting, planning, solving capabilities), “coordination between intelligent archives and intelligent sensors”, “adapting to events and anticipating user needs”, “Continuously mining archived data searching for hidden relationships and patterns”, “Identifying new data sources and information collaborators, and using available resources judiciously”, “weather prediction”, “aware of its own data content and usage”, “can extract new information from data Holdings” .
To achieve this, NASA is working hand in hand with DARPA, who is responsible for the creation of the Internet (ARPANET). DARPA’s numerous AI programs started becoming public between 2002-2003. DARPA, who is responsible for things like stealth technology and now AI driven cars, functions as a sort of shadow agency. DARPA sets sci-fi like goals, titled “thrusts”, and then coordinates between any and all institutions within the United States to met those goals. This menu of institutions includes virtually any and all useful university or national labs, government agencies or departments, and even U.S. based multinational corporations.
With DARPA claiming that they’ll have their AI orgasm in 2010, and NASA claiming theirs in 2012, it’s no surprise that even Google has gone on the record stating that their goal is AI.
“The ultimate search engine would understand everything in the world. It would understand everything that you asked it and give you back the exact right thing instantly,” Mr. (Larry) Page (co-founder of Google) told an audience of the digerati representing firms from Warner Music and AOL to BSkyB and the BBC. “You could ask ‘what should I ask Larry?’ and it would tell you.”
This sings the same tune that NASA’s IA just so happens to be singing:
“Enables archive to adapt to events and anticipate user needs” [NASA]
With Gore claiming that we’ll have passed the “point of no return” to prevent cataclysmic global warming “mankinds greatest crisis” within 10 years, and his hobby project AI programs coming in just 3 years, timing couldn’t be better for Gore to ’save the world’ with his AI ’savior’. And what hobby kit would be complete without the worlds undisputed number 1 search engine who’s “mission is to organize (all) the world’s information”?
The following quote is from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who in the same interview discussed earth saving new power technologies:
“One of our big goals in search is to make search that really understands exactly what you want, understands everything in the world. As computer scientists, we call that artificial intelligence.” (October 26, 2005)
Gathering all of the worlds information the mission statement, and it’s rapidly becoming reality. Google’s asset& data holdings, not counting any special access they have to government systems, are astronomical. Google has complete copies of virtually every date of everything ever posted on the Internet (the Internet is said to contain over 6 billion pages), as well as search records & any other data they’ve compiled and archived through their other services like Gmail or Desktop. That’s roughly the same data that the other major search engines store.
Google ups the ante by scanning complete university libraries (7 million manuscripts at University of Michigan alone) into machine language. The Google “Search” already understands the meaning of words and their correlations. Recently, they took it to the visual dimension by acquiring Neven Vision, the biometric tech firm that possessed the worlds finest “Machine Vision” biometric face scanning technology that can literally understand the people/places/objects content of images and video. Surprisingly, this worlds most advanced biometric technology was also designed for mobile device applications, and Google has been making powerplay moves all year to secure huge contracts with phone manufacturers and service providers to include Google in their phones.
Google’s ‘imagery’ background doesn’t actually begin there, it took it’s first major step when it acquired Keyhole, which was a CIA startup through it’s In-Q-Tel privatized technology front organization. This integrated the satellite imagery into their already impressive Google Maps feature, which was so adaptable that it allows for smooth hybrid map impressions over satellite imagery.
And all of these non-search projects are said to be the result of what the “civilian” outfit known as Google holds in public display: Simple side hobby tasks from all of the engineers, for their 20 percent ‘hobby’ time away from the 80 percent of their efforts that go to “Search”.
Google and NASA are literally pooling their personnel together, and in some cases bringing people from out of the woodwork to participate in this trek to go where no man has gone before. Vint Cerf, who was a top head in the ARPANET project for DARPA, joined Google as a Vice President with the title of “Chief Internet Evangelist” in 2005. Cerf is one of the primary co-creators of the ARPANET, TCI/IP, the “Internet”, Internet2, the (still current project) Interplanetary Internet and has affiliations with the NSF’s Teragrid science network. Cerf and Gore go way back, and although Cerf wasn’t still heading the ARPANET for DARPA in the late 80’s when Gore was on the ball, Cerf still commended Gore as truly being a respectable force in the ‘creation’ of the Internet after Gore had taken heavy flak for his poor choice of words that became so famous.
They have some rather impressive ‘data holdings’ for a system with the capabilities as those specified by IA, and combined with the personnel such as Al Gore or Vint Cerf with virtually infinite resources, it’s hard to imagine any better of a hobby kit for any science enthusiast. It’s no wonder that Al presents such a positive outlook for stopping what he claims will happen within 10 years, despite the extremely high probability of him being full aware of how our society has been programmed to be self-deceivingly careless / politically biased and ignorant for some 80 years now.
It’s rather curious that transhumanists also want A.I., and the best reason they can offer to justify such, besides the obvious techno-orgasm that would result, is to ’save the earth’. And optimistic they are, as can be seen here with Dr. Ben Goertzal, a leading AI expert who happens to work with NIST fro certain things: “Right now at least, no government in the world is trying to ban or place legal limitations on AI research” [(time) 10:20] Goertzal shows further optimism by stating: “…and where we’d like to be, which is having a thinking machine that’s smarter than us nice to us and helps us solve all the worlds problems” [(time) 20:30].
It can be made certain what Gore’s stance on “transhumanism”, but according to the Immortality Institute’s “Exploring Life Extension” film, Bill Clinton said: “Weve treated the Human Genome Project as a priority since day one because we all want to live forever”, and, “We want to live forever, and were getting there.” Many Transhumanists primary goals are the rapid evolution of mankind into immortal “post human entities”, and also Artificial Intelligence in general. AI, which will rapidly become the “Technological Singularity“, is, according to Goertzal, a critical first phase to get the rest of the techno-results in the shortest time possible.
The very nature of AI is that it will eventually be able to understand its own code and self-modify itself endlessly to become something that not even its creators will be able comprehend and in a potentially short period of time. Optimists like Goertzal warn about the dangers of a “hard takeoff”, but oddly fail to mention anything about the Google/NASA/DARPA programs, and here’s why:
Google alone has 22,500,000 results for a simple search like “programming tutorials“. Anyone who’s dabbled in computer software programming knows that there are virtually endless pages about programming, and scores of free “GNU” software suites that anyone can download and start writing programs themselves. Since Google has virtually the entire Internet archived, they surely have all of this sort of data. When you give an intelligence “all of the worlds information”, including instructions on how to program in every software language known to man, it’s pretty safe to say that it’ll figure things out on its own.
A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is “in bed with” the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.
Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story.
While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.
“The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over,” said Steele adding, “I’m absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I’m concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated.”
“There’s no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.”
Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying, “There’s no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this whole thing.”
Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings.
“You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush – I mean if you smell a rotten fish there’s probably a rotten fish somewhere around.”
Steele’s biography is impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.
Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source. His testimony is added to the chorus of other credible 9/11 whistleblowers both in and out of government and academia.
Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with “the agency,” a claim made especially volatile by the fact that Google was recently caught censoring Alex Jones’ Terror Storm and has targeted other websites for blackout in the past.
“I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government – that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off,” said the ex-CIA man.
“Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development,” said Steele.
Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, “If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it’s important that be documented and publicized.”
Ex-Agent: CIA Seed Money Helped Launch Google Steele goes further than before in detailing ties, names Google’s CIA liaison
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, December 6, 2006
An ex-CIA agent has gone further than ever before in detailing Google’s relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground and naming for the first time Google’s CIA point man.
Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, is the CEO of OSS.net.
Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on his previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception.
“I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn’t fund what I call the open source world,” said Steele, citing “trusted individuals” as his sources for the claim.
“They’ve been together for quite a while,” added Steele.
Asked to impart to what level Google is “in bed” with the CIA, Steele described the bond as a “small but significant relationship,” adding, “it is by no means dominating Google in fact Google has been embarrassed because everything the CIA asked it to do they couldn’t do.”
“I also think it’s very very wrong of Google to have this relationship,” cautioned Steele.
The former agent went further than before in identifying by name Google’s liaison at the CIA.
“Let me say very explicitly – their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he’s in the Office of Research and Development,” said Steele.
Steele highlighted Google’s blatant censorship policies whereby press releases put out by credible organizations that are critical of Dick Cheney and other administration members don’t make it to Google News even though they are carried by PR Newswire.
We have repeatedly highlighted past examples of censorship on behalf of Google, including their blacklisting of a mainstream news website that was mildly critical of China, and also the deliberate stifling and manipulation of Alex Jones’ Terror Storm film ranking on Google Video. Google was also caught red-handed attempting to bury the Charlie Sheen 9/11 story at the height of its notoriety.
Saying Google had become “too big for itself,” Steele opined that Google was “long overdue for a public audit.”
“One of the problems with privatized power is that it’s not subject to public audit,” said Steele, arguing that groups should rally to “put Google out of business unless they’re willing to go the open source software route.”
We regularly highlight Google’s damaging role in aiding the march towards a big brother society, but the admission that Google were planning on teaming up with the U.S. government to use microphones in the computers of an estimated 150 million-plus Internet active Americans to spy on their lifestyle choices and build psychological profiles which will be used for surveillance and minority report style invasive advertising and data mining, astounded even us.
Steele said that our previous story about Google’s ties to the CIA, which was picked up by dozens of top technology websites, concerned Google enough to lie to the public about it and deny its validity.
It remains to be seen how Google will react to these latest revelations.
Listen to the interview with Robert David Steele, in which he also questions the official version of 9/11, by clicking here.
Former intelligence officer Robert David Steele recently appeared on the Alex Jones show to make the provocative claim that Google is currently cooperating with secret elements in the US government, including the CIA.
Steele, who now runs OSS.net and is a proponent of open source intelligence, said that “Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government—that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off.” In his view, Google’s attempt earlier this year to avoid turning over information to the Department of Justice was little more than a hypocritical charade.
Steele has made these claims for some time; back in January, he said the same things at a conference organized by his company at which several sources came forward and spoke about the alleged cooperation. According to security site HSToday.us, which had a reporter in attendance at the conference, one unnamed security contractor “said three employees of an intelligence agency he declined to identify are in Mountain View, Calif. where Google is based, working with the company to leverage the search engine company’s user data monitoring capability in the interests of national security.”
No hard evidence for these claims was presented, and those in a position to have direct knowledge of such an arrangement have been unwilling to speak about it on the record. Google traditionally prefers not to comment on such allegations, and did not respond to our requests for comment by press time.
It’s clear that the company is not opposed to working with the intelligence and defense communities in principle. Products such as Google Earth are explicitly marketed to such industries, with Google claiming that its products allow “analysts and operatives to get the job done effectively and in record time.”
Whether the famously idealistic company is actively assisting the CIA and NSA is a different question, though, and one that remains unanswered. If the allegations have any merit, then it’s no great stretch to imagine that other leading search engines have attracted the government’s interest. Will major Internet companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google turn out to be as involved in surveillance as the telecommunications companies? Or did all these shadowy sources get the story wrong?
WASHINGTON – President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department’s reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it’s appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.
“There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance,” she said. “It could be any number of things.”
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.
The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.
Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers’ ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.
“The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed,” said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens’ privacy of any agency in the federal government.
Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers’ names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there’s a match. They make sure transportation workers’ backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.
The department’s privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers’ personal information to the government.
The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.
Bush’s signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.
Bush, for example, said he’d disregard a requirement that the director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and “demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security.”
His rationale was that it “rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.”
A consortium of major universities, using Homeland Security Department money, is developing software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas.
Such a “sentiment analysis” is intended to identify potential threats to the nation, security officials said.
Researchers at institutions including Cornell, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Utah intend to test the system on hundreds of articles published in 2001 and 2002 on topics like President Bush’s use of the term “axis of evil,” the handling of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, the debate over global warming and the coup attempt against President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.
A $2.4 million grant will finance the research over three years.
American officials have long relied on newspapers and other news sources to track events and opinions here and abroad, a goal that has included the routine translation of articles from many foreign publications and news services.
The new software would allow much more rapid and comprehensive monitoring of the global news media, as the Homeland Security Department and, perhaps, intelligence agencies look “to identify common patterns from numerous sources of information which might be indicative of potential threats to the nation,” a statement by the department said.
It could take several years for such a monitoring system to be in place, said Joe Kielman, coordinator of the research effort. The monitoring would not extend to United States news, Mr. Kielman said.
“We want to understand the rhetoric that is being published and how intense it is, such as the difference between dislike and excoriate,” he said.
Even the basic research has raised concern among journalism advocates and privacy groups, as well as representatives of the foreign news media.
“It is just creepy and Orwellian,” said Lucy Dalglish, a lawyer and former editor who is executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Andrei Sitov, Washington bureau chief of the Itar-Tass news agency of Russia, said he hoped that the objective did not go beyond simply identifying threats to efforts to stifle criticism about an American president or administration.
“This is what makes your country great, the open society where people can criticize their own government,” Mr. Sitov said.
The researchers, using an grant provided by a research group once affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency, have complied a database of hundreds of articles that it is being used to train a computer to recognize, rank and interpret statements.
The software would need to be able to distinguish between statements like “this spaghetti is good” and “this spaghetti is not very good — it’s excellent,” said Claire T. Cardie, a professor of computer science at Cornell.
Professor Cardie ranked the second statement as a more intense positive opinion than the first.
The articles in the database include work from many American newspapers and news wire services, including The Miami Herald and The New York Times, as well as foreign sources like Agence France-Presse and The Dawn, a newspaper in Pakistan.
One article discusses how a rabid fox bit a grazing cow in Romania, hardly a threat to the United States. Another item, an editorial in response to Mr. Bush’s use in 2002 of “axis of evil” to describe Iraq, Iran and North Korea, said: “The U.S. is the first nation to have developed nuclear weapons. Moreover, the U.S. is the first and only nation ever to deploy such weapons.”
The approach, called natural language processing, has been under development for decades. It is widely used to summarize basic facts in a text or to create abridged versions of articles.
But interpreting and rating expressions of opinion, without making too many errors, has been much more challenging, said Professor Cardie and Janyce M. Wiebe, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Pittsburgh. Their system would include a confidence rating for each “opinion” that it evaluates and would allow an official to refer quickly to the actual text that the computer indicates contains an intense anti-American statement.
Ultimately, the government could in a semiautomated way track a statement by specific individuals abroad or track reports by particular foreign news outlets or journalists, rating comments about American policies or officials.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, said the effort recalled the aborted 2002 push by a Defense Department agency to develop a tracking system called Total Information Awareness that was intended to detect terrorists by analyzing troves of information.
“That is really chilling,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “And it seems far afield from the mission of homeland security.”
Federal law prohibits the Homeland Security Department or other intelligence agencies from building such a database on American citizens, and no effort would be made to do that, a spokesman for the department, Christopher Kelly, said. But there would be no such restrictions on using foreign news media, Mr. Kelly said.
Mr. Kielman, the project coordinator, said questions on using the software were premature because the department was just now financing the basic research necessary to set up an operating system.
Professors Cardie and Wiebe said they understood that there were legitimate questions about the ultimate use of their software.
“There has to be guidelines and restrictions on the use of this kind of technology by the government,” Professor Wiebe said. “But it doesn’t mean it is not useful. It can just as easily help the government understand what is going on in places around the world.”
“The United States needs a new strategy to deal with this ominous threat. Slugging it out in Iraq may be necessary, but there might be another way. President Bush needs to level with the American people and begin putting this country on a war footing. That means a limited draft and a major commitment to defense. The President needs to shake things up and get people’s attention.”
As Buzzflash reminds us, Bill never decided to go off into Vietnam when he did have the chance, but what the heck he’s had a change of heart. I’d like to know what his criteria is for a limited draft?”
“To provide for the common defense by requiring all personsin the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.“
Bush administration compiling massive database of bank records
The Bush administration has been secretly tapping into a global network of confidential financial transactions and compiling a vast database of bank records. According to an article in the June 23 New York Times, the program was initiated shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and has examined banking transactions involving tens of thousands of individuals in the US and internationally.
<!–
–>
Through the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, ordered by Bush 10 days after 9/11, the US Treasury Department has been collecting data from the worlds largest financial communications networkthe Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT. The Bush administration has authorized the program through administrative subpoenas under a little-known authority of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Administration officials asked the Times not publish its story. When the Times went ahead with it, the White House denounced the newspaper, implying that by informing the American and international public of the massive and warrentless intrusion of privacy it was aiding and abetting the terrorists. We are disappointed that once again the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect Americans, Bush administration spokeswoman Dana Perino said. We know that Al Qaeda watches for any clue as to how we are fighting the war on terrorism and then they adapt.
Exposure of the government spying on bank records follows revelations of far-reaching secret spying operations on Americans by the National Security Agency (NSA) involving eavesdropping on telephone calls, emails and faxes without the benefit of court-issued warrants and the assembling of a database, again without court warrants, covering hundreds of millions of domestic telephone calls. The Justice Department has also requested that Internet providers keep two-year records of web sites their customers visit and addresses to which they send email.
As with the previously exposed spying programs, the Bush administration is using the so-called war on terrorism as the pretext for implementing, in the form of the SWIFT program, another unconstitutional and illegal assault on democratic rights. The piecemeal revelation of such programs provides only a glimpse of the vast infrastructure for police-state forms of rule that has been put in place.
This I wrote in 2006; don’t even have time to proof read it:
We will either destroy ourselves this century, or we will obtain immortality. -Antonei Csoka, Ph.D.
You really have to watch this film to get the full scope, but Ill try to point out some things in this blog. I have heard the news mention this issue in the past, but overall this is yet another issue that is typically blacklisted from proper presentation.
I do understand some of the reasoning involved here, but I still think the extremists are possibly selfish in all new ways in human history, and the ones who aren’t are too biased to realize that combining their dream with the real world is a recipe for disaster. Sure many have dreamed of it, but now that dream is manifesting into a reality that could destroy civilization, and it still goes beyond just mere immortality.
People need to understand that these extremists not only want to extend their lifespan, but most actually want to be immortal, and that is their goal. Some transhumanists are actually just extreme health people, but the rest seem to be these all-out extremists who dont just want immortality, but also extreme AI, mind uploading and to become posthuman entities. Im still waiting for someone to give me a good reason why the risk of AI is worth it or even necessary. Transhumanists typically want it because they know it will rapidly accelerate their goals (meaning forget about Moore’s Law).
Aging is a barbaric phenomenon that shouldnt be tolerated in polite society. -Aubrey de Grey Ph.D.
I must state that this is a very interesting issue, and I can see trying to live life healthfully and to our fullest, and maybe certain degrees of extension, but many these people are all out extremist fanatics. I like a lot of what they’re doing actually, but there has to be some point where we draw the line. They believe it is our destiny to become cyborgs, but is it also our destiny to nuke mankind off the face of the planet because we can? Their AI dream even brings all new meaning to the existence of our nukes.
Early on they show an elderly woman pushing a walker (probably for emotional effect). What they fail to mention is how long those adult diaper / cripple years will go on when they extend life to 200 years, meaning you might face hundreds of years of that stage of life. Maybe they’ll reverse Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s aging? Probably not, because they’ll surely be able to get keep us alive for a long time, but reversing the aging process altogether is really pushing it, and uncertain.
The extremists are personally deciding for all of humanity what the true meaning of everything is, and whats best for all. They have figured it all out. There surely isnt anything after we die, because they dont think so, therefore go ahead and risk the destruction of mankind because they want to live forever with their collective god controlling everything.
these super-rich super-heroes have decided to focus on whats really long term importance to the human race and intelligence, which in my view the 2 most important things (to the human race) right now are life-extension and AI. -Ben Goertzal, Ph.D.
Its the rational part of my mind that truly wants to believe in an afterlife, (underscores doubts in such) what does that mean for me I believe that technology will advance enough that some few lucky of us will never have to die. -Jay Fox
“People with greater means are going to have access to the best medical technology fastest”
“If you want it at all, you’re going to have to let the rich have their day in the ealry days if the technology … in the 1980’s mobile phones were thousands of dollars … it’s incredible how inexpensive cell phones are now, only 20 or 30 years later.” -Michael D. Hartel Ph.D.
They compare cell phone diffusion to reassure us that the lower class (since they’re systematically wiping out the middle class) might rapidly get access to all of the greater gene / nano therapies and other technologies like bionic organs required for indefinite lifespans. There isn’t going to be a “magic bullet” to immortality, instead it will be a combination of things which greatly increases the odds that most people wont be able to afford real extension for a long time. However, certain nanomachines for brain augmentation is another story.
They claim there’s enough global food capaicity to support 60 billion people, but there’s no way this earth will last forever if everyone becomes immortal. Imagine if the entire world was developed and industrialized already. Look at the rate it’s being destroyed now. Imagine more people, and then more, and so on. Even if we get around petroleum driven automobiles there will be even more challenges like water itself. Do you really think the worlds elite want us all around forever? This technology may redefine the motives of those in power in all new ways. This really makes me wonder about these people calling for massive global population reduction and genocide. Surely they know about these coming technologies if they’re scientists who really know what’s going on?
Weve treated the Human Genome Project as a priority since day one because we all want to live forever.We want to live forever, and were getting there.-Bill Clinton
An interesting twist to this issue is how Clinton was for immortality, but the President’s Council on Bioethicsthat oversee these issues seem to be verbally against the Immortality efforts. They typically speak against many of the extremism issues, but Im not convinced that theyre doing anything to stop the bigger research.
Why is Bush calling for nanotechnology and supercomputing spending? Hasn’t Moore’s Law remaining true for the past several decades been ample computer progress? Why aren’t they stopping DARPA’s “Biorevolution“, or their Strong AI & supercomputing that is so vital to their revolution? Why didn’t they limit spending on “Robust Intelligence” in the NSF’s Information and Intelligent Systems program? There’s even the NASA IA project.
Why was virtually every government agency, with the White House first on the list, involved in the NBIC workshop, which was the rally cry of the posthuman evolution revolution? Why was Charles H. Huettner there applauding the workshop on behalf of the White House? NBIC goes beyond mere nanotechnology ‘bots’, it’s about growing synthetic cybernetic organizisms from the molecular level, which is the ultimate key in their posthuman revolution.
Why have human embryos been cloned in the US under Bush? Why are mice being humanized with human stem cells? Bush may be shaking up the embryonic stem cell community, but all that’s doing is motivating them to find new and better sources.
It looks like Bush doesn’t mind “god building”, human-rat chimeras, cloning, rapid posthuman evolution or their technological “collective society” (Singularity) just as long as human embryotic stems cells from new sources aren’t being used (that’s really just the wedge issue they use to keep us simpletons ignorant about the bigger issues).
There is an entity thats going to take care of us after death, that entity is us. which is the collective consciousness and our will to build an omniscient omnipresent entity, which is our collective technology and our collective consciousness, and that entity is by definition god, so Id say that god will be there when we become god. -Martine Rothblatt, Ph.D.
March 29, 2006: Search giant Google has been accused of being the “biggest threat to genetic privacy” for its alleged plan to create a searchable database of genetic information.
Biopiracy refers to the “monopolisation of genetic resources” according to the show’s organisers. It is also defined as the unauthorised use of biological resources by organisations such as corporations, universities and governments.
According to the award’s Web site, Google is guilty of biopiracy because plans for a searchable database could make it easier for private genetic information to be abused. “Google, in cooperation with Craig Venter, are developing plans to make all of our genomes Googlable to facilitate the brave new world of private genetically-tailored medicines,” the site claims.
Sep 27, 2007: According to consumer watchdog Privacy International, Google conducts “comprehensive surveillance” and embodies an “entrenched hostility to privacy.” Microsoft, though a little less invasive, is still Microsoft. What do they have in common? Both want you to trust them with your DNA.
Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society reports on AlterNet about the companies’ investments in 23andMe, a startup in the fledgling online genomic information industry. In the future, such companies will offer to sequence your genome, interpret the information for you, and put you in touch with products and services that fit your genetic profile. There’s even a social networks angle — MySpace meets Gattaca.
October 19, 2007: The implications for medicine, and its evil twin the insurance industry, are vast. Despite the privacy issues, Venter is in favor of transparency in genomics, so that, for example, you’ll be able to “Google a date’s DNA,” as O’Reilly remarked. Scary? Sure. But “a good idea,” Venter said. “Especially if you plan to have children.”
Google-funded DNA testing to launch in Europe later …
January 22, 2008: With the demo of Web-enabled DNA testing later this week at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Google’s DNA Project — the basis of a unique type of social networking — will extend itself to Europe. There, one might locate Dr. Bryan Sykes, a DNA genetics researcher who once found a Florida accountant named Tom Robinson to be a descendant of Genghis Khan.
The Google project — which draws from the premise that people actually yearn to interact with their family members — has already spawned sites as GeneTree.com, Canada’s DNA Ancestry Project, and 23andMe.com, the creation of Anne Wojcicki, who is the wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
The DNA Ancestry Project, for instance, has been behind the sale of “starter kits” at Best Buy and other stores. These kits contain equipment used to take swab samples of the inner cheek. The DNA samples can then be mailed in to the Web site for genetic analysis.
30/01/2008: Her husband is one of the world’s richest men who has built up an internet empire that delivers and classifies digital information at the click of a mouse. Now Anne Wojcicki is planning to tap into the rise of online global networking to help people make sense of their own genetic information.
“We’d like to reach 98pc of the world, that is our goal,” says Wojcicki from beside her fledgling company’s booth on the first floor of the Belvedere Hotel. “You have to have high standards to get anywhere in life, and if genealogy continues at its current rate, what we’re offering will soon become a standard part of people’s lives.”
Named after the number of chromosomes that make up each person’s genome, 23andme operates by analysing saliva samples to build up a picture of its clients’ inherited traits, ancestry and, in time, personal disease risks. Customers send in their saliva – along with a hefty cheque for $999 – and four to six weeks later receive their results online.
Feb 29, 2008: Google has financially backed a project from a Harvard University scientist to unlock the secrets of common diseases by decoding the DNA of 100,000 people.
The project will be the largest human genome sequencing project in the world, and may lead to new cures for disease.
23andMe, the startup widely known as the company whose founder is the wife of Sergey Brin, has plans to make the human genome searchable. Brin, along with Google, gave 23andMe $3.9 million as part of a series A in May of 2007. The company, cleverly… Learn More
Apr 18, 2008: Your DNA falls into the realm of “the world’s information,” and it seems that Google (GOOG), as part of its corporate mission, is making a play to organize that, too. The Internet giant received heavy press in 2007 when it invested at least $4.4 million (BusinessWeek.com, 11/29/07) in a genetic screening company, 23andMe, that was started by Anne Wojcicki, the wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and her business partner.
Google’s interest in DNA doesn’t end there. It is also putting money into a second Silicon Valley DNA-screening startup, Navigenics. The company is also backed by star venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers. For a spit of saliva and $2,500, your genetic test results are securely delivered to your computer screen with your genetic likelihood for 18 medical conditions, from Alzheimer’s to rheumatoid arthritis to several types of cancer. Navigenics aims to boost disease prevention by providing customers reports on their DNA that they can share with their doctors. The company addresses privacy concerns by encrypting customer identities, and screens only for conditions it deems to have scientifically sound genetic studies. The company also offers genetic counseling.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
White House seeks to expand DNA database
4/15/2003: DNA profiles from juvenile offenders and from adults who have been arrested but not convicted would be added to the FBI’s national DNA database under a Bush administration proposal.
Under current law, only DNA from adults convicted of crimes can be placed in the national database, which is used to compare those samples with biological evidence from the scenes of unsolved crimes. As of January, there were about 1.3 million DNA samples in the database, U.S. officials say.
Adding profiles from thousands of adult arrestees and juvenile offenders would greatly expand the DNA system’s worth by increasing the number of potential matches, administration officials say. Justice Department officials have discussed potential changes in federal DNA law with key members of Congress and are pushing for legislation this year.
“DNA is to the 21st century what fingerprinting was to the 20th,” says Deborah Daniels, assistant U.S. attorney general for justice programs. “The widespread use of DNA evidence is the future of law enforcement in this country.”
But critics say adding juvenile and arrestee profiles to the database threatens privacy by expanding the pool of samples beyond adult criminals. Although only digital DNA profiles would be linked to the FBI computer, the blood or saliva samples from which the DNA was drawn would be kept by state labs, they note.
“It’s only a matter of time before the government gets its hands on those DNA samples and starts playing around with our genetic codes,” says Barry Steinhardt, privacy specialist for the American Civil Liberties Union’s national office in New York City. “They say they don’t want to do that, but not too long ago they were saying they’d only take DNA profiles from rapists and murderers and now they want juveniles … We’re not just on a slippery slope, we’re halfway down it.”
Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.
The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data are stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes.
Jul 27, 2006: Every state takes DNA samples from convicted sex offenders and at least 43 states take samples from other serious felons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which tracks state laws. But five states – California, Louisiana, Minnesota, Texas and Virginia – now take DNA samples from some arrestees as well.
Kansas and New Mexico passed authorizing legislation this spring and will begin arrestee sampling next January.
Officers commonly take the samples by using cotton swabs to collect saliva. The samples are used to try to solve “cold cases” by comparing them to biological evidence found at crime scenes. DNA profiles, or computerized snapshots of the samples, are stored in local, state and federal databases, allowing law enforcers to compare information.
Last January, President Bush signed the DNA Fingerprinting Act, which allows authorities to collect DNA “fingerprints,” or samples, from anyone arrested on any federal charge. Federal sampling has not yet begun, said Ann Todd, a spokeswoman for the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Va., home of the national DNA database.
In every state but Louisiana, arrestee DNA sampling is limited to those arrested for felonies. The Bayou State, however, also allows sampling of those arrested for some misdemeanors, including prostitution and assault.
California, Louisiana, Kansas and New Mexico and the federal government can keep DNA records even if arrestees are cleared of all charges – a practice that has brought objections from civil libertarians.
The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering that will include hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, by far the largest group affected.
The new forensic DNA sampling was authorized by Congress in a little-noticed amendment to a January 2006 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections and assistance for victims of sexual crimes. The amendment permits DNA collecting from anyone under criminal arrest by federal authorities, and also from illegal immigrants detained by federal agents.
Over the last year, the Justice Department has been conducting an internal review and consulting with other agencies to prepare regulations to carry out the law.
The goal, justice officials said, is to make the practice of DNA sampling as routine as fingerprinting for anyone detained by federal agents, including illegal immigrants. Until now, federal authorities have taken DNA samples only from convicted felons.
May 2, 2008: President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.
Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”
The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”.
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.
The American Civil Liberties Union urges Congress to oppose an amendment sponsored by Representative Adam B. Schiff (D-CA) that is designed to test arrestees as part of an expansion of the federal DNA program. Schiff’s amendment, which recently passed the House Judiciary Committee, will provide incentives for state law enforcement officials to create a permanent DNA database of arrestees that includes people who are detained on misdemeanor charges, wrongfully arrested and others.
“Schiff’s amendment encouraging the collection of arrestees’ DNA samples would turn the presumption of innocence on its head,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington Legislative Office. “Anyone wrongfully arrested becomes part of a permanent criminal database. Someone arrested for misdemeanor becomes a suspect for life. Americans who have not been proven guilty under state laws go into a DNA database with criminal offenders.”
Fredrickson predicted, “With this expansion proposal, the federal DNA program will collect and retain DNA from millions of innocent people. The purpose of DNA collection will become population surveillance, not a criminal investigative tool.”
Patenting in biotechnology has been subject to increasing public scrutiny as a result of the profound changes in the way research in the life sciences has become commercialised. This has resulted in immense ethical and legal controversy.
Numerous human DNA sequence patents have been granted to date but it is questionable as to whether these achieve either the goal of stimulation of innovation for the public good and or rewarding people for useful new inventions.
Patent offices have tended to be generous in granting patents in relation to DNA sequences and many of the patents are broad in scope because a successful patent holder for a DNA sequence will in effect obtain broad protection on all uses of the DNA and often on the proteins that the DNA produces. In addition, patents have been granted when the usual criteria for inventiveness and utility have been inappropriately and weakly applied.
In awarding patents for DNA sequences, patent offices fail to take into account that DNA is a naturally occurring phenomenon and hence, scientific knowledge concerning the DNA is not eligible for patenting.
What is also not considered is that DNA sequences, unlike other patentable chemicals, carry the body’s information as to how proteins are to be constructed. It is questionable as to whether this type of information can properly be patented.
So the storyboard, of the rest of the internet, ends 11 May 2001. The EUs publicized states-side investigation into its capabilities, ended when the Bush Administration refused the topic:
Cosmists vs. Terrans A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines
Prof. Dr. Hugo de GARIS Director of the “China-Brain Project”
Institute of Artificial Intelligence,
Department of Computer Science,
School of Information Science & Technology,
Xiamen University, Xiamen,
Fujian Province, China. profhugodegaris@yahoo.com
Abstract. This paper claims that the “species dominance” issue will dominate our global politics later this century. Humanity will be bitterly divided over the question whether to build godlike, massively intelligent machines, called “artilects” (artificial intellects) which with 21st century technologies will have mental capacities trillions of trillions of times above the human level. Humanity will split into 3 major camps, the “Cosmists” (in favor of building artilects), the “Terrans” (opposed to building artilects), and the “Cyborgs” (who want to become artilects themselves by adding components to their own human brains). A major “artilect war” between the Cosmists and the Terrans, late in the 21st century will kill not millions but billions of people.
1. Introduction
This paper claims that the “species dominance” issue will dominate our global politics this century, resulting in a major war that will kill billions of people. The issue is whether humanity should build godlike, massively intelligent machines called “artilects’ (artificial intellects), which 21st century technologies will make possible, that will have mental capacities trillions of trillions of times above the human level. Society will split into two (arguably three) major philosophical groups, murderously opposed to each other. The first group is the “Cosmists” (based on the word Cosmos) who are in favor of building artilects. The second group is the “Terrans” (based on the word Terra, the earth) who are opposed to building artilects, and the third group is the “Cyborgs”, who want to become artilects themselves by adding artilectual components to their own human brains.
2. 21st Century Artilect Enabling Technologies
2.1. Moore’s Law Gordon Moore, cofounder of the microprocessor company Intel, noticed in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit (chip) was doubling every year or two. This trend has remained valid for over 40 years, and it is thought that it will remain valid for another 15 years or so, until transistors reach atomic size.
2.2. 1 bit/atom by 2020 Extrapolating Moore’s Law down to storing one bit of information on a single atom by about 2020, means that a handheld object will be able to store a trillion trillion bits of information. Such a device is called an “Avogadro Machine (AM)”.
2.3. Femto-Second Switching An Avogadro Machine can switch the state of a single atom (0 <=> 1) in a femtosecond, i.e. a quadrillionth of a second (10-15 sec.), so that the total processing speed of an AM is roughly 1040 bits per second.
2.4. Reversible Computing If computing technology continues to use its traditional irreversible computational style, the heat generated in atomic scale circuits will be so great, they will explode, so a reversible, information preserving, computing style will be needed, usually called “reversible computing”, that does not generate heat, hence will allow 3D computing, and no limit to size. Artilects can become the size of asteroids, kilometers across, with vast computing capacities.
2.5. Nanotech(nology)
Nanotech (i.e. molecular scale engineering) will allow AMs to be built. Nanotech will thus allow artilects to be built, once we know how to build brain like circuits. Nanotech is the “enabling technology” for artilect building.
2.6. Artificial Embryology One of the greatest challenges of 21st century biology is to understand “development”, i.e. the embryogenic process, i.e. how a fertilized single cell grows into a 100 trillion cell animal such as ourselves. Once this process is well understood, technology will be able to create an artificial embryology, to manufacture products, hence “embryofacture” (embryological manufacture). Embryofacture will be used to build 3D complex artilects.
2.7. Evolutionary Engineering The complexities of artilect building will be so great (e.g. the human brain has a quadrillion (1015) synapses (connections between neurons in the brain)), that an evolutionary engineering approach will be needed, which applies a “Genetic Algorithm” approach to engineering products. Artilects will be built using this technique.
2.8. (Topological) Quantum Computing Quantum computing is potentially exponentially more powerful than classical computing. It can compute 2N things at a time, compared to classical computing’s 1 thing at a time, where N is the number of (qu)bits in the register of the quantum computer. Topological quantum computers (TQCs) store and manipulate the qubits in topological quantum fields, and are thus robust against noise. TQC will soon make quantum computers practical. Artilects will be TQC devices.
2.9. Nanotech Impact on Brain Science Today’s top supercomputers are close to reaching the estimated bit processing rate of the human brain, (i.e. about 1016 bits per second), but they are far from being intelligent by human standards. What is needed to make them humanly intelligent is knowledge from the neurosciences on how the human brain uses its brain circuits to perform intelligent tasks. Nanotech will furnish neuroscience with powerful new tools to discover how the brain works. This knowledge will be quickly incorporated into the building of artilects.
2.10. Artificial Brains The above technologies will result in the creation of an artificial brain industry and the creation of rival national brain building institutions and projects equivalent to NASA and ESA for space travel. In time, the brain building industry will become the world’s largest.
3. The Artilect : Capacities 1024 Times Above Human Levels
As stated in the above section, the estimated bit processing rate of the human brain is approximately 1016 bit flips per second. This figure is derived from the fact that the human brain has about 100 billion neurons (1011), with each neuron synapsing (connecting) with roughly ten thousand other neurons (104), hence there are a quadrillion synapses, each signaling at a maximum rate of about 10 bits per second.
Thus the human bit processing rate is 1011+4+1 = 1016 bits per second. As mentioned in the previous section, a hand held artilect could flip at 1040 bits per second. An asteroid sized artilect could flip at 1052 bits a second. Thus the raw bit processing rate of the artilect could be a trillion trillion trillion (1036) times greater than the human brain. If the artilect can be made intelligent, using neuroscience principles, it could be made to be truly godlike, massively intelligent and immortal.
4. The Species Dominance Debate Starts
The “species dominance” debate has already started, at least in the English speaking countries and China. The fundamental question is whether humanity should build artilects or not. This issue will dominate our global politics this century, and may lead to a major war killing billions of people.
As the artificial brain based products (e.g. genuinely useful household robots) become smarter every year, people will be asking questions such as “Will the robots become as smart as us?” “Will they become smarter than us?” “Should humanity place an upper limit on robot and artificial brain intelligence?” “Can the rise of artificial intelligence be stopped?” “If not, then what are the consequences for human survival if we become the Number 2 species?” The question “Should humanity build godlike, massively intelligent artilects?” is the most important of the 21st century, and will dominate our century’s global politics. It is the equivalent of the question which dominated 19th and 20th century global politics, i.e. “Who should own capital?” which led to the rise of the Capitalist-Communist dichotomy and the cold war.
5. Cosmists, Terrans, Cyborgs As the species dominance debate begins to heat up, humanity will split into two (possibly three) major philosophical groups, namely –
a) The Cosmists (based on the word Cosmos). Cosmist ideology is in favor of building artilects. (See section 6 for arguments in favor of Cosmism).
b) The Terrans (based on the word Terra = the earth). Terran ideology is opposed to building artilects. (See section 7 for arguments in favor of Terranism).
c) The Cyborgs (based on the words “cybernetic organism” = part machine, part human). Cyborgs want to become artilects themselves by adding artilectual components to their own brains. (See section 8 for arguments in favor of Cyborgism).
The dispute between the Cosmists and the Terrans will be so bitter that a major war is likely in the second half of the century.
6. Arguments of the Cosmists
6.1. “Big Picture” Argument Human beings live a puny 80 years in a universe billions of years old, that contains a trillion trillion stars. The cosmos is the “big picture”. Cosmists want artilects to become a part of that big picture, understanding it, traveling thru it, manipulating it, etc., hence the name of the ideology “Cosmism”. The preoccupations of human beings seem pathetic in comparison.
6.2. Scientific Religion Most Cosmists are not religious, viewing traditional religions as superstitions invented thousand of years ago before the rise of science. But as humans they feel the pangs of religious impulse. Such impulses could be satisfied by Cosmism, a “scientist’s religion” due to its awe, its grandeur, its energizing, its vision.
6.3. Building Artilect Gods The primary aim of the Cosmists will be to build artilects. It will be a kind of religion to them, the next step up the evolutionary ladder, the “destiny of the human species to serve as the stepping stone to the creation of a higher form of being”. In building artilects, the Cosmists will feel they are building gods.
6.4. Human Striving, Cannot be Stopped It is human nature to be curious, to strive. Such tendencies are built into our genes. Building godlike artilects will be inevitable, because we will choose to do it. It would run counter to human nature not to do it.
6.5. Economic Momentum Once the artificial brain and intelligent robot industries become the world’s largest, it will be very difficult to stop their growth. The economic momentum will be enormous.
6.6. Military Momentum The military momentum will be even greater. In the time frame we are talking about, China will overtake the US as the century’s dominant power. Since China is still a brutal one party dictatorship, it is despised by the US, so political rivalries will only heat up. The two ministries of defense cannot afford to allow the other to get ahead of it in intelligent soldier robot design etc. Hence Cosmism will be an entrenched philosophy in the respective defense departments.
7. Arguments of the Terrans
7.1. Preserve the Human Species The major argument of the Terrans is that the artilects, once sufficiently superior to human beings, may begin to see us as grossly inferior pests, and decide to wipe us out. As artilects, that would be easy for them. The Terrans would prefer to kill off a few million Cosmists for the sake of the survival of billions of human beings. Recent wars were about the survival of countries. An artilect war would be about the survival of the human species. Since the size of the stake is much higher, so will the passion level in the artilect war debate.
7.2. Fear of Difference Terrans will be horrified at the idea of seeing their children becoming artilects, thus becoming utterly alien to them. They will reject the idea viscerally and fear the potential superiority of the artilects. They will organize to prevent the rise of the artilects and will oppose the Cosmists, ideologically, politically, and eventually militarily.
7.3. Rejection of the Cyborgs The Terrans will also be opposed to the Cyborgs, because to a Terran, there is little difference between an advanced Cyborg and an artilect. Both are artilect like, given the gargantuan bit processing rate of nanoteched matter that can be added to the brains of human beings. The Terrans will lump the Cyborgs into the Cosmist camp ideologically speaking.
7.4. Unpredictable Complexity Given the likelihood that artilects will be built using evolutionary engineering, the behavior of artilects will be so complex as to be unpredictable, and therefore potentially threatening to human beings. One of the keywords in the artilect debate is “risk”. Terran global politicians need to hope for the best (e.g. the artilects will leave the planet in search of bigger things and ignore puny humans) and prepare for the worst, i.e. exterminating the Cosmists, for the sake of the survival of the human species.
7.5. Cosmist Inconsideration The Terrans will argue that the Cosmists are supremely selfish, since in building artilects, not only will they put the lives of the Cosmists at risk if the artilects turn against them, but the lives of the Terrans as well. To prevent such a risk, the Terrans will, when push really comes to shove, decide to wipe out the Cosmists, for the greater good of the survival of the human species.
7.6. “First Strike” Time Window to React against the Cosmists/Cyborgs The Terrans will be conscious that they cannot wait too long, because if they do, the Cyborgs and the artilects will have already come into being. The Terrans will then run the risk of being exterminated by the artilects. So the Terrans will be forced into a “first strike” strategy. They will have to kill off the Cosmists and Cyborgs before it is too late.
If not, the artilects and Cyborgs will have become too intelligent, too powerful in any human-machine confrontation and will easily defeat the humans. But the Cosmists will be reading the Terran arguments and preparing for an “artilect war” against the Terrans, using late 21st century weaponry.
8. Arguments of the Cyborgs
8.1. Become Artilect Gods Themselves The primary aim of the Cyborgs is to become artilects themselves by adding artilectual components to their own human brains, converting themselves bit by bit into artilects. Instead of watching artilects become increasingly intelligent as observers, Cyborgs want that experience for themselves. They want to “become gods”.
8.2. Avoid the Cosmist/Terran Clash Some Cyborgs argue that by having human beings become artilects themselves, the dichotomy between the Cosmists and the Terrans can be avoided, because all human beings would become artilects. The Terrans of course will reject the Cyborgs and lump them with the Cosmists and artilects. In fact, the growing presence of Cyborgs in daily life will only hasten the alarm of the Terrans and bring their first strike closer.
9. How the Artilect War Heats Up
9.1. Nanotech Revolutionizes Neuroscience Nanoteched, molecular sized robots will revolutionize neuroscience, because they will provide a powerful new tool to understand how the brain works. An entire human brain can be simulated in vast nanoteched computers and investigated “in hardware”. Neuroscience will finally be in a position to explain how brains make human beings intelligent. That knowledge will be implemented in the artilects.
9.2. Neuro-Engineering Weds with Neuro-Science In time, neuro-science and neuro-engineering will interact so closely that they will become one, in the same way as theoretical and experimental physics are two aspects of the same subject. Neuroscientists will be able to test their theories on artificial brain models, thus rapidly increasing the level of understanding of how intelligence arises and how it is embodied.
9.3. Artificial Brain Technology Creates Massive Industries With a much higher level of artificial intelligence, based on knowledge of the human brain, artificial brains and artificial brain based robots will become a lot more intelligent and hence useful as domestic appliances. A vast industry of artificial brain based products will be created, becoming the world’s largest.
9.4. “Intelligence Theory” is Developed Once neuroscientists and brain builders understand how human intelligence is created, new theories of the nature of intelligence will be created by the “theoretical neuroscientists”. An “intelligence theory” will be created. Human intelligence will be just one “data point” in the space of possible intelligences. Intelligence theory should show how it is possible to increase intelligence levels. It will be able to explain why some people are smarter than others, or why humans are smarter than apes, etc.
9.5. Artilects Get Smarter Every Year As a result of the marriage of neuroscience and neuroengineering, the artificial brain based industries will deliver products that increase their intelligence every year. This trend of growing intelligence will cause people to ask the questions mentioned in section 4. The species dominance debate will spread from the intellectual technocrats to the general public.
9.6. Debate Begins to Rage, Political Parties Form As the IQ gap between the robots and human beings gets increasingly smaller, the species dominance debate will begin to rage. Political parties will form, divided essentially into the 3 main schools of thought on the topic, Cosmist, Terran, Cyborg. The rhetorical exchange will be become less polite, more heated.
9.7. The Debate Turns Violent, Assassination, Sabotage When people are surrounded by ever increasingly intelligent robots and other artificial brain based products, the general level of alarm will increase to the point of panic. Assassinations of brain builder company CEOs will start, robot factories will be arsoned and sabotaged etc. The Cosmists will be forced to strengthen their resolve. The artilect war will be drawing ever closer.
9.8. The Terrans Will “First Strike”, Before Its Too Late For Them The Terrans will have been organizing for a first strike and will have made preparations. They will then take power in a world wide coup of the global government that is likely to exist by mid century, and begin exterminating the Cosmists and Cyborgs in a global purge, killing millions of them, or at least that is the Terran plan.
9.9. Cosmists Anticipate this First Strike and are Ready But the Cosmists will be following the arguments of the Terrans and Cyborgs very closely, and will equally be preparing for a confrontation with the Terrans. They will have their own plans and their own weapons and military. If the Terrans strike first, a quick reply will follow from the Cosmists, and the artilect war will have begun.
9.10. Late 21st Century Weapons, Leads to Gigadeath War If one extrapolates up the graph of the number of people killed in major wars from the early 19th century (the Napoleonic wars) to late 21st century (the artilect war), then one predicts that billions of people will be killed, using late 21st century weapons (see the graph in the next section). This “gigadeath” figure is the characteristic number of deaths in any major late 21st century war. About 300 million people were killed for political reasons in the 20th century.
10. Gigadeath
11. Vote
At the end of the talks I give on this topic, I usually invite my audiences to vote on the following question :
“Do you feel personally that humanity should build artilects, these godlike massively intelligent machines, despite the risk that they might decide, in a highly advanced form, to wipe out humanity? Yes or No.
The result is usually around a 50/50, 60/40, 40/60 Cosmist/Terran split. I noticed that most people, like myself, are highly ambivalent about artilect building. They are awed by the prospect of what artilects could become, and horrified at the prospect of a gigadeath artilect war. The fact that the Cosmist/Terran split is so even will make the artilect war all the more divisive and bitter. This divisiveness can be expressed in the form of the following slogan :
Do we build gods, or do we build our potential exterminators?
12. Appeal to Philosophers
There is immense scope for philosophical discussion on the artilect issue. At the present time, the philosophical community is largely unaware of the issue, so need to be educated. It is not surprising that the debate is still largely confined to the technocrats, who are better informed of what is coming in technological terms. It is this community after all that is creating the problem (e.g. I am directing a “China-Brain Project”, a 3 million RMB, 4 year project to build a 15,000 evolved neural net module based artificial brain, starting early in 2008). The philosophers will need to create a new branch of applied ethics, that I call “artilect ethics” which will consider such questions as the rights of the artilects relative to human beings etc. This new field is rich with questions that the moral and political philosophers need to discuss, once they are informed.
13. Quote and Publicity
“I’m glad I’m alive now. At least I will die peacefully in my bed. However, I truly fear for my grandchildren. They will be caught up in the Artilect War, and will probably be destroyed by it”. Prof. Hugo de Garis, 2000 (Discovery Channel)
Kurzweil vs. de Garis on the BBC
To see a clash of opinions on whether the rise of the artilect will be a good or bad thing for humanity, see the BBC TV program “Human V2.0” in which Prof de Garis and Dr. Ray Kurzweil discuss the topic. To watch this program you can google with the terms “Human V2.0” and “BBC”. In this program Dr. Ray Kurzweil is optimistic and Prof. Hugo de Garis is pessimistic.
This is an older 9/11 film that focuses on things like the hijackers and their financiers, instead of the typical physics type stuff found in most 9/11 documentaries. This guide here should cover every single claim and citation in the film, allowing you to check his work point by point.
I originally built this guide in May of 2006. I had to fix a ton of links. Since many of the links are Google search strings, many of them should still work out alright even in cases where there have been further developments. After doing this work I intended on building these for essentially all the more powerful documentaries out there, but then, months later I began making my own films and lost the time for such. So I recommend that those who have time use this model here to help all the films out there have far more effectiveness.
NOTE: Many of my copy-paste’s from my old Myspace blog are defecting the paragraph formatting. I’ve tried fixing these the easy way to no avail, and don’t have time to go in and manually hack the code.
NOTE: This is another of my oldies. It was originally meant to be more of a study guide than an ‘article’. It could probably use some revisions and additions, but it should still be solid.
Welcome to the New American Century. As you will learn, it almost seems as if Wolfowitz is a prophet. Virtually all of his predictions, which began all the way back in 1992, have come true, even the one that was needed to bring this military revolution. Whether he and his friends were ‘prophets’, genius or conspirators they were apparently the right ones for the job. Also, in hindsight, its clear that they are genuine Profits.
Pre-PNAC:
Febuary 8th, 1992: The Wolfowitz Doctrine was written and rejected by both the first Bush Administration and the Clinton administration for being imperialist.
-The Wolfowitz Doctrine was exposed by the NY Times on March 8, 1992.
-The Wolfowitz Doctrine states also that we need to prepare a pre-emptive strike against “terrorist” nations.
-It also tells us that we need to create more National Security Agencies.
-Wolfowitz Doctrine / Defense Policy Guidance 1992-1994 / Later becomes the Bush Doctrine, after Bush declared that he was against nation building and such during the 2000 election year.
January 1993: Then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney releases The Regional Defense Strategy, which parallels the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
1997:
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
June 3, 1997: PNAC releases its Statement of Principles.The four main consequences are presented, and its members:
Consequence #1: we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
Consequence#2: we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
Consequence #3:we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
Consequence #4: we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Members (large fonts indicate members appointed to the Bush Administration):
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. Sept. 11th: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” -GWB
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
CM#1: defend the American homeland;
CM#2: fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
CM#3 perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
CM#4 transform U.S. forces to exploit the revolution in military affairs;
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
April 2006: Bush Administration announces plans to begin new nuclear weapons production; violating treaties.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of todays force to roughly the levels anticipated in the Base Force outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
Declining because the war is bogus.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
2005: Naval fleets dispatched to Japan. Not because of terrorism, but instead because Asian powers created new superpower in response to our war on terrorism imperial death march.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for the Marine Corps.
-September 28, 2005: Pentagon finally approves full rate production after a needed extended test phase.
-February 27, 2002: Stryker medium weight vehicle formally named and introduced for Army transformation.
CANCEL ROADBLOCK PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
-The Joint Strike Fighter order is being reduced by a third or more.
-CVX carriers have been canceled. Furthermore, it calls for carrier cutbacks on page 40, and one is being cut. Expect it them to get cutback to 9, if this documents plan holds up.
-Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader tank in early May 2002. Replaced by towable artillery pieces.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the Americanhomeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW INTERNATIONAL COMMONS OF SPACE AND CYBERSPACE, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service U.S. Space Forces with the mission of space control.
-October 30th, 2003: Information Operations Roadmap signed by Donald Rumsfeld.
EXPLOIT THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.
-Defense spending has gone up to 4.7% GDP since 9/11. Usama hasnt been caught or killed. Bush says hes truly not that concerned about him.
-The budget increase has done almost exactly the spending increase, as described, since the Bush Administration took office.
HOMELAND DEFENSE. America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
-Defense spending has our National Debt at over 8 trillion dollars.
LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly
deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to
unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.
This resembles the two-war standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over
the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and
potential new conflicts.
-We have plenty of war plans drafted. Next stop Iran, and if the Democrats take over Congress we might see a Universal draft. The neocons havent publicly condemned HR4752, and virtually nobody has ever heard about it.
CONSTABULARY DUTIES. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decades experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are todays most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
-Bases and overall forces have been expanded in those areas.
TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called revolution in military affairs, sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.
-This has been underway since before 9/11, and has kicked into overdrive since.
Efforts to implement network-centric warfare under the cooperative engagement concept should be accelerated.
-Wolfowitzs Net-Centric doctrine is already the new standard.
We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. Page 75
-January 29, 2002: Bush declares North Korea, Iran and Iraq the axis of evil.
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” Page 26
-March 20, 2003: Begins the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
“[Constabulatory missions] demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations… Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa.” Page 23
-The Bush Administration followed that same exact doctrine when aggressively pursuing the Iraqi war.
Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.” Page 29
2001:
September 11th. Ground Zero. That day: PNACs Robert Kagan writes an article for The Washington Post declaring it a far more awful Pearl Harbor and declaring war.
Legal Definitions: UNSOUND MIND, MEMORY – These words have been adopted in several statutes, and sometimes indiscriminately used to signify, not only lunacy, which is periodical madness, but also a permanent adventitious insanity as distinguished from idiocy.
-
DEFENSE, INSANITY – A criminal defense asserting that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. U.S.C. 18 (in other words inability to distinguish right from wrong).
Thanks to bias, politically biased people have a distorted view of reality. The perfect example of bias is the little known scientific fMRI brain scan study with politically biased people from each side. The study proved that politically biased people dismiss negative things about their leader heroes, and during the dismissals their reward centers in their brains actually fire. In effect, they actually get a rush from dismissing the painful truth in the same way that drug addicts do when they get their fix. True drug addicts are usually just as much addicted to the rush of the game as they are their drugs, in fact its often what brings them back.
“And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that’s contrary to their point of view.”
“When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats the scans showed that reward centers in volunteers brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.”
The average political person usually seems to fall into the line of binarythinking (left/right, on/off, good/evil, 0/1, etc). If they hear news that glorifies their side (or any member of it) they enter a state of bliss and glory; they feel as if they’re personally right. When they hear negative news about their guy they automatically start searching for reasons it must be false its all just a smear campaign by the right/left.
They have absolutely no desire to know the truth about much of anything, obviously, since they only wish see their guys look good so they can go and gloat to their opposite coworker or whoever. This is the dark side of our indoctrinated competitiveness that nobody likes to talk about. Its so widespread that there would be mass hysteria if all news outlets were to continually broadcast that bias study for several weeks straight. Talk about a buzz kill, or would there be a greater collective high from biased people of both sides dismissing the study and the implications the phenomena plays on their mindsets and perception of history? The powers at be could have all sorts of fun playing that sick joke on everyone just to watch everyone scramble, and test their devotion like never before. But that will never happen because they’d lose too much power of manipulation and justifiable treachery.
This is dangerous because it allows the leaders to get away with anything, no wonder nobody cared when the news got out about both Bush and Kerry being members of the ultra-elite Skull & Bones. Its not even like its a theory, its a fact and it even made mainstream news, yet nobody cared. So if you get millions of people who disregard issues like that and forget about them, what will happen when you show them far worse things and more importantly things that are vast in scope? Dismissed! Political bias is also dangerous because you’ll get people who will believe bad things against the enemy without actually checking into the claims.
Clearly, politically biased people are legally insane, because they cant decypher right from wrong when assessing their favored politicians. They also legally have unsound minds because they legally are under permanent insanity as a result. Additionally, they’re scientifically addicted to this sad form of insanity, as proven by Westins’ study (be sure to read that entire article). Because of the addiction, this would indicate that the phenomena is also a disease. Since learning is described as‘Any improvement in behavior, information, knowledge, understanding, attitude, values or skills’, it is safe to say that people should take this disease very seriously.
Disease; Noun: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning.
Addiction is now narrowly defined as “uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm”; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as “addiction”.
Luckily this addiction, this disease, doesn’t constitute physical dependency, therefore treatment should theoretically be far easier than the typical physically addictive substances of abuse.
The treatment of this psychological disease could go as follows:
Begin with the affected individuals reading the study article first.
This article should be presented second, so that they begin to not only realize the harsh realities of their addiction, but also so that they may begin to realize the potential harm they may be doing to both themselves and society as a whole. If they are allowing their elected leaders to commit crimes without acknowledgment then they are clearly a threat to society. Typical hardcore drug addicts can pose a threat to society, but realistically they only pose a threat to people or property that they may come into contact with. The political addict is a far greater threat to society, because our very nation is in jeopardy when they are getting their fix. To not be aware of the existence and potential of any sort of problem is to live in ignorance. Most drug addicts never realize there is an actual problem not just until it gets out of their control. Unless the politically biased individual realizes that they have an society threatening problem they have little to no chance of recovery.
Typically, in dealing with individuals that possess a society threatening addiction, tough love should be the policy in dealing with the affected person. Luckily, political addiction isnt normally a physical addiction, so therefore such tactics arent quite necessary in dealing with this particular disease. At this point you should begin to show them the parallels and ongoing downfalls that result from the social group think political-bias phenomenon. Tough Love could actually be counterproductive is the case of politics simply because the whole point of politics is to divided us anyways.
In the 4th Phase, the patient should undergo contradiction treatment. This involves showing the patient examples of their preferred leader(s) contradicting themselves or the ideals of The People or the nation. The same rule applies for any possible contradictions that can be applied to the entire party (Democrats voting YEA on the PATRIOT Act). The more examples the better. This phase of treatment should potentially be the longest, if possible.
In the 5th Phase, patients should be administered evidence that clearly presents their preferred leaders for what they, and more specifically their clear and obvious failures (Bush on Katrina, for starters). Also, clear violations of their own religions, if any. If possible, avoid topics that the patient would already know and have already dismissed before treatment. Later, re-introduce the topics that theyve most likely already dismissed. Care must be used to not overwhelm the victims of political bias, because they may snap and not allow themselves to learn and therefore receive their treatment.
The Pentagon’s defence scientists want to create an army of cyber-insects that can be remotely controlled to check out explosives and send transmissions.
The idea is to insert micro-systems at the pupa stage, when the insects can integrate them into their body, so they can be remotely controlled later.
Experts told the BBC some ideas were feasible but others seemed “ludicrous”.
A similar scheme aimed at manipulating wasps failed when they flew off to feed and mate.
The new scheme is a brainwave of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), which is tasked with maintaining the technological superiority of the US military.
It has asked for “innovative” bids on the insect project from interested parties.
‘Assembly-line’
Darpa believes scientists can take advantage of the evolution of insects, such as dragonflies and moths, in the pupa stage.
“Through each metamorphic stage, the insect body goes through a renewal process that can heal wounds and reposition internal organs around foreign objects,” its proposal document reads.
The foreign objects it suggests to be implanted are specific micro-systems – Mems – which, when the insect is fully developed, could allow it to be remotely controlled or sense certain chemicals, including those in explosives.
The invasive surgery could “enable assembly-line like fabrication of hybrid insect-Mems interfaces”, Darpa says.
A winning bidder would have to deliver “an insect within five metres of a specific target located 100 metres away”.
DARPA SCHEMES
-Arpanet information processing system – a precursor to the internet
-Self Healing Minefield – the mines reconfigure themselves to fill gaps when one or more are stepped on
-Brain Interface Programme to wire soldiers directly into their machines
-Mechanical Elephant to penetrate dense Vietnam War jungle. Unused
-Policy Analysis Market – online futures market where “traders” wager on future terrorism and assassinations
-Computer game, Tactical Iraqi, to teach troops how to decipher Iraqi body language
The “insect-cyborg” must also “be able to transmit data from relevant sensors, yielding information about the local environment. These sensors can include gas sensors, microphones, video, etc.”
‘Fiction’
Scientists who spoke to the BBC news website were unconvinced.
Entomology expert Dr George McGavin of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History said the idea appeared “ludicrous”.
“Not all wacky ideas are without value. Some do produce the goods. My feeling is this will probably not produce the goods,” he said.
ANIMALS IN WARFARE
WWII: Attach a bomb to a cat and drop it from a dive-bomber on to Nazi ships. The cat, hating water, will “wrangle” itself on to enemy ship’s deck. In tests cats became unconscious in mid-air
WWII: Attach incendiaries to bats. Induce hibernation and drop them from planes. They wake up, fly into factories etc and blow up. Failed to wake from hibernation and fell to death
Vietnam War: Dolphins trained to tear off diving gear of Vietcong divers and drag them to interrogation. Later, syringes placed on dolphin flippers to inject carbon dioxide into divers, who explode. About 40 divers thought to have been killed
“What adult insects want to do is basically reproduce and lay eggs. You would have to rewire the entire brain patterns.”
Dr McGavin said it appeared impossible to connect the technology to the right places during the metamorphic phase, particularly with regard to flight.
Prof Andrew Parker, research leader at the Natural History Museum’s zoology department and a specialist in bio-mimetics, said the concept was not too far fetched but had its limits.
Technology could help direct an insect to chemicals such as in roadside bombs, he said, but controlling full flight was “a long way off”.
Entomology expert at the museum, Stuart Hine, agreed it was plausible to use insects to detect explosives.
But he added: “I feel that the reality of such cyborg fusion between insect and machine lies squarely in the realms of fiction.”
To receive micro-signals from the insects would require a dish “quite close and several feet in diameter, rendering it a less than covert operation”.
Darpa’s previous experiments to get bees and wasps to detect the smell of explosives foundered when their “instinctive behaviours for feeding and mating… prevented them from performing reliably”, it said.
Darpa was founded in 1958 to keep US military technology ahead of Cold War rivals.
Its website says it has around 240 personnel and a $2bn (1.1bn) budget. Supporters say much of its work has been successful, but it has also drawn criticism for unusable “blue-sky” projects.
A former director said in 1975: “When we fail, we fail big.”
GOOGLE, the internet giant, is planning a massive online facility that could store copies of users’ hard drives – a move set to spark alarm among civil liberties campaigners.
Plans for the “GDrive”, previously the subject of rumour among computer experts, were revealed accidentally after notes in a slideshow were wrongly published on Google’s site.
The device would create a mirror image of data stored on consumers’ computer hard drives, letting users search data stored on other computers via Google accounts.
While offering more convenient access to data, the service will stoke debate about the dangers of storing so much personal data on Google systems. Google recently squared up against the United States Justice Department, which has subpoenaed a limited set of data on Google search habits, drawing an outcry from privacy advocates.
In the presentation notes, the chief executive, Eric Schmidt, made a cryptic comment that one goal of Google was to “store 100 per cent” of consumer information”.
A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on any specific service, but confirmed that the presentation containing the notes had been mistakenly released on the internet. “We deleted the slide notes because they were not intended for publication,” she said.
“We are constantly working on ways to enhance our products and services for users, but have nothing to announce at this time.”
The new service could save computer users from loss of data by keeping a “golden copy” on Google’s centralised computers. However, the plan could be thwarted by privacy concerns.
Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocate, issued a similarly stern warning to consumers to not use such facilities because it would reduce their level of privacy protection.
Google has been at the centre of privacy row in the United States. Last August, Google rejected US government efforts to access its search logs to prop up a contested 1998 law designed to protect minors from objectionable material on the internet.
Microsoft, Yahoo, and America Online have all since admitted that they have provided the government with some of that data from their logs.
The revelations triggered a privacy rights row in Washington that has placed the administration of the president, George Bush, on the defensive and has sparked at least two investigations in Congress.
Earlier today, I stumbled across some more evidence which may further support rumors that GDrive will be made available publicly, possibly as part of Google Apps, though it could just mean that Google uses GDrive internally as part of Google Apps.
Anyone familiar with my previous Google-digging will know that I try to keep track of Google service names used by both Google Accounts and Google Apps. By changing query string parameters on various pages, it’s possible to get a glimpse into what Google might be working on. Many of the service code names I’ve discovered in the past have been released several months or years later, while others are still unreleased or remain to be a complete mystery.
What I discovered today was that Google Apps accounts allow you to change the query string parameter on the page where you can disable services. By changing the “service” parameter, I was given the option to disable GDrive on my account (even though it wasn’t currently enabled):
For anyone with their own Google Apps domain, you can try the following URL after replacing “example.com” with your own domain and signing in:
(Note: This also works for YouTube – service=youtube – and Google Video – service=videoonline – even though those services aren’t readily available to Google Apps accounts.)
In May this year, after being redirected from www10.google.com and prompted to sign in to a service called WWW10, I asked on my blog, “What is Google WWW10?” Upon further inspection, visiting www10.google.com tries to set the following cookie in the 302 response header:
So what does this mean exactly? I guess it means that the mysterious WWW10 service is likely to be GDrive or Platypus and that it’s possibly going to be available to Google Apps users. Of course, we shouldn’t forget that Google uses Google Apps themselves, so it’s also possible that GDrive is only enabled for the google.com Google Apps account and is only meant to be used internally.
Of course, it could also mean that we’re one more step closer to GDrive being released to everyone…
Update: It seems that www10.google.com no longer tries to set this cookie or redirect to the WWW10 login page. Is Google trying to hide something? [Thanks Luka!]
Update 2: And now Google has disabled the “DisableService” page for all services that you can’t yet add to your Google Apps account – which includes ah, cf, fensi, jotspot, sitemaps, videoonline, voice, www10 and youtube. The “DisableService” page does, however, still appear for the other services even if you have not yet added them to your account.
Would you notice if the room around you gradually shrank to a quarter of its size? Perhaps not, according to a virtual reality experiment that suggests that we ignore what we see if it clashes with our assumptions about the everyday world.
When you think about the kind of calculations that are needed to judge the relative scale of things, it’s amazing that looking around a room feels so effortless. At a glance, we can accurately judge the size of lamps and chairs no matter where they are. Such calculations are hard work even for a supercomputer, so our brains must be taking shortcuts. According to one theory, we gather only small amounts of visual data and base most of our perceived reality on prior assumptions. For example, we accurately size up a table as we approach it, but then assume it remains the same size thereafter.
Too weird.
People unconsciously ignored their environment when a virtual room’s size gradually expanded or shrank.
Credit: Stuart Gilson / Oxford University
To test just how deep our grasp of reality goes, neuroscientist Andrew Glennerster and colleagues at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom created a virtual reality world befitting Alice in Wonderland. By wearing a closed helmet with motion sensors and internal movie screens, people ambled through a room and viewed a red box floating in midair. Subjects then walked to the other side of the room to an equally sized box and were asked to guess how big it was relative to the first. But on the way over, the researchers caused the walls of the virtual room to either balloon or shrink by a factor of 4. They then asked people to judge the sizes of the boxes relative to each other.
Because people didn’t notice that the room was changing size, they made wildly inaccurate judgments about the relative sizes of the boxes, the team reports 21 February in Current Biology. Glennerster says this reveals that our brains are so hardwired with assumptions about the world–for example, that rooms do not change size as you move through them–that we completely ignore what we actually see. On the practical end, the study may help software designers create more compelling virtual realities.
The findings are “very surprising,” says John Porrill, a neuroscientist at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, who experienced the virtual room for himself. But he cautions that the results “may say more about virtual reality than they do about our ordinary perception of reality” because of the lack of real-world details such as seeing one’s own feet on the ground.
Here goes a repost of my 2006 summarization of DARPA’s then current AI/AGI programs, that were surfable on their site. Virtually all of them are still listed there, and some are even listed as “Completed” (ACIP & BICA). Then there are many other new ones there such as “Deep Green”. I’ll have much to write about once I’m done hassling with migrating everything from Myspace…
DATA INTENSIVE COMPUTING http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Solicitations/closed/99-03_CBD.htm Google Search Results
The purpose of the Data Intensive Systems (DIS) program is to develop a new memory architecture for computing systems that allows “data-starved” applications to run up to two to three orders-of-magnitude faster than they will on contemporary virtual memory systems. The new memory architecture will allow these applications to manage the placement and flow of their data. In addition, applications will be able to manipulate data in the memory subsystem itself.
High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/hpcs/index.htm
All out effort to discover and assemble basically all possible 21st century computing systems, which are key to making their AI programs all they can be.
TRANSFER LEARNING (TL)
Solicitaion was here a couple months ago, but Google still pulls up lots of info.
It’s to enable computers to apply knowledge learned for a particular, original set of tasks to achieve superior performance on new, previously unseen tasks.
Mission: The goal of the BICA program is to develop integrated psychologically-based and neurobiology-based cognitive architectures that can simulate human cognition in a variety of situations. In Phase I of the program, performers will develop theories of cognition, map cognitive functions to neurological structures, and design psychologically-based and neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures. In a subsequent phase of the program, performers will implement and evaluate computational models of the architectures designed in Phase I. In Phase I, a Cognitive Decathlon (i.e., tests of major cognitive functions) that will be used to evaluate the computational models implemented in Phase II will also be developed.
Vision:
The BICA program intends to develop artificial systems that can respond to a variety of situations by simulating human cognition that will enable it to learn from experience, reflect on current strategies and adjust them if necessary, and mentally simulate alternate plans and decisions. As the use of autonomous, unmanned, and intelligent systems in the military increases, the need for systems that can understand and respond to new and unique situations is growing dramatically. By modeling the flexibility and richness of human cognition, BICA will provide the first steps towards highly capable autonomous systems that could help the warfighter in support functions that are both manpower-intensive and dangerous.
Background: The traditional approach to artificial intelligence has provided many achievements but has fallen short of the grand vision of integrated, versatile, intelligent systems. Advances in cognitive psychology and neuroscience may offer potentially revolutionary enhancements to the development of such systems. Intensive research in neuroscience, enabled by advances in experimental techniques and instrumentation, has led to substantial progress in our understanding of the brain’s physiological mechanisms. At the same time, cognitive psychologists have developed increasingly robust computational architectures of human cognition. The BICA program seeks to bring together these disciplines, which have historically operated apart from one another, to develop integrated psychologically-based and neurobiologically-based cognitive architectures that can respond to a range of military situations.
Mission:
ACIP will develop, implement, and demonstrate computational architectures that will:
enable cognitive processing capabilities;
provide an efficient embedded, real-time, dynamic, data-intensive cognitive processing infrastructure; and
realize embedded, real-time cognitive implementations and applications that enable an overall goal of “systems that know what they are doing.”
Vision: ACIP will enable cognitive capabilities in embedded, real-time, dynamic, data-intensive, embedded missions and scenarios by providing an underlying processing infrastructure optimized to perform cognitive processing. ACIP will address the deficiencies and limitations currently preventing the deployment of efficient cognitive processing on the battlefield by developing a new generation of computing architectures (both hardware and software) that will enable revolutionary advances in cognitive information processing for embedded, real-time DoD applications. ACIP will incorporate biological, cognitive algorithm, and DoD mission challenge clues as inputs to establish the concepts of the effort.ACIP will address specific topic areas such as cognitive architectures, alternate representations, composable runtime software, active processing and memory retrieval hardware, and living frameworks to create efficient and unique cognitive information processing solutions. ACIP will create computing system capabilities that adapt to emerging threats and provide the warfighter with a new dimension of responsiveness. ACIP Phase I will investigate and establish innovative cognitive architectural concepts, approaches, and technology roadmap within the context of established DoD relevant applications. ACIP Phase II will develop and implement cognitive processing architectures, initially researched in ACIP Phase I. In Phase III ACIP will demonstrate and transition cognitive architectures and approaches within selected DoD applications and with DoD users. These solutions will be influenced and incorporate concurrent IPTO initiatives in the areas of functional demonstrations and algorithm developments and MTO initiatives addressing physical interconnect and packaging advances.
Background: Military forces today and increasingly for the future must be able to quickly react and adapt to complex and dynamic missions and scenarios. The complexity of the battlefield and the collage of information sources that must be brought to bear commonly overwhelm battlefield systems and the ability of the warfighter to assimilate and comprehend important information. Embedded, real-time “cognitive” processing for both the warfighter and associated automated systems will be critical to success in this complex environment (i.e., algorithms that do logical probabilistic reasoning over large knowledge bases, and also use learning techniques to improve over time). Current intelligent processing implementations depend on the use of existing COTS computing architectures that were developed and are best suited for numeric processing applications. In Addition, today’s knowledge representations, abstraction (processing objects), architectures, and implementations are ad hoc, awkward and inefficient. To realize the impact and promise of cognitive information processing approaches, computing architectures and development frameworks attuned to cognitive processing fundamentals need to be established that will implement uniquely cognitive structures efficiently. ACIP will develop, implement, and demonstrate the unique cognitive architectural infrastructures necessary for efficient cognitive processing and realizing truly cognitive capabilities.
Mission:
The objective of the REAL-WORLD REASONING (REAL) program is to explore and develop foundations, technology, and tools to enable effective, practical automated reasoning of the scale and complexity required for computers to perform complex tasks in the real world requiring intelligence. Effective, “real-world” machine reasoning requires inference in environments that are far more complex in scale and scope than those tackled by current machine reasoning methods. Enduring real-world systems need to deal with vast amounts of knowledge and information, often concerning dynamic and intentional phenomena. In addition, beliefs about the environment are often uncertain and involve plausible but not provable assumptions. The REAL program seeks innovative research methods that can make fundamental and breakthrough advances in real-world reasoning to deal with these and related problems.
Vision:
The program intends to:
1. Develop and demonstrate innovative techniques that push the envelope of performance of reasoning engines, in terms of the scale of the problems that can be dealt with, and the speed and correctness of reasoning.
2. Explore, develop, and demonstrate novel methods that extend the breadth of reasoning to deal with
a. Uncertain and dynamic environments where the knowledge base is characterized by uncertain and temporally changing information; and,
b. Strategic environments characterized by goals and intentions of many interacting agents and actors, in both cooperative and non-cooperative contexts.
Mission:
The goal of the SRS program is to develop technology for building military computing systems that provide critical functionality at all times, in spite of damage caused by unintentional errors or attacks. All current systems suffer eventual failure due to the accumulated effects of errors or attacks. The SRS program aims to develop technologies enabling military systems to learn, regenerate themselves, and automatically improve their ability to deliver critical services. If successful, self-regenerative systems will show a positive trend in reliability, actually exceeding initial operating capability and approaching a theoretical optimal performance level over long time intervals.
Mission:
The goal of the SRS program is to develop technology for building military computing systems that provide critical functionality at all times, in spite of damage caused by unintentional errors or attacks. All current systems suffer eventual failure due to the accumulated effects of errors or attacks. The SRS program aims to develop technologies enabling military systems to learn, regenerate themselves, and automatically improve their ability to deliver critical services. If successful, self-regenerative systems will show a positive trend in reliability, actually exceeding initial operating capability and approaching a theoretical optimal performance level over long time intervals.
Provide a focused research and development program, creating new generations of high end programming environments, software tools, architectures, and hardware components in order to realize a new vision of high end computing, high productivity computing systems (HPCS). Address the issues of low efficiency, scalability, software tools and environments, and growing physical constraints.
Fill the high end computing gap between today’s late 80’s based technology High Performance Computing (HPCs) and the promise of quantum computing.
Provide economically viable high productivity computing systems for the national security and industrial user communities with the following design attributes in the latter part of this decade:
Performance: Improve the computational efficiency and performance of critical national security applications.
Programmability: Reduce cost and time of developing HPCS application solutions.
Portability: Insulate research and operational HPCS application software from system specifics.
Robustness: Deliver improved reliability to HPCS users and reduce risk of malicious activities.
Background: High performance computing is at a critical juncture. Over the past three decades, this important technology area has provided crucial superior computational capability for many important national security applications. Government research, including substantial DoD investments, has enabled major advances in computing, contributing to the U.S. dominance of the world computer market. Unfortunately, current trends in commercial high performance computing, future complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology challenges, and emerging threats are creating technology gaps that threaten continued U.S. superiority in important national security applications.
As reported in recent DoD studies, there is a national security requirement for high productivity computing systems. Without government R&D and participation, high-end computing will be available only through commodity manufacturers primarily focused on mass-market consumer and business needs. This solution would be ineffective for important national security applications.
The HPCS program will significantly contribute to DoD and industry information superiority in the following critical applications areas: operational weather and ocean forecasting; planning exercises related to analysis of the dispersion of airborne contaminants; cryptanalysis; military platform analysis; survivability/stealth design; intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance systems; virtual manufacturing/failure analysis of large aircraft, ships, and structures; and emerging biotechnology.
President Bush spent a lot of time in his State of the Union address Tuesday evening talking about technology, but it was mostly about calling for better alternatives to oil. (Defending the war in Iraq was another.)
“Tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs” in automobile fuel and electrical generation, Bush said, citing an unhealthy “addiction” to oil.
Even though it may be a politically savvy move to call for weaning America from foreign oil, it’s hardly clear that the humble black liquid is in danger of disappearing. Peter Huber and Mark Mills last year wrote a provocative article that essentially argues: if prices go up and are viewed as staying up, there’s plenty of oil in Canada and Venezuela alone for the next century.
In addition to the oil angle, Bush also reiterated something he called for in the 2005 State of the Union address: digitized medical records. “We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors,” he said.
Finally, Bush cited three themes — R&D funding, R&D tax credit, and education — that are beloved by tech companies. Here’s an excerpt:
First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life — and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.
Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We’ve made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.
My exclusive film constructed entirely of quotes from government / military websites and documents. Presented as if from the war machine’s own ‘minds eye’. This video goes where no other film in existence does with the subject of the US military’s dream for engineered super-soldiers and a god-like cognitive self-aware artificial intelligence global computer grid. The animations and graphical images are also directly from military sources.
About Page / Research Guide: LINK
Torrent Download: COMING…
Google Video: LINK
“Road to Terrorstorm”
A project I started in 2006, got carried away with, then finally scaled it back down to the original ’simple’ concept and finished recently. A condensed compilation film of several older Infowars films mainly focusing on Police State & False Flag type tyranny pre-9/11. See them all in one package.
About Page: LINK
Torrent Download: LINK
Google Video: LINK
Research Guide: COMING…
“Neocon Wars”
An entertaining Ron Paul Star Wars parody that features intense style debate on US foreign policy which debunks the occupation of Iraq and the “War on Terror” in particular.
About Page: COMING…
Torrent Download: LINK
Google Video: LINK
Research Guide: COMING…
“They Want Your Soul”
My first short video, from 2006. The first film in history to ever discuss US military (DARPA) “AI” (AGI) ambitions. Begins with a cynical look at “American” culture, with a touch of conspiracy and concludes with potential religious implications.
About Page / Research Guide: LINK
Torrent Download: COMING…
Google Video: LINK
A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is “in bed with” the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.
Steele’s 
