Friday, 29 June 2012
A moot point about the sun rising!
A moot point about the sun rising!
When the indubitable realized and unrealized consequences of Gillard's unique ill - conceived, economically irrational socially catastrophic, pathetically usurious, misnamed, plainly ignorant Marxist AKA social - justice - based carbon dioxide tax have had their multifarious consequences, it will be a moot point as to who remembers their currently parroted asinine byline about the sun still rising in their utopian world.
They will be gone soon - sadly not before they will have damaged everything they touched.
Think how many lives could have been saved if the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars these professional twirps waste of this mega - incompetent government had gone into medical research!
Any thinking person will wonder how this government can create so many disasters.
It is obvious to me: it is all a brilliant ruse. First create so many imbecilic policies then waste so much money, manifestly create lots of enquiries non acted upon, vitiate any semblence of common sense - and do it so rapidly that they think none of them can be absorbed in all their trite ineptitudinous execritudes!
There!
I have created a couple of new words; it is necessary to describe it in some sort of context.
But they are wrong: the biographers creating their obituary: no one will revisit their sepulcher: there will be no resurrection for the left in our lifetime.
And perhaps worse of all - they have no one who even thinks about fixing things.
No one who believes there are consequences in everything a government does.
History will be brutal.
GS
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Of Cats and Men!! Google messes up
Work - in - progress!
Is artificial intelligence a threat to the Argument - from - Design idea supported by BILLIONS?
Man has already created computers that some years ago could beat in chess any homo sapien: Is this a reason for concern for anyone?
Yet we have the below postulate: that they have created a mere fragment of our minds - a computer that allegedly can recognize a cat!
No time to criticise Google for now.
However I do wonder how close we really are to anything remotely approaching artificial intelligence - and how far removed THAT would be to a Supreme Being.
The simplest cell would take a groupp of Evolution - supporting monkeys 10 10000000 years to fail to create.
Sadly the chess analogy does not work for me.
GS
On top of Google's artificial mind: the ability to recognise cats
- The Times
- June 27, 2012
Of possible interest in future:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis
On top of Google's artificial mind: the ability to recognise cats
- The Times
- June 27, 2012
The project could mark an important advance in the effort to create machines that are able to interact with the world - by recognising shapes and objects - as effortlessly as humans do.
A Google team connected 16,000 computer processors to create a "neural network" with more than one billion connections.
It turned out that this "Google brain" behaved in a manner that mirrored the habits of many human internet users: it became obsessed with pictures of cats.
The researchers fed the machine random images plucked from 10 million YouTube videos. Despite none of the images being labelled as feline, the Google brain constructed a kind of ghostly abstract model of a cat after being bombarded by millions of pictures.
"We never told it during the training, 'This is a cat'," Jeff Dean, a Google scientist, said. "It basically invented the concept of a cat."
By the end of the experiment the Google brain recognised three quarters of the cats that it was presented with, from a collection of 20,000 objects.
It also proved sensitive to human bodies and faces and performed more than twice as accurately as any previous neural network, according to The New York Times. The researchers who conducted the experiment believe that the process may have mirrored what happens in the human visual cortex, which is the largest system in the
human brain and is responsible for processing visual images.
Recognising a cat may sound like a trivial thing, but in the world of artificial intelligence it is significant.
Experts sometimes refer to "Moravec's paradox". This is an expression of a counterintuitive truth: that training machines to do things that are easy for humans (such as recognising a cat) is often far harder than training machines to do tasks that humans can find challenging (such as playing chess).
Hans Moravec, an expert in robotics at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh, said: "It is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility."
The Google brain appears to be the first artificial neural network to identify objects without hints from a human supervisor, but it has a long way to go before it matches the human brain.
"It is worth noting that our network is still tiny compared to the human visual cortex, which is a million times larger in terms of the number of neurons and synapses," the researchers wrote.
The technology has been developed in Google's X Lab, a secretive facility led by Sebastian Thrun, a guru in the field of artificial intelligence. Among Professor Thrun's other projects are Google's driverless car. He has also worked on Google Glass, a pair of spectacles that displays data from the web in front of a user's eyes.
The Times
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Children the victims in minefield of same-sex marriage breakdowns
Posted without comment by GS
Children the victims in minefield of same-sex marriage breakdowns
- The Australian
- June 21, 2012
- 26 comments
The chairman, Graham Perrett, and some members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs have supported the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; each proposes to change the Marriage Act to recognise homosexual marriage.
Perrett suggests that "marriage is still the best way to protect committed monogamous relationships". And further: "The love between same-sex couples is no different to that of opposite-sex couples, and deserves no less the public recognition which marriage bestows."
He fails to mention children. If it is only about love and recognition of a monogamous relationship, then there is no debate: do what you like to marriage. But if it is about children and the best institutional means of securing their future, then there is a debate.
For the supporters of homosexual marriage, marriage is not about reproduction; it is about delivering equality. Their claim ignores the fact two men or two women cannot as a matter of course, indeed, as a matter of intercourse, conceive children. Barring extraordinary intervention, there is no next generation.
The evidence seems clear: the best conditions for the creation and upbringing of children is a loving, long-term relationship. Whether these conditions are emulated in a homosexual relationship, however loving and stable, is the case in point. Homosexual couples may contrive to have children, but if they do so, a third and sometimes a fourth person enters the relationship.
I take a practical view on the matter, as prescribed by Murphy's law. If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.
In considering changes to the Marriage Act, the more people are involved, the likelier is the breakdown of the marriage. Moreover, should breakdown occur, it would be more difficult than it otherwise would be to manage the future of the children.
Placing to one side the ideal -- natural conception within wedlock -- homosexual marriage may work for children.
Heterosexual as well as homosexual marriage where IVF or surrogacy is used, however, carries the potential for donor claims during the marriage, or at its dissolution.
My argument is that, while homosexual marriage may not carry an extra risk per se, if there is an intention to have children, it always starts with a third person, a sleeper in the relationship. This is not true as a matter of course in heterosexual marriage.
Start with the simple case of a failed marriage: one man, one woman and one healthy child. The relationship breaks down. So long as one or both parents are not incompetent, parenting can be shared through the length of the child's life. Even still, there is a great deal of litigation at the Family Law Courts over these matters.
Consider a complex and, incidentally, true case: two women in a relationship conceive babies by artificial means to two men in a relationship. Both relationships break down. Potentially, each child has four people claiming a relationship with the children.
The Family Law Courts and many talented practitioners in Australia work mightily to settle what two parents and more cannot: the continuing shared parenting of children after the dissolution of the marriage. Adding more claimants makes it much more difficult.
Marriage as an institution for child-rearing is not foolproof. Adding complexity to an already increasingly complex world for marriage intensifies as a matter of course, not as a matter of exception, for homosexuals.
In the 1980s, Australian state and territory governments began amending legislation to provide de facto couples with similar rights to married couples, and from the end of the 90s they began to extend these rights to same-sex de facto couples to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation in relationships.
But that is as far as it goes.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has been at its unhelpful best in its submissions to the parliamentary committee, arguing that "the principle of equality requires that any formal relationship recognition available under federal law to opposite-sex couples should also be available to same-sex couples".
Homosexual marriage begins with a vastly different assumption to heterosexual marriage. The assertion of equality cannot overcome this assumption.
The commission also states, "We do hold a very genuine concern that anything that publicly legitimises discrimination of any kind does play to a feeling that these relationships can be treated with less respect." The respect is for the institution of marriage, not a contrived equality.
##############################################################################
HAVE YOUR SAY
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Candidly Speaking: Breakfast with Peter Beinart16 May 2012
Candidly Speaking: Breakfast with Peter Beinart
05/16/2012 21:26
During a recent visit to New York, I had an extended breakfast meeting with controversial author Peter Beinart who in recent months received enormous media exposure as the most prominent far-left critic of Israel in the United States. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a feisty New York conservative Jewish activist , also participated.
I must confess that I prefer confronting less charming adversaries. Beinart, who is 41 years old, is an amiable, charismatic and highly articulate personality. In contrast to many Jewish critics of Israel who are often ignorant and indifferent of their Jewish heritage, he considers himself a committed Jew, maintains a kosher home, attends synagogue and sends his children to Jewish day schools. He also regards himself as a passionate Zionist and claims that his prime motivation is to contribute to the long-term future of Israel and the Jewish people.
But despite his likeable personality and insistence that “disagreements” with Israeli government policies do not detract from his ardent love of Israel, Beinart has unquestionably now assumed a prominent role as a leading Jew engaged in demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.
His portrait of Israel, which he accuses of obsessively exploiting “victimhood,” is consistently distorted and imbalanced. His analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict is unfailingly biased, not merely because he is unfairly critical of Israeli government policies but more so because he has essentially adopted the narrative of our enemies. He dismisses the reality that the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to rule over Arabs and – if they had a genuine peace partner – would welcome a Palestinian state.
While occasionally paying lip service and condemning some Arab abominations, his book concentrates on Palestinian suffering and lacks comprehension and compassion for the violence and terror suffered by the Israelis since Oslo. To accuse him of establishing moral equivalence between the parties would be an understatement.
He even condemns Israel for not having tried hard enough to find a diplomatic solution with Hamas to avert the Gaza War. Beinart uses clichés like occupation even in relation to Gaza, despite the fact that aside from border security and an ineffective prohibition on importing arms, the Hamas state is entirely independent and runs its own affairs.
The core of his case rests on the distorted and widely discredited chronicle of former PrimeMinister Ehud Olmert, who Beinart insists was close to achieving a settlement .
He thus praises the limited security cooperation achieved with the PA as a diplomatic strategy to gain international support but fails to relate to the stubborn intransigence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, his refusal to end incitement, educate his people for peaceful co-existence or compromise on the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
Beinart repeats the mantra that in the absence ofsettlements , peace and goodwill would prevail and warns that unless they are dismantled, a single state will emerge which will demographically destroy the Zionist dream. The most radical aspect of his approach is his despicable call for a “Zionist BDS” – a global boycott of goods from the settlements, which he defines as “nondemocratic Israel.”
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is depicted as a duplicitous schemer who pays lip service to peace but in practice bitterly opposes any genuine settlement. In contrast, he adulates PresidentBarack Obama, devoting to him an entire chapter of his book, bizarrely titled “The Jewish President,” extolling his virtues as a ardent friend of Israel.
I challenged Beinart on how, as a committed Jew and purported Zionist resident in New York, he failed to experience pangs of conscience when adopting a stand on life and death issues which ran counter to the will of the majority of Israelis. He retorted that his views mirrored those of many Israelis and that as an American Jew who loved Israel, he felt an obligation to speak up.
When we parted, Beinart graciously presented me a copy of his book with an inscription referring to me as “a fellow lover of the Jewish people and the Jewish state,” but it was clear that our respective positions remained unchanged. Yet, although he did not say so explicitly, my impression was that were he to write his book today, he would not include his radical call for a boycott of settlements, which alienated him from farleft groups who otherwise share his views.
Beinart is not a self-hating Jew, but many allege that his views stem from a calculated decision to advance his career or are subconsciously motivated by a desire to become the darling of the far-leftliberals . If he has genuinely convinced himself that his motives are exclusively altruistic, one is tempted to suggest that he is displaying egomaniacal or narcissistic characteristics.
Despite the extensive media coverage, sales of his book have been poor and most reviews, including many from the left, have panned him, particularly in relation to his call for a Zionist BDS. Even J Street distanced itself from this. Initial indicators suggest that as of now, the vast majority of AmericanJews oppose his views and only a small (albeit noisy) group support him.
But one should not underestimate the potential damage he can inflict. One need only “Google” his name to appreciate the enormous media fest associated with him. His demonic misrepresentation of current Israeli government policies has the potential of influencing and confusing Jews on the left fringe and providing succor to those seeking to besmirch and delegitimize Israel at a time when it is confronting grave existential dangers. It is thus crucial that his fraudulent allegations and distortions be exposed and refuted.
It is highly disconcerting that only last week Beinart was one of a group, which included other virulently hostile critics of Israel, who met and consulted with President Obama on the Middle East. Beinart would unquestionably be at the vanguard of those encouraging the president (if reelected) to renew pressure against the Jewish state. He would also unquestionably urge him to implement his call to boycott Israeli settlement products.
It is thus important that we publicize the fact that Beinart’s extremist views are ananathema to the vast majority of Israelis as well as American Jews. In this context, while endorsing the principal that the widest range of opinions should partake at the forthcoming Peres Presidential Conference scheduled for June in Jerusalem, the disturbing decision by the organizers to invite Beinart as a keynote speaker, is perplexing and inexplicable.
It implies a failure to appreciate the damage that providing such a prestigious platform and legitimizing the status of a Jew promoting an odious campaign explicitly calling for a global boycott of Israeli settlements, inflicts on both our self-respect and international standing. Above all, it conveys an utterly confused message to the Obama administration on where Israel itself draws red lines.
I must confess that I prefer confronting less charming adversaries. Beinart, who is 41 years old, is an amiable, charismatic and highly articulate personality. In contrast to many Jewish critics of Israel who are often ignorant and indifferent of their Jewish heritage, he considers himself a committed Jew, maintains a kosher home, attends synagogue and sends his children to Jewish day schools. He also regards himself as a passionate Zionist and claims that his prime motivation is to contribute to the long-term future of Israel and the Jewish people.
But despite his likeable personality and insistence that “disagreements” with Israeli government policies do not detract from his ardent love of Israel, Beinart has unquestionably now assumed a prominent role as a leading Jew engaged in demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.
His portrait of Israel, which he accuses of obsessively exploiting “victimhood,” is consistently distorted and imbalanced. His analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict is unfailingly biased, not merely because he is unfairly critical of Israeli government policies but more so because he has essentially adopted the narrative of our enemies. He dismisses the reality that the vast majority of Israelis have no desire to rule over Arabs and – if they had a genuine peace partner – would welcome a Palestinian state.
While occasionally paying lip service and condemning some Arab abominations, his book concentrates on Palestinian suffering and lacks comprehension and compassion for the violence and terror suffered by the Israelis since Oslo. To accuse him of establishing moral equivalence between the parties would be an understatement.
He even condemns Israel for not having tried hard enough to find a diplomatic solution with Hamas to avert the Gaza War. Beinart uses clichés like occupation even in relation to Gaza, despite the fact that aside from border security and an ineffective prohibition on importing arms, the Hamas state is entirely independent and runs its own affairs.
The core of his case rests on the distorted and widely discredited chronicle of former Prime
He thus praises the limited security cooperation achieved with the PA as a diplomatic strategy to gain international support but fails to relate to the stubborn intransigence of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, his refusal to end incitement, educate his people for peaceful co-existence or compromise on the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
Beinart repeats the mantra that in the absence of
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is depicted as a duplicitous schemer who pays lip service to peace but in practice bitterly opposes any genuine settlement. In contrast, he adulates President
I challenged Beinart on how, as a committed Jew and purported Zionist resident in New York, he failed to experience pangs of conscience when adopting a stand on life and death issues which ran counter to the will of the majority of Israelis. He retorted that his views mirrored those of many Israelis and that as an American Jew who loved Israel, he felt an obligation to speak up.
When we parted, Beinart graciously presented me a copy of his book with an inscription referring to me as “a fellow lover of the Jewish people and the Jewish state,” but it was clear that our respective positions remained unchanged. Yet, although he did not say so explicitly, my impression was that were he to write his book today, he would not include his radical call for a boycott of settlements, which alienated him from farleft groups who otherwise share his views.
Beinart is not a self-hating Jew, but many allege that his views stem from a calculated decision to advance his career or are subconsciously motivated by a desire to become the darling of the far-left
Despite the extensive media coverage, sales of his book have been poor and most reviews, including many from the left, have panned him, particularly in relation to his call for a Zionist BDS. Even J Street distanced itself from this. Initial indicators suggest that as of now, the vast majority of American
But one should not underestimate the potential damage he can inflict. One need only “Google” his name to appreciate the enormous media fest associated with him. His demonic misrepresentation of current Israeli government policies has the potential of influencing and confusing Jews on the left fringe and providing succor to those seeking to besmirch and delegitimize Israel at a time when it is confronting grave existential dangers. It is thus crucial that his fraudulent allegations and distortions be exposed and refuted.
It is highly disconcerting that only last week Beinart was one of a group, which included other virulently hostile critics of Israel, who met and consulted with President Obama on the Middle East. Beinart would unquestionably be at the vanguard of those encouraging the president (if reelected) to renew pressure against the Jewish state. He would also unquestionably urge him to implement his call to boycott Israeli settlement products.
It is thus important that we publicize the fact that Beinart’s extremist views are an
It implies a failure to appreciate the damage that providing such a prestigious platform and legitimizing the status of a Jew promoting an odious campaign explicitly calling for a global boycott of Israeli settlements, inflicts on both our self-respect and international standing. Above all, it conveys an utterly confused message to the Obama administration on where Israel itself draws red lines.
Showing 34 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY