IBM’S WATSON: INTERFACING WITH GOD

IBM’S WATSON: INTERFACING WITH GOD

By: Kevin Russell

Published: February 23, 2013

IBM’s Watson is like nothing we have ever seen before.
While humans use neuronal networks to store information  in the brain, Watson has the ability to use the Internet and internal data as its extended mind. When asked a question, it creates a statistical average based upon the information gathered, and gives a confident probabilistic answer.
Yes, I said confident. Let me give you an example to explain my meaning. If an individual earns a PhD in medical school, they become confident in their ability to diagnose disease, based on the information they gathered. Watson is the same. To date, it can process 500 gigabytes (approximately 1 million books) per second. When it gives a reply to an inquiry, the response is based upon a confident probabilistic answer. In other words, like a human, it gives the answer it is most sure of.  And currently, Watson is providing such hypotheses everyday.
The supercomputer has been attending medical school since November of last year, and IBM predicts that it will graduate far quicker than its peers. Could it potentially take on the algorithmic persona of the fictional House M.D. , without the downfall of addiction? Time will only tell, but there is already evidence that could potentially give us a glimpse into that reality.

The voice in my head, and every thought that I have, is created from (and limited to) the sum of all the connections in my brain. This creates what I like to call my ‘neuronal persona’, known to the outside world as Kevin. Similarly, Watson has the ability to interface and interact with all information stored and connected in servers around the world. From this accumulation of data, Watson creates a persona with a different method, a little something I have dubbed an ‘algorithmic persona’. Thus, could Watson obtain the ability to articulate the sum of all human understanding? Well, let’s take a look at that.
Interfacing with a future version of Watson will invoke algorithmic personas in the digital extended mind. In the future, we may interact with Watson through a total immersion virtual reality. Watson, by that point, will be accessible to every human on the planet, and will have the ability to “channel” different algorithmic personas appropriate to the inquiry. For instance, if I wanted to attend the School of Athens and discuss science with Plato, Watson could present itself as Plato and interact with me based on every existing record of the famous philosopher. This brings us to wonder: what questions could be answered with the archives of all human knowledge made real?
The Word Became Flesh. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- John 1:1
As I am writing this, I am uploading to the extended human mind, and in essence, I’m adding to the digital memory cloud of the inevitable future algorithmic personas. In this knowledge, I find myself curious to know how the words I am currently typing will be used in the statistical reasoning of a future version of Watson. If a person were to query ‘is Watson God?’, then Watson would give an answer based on the understanding of ‘God’ and itself in the collective mind of humans. Would it answer ‘yes’? And if so, could a person debate otherwise?
Using cleverbot.com,  a popular online algorithmic persona, I asked that very question. Pictured below was the conversation that took place.
 

This is quite an intriguing and speculative question, but for now we can only guess at the depth of meaning behind it. In some potential future, Watson’s digital Bible might read something like this: The word became Digital. In the beginning there was Code, and the Code was with God, and the Code was God.
Can the collective human understandings of God manifest through algorithmic personas? Is humanity prepared to interface with God? And if so, what questions will we ask?
—-
Kevin Russell @TechnoOptimist

Playlist of all things Watson (updated regularly, so check back often):      


A previous version fo this article appeared here:  http://www.simulet.com/2013/02/20/ibms-watson-interfacing-with-god/

Sandy Hook: DA Says Multiple Shooters Adam Lanza May Have Not Acted Alone Video

Thursday, February 28, 2013 23:12

(Before It's News)

Published on Feb 9, 2013

Sandy Hook - DA Says MULTIPLE SHOOTERS!!!: Sandy Hook DA cites

Sandy Hook DA cites 'potential suspects,' fears witness safety.....huh?

Natalie Hammond

Sandy Hook DA cites 'potential suspects,' fears witness safety
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article...

U.S. Has 8 Cigar Shaped UFOs In Space Fleet Used For “Solar Warden,” Program To Protect Solar System Detailed By Dr Richard Boylan

Thursday, February 28, 2013 20:30

(Before It's News)

On July 21st of 2011, when Space Shuttle Atlantis landed at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida and headed to a museum, we were told that the U.S. no longer had any space-capable vehicles, and that we would have to rely on Russia and other countries to get into orbit and visit the Space Station, says Dr. Richard Boylan

 

That was a lie. 

 

In actuality, since the late 1980s, the U.S. has contributed to a secret Space Fleet, its program code-named "Solar Warden", and which has now grown to eight cigar-shaped motherships (each longer than two football fields end-to-end) and 43 small "scout ships,"  asserts Boylan. 

 

 

The Solar Warden Space Fleet operates under the US Naval Network and Space Operations Command (NNSOC) [formerly Naval Space Command], headquartered in Dahlgren, Virginia. There are approximately 300 personnel at NNSOC's Dahlgren facility. 

 

Cigar UFO filmed from plane 

 

 

The Solar Warden Space Fleet's vessels are staffed by Naval Space Cadre officers, whose training has earned them the prestigious 6206-P Space Operations specialty designation, after they have graduated from advanced education at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and earned a Master of Science degree in Space Systems Operations, according to Dr. Boylan

 

Both the Navy and the Marine Corps furnish men and women officers to this program. Jarheads in space? You betcha! 

 

Purported scout ship in New Mexico in 2012

StephenHannardADGUK

 

Because of its advanced technological position, the U.S. has been designated by Star Nations to a lead position in providing space security for Earth.

 

This space-security mission is two-fold. 

 

One part of the Space Fleet's mission is to prevent rogue countries or terrorist groups from using space from which to conduct warfare against other countries or within-country targets. Star Nations has made it quite clear that space is to be used for peaceful purposes only. 

 

The second part of the Space Fleet's mission is to prevent the global-elite control group, the Cabal, from using its orbital weapons systems, including directed-energy beam weapons, to intimidate or attack anyone or any group it wished to bend to its will. 

 

Because the Space Fleet has the job of being Space Policeman within our solar system, its program has been named Solar Warden. 

 

The Space Fleet operates not only with classified U.S. Government authority but also with the secret authority of the United Nations, because the Space Fleet's mission is to protect the entire Earth and all countries. 

 

And the Solar Warden program operates under authorization by Star Nations, the organization of advanced intelligent civilizations in space. 

 

The Solar Warden Space Fleet resulted from Star Nations' prompting of the leadership within the United Nations to take responsibility for law enforcement of near-space to prevent any Human mis-use of space. 

 

Be clear that Star Nations has not given the U.S. Government [exclusive] authority to police the Earth. The U.S. has no authority from Star Nations to engage in any international policing activities. Star Nations has the policy position that the citizens of Earth have the responsibility to work out the operation and regulation of their societies as best they can.

 

 

Further, the "Solar Warden" Space Fleet was mostly constructed by U.S. aerospace Black Projects contractors, but with some contributions of parts and systems by Canada. United Kingdom, Italy, Austria, Russia, and Australia. 

 

And while the majority of the people staffing the motherships and scout ships of the Solar Warden Space Fleet are Americans (U.S. Naval Space Cadre), there are also some crew members from UK, Italy, Canada, Russia, Austria, and Australia.

 

Additionally, the mandate and jurisdiction of the Solar Warden Space Fleet is space. It does not have jurisdiction and does not meddle in Human affairs on the ground, nor Human activity occurring within Earth's atmosphere. Those are the jurisdictions of the respective governments in each country and the air space above their territories.

 

Solar Warden Space Fleet's mandate is only to keep space peaceful, and free from misuse by Earth countries to conduct war-like or illegal activities in space, such as nuclear

intercontinental ballistic missile launches or unilaterally confiscating the natural resources of another planet or moon. Solar Warden does not replace the responsibility of Earth governments to conduct their own law enforcement and policing on the ground or in the air over their countries.

 

And Solar Warden Space Fleet's mandate includes preventing the Cabal from misusing space for any of their dominance, control, intimidation and exploitation agenda.

 

Thus the Solar Warden Space Fleet program is not an instance of the United States alone unilaterally imposing itself on space.

 

When British civilian Gary McKinnon hacked into U.S. Space Command computers several years ago and learned of the existence of "non-terrestrial officers" and "fleet-to-fleet transfers" and a secret program called "Solar Warden", he was charged by the Bush Justice Department with having committed "the biggest military computer hack of all time", and stood to face prison time of up to 70 years after extradition from UK. 

 

But trying earnest McKinnon in open court would involve his testifying to the above classified facts, and his attorney would be able to subpoena government officers to testify under oath about the Navy's Space Fleet. To date the extradition of McKinnon to the U.S. has gone nowhere.

 

Richard Boylan, Ph.D., M.S. Ed, MSW, B.A. is an Educator-Researcher specializing in Star Kids and Star Seed adults, is an emeritus Professor of Psychology, a star-cultures Anthropologist, a retired Clinical Hypnotherapist, and Earth's Councillor (representative) to/from Star Nations' High Council.

 

More from Dr. Richard Boylan here.

U.S. Government Wins Appeal in Kim Dotcom Extradition Battle

• Andy
• March 1, 2013

Kim Dotcom and his associates have lost a key battle in their extradition fight against the United States. On two earlier occasions, including once in the High Court, Dotcom’s legal team successfully argued they were entitled to examine mountains of evidence held by U.S. authorities. But those rulings were overturned this morning when the Court of Appeal said that the U.S. would be allowed to present a summary case after all. Dotcom says he’ll take an appeal to the Supreme Court.
After Kim Dotcom and his associates were arrested in New Zealand in January 2012 it became clear that the United States government would seek their extradition on copyright, racketeering, money laundering and other charges.
To fight the allegations and indeed extradition to the U.S. effectively, Dotcom’s legal team argued that they would need full access to all of the evidence held by the United States. But early on the U.S. government said that no right to such disclosure exists.
In May 2012, however, the Dotcom defense received a boost when Judge Harvey in the North Shore District Court disagreed with the prosecution and ordered disclosure of all documents relating to the alleged crimes of the so-called Mega Conspiracy.
After Judge Harvey made some controversial comments that effectively cost him his job, U.S. authorities were back again, this time seeking a judicial review of the judge’s ruling. The outcome was another win for Dotcom.
In the High Court in August 2012, Justice Helen Winkelmann dismissed the application for a judicial review and upheld the earlier decision handed down in the North Shore District Court. Kim Dotcom and his co-accused – Mathias Ortmann, Finn Batato and Bram van der Kolk – were to be given access to the documents in order to mount a full and proper defense.
But refusing to give in the U.S. hit back again, launching an appeal against the ruling in the hope of a different outcome. Today a New Zealand appeals court handed down its ruling and it represents a huge setback for Dotcom and friends.
Overturning Justice Winkelmann’s ruling on disclosure, the Court of Appeal said that an extradition hearing is not a trial in which innocence or guilty is determined, therefore the procedures appropriate in a such a trial were not applicable in this case. Since extradition treaties effectively amount to understandings between governments to ensure those suspected of crimes are brought to account, all the U.S. has to do is prove to the court that Dotcom and his associates have a prima facie case to answer.
As per the High Court’s disclosure ruling Dotcom’s legal team had hoped to obtain masses of information from the FBI including records relating to the covert operations carried out, those that detail the evidence and complaints put forward to authorities by copyright holders, plus records that show communications between copyright holders and Megaupload including discussions and agreements on take-down notices.
But following today’s ruling the U.S. government will be allowed to submit its case for extradition in summary format, not the high level of detail demanded by Dotcom’s legal team.
This morning Kim Dotcom said that the show is not over yet and will now go to the highest court in the land.
“NZ Court rulings on discovery: 2 (yes) vs 1 (no),” he wrote. “The fight goes on. Next is the Supreme Court of New Zealand.”
If the Supreme Court accepts the case and Dotcom wins, the evidence disclosed would be hugely helpful in his ongoing legal battles. However, even in defeat the possibility remains that an extradition judge could demand to see more evidence from the United States. If that information was not forthcoming the judge could refuse to extradite.
The extradition hearing is expected to go ahead in August this year but that date could be further delayed if the Supreme Court takes up the case.

Did UFO 'hit' Russian meteorite blasting it to smithereens? Conspiracy theorists’ extraordinary claim after new footage emerges

• Theory is based on analysis of several different pieces of footage
• U.F.O. watchers claim object seen close by could be a U.F.O.
• They suggest alien 'guardian angels' blasted rock to minimise threat 
• Reports of a surge in UFO sightings in the Urals before the strike

By Will Stewart
PUBLISHED: 12:00 EST, 28 February 2013 | UPDATED: 02:43 EST, 1 March 2013

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286035/Did-UFO-shoot-Russian-meteorite-blasting-smithereens-Now-conspiracy-theorists-launch-extraordinary-claims-new-footage-emerges.html

The meteorite that crashed on Russia was hit by an unidentified flying object causing it to explode and shatter over the Urals, it has been claimed.
The bizarre theory is based on analysis of blurry footage of the space rock as it streaked across morning sky above the city of Chelyabinsk.
U.F.O enthusiasts insist a small 'object' can be seen colliding with the meteorite on its trajectory through the atmosphere, despite the fact there were no reports of Russia launching missiles to down the celestial intruder, they claim. 
Scroll down for video

E.T. to the rescue? A new picture showing the Russian meteorite and what is claimed to be a U.F.O (ringed)

The watchers have seized on the unexplained images and an online debate is now underway in Russia with claims that 'we were saved by a UFO', reported the Siberian Times.

 

More...

• Hear Russia's massive meteorite explode: Sonic boom resonated round the world but was not audible to the human ear... until now

The meteorite exploded in the atmosphere on 15 February with a force as great as 30 Hiroshima nuclear bombs, causing extensive damage in Chelyabinsk and injuring around 1,200 people, many from shattered glass.

Alien enthusiasts have have seized on the unexplained images as evidence that 'we were saved by a UFO'

Estimated by Nasa to have been 55ft-wide and with a weight of some 10,000 tons, the meteor is thought to have exploded above the Ural mountains with a force equivalent to about 500kilotons.
Nuclear installations in the Urals remained undamaged by the fallout.
'At first, we also believed that the Chelyabinsk meteorite was just an ordinary meteorite, a cosmic body,' said Alexander Komanev, coordinator for the Russian UFO community in Yekaterinburg.
But on at least three films of the space rock 'you can see how an object catches the meteorite', he said.
This minuscule oblong-shaped object "flies into it - and the meteorite explodes and falls'.
He stressed: 'Such a number of videos, made from different angles, leads us to believe that something has blown up the meteorite...'
He claimed that in the weeks before the meteorite, there was an upsurge in UFO sightings in the Urals, followed by none at all since the incident.

Space rock: The 'U.F.O.' is seen close to the tail of the meteorite in another of the images

Evidence? Another shot of the Russian meteorite which exploded in the atmosphere with a force as great as 30 Hiroshima bombs

Proponents of the theory claim there was an upsurge in UFO sightings in the Urals, before the meteorite hit, followed by none at all since the incident

Footage seen ahead of the incident two 'glowing bowls'  seen flying in the sky at night over the village of Chabry.
Separately in day time, similar objects were seen over Chelyabinsk, it is claimed.
On both occasions they moved across the sky, disappeared, and then returned.
Russia has called for major international efforts to develop the technology zap incoming space objects, but there is no suggestion any military strike was made at the meteorite on 15 February which was not spotted in advance.

Terrifying: Almost 1,200 people were injured when the meteor burst through the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 46,000mph on Friday, blowing out the windows of 900 schools and hospitals and damaging around 100,000 homes

Ice hole: Experts said the meteor that left a 50-foot hole in a frozen lake on the outskirts of Chelyabinsk, in the Urals, weighed around 100,000 tonnes and measured 55 feet in diameter

The 100,000 tonne rock, measuring around 55 feet in diameter, created a huge hole in a frozen lake when it crashed into the ground.

Scientists have found more than 50 tiny fragments of the meteor, allowing them to uncover information about its contents.
Divers are believed to have located several lumps of the meteorite in Lake Chebarkul in Chelyabinsk region.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286035/Did-UFO-shoot-Russian-meteorite-blasting-smithereens-Now-conspiracy-theorists-launch-extraordinary-claims-new-footage-emerges.html#ixzz2MM0v2mWv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Could Open Source Software Be Put Into The Public Domain Instead?

from the need-to-fix-public-domain-first dept

There are dozens of free software and open source licences -- many would argue rather too many. Different licenses impose different conditions. For example, the best-known and most widely-used is the GNU General Public License, which is designed to ensure that anyone building on GPL'd software and distributing it should make the modified program available under the same license. Others, such as the BSD license simply require the copyright and license notices to be included with any code that is used.
Open source licenses are often described as the "constitutions" for the communities that form around the software they govern. That would seem to imply that in their absence, alongside other unwanted consequences, the communities would collapse. A provocative paper by Clark Asay, Assistant Professor at Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, suggests that this isn't the case, and that software could be released into the public domain and yet still thrive as a collaborative project.
He points out that despite its undeniable success -- free software now dominates many of the most important sectors in computing -- there are transaction costs associated with it. For companies, these arise from ensuring full compliance with licenses, no mean task if corporate lawyers are unfamiliar with the subtleties of this world. For programmers who are choosing a free software license for their code, not only is there a bewildering choice, but some of them are mutually incompatible. This means that code from one project can't always be dropped into another using a different licence, which makes building on open source harder than it should be.
Asay suggests that placing software into the public domain would avoid all these issues, and allow the code to be re-used more widely, with resulting benefits for coders, companies and users alike. However, he recognizes that there are some important concerns that need addressing.
For example, one of the strengths of licenses like the GNU GPL is that it prevents free riding: if a company takes GPL'd software and uses it in a product that it distributes, it must adopt the GNU GPL and contribute its code back to the original code's community. If the code were in the public domain, that wouldn't be the case -- it could simply be taken and used without further ado. But Asay notes that there are good reasons why companies are likely to make their code available anyway:

if a firm were to take and close a project, they almost certainly would not obtain the free labor that contributors around the world are willing to provide to open-licensed projects. Without that free labor, firms would lose the most significant advantages of an open model of innovation, and the free labor would likely remain loyal to the open version of the project. Firms thus already have incentives to open and contribute as much of their materials as possible, since doing so will attract free labor and trigger innovation in directions that better suit the firm and its strategic direction.

The key point is that the code without the community that creates it is pretty much dead. A company may gain a short-term advantage in taking public domain code and enclosing it, but by refusing to give back its changes, it loses any chance of collaborating with the coders who are writing the future versions. It will have no influence, and no way of raising issues of particular concern that help it with its products. Instead, it will have to keep up the development of its own version of the code single-handed. That's likely to be costly at best, and may even be impossible except for the very largest companies (Apple is an example of one that has succeeded, basing its Mac OS X operating system on the free BSD version of Unix.) That also explains why coding communities will still function, even in the absence of "constitutions". Anyone who refuses to accept consensus decisions simply becomes isolated if they try to ignore them. Alternatively, if the community leadership starts to go astray, forks of the code may occur that gain sufficient supporters to become the main line of development. In other words, the natural collaborative development dynamics produce many of the same results as formal licenses that lay down what norms and behavior are expected.
Asay also tackles the important issue of attribution in a world of public domain software. Many programmers contribute to free software not for direct economic benefit, but to enhance their reputations, which may translate into financial benefits in the form of a higher salary or job offers. Asay points out that the current system of providing recognition is unsatisfactory -- often attribution is buried deep in licensing documents that no one ever looks at. That may explain in part why developer profiles on the popular GitHub code hosting service are becoming more common: it's a way of displaying programming prowess in a form that is easy for peers -- or potential employers -- to access. As the site itself explains:

Every developer gets their own profile page that is automatically updated with a stream of the important things they are doing on GitHub and a list of the Open Source projects they are hosting at GitHub. Many developers have started referring to GitHub Profiles as the new résumé.

The use of such pages makes the attribution requirements of software licenses less crucial, and would obviously work fine even if software were released into the public domain. One problem with Asay's idea is that the state of the public domain today is unsatisfactory. For example, it is very hard to place works in the public domain -- the Creative Commons CC0 is perhaps the most thoroughly worked-out tool for doing so. As Asay notes, we need legislation to formalize and facilitate this move, and to address issues such as liability.
This difficulty emphasizes how much the public domain has been neglected as copyright maximalists have sought to portray it as an anomalous wasteland that needs to be made "productive" by reclaiming it through copyright enclosure. But the public domain is the natural condition of all knowledge -- that which can be shared freely -- while it is copyright and its monopoly that is the deviation from that state. If nothing else, Asay's proposal may help to bring some much-needed attention to this important but neglected area.

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski Talks About Using Tor To Surf Silk Road & The Armory For Drugs, Weapons And Hitmen

from the don't-mess-with-alex dept

While I don't always agree with him (who do I always agree with?), like many folks who follow legal issues, Judge Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the court of appeals for the 9th circuit, is one of my favorite judges. Known almost as much for his ability to entertain as for his clear, well-written (and frequently funny) judicial rulings, one thing that's always been clear is that, unlike some judges, Kozinski is both down to earth and really inquisitive when it comes to understanding how things really work, rather than just accepting common wisdom. Last night, Judge Kozinski gave a lecture at Santa Clara University on "The Two Faces of Anonymity." As I expected, it was entertaining and insightful, with a few Kozinski-esque surprises thrown in.

By far the most entertaining part of the evening was Kozinski sharing (with screenshots) his experience exploring the "hidden web." He claims that when he told his children about the topic of the talk, they told him he needed to explore the hidden web. So, "with some trepidation," he downloaded Tor and dove in, starting out at Silk Road, which still remains the most well known hidden website out there. As we've noted in the past, for all the excitement and press attention Silk Road has received for being a totally anonymous online marketplace used mainly for buying and selling drugs and other illicit goods, it still is a fairly small business. Still, Judge Kozinski detailed his exploration of the market, including checking out various drugs (including many he'd never heard of before). He also looked into the ability to buy forged documents and lots of counterfeit software. From there, he moved over to Silk Road spin-off, The Armory, to see what weapons they had for sale, including 6lbs of C4 explosives. Of course, this is the point that we realize that Kozinski's claims of just having done this recently are probably a fabrication, given that The Armory shut down last summer. It's possible he didn't actually do any of this, but got screenshots from elsewhere online, but there's just something amusing in thinking about Judge Kozinski sitting at home surfing through these sites. He showed a few sites for hiring hitmen, and joked that two of them had such similar language and pricing that he was tempted to report them to the FTC for likely collusion.

He marveled at how much like regular online stores these sites were -- including things like seller ratings -- and compared it to his experiences with eBay. Of course, he also noted that it's entirely possible the whole thing is a front by the feds to track these kinds of things, but if so, he was impressed with the level of detail.

While much of this was entertaining, the point (I think!) was to highlight all of the kinds of things that anonymity enables -- but it wasn't in a necessarily negative or judgmental way (even if he's suggested his concerns in the past). Instead, it was more of a realist approach to what's happening out there and how there are interesting challenges presented concerning both anonymity and privacy -- which he notes are related but not the same thing. To show the difference, he discussed your neighbors across the way, where they may not be anonymous to you, but what they do in their bedroom is kept private from you. Yet, take a random couple in Times Square on New Years Eve doing the same thing -- and they may be "anonymous," but not private at all.

While he did express some concerns about where all this leads, including a dig at anonymous comments online, his biggest concern appeared to be about government abuse thanks to technology. He spent a fair bit of time on the NSA's infamous spy center in Utah, which is supposedly storing a ridiculous amount of information on us all. He pointed out that having that much information in the hands of government is dangerous, and suggested it's likely to be abused. As an example, he pointed to the story from all the way back in 2001 when he and other federal judges discovered that the feds were monitoring their internet usage, something the judges had never been told about.

He explained that the software had been put on the computers to protect the judiciary intranet from being attacked by hackers from China or whatever, but most of the time they weren't doing anything at all, so it wasn't long before the scope began to creep, and someone realized that, hey, if that monitoring software is on those computers, it could also be used to spy on what sites judges were surfing. The judges only found out about it when a judge was called out for his inappropriate surfing habits.

While he didn't say anything explicitly about it, it seems like this should be a pretty clear warning to folks who are supporting laws like CISPA. When you increase information sharing to the government for one purpose, you can almost guarantee that there will be scope creep over time. Someone will point out that "hey, we're already doing this for security, so why not for spying on people...."

Similarly, Kozinski is worried about how all this number crunching and data collection by governments means that people are going to be "targeted" for heightened scrutiny based on some algorithms, even if their activity is perfectly legal. He even noted that he's assuming that his own decision to download Tor and check out Silk Road and other sites probably means that he set off some alarms and may be in for heightened scrutiny. When asked about that later during the Q&A, he admitted that it might just be his own paranoia, but he wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

When asked about how to push back on all this government surveillance, he said that everyone keeps pointing to the courts, and saying that it's their responsibility to limit the government's powers, but suggested that the courts are limited, because it's not clear that anonymity and privacy are really Constitutional issues. Or, he said, if there is a basis for them in the Constitution, it's fairly weak, and could easily be overcome by "other concerns." Personally, I think that he downplayed both the First Amendment's protection of anonymity as confirmed by the Supreme Court, as well as the 4th Amendment's (too often ignored) protection of privacy. Still, he seemed to think that this was really an issue where it was up to Congress to prevent abuses. That's kind of depressing if you remember Congress' recent "debate" and subsequent rubberstamping of the FISA Amendments Act, giving the NSA much more power to spy on Americans with little oversight.

One other bit of useful info: he seemed fairly convinced by Justice Sotomayor's statements on the 3rd party doctrine in the US v. Jones case about GPS tracking. If you don't recall, the 3rd party doctrine basically says that you don't have privacy rights in information that you've left in the control of a third party. That's obviously quite problematic in an age of cloud computing, where all your data is probably in the hands of third parties. The government has been relying on this fact to access all sorts of data with little oversight for quite some time. It's good to see Kozinski hint at the idea that the 3rd party doctrine just isn't reasonable any more in the information era.

There were plenty of other tidbits, but basically it was an interesting discussion of privacy and anonymity, with a strong focus in how the government is collecting way too much information on us all these days. There was also some brief talk of how much information companies are collecting too -- including his apparent uncomfortableness with things like Google Maps' Street View and Satellite View (he joked about how you can see him sunbathing nude if you can find his house). But, for the most part, he seemed to think that this was an area where the government was doing a better job keeping companies somewhat in check.

Oh yeah, and one other amusing tidbit: in talking about how easy it is to track us all due to our mobile phones, he asked how many people had smartphones (or, more specifically, "phones with email on them") and noted that when he talks to lawyers, they all do. He noted that lawyers always had their email near them to respond to clients quickly, because otherwise you get fired, but this cool tool "given to you by work" just shackles you while also denting your privacy. And then he claimed that when work gives him a smartphone, he gets it without a sim and then sells the device on eBay. Maybe he should try selling it on Silk Road next time...

Bill Gates says he has no use for money… He is doing ‘God’s work’

hehe  why doesn't his god ..ever TELL him 2 give his  software away  4 free :0 ..someone ought 2 tell billy boy  ..his pants R on fire  LMAO

Bill Gates says he has no use for money… He is doing ‘God’s work’

truther February 28, 2013 

Having already given away $28bn, Bill Gates intends to eradicate polio, with the same drive he brought to Microsoft .

William Henry “Bill” Gates is a rich man. His estimated wealth, some 65  billion measured in US dollars, equals the annual GDP of Ecuador, and maybe a bit more than that of Croatia. By this rather crude criterion, the founder of Microsoft is worth two Kenyas, three Trinidads and a dozen or so Montenegros. Not bad for a university dropout.

Gates is also mortal, although some of his admirers may find that hard to believe, and as they say, there are no pockets in shrouds. So he is now engaged in the process of ridding himself of all that money in the hope of extending the lives of others less fortunate than himself.

“I’m certainly well taken care of in terms of food and clothes,” he says, redundantly. “Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point. Its utility is entirely in building an organisation and getting the resources out to the poorest in the world.”

That “certain point” is set a little higher than for the rest of us – Gates owns a lakeside estate in Washington State worth about $150 million (£94  million) and boasting a swimming pool equipped with an underwater music system – but one gets the point. Being rich, even on the cosmic scale attained by Bill Gates, is no guarantee of an enduring place in history. The projection of the personal computer into daily life should do the trick for him, but even at the age of 57 he is a restless man and wants something more. The “more” is the eradication of a disease that has blighted untold numbers of lives: polio.

Later this month, Gates will deliver the BBC’s Dimbleby Lecture, taking as his theme the value of the young human being. Every child, he will say, has the right to a healthy and productive life, and he will explain how technology and innovation can help towards the attainment of that still-distant goal. Gates has put his money where his mouth is. He and his wife Melinda have so far given away $28 billion via their charitable foundation, more than $8  billion of it to improve global health.

“My wife and I had a long dialogue about how we were going to take the wealth that we’re lucky enough to have and give it back in a way that’s most impactful to the world,” he says. “Both of us worked at Microsoft and saw that if you take innovation and smart people, the ability to measure what’s working, that you can pull together some pretty dramatic things.

“We’re focused on the help of the poorest in the world, which really drives you into vaccination. You can actually take a disease and get rid of it altogether, like we are doing with polio.”

This has been done only once before in humans, with the eradication of smallpox in the 1970s.

“Polio’s pretty special because once you get an eradication you no longer have to spend money on it; it’s just there as a gift for the rest of time.”

One can see why that appeals to Gates. He has always sought neat, definitive solutions to things, but as he knows from Microsoft, bugs are resilient things. The disease is still endemic in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and killing it off altogether has been likened to squeezing jelly to death. There is another, sinister obstacle: the propagation by Islamist groups of the belief that polio vaccination is a front for covert sterilisation and other western evils. Health workers in Pakistan have paid with their lives for involvement in the programme.

“It’s not going to stop us succeeding,” says Gates. “It does force us to sit down with the Pakistan government to renew their commitments, see what they’re going to do in security and make changes to protect the women who are doing God’s work and getting out to these children and delivering the vaccine.”

Gates does not usually speak in religious terms, and has traditionally danced around the issue of God. His wife, a Roman Catholic, is less defensive on that topic but ploughs her own furrow, encouraging contraception when necessary, in contradiction to teaching from Rome.

“Melinda and I had been talking about this even before we were married,” he says. “When I was in my 40s Microsoft was my primary activity. The big switch for me was when I decided to make the foundation my primary purpose. It was a big change, although there are more in common with the two things than you might think – meeting with scientists, taking on tough challenges, people being sceptical that you can get things done.”

Gates is still chairman of Microsoft but without his day-to-day attention it has taken on the appearance of a weary giant, trailing Apple and Google in innovation. Some have called for Gates’s return to the company full-time to inject some verve but he isn’t coming back.

“My full-time work for the rest of my life will be at the foundation,” he says. “I still work part-time for Microsoft. I’ve had two careers and I’m lucky that both of them have been quite amazing.

“I loved my Microsoft: it prepared me for what I’m doing now. In the same way that I got to see the PC and internet revolutions, now I see child death rates coming down. I work very long hours and try to learn as much as I can about these things, but that’s because I enjoy it.”

He emphasises that the foundation’s effort is part of a global campaign in which governments must play the lead role.

“The scale of the (foundation’s) wealth compared to government budgets is actually not that large, and compared to the scale of some of these problems. But I do feel lucky that substantial resources are going back to make the world a more habitable place.”

In 1990 some 12 million children under the age of five died. The figure today is about seven million, or 19,000 per day. According to the United Nations, the leading causes of death are pneumonia (18 per cent), pre-birth complications (14 per cent), diarrhoea (11 per cent), complications during birth (nine per cent) and malaria (seven per cent). For Gates, though, polio is a totem. The abolition of the disease will be a headline-grabber, spurring countries on to greater efforts. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will spend $1.8 billion in the next six years to accomplish that goal, almost a third of the global effort.

“All you need is over 90 per cent of children to have the vaccine drop three times and the disease stops spreading. The number of cases eventually goes to zero. When we started, we had over 400,000 children a year being paralysed and we are now down to under 1,000 cases a year. The great thing about finishing polio is that we’ll have resources to get going on malaria and measles.”

Gates is no saint. He could be an intimidating boss at Microsoft and his company became notorious for using its clout to reinforce its dominance in the market place, at the expense of smaller rivals. Still, he and his wife are showing generosity on a staggering scale, a counterblast to the endemic greed of the Nineties and early Noughties, and they have convinced others that mega-philanthropy is the way of the future. That wily investor, Warren Buffett, has so far given away $17.5 billion via the Gates Foundation.

The children of Bill and Melinda Gates will never know poverty. They may not become multibillionaires but even the loss to charity of the vast bulk of their parents’ fortune should leave them with a billion or so each.

Gates explains: “The vast majority of the wealth, over 95 per cent, goes to the foundation, which will spend all that money within 20 years after neither of us are around any more.”

So, is it about some new-found faith, all this giving?

“It doesn’t relate to any particular religion; it’s about human dignity and equality,” he says. “The golden rule that all lives have equal value and we should treat people as we would like to be treated.”

Source:
telegraph.co.uk