Ran across this article on FNC.com and it got me thinking and surfing around the web until I came to the Wikipedia entry for "Cyborg". I've always been a huge fan of the Terminator movies and Fox's recent TV series, so I usually have an eye out for stories like the one on FNC. In case you didn't know, cyborg is a short form of CYBernetic ORGanism.
I'm usually not a tin-foil-hat kook who believes in crazy things, but there is something about artificial intellegence and its potential good/bad effects on humanity that just grabs me (enter Terminator). But after reading the Wikipedia entry, I realized that cyborgs are already living among us. In fact, my sister-in-law is part machine since she uses an insulin pump to deliver the hormone to her bloodstream to help regulate her blood glucose levels. A genuine Cyborg, my SIL. Cool. Cool until she tries to conquer humanity and rule the world with other cybernetic organisms. Gotta to keep an eye on her.
Isn't anyone else out there concerned with the infusion of medicine and technology/robotics? At what point does this progressive fusion stop? I've thought about this before, but there will be a point in time where artificial limbs will outperform (athletically and militarily, at least) their natural counterparts. Will they be allowed to compete in the Olympics? Special Olympics? Cyborg Olympics? I'm just sayin'...
Stuff like this just plain freaks me out. It's quite possibly irrational. But who can deny that at some point in time, technology may advance to approach human intellect? Not saying soon, but at some point. And all the building blocks seem like they're coming along faster and faster.
Ok, back to the Sarah Connor Chronicles...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Veep debate
And now my analysis on the vice presidential debate last night:
Before the debate ran, I predicted B+ performances from both Biden and Palin and thus, a draw. After watching the debate, I think both got an A-, and from a debate standpoint, I do think it was in fact a draw.
There was a lot of pressure on Palin to perform well, to look [vice] presidential and to not get the deer-in-the-headlights look like she did with Couric. Palin, I thought, actually did very well in taking on foreign policy questions and handled herself competently. Not only did she not 'blow it' as a colleague referred to it to me this morning, but I think she did well.
Biden was also just about at his best. He is an experienced politician, and an excellent debater at that. I knew that he would not have any of the gaffs for which he has recently gained notoriety. Both candidates were well polished. Biden did a great job of staying on message - constantly referring back to how a McCain adminstration will simply be an extension of the Bush administration. That is a powerful and resonating message, and a tough one for the GOP to shed.
After the debate it became clear to me that Obama and Biden are going to win this election. Palin was very good, but she really needed to be brilliant. She needed to be incredible, and Biden needed to slip up. He didn't, and she didn't, and although you can easily argue the one VP debate won't make or break the election, the underdog McCain only seriously pulled even with Obama in the polls when Palin was selected as VP right before the GOP convention. The the Palin effect has faded, and we're left with millions of independent voters who really believe Obama's message of change and hope and sunshine and rainbows and unicorns, etc.
The media loves a horse race finish, and McCain will probably pull closer once November rolls around. IMHO, however, I think the fat lady has sung on this one.
Before the debate ran, I predicted B+ performances from both Biden and Palin and thus, a draw. After watching the debate, I think both got an A-, and from a debate standpoint, I do think it was in fact a draw.
There was a lot of pressure on Palin to perform well, to look [vice] presidential and to not get the deer-in-the-headlights look like she did with Couric. Palin, I thought, actually did very well in taking on foreign policy questions and handled herself competently. Not only did she not 'blow it' as a colleague referred to it to me this morning, but I think she did well.
Biden was also just about at his best. He is an experienced politician, and an excellent debater at that. I knew that he would not have any of the gaffs for which he has recently gained notoriety. Both candidates were well polished. Biden did a great job of staying on message - constantly referring back to how a McCain adminstration will simply be an extension of the Bush administration. That is a powerful and resonating message, and a tough one for the GOP to shed.
After the debate it became clear to me that Obama and Biden are going to win this election. Palin was very good, but she really needed to be brilliant. She needed to be incredible, and Biden needed to slip up. He didn't, and she didn't, and although you can easily argue the one VP debate won't make or break the election, the underdog McCain only seriously pulled even with Obama in the polls when Palin was selected as VP right before the GOP convention. The the Palin effect has faded, and we're left with millions of independent voters who really believe Obama's message of change and hope and sunshine and rainbows and unicorns, etc.
The media loves a horse race finish, and McCain will probably pull closer once November rolls around. IMHO, however, I think the fat lady has sung on this one.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
"Crisis"
Not sure where I stand on this whole economic crisis yet, but I think I'm starting to come down against the government 'bail out'. I am not a big government guy and generally believe the less government the better. That's why it seems crazy to have the government fix the very problem that it created. As far as I'm concerned, Big G can do only one thing well, and that's win wars. Most other things where the government has a huge take over just have plain not worked: Social Security, welfare and other entitlements, etc. [sidenote: scary to me that some want it to take over healthcare...]
Here's and interesting video clip of a few years back when the left was failing to acknowledge the problems with Fannie/Freddie.
This is probably the best and most clear article I've read yet summarizing how we got into this problem and what we should do about it.
Here's and interesting video clip of a few years back when the left was failing to acknowledge the problems with Fannie/Freddie.
This is probably the best and most clear article I've read yet summarizing how we got into this problem and what we should do about it.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate #1
Just some random thoughts on the debate last night:
Overall I give Obama the edge. He was fluid and calm as usual, and I thought he laid out his points with structure and with much more clarity than McCain. McCain had some really good retorts and one-liners that made Obama squirm and feel uncomfortable, but I think Obama stayed on message for the most part.
The other thing that was pretty obvious to me was that Obama was doing a great job of looking at the camera (the American people), looking at the host, or looking directly at McCain when he was talking. McCain on the other hand looked terribly uncomfortable most times when he wasn't talking and looked either down at his notes or at the host, never at the camera and never at Obama. I think this is a mistake. Even an admittedly poor communicator, Dubya, would look directly at his opponent and at the camera during debates, to my knowledge.
Granted, none of my analysis addresses the content of the debates. But so much of these debates are about the one-liner type clips that will be used for the evening and cable news broadcasts, and I think style is very important. So IMHO, presidential debate #1 goes to Obama. What do you think?
Overall I give Obama the edge. He was fluid and calm as usual, and I thought he laid out his points with structure and with much more clarity than McCain. McCain had some really good retorts and one-liners that made Obama squirm and feel uncomfortable, but I think Obama stayed on message for the most part.
The other thing that was pretty obvious to me was that Obama was doing a great job of looking at the camera (the American people), looking at the host, or looking directly at McCain when he was talking. McCain on the other hand looked terribly uncomfortable most times when he wasn't talking and looked either down at his notes or at the host, never at the camera and never at Obama. I think this is a mistake. Even an admittedly poor communicator, Dubya, would look directly at his opponent and at the camera during debates, to my knowledge.
Granted, none of my analysis addresses the content of the debates. But so much of these debates are about the one-liner type clips that will be used for the evening and cable news broadcasts, and I think style is very important. So IMHO, presidential debate #1 goes to Obama. What do you think?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
My Next 30
I was listening to a country music station on the way to work the other day, and as often happens with country songs, I came across a song that really resonated. I'm not normally a huge Tim McGraw fan, but "My Next Thirty Years"came on...here's a snippet of some of it:
"Hey my next thirty years Im gonna have some fun
Try to forget about all the crazy things Ive done
Maybe now Ive conquered all my adolescent fears
And Ill do it better in my next thirty years
"My next thirty years will be the best years of my life
Raise a little family and hang out with my wife
Spend precious moments with the ones that I hold dear
Make up for lost time here, in my next thirty years"
What an interesting concept...looking at life in 30 year chunks. I think it meant so much to me because I just turned 31 and I'd basically be looking ahead the same amount of time as looking back. Now, a lot has happened in the last thirty years...huge changes and growing up and whatnot, but I can still certainly see many things that I'd like to do differently in the next 30 year chunk of time.
Conquering adolescent fears and anxieties...funny how those things carry on throughout adulthood and become part of who you are. I'm gradually learning to drop that baggage, but its not easy...when something is part of your core, it's hard to just let go.
At the very least, the song made me pause for some internal reflection about who I am at this point in my life and where I want to be. I'm getting there, but I still have a ways to go. I think that recognizing identifying what I'd like to work on is a great first step. Chalk another 'life moment' up for country music.
"Hey my next thirty years Im gonna have some fun
Try to forget about all the crazy things Ive done
Maybe now Ive conquered all my adolescent fears
And Ill do it better in my next thirty years
"My next thirty years will be the best years of my life
Raise a little family and hang out with my wife
Spend precious moments with the ones that I hold dear
Make up for lost time here, in my next thirty years"
What an interesting concept...looking at life in 30 year chunks. I think it meant so much to me because I just turned 31 and I'd basically be looking ahead the same amount of time as looking back. Now, a lot has happened in the last thirty years...huge changes and growing up and whatnot, but I can still certainly see many things that I'd like to do differently in the next 30 year chunk of time.
Conquering adolescent fears and anxieties...funny how those things carry on throughout adulthood and become part of who you are. I'm gradually learning to drop that baggage, but its not easy...when something is part of your core, it's hard to just let go.
At the very least, the song made me pause for some internal reflection about who I am at this point in my life and where I want to be. I'm getting there, but I still have a ways to go. I think that recognizing identifying what I'd like to work on is a great first step. Chalk another 'life moment' up for country music.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Aren't we still in a war?
Months and even years ago when the war in Iraq wasn't looking so good, every day the mainstream media would drone on and on about how terrible the situation is. Every negative snippet that could be run on the war was aired, and the President just got hammered for it. Despite the reluctance of the Dems, the Surge was put in place and dramatically reduced casualties in Iraq. Roadside attacks happen much less frequent because of the increase in troop levels, and while political progress is trailing, military success is evident.
Yet where are the headlines? You'd almost that we are no longer at war for the lack of coverage it gets these days. The Left called for a change in strategy. They won Congress back and had a mandate. Bush changed and requested more troops. Now they don't acknowledge that it is change and cite the slow Iraqi political process as Bush's failure. Do the Dems really want us to be successful in Iraq? If we succeed, all those who opposed the war look foolish. the Left continues to root for failure...Defeatocrats.
The political situation in Iraq to me is the most difficult part over there. You have three groups of people who have been fighting each other for 1000's of years, and we're trying to ask them to unite together for Democracy's sake. I'm not 100% convinced that Iraq can ever have a peaceful democratic republic, to be honest. The idea of splitting the country up into three parts deserves a close look, too. But, the state of the world and islamofascism is why we must maintain a presence in Iraq, however, and I'm convinced that we don't have any other rational choice but to stay and see it through.
So look around at the drive-by mainstream media see if you can find any coverage of the Iraq War. If casualties are DOWN, why isn't this being covered with the same ferocity as the INCREASES in casualties we were so accustomed to before the surge. Answer IMHO: another example of the left wing media refusing to run stories that cast President Bush and his policies in a positive light. That and they're probably all so consumed with Hillary vs. Barack that they can't even think about anything else.
Yet where are the headlines? You'd almost that we are no longer at war for the lack of coverage it gets these days. The Left called for a change in strategy. They won Congress back and had a mandate. Bush changed and requested more troops. Now they don't acknowledge that it is change and cite the slow Iraqi political process as Bush's failure. Do the Dems really want us to be successful in Iraq? If we succeed, all those who opposed the war look foolish. the Left continues to root for failure...Defeatocrats.
The political situation in Iraq to me is the most difficult part over there. You have three groups of people who have been fighting each other for 1000's of years, and we're trying to ask them to unite together for Democracy's sake. I'm not 100% convinced that Iraq can ever have a peaceful democratic republic, to be honest. The idea of splitting the country up into three parts deserves a close look, too. But, the state of the world and islamofascism is why we must maintain a presence in Iraq, however, and I'm convinced that we don't have any other rational choice but to stay and see it through.
So look around at the drive-by mainstream media see if you can find any coverage of the Iraq War. If casualties are DOWN, why isn't this being covered with the same ferocity as the INCREASES in casualties we were so accustomed to before the surge. Answer IMHO: another example of the left wing media refusing to run stories that cast President Bush and his policies in a positive light. That and they're probably all so consumed with Hillary vs. Barack that they can't even think about anything else.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Random Bits
Hard to believe it’s been 3 months since my last post. Now that I think about it, my youngest son, Ben, was born nearly 3 months to the day, so that probably explains everything.
This Democratic primary race is just fascinating. I was one of those ready to give the nomination to Hillary back in 2005. Now it looks like she’s really going to have a hard time getting it. Hard to believe someone could dethrone the
If you have a second and are interested in jogging your mind a little, surf over to The Long Now Foundation, where they discuss how to think long-term…very long-term. For example, one of their beliefs is to refer to the current year with 5 digits instead of 4 (02008 instead of 2008) to encourage long-term planning and thinking for humanity. Interesting stuff.
I'll try to post again sometime before June...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)