Welcome to http://NewWorldNextWeek.com — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news.
This week:
Story #1: Ukraine Opposition Sets 24-hour Deadline As Protests Rage http://ur1.ca/ghhxb
Putin Scores a New Victory: What Really Happened In Ukraine http://ur1.ca/ghhxc
Ukraine Texts Citizens: Hey, We See You’re In a Mass Disturbance http://ur1.ca/ghhxe
Reddit: Ukraine Revolt Livestream http://ur1.ca/ghhxh
State Of Emergency Begins As Thailand Copes With Protests http://ur1.ca/ghhxk
Geneva II: Day 1 of Syria Peace Talks Ends on Fragile Ground http://ur1.ca/ghhxl
Story #3: Homeland Security Special Agents Hold Up Google Glass Moviegoer http://ur1.ca/ghhxs
Google Unveils ‘Smart Contact Lens’ to Measure Glucose Levels http://ur1.ca/ghhxv
Like an infectious disease that initially spreads and then abruptly dies, Facebook’s growth is set for a rapid decline within the next few years, according to a new study from Princeton University.
Researchers at Princeton’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering predict that Facebook will lose 80 per cent of its peak user base between 2015 and 2017.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, used epidemiological models used to track the spread of infectious diseases and publicly available Google search query data, to explain how users adopt and abandon online social networks.
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”
In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.
The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
The magical transhumanist date of 2045 holds many predictions for how man will attain his final merger with computer systems and usher in an age of “spiritual” machines. Ray Kurzweil has issued a bevy of likely scenarios in his book The Singularity is Near, and continues to suggest that much of those predictions could arrive much sooner. Others have pointed strictly to the economic impact and have marked 2045 has the date when humans could be completely outsourced to robotic workers.
Now cybernetic experts are pointing to the trends in robotics, artificial intelligence, and 3D printing to suggest that the “merger” could go beyond the establishment of an era of cyborgs and into a very literal one: sex with robots.
There has been an ongoing move to create humanoid robots that can more than simply mimic human ability and behavior. Attention is being paid to the social aspect as well. But what is now being proposed has even more serious ethical and existential implications, and very well could bring about the concept of a true “master race.”
The other day there was the announcement that researchers are developing a “Wikipedia for Robots” that enables robots to learn from a cloud-based Internet sharing system … designed only for them. When this concept fully takes shape, it will resemble a social structure that is decidedly human – our ability to learn from one another in order to become more efficient and intelligent.
This advance toward not only autonomous decision making for robots, but a type of autonomous evolution must make us question the next step: what happens if this experiment takes on a life of its own?
George Zarkadakis is an artificial intelligence engineer who believes that robots will move toward procreation rather quickly as they will wish to produce superior offspring. With the rapid advances made in the realm of 3D printing, they would likely begin by printing out their progeny, or perhaps would breed at the molecular level through their silicon and carbon make-up. Others experts such as Professor Noel Sharkey from England’s Sheffield University point to the same concept as the “Wikipedia for Robots” – through a simple software swap, new intelligence could be created, as well as the likelihood of other upgrades like virus protection. Incidentally, the organic component of this is also being researched by geneticists as downloadable DNA via our own human Internet.
This all does begin to sound quite human, as we naturally wish that our own children become healthier, more intelligent and longer-lived versions of ourselves. But if these human “desires” manifesting among robots doesn’t seem worrisome enough, then what about robot sex with humans? It can’t be dismissed outright.
There is a parallel ongoing mission to further develop an emotional connection between robots and humans. For example, how many of us feel that our computational devices are now integral to our social lives and work? I would be dishonest to say that the computer on which I’m typing these words and communicating with other individuals is not an essential part of my life … and I love having that ability. However, what about real love? The love we have toward family, friends, and the intimacy with partners or spouses? This is where the slope begins to get slippery.
As robots begin to take on an increasing range of human functions, their humanoid (as opposed to only computational) forms are becoming more present in our lives. This is beginning in the area of caregiving in hospitals and particularly with the elderly, as researchers suggest that a “greying population” will need the extra support. We also see robots entering the following “intimate” areas:
A recent study conducted by German researchers from the International Communication Association also made some revealing discoveries within a group of participants that hint at humans’ theoretical fondness for robots.
One study had 14 participants watch videos that showed a human, a robot and an inanimate object, being treated in either an affectionate or in a violent way. Researchers found that people displayed similar neural activation patterns for affection across the spectrum, indicating the potential for an empathetic reaction toward a non-human. It becomes interesting to note, then, when we return to the vocation list above that the areas most often cited for human replacement in favor of robotic “assistance” are the very vocations that would seem to require the most empathy.
So then we take it one step further. Would humans really want to have sex with robots and, if so, would they be willing to create a hybrid species? If we go beyond the merely prurient area of mechanical sex devices, and look at the possibility for a genuine emotional relationship, it seems that such an interest is developing. Here is one philosophical interpretation of how this interest could manifest toward the final stage:
Robots won’t merely attenuate the need for human intimacy and thus the use of love for instrumental purposes. They also seem to have attractions as companions in their own right. So far the most sophisticated social robots are those developed to ease the loneliness of the elderly . . . At least some people find these companion robots more attractive than humans: they are more straightforward to relate to and less demanding than ordinary ornery humans. But it seems to me that even in the most intimate sphere, and for mentally and physically healthy individuals in the prime of life, robots may eventually become more attractive than humans as companions.
. . . I think the key innovation of robot lovers will be in pretending. Specifically, robots will be designed so as to allow their human owners to pretend that they are loved. And everyone wants to be loved.
Physically, this would require robots to look enough like a person (not even a very perfect replica) for humans to relate to. Cognitively – or rather “algorithmically” – this would require robots to simulate the perfect lover – that is, the perfect worshipper. This lover asks you about your day in a voice that suggests they actually want to hear about it. It agrees with you about what a bitch your boss is, and remembers that mean thing she did last year too! It remembers your birthday, but also all the things you like and don’t like. It cooks wonderful things, and doesn’t complain when you get fat. It never has a headache. And so on. Basically, it’s a Stepford wife. (Source)
Whether or not this is a sad commentary about one person’s take on what meaningful connection entails, this type of interest does not (yet) appear to have the widespread acceptance that it would take to become reality – in a physical or social sense.
But, as noted by Professor Kevin Warwick from the Institution of Engineering and Technology in an interview with MailOnline,
‘just about anything is possible’ and . . . there are already robots with biological brains that mix biological and technological parts.
‘This is not science fiction,’ he said.
He believes that robots capable of breeding with each other could be produced using current research and technologies but it will likely take 20 to 30 years before they could be used on Earth – and there are questions to be asked about whether this is a good idea.
[…]
research into creating cyborgs as a result of ‘breeding’ with robots, and creating robots that breed with each other, depends on social acceptance, Professor Warwick said.
‘Over the next 20 to 30 years the question will be on the table and we have to face ethical issues.’
Nevertheless, before this final stage of acceptance, robots will presumably have been breeding with one another first and quickly evolving. The possible outcome of what that collective evolution will bring is, frighteningly, anybody’s guess. The above scenario discussed by these experts does, after all, presume that the production of a hybrid species between humans and robots will be a consensual decision.
After being falsely accused of staging a hoax regarding Wheaties cereal containing metal fragments, Mike Adams the Health Ranger explains how PR Newswire and the mainstream media have become too stupid to understand basic science.
Testimony from John Fiala, chief engineer for Tesla Tech, experienced a third degree burn from a practice mortar round during a demonstration on October 9, 2010. The surgeon on site told John that he would need 3-4 skin graphs over a period of 1-1/2 – 2 years before skin would grow back in the effected area. Using a Rodin type coil and the 512Hz, 256Hz, and the 432Hz (The notes of C – Heart chakra and A – Crown chakra) John had skin growth in 32 days with no surgery or skin graphs!!
To purchase the full presentation of Marko Rodin and Jamie Buturff at Tesla Tech 2011 visit http://www.teslatech.info
Marlene Leung, CTVNews.ca
PN 
