Category Archives: technology

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Advertisements

Another Odd Guru

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ’08: Killing God and destroying the right to private property are usually associated with communism. They also seem important to the prominent legal theorist serving as Barack Obama’s technology adviser.


Read More: Election 2008


 

Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig likes to treat his audiences to a short video that doesn’t always go over so well. In it, Jesus Christ lip-syncs Gloria Gaynor’s late ’70s disco hit “I Will Survive,” during which he strips down to just a diaper, effeminately struts along a city street and finally gets run over by a speeding bus.

Lessig showed the film during his keynote address to the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco in 2006 (reportedly causing audience members to exit in disgust), as well as to an assembled group of Google employees recently.

The antics of a trendy left-wing law school teacher who doubles as cybergeek would normally be of little note. But a few years down the information superhighway we may be speaking of Justice Lawrence Lessig should Obama be elected president.

Lessig and Obama were colleagues at the University of Chicago Law School. Lessig’s role today in the Obama campaign is not officially defined, but he campaigned passionately for him in Pennsylvania, where Lessig grew up and went to college, and has been utilized by the campaign to explain the candidate’s positions on Internet law to the press. A nine-page campaign document detailing Obama’s technology policy is part of the Lessig.org Web site.

It should not be surprising that Obama doesn’t want the world knowing to what extent Lessig is involved in advising the Democratic front-runner. The former Harvard Law School professor is the leading light of what is known as the “free culture movement,” which insists that the age of the Internet should mean the abolition of intellectual property rights.

Indeed, British-American Silicon Valley entrepreneur and “Cult of the Amateur” author Andrew Keen has called Lessig an “intellectual property communist.”

Lessig is author of that movement’s manifesto, a book entitled “Free Culture,” where he claims that the new “efficiency” in sharing information over the Internet “does not respect the traditional lines of copyright.” Piracy of copyrighted material, according to Lessig, is a concept that has “at its core . . . an extraordinary idea that is almost certainly wrong.”

That wrong idea is identified by Lessig as this: “Whenever I use, or take, or build upon the creative work of others, I am taking from them something of value. Whenever I take something of value from someone else, I should have their permission. The taking of something of value from someone else without permission is wrong. It is a form of piracy.”

This “extraordinary idea,” of course, is really “Thou shalt not steal,” and it’s nothing less than the moral foundation of a free economy. Without it we have no rule of law governing the activities of buyers and sellers. If products of value, from literature to software, can be stolen, there will be little if any motive left to produce them, especially works of excellence.

Yet according to this scholar who serves as an Obama point man, the age of the Internet has rendered this particular Commandment obsolete. Like 19th century French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and coiner of the slogan “property is theft!” Lessig sees ownership as a constriction imposed on the masses.

Lessig wants to replace what he calls the “permission culture” that currently exists with a new “remix culture” that rejects the existence of copyrights and intellectual property.

What Marx and Stalin tried to do with physical property — failing at the cost of many tens of millions of lives — Lessig’s movement seems intent on doing with intellectual property in a new 21st century global revolution.

A Lessig appointment by Obama to the Supreme Court or a lower federal court would go far beyond riling religious Americans resentful of his video mocking Christ. It could help make a “Marxism of the Internet” a reality, with unimaginatively destructive consequences for the U.S. and global economies.

Intel and Microsoft launch parallel computing research center at UC Berkeley

David_Patterson

Intel and Microsoft launch parallel computing research center at UC Berkeley

– The University of California, Berkeley, is partnering with Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp. to accelerate developments in parallel computing and advance the powerful benefits of multi-core processing to mainstream consumer and business computers.

Microsoft and Intel announced today (Tuesday, March 18) the creation of two Universal Parallel Computing Research Centers (UPCRC), the first at UC Berkeley and another at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The two centers comprise what is considered the nation’s first joint industry and university research alliance of this magnitude that is focused on mainstream parallel computing.

“This is a once-in-a-career opportunity to recast the foundations of information technology and influence the entire IT industry for decades to come,” said David Patterson, UC Berkeley professor of computer sciences and a pioneering expert in computer architecture. “We are excited and proud to be a part of this ambitious effort.”

The funding for UC Berkeley’s UPCRC, which Patterson directs, forms the foundation for the campus’s Parallel Computing Laboratory, or Par Lab, a multidisciplinary research project exploring the future of parallel processing. Patterson’s leadership in the computing field was recognized today by the Association for Computing Machinery, which honored him with its 2007 Distinguished Service Award.

Over the next five years, Intel and Microsoft expect to invest a combined $20 million in the two university centers, with each center receiving half. Researchers at the UC Berkeley center have also applied for a UC Discovery Grant, a matching grant mechanism that uses state and university funding to leverage industry investments in UC research.

Research from this effort is expected to lead to powerful new mainstream applications, such as a cell phone that allows a user to recognize the face of an approaching acquaintance and, more importantly, to whisper that person’s name into the user’s ear. Another application may be speech recognition software that can act as a court reporter by providing an accurate, written record of what was said by numerous people in a court or conference room.

“It is important for industry to work in tandem with academia to unleash the immense power of parallel computing,” said Tony Hey, corporate vice president of external research at Microsoft Research. “We are privileged to have a dedicated research partner like UC Berkeley and look forward to partnering with it to transform the way multi-core technology is developed and used in the future.”

Parallel computing at UC Berkeley
A diverse group of UC Berkeley researchers has been discussing the challenges of parallel computing for years. In February 2005, it began meeting weekly to discuss this parallel revolution from many angles. Those meetings led to a widely read white paper outlining the coming challenges of parallelism, in addition to the creation of the Parallel Computing Laboratory. Additional background about the discussions at UC Berkeley on the landscape of parallel computing research is available online.

In addition to Patterson, the center includes seven other UC Berkeley faculty members from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences. Serving as principal investigators are Krste Asanovic, Ras Bodik, James Demmel, John Kubiatowicz, Kurt Keutzer, Koushik Sen and Katherine Yelick. Patterson, Demmel and Yelick also have joint appointments at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The Par Lab not only brings together researchers focused on software and hardware, but also experts in disciplines ranging from music to medical technology to help push state-of-the-art computing applications in a wide range of fields.

“The researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have a long track record of making important contributions in computing software and hardware,” said Andrew Chien, vice president of Intel’s Corporate Technology Group and director of Intel Research. “Just as importantly, UC Berkeley has a long tradition of leadership in the academic research community in catalyzing infrastructure and change, and also a history with parallel computing, which will both be critical for bringing the promise of multi-core processing to the mainstream.”

The concept of parallel computing, in which a task is divided up into smaller bits to be completed simultaneously to achieve greater speed and performance, has been around for more than 40 years, but it has been the domain of highly specialized programmers and scientists.

New “duo-core” and “quad-core” products that squeeze multiple processors onto a single, integrated circuit have successfully met the increased demand for performance in desktop and mobile computers, but researchers and industry experts are looking to a day when a computer chip will hold hundreds of processors.

“These so-called ‘many-core processors’ present some significant challenges to computer programming that we will address at this center,” said Patterson. “As an analogy, eight reporters writing the same story could potentially write a story eight times faster. However, to achieve this increased speed, one would need to break up the task so that each reporter had the same amount of work to do. If anything went wrong and just one reporter took longer than the seven others, then the benefits of having eight writers would be diminished. You would also fall short if one part of the story, such as the conclusion, couldn’t be written until all of the other parts were completed, creating a bottleneck.”

The challenge ahead for the technology industry lies in bringing to mainstream developers and, ultimately, consumers, the benefits of multi-core processing based on tens or even hundreds of cores.

“The challenges of scheduling, load balancing and limits to parallelism apply to parallel programming as well as to the analogy of parallel story writing,” said Yelick. “And as you might expect, the more people or processors involved, the stiffer the challenges.”

A joint Intel-Microsoft technical evaluation committee selected UC Berkeley’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences from among 25 of the country’s leading computer science departments to host one of the two UPCRC sites.

“This selection reflects UC Berkeley’s outstanding reputation in computing,” said Patterson, who is also part of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), an innovative public-private partnership between four UC campuses, the state of California and industry. “Our computer science department is consistently ranked among the top three programs in the country, and it is second-to-none in the specialty of computer systems. Moreover, a recent National Academies report noted that UC Berkeley researchers have invented technologies that led to seven multi-billion dollar IT industries, more than any other university in the country.”

Research funds for the new center will be used to advance parallel programming applications, architecture and operating systems software. The center at UC Berkeley will host, in addition to the director and seven principal investigators, six members of the UC Berkeley faculty and 50 doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers. Software developed by the center will be provided to the technology community for additional development.

For more information:

fff

Rant on Double-Talking Liberals (Embryonic Stem Cell Research)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Throughout school all I was ever taught was how conservatives are ‘anti-progress’, but that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that New Deal Liberals tend to be anti-Real Estate Development and anti-Globalization. They are anti-innovation in the field of morality unless ideas conform with preconceived notions ( i.e., they are closed-minded). New Deal Liberals tend to be obsessed with fighting against developments that create new jobs and new industries while they seem rather inclined to recreate old jobs (even if they are obsolete) by fiat, even if that makes no economic sense. New Deal Liberals are afraid of innovation insofar as it threatens their otherwise happily complacent positions in the social stratum. New Deal Liberals tout the imports of technology ( e.g., embryonic stem cell research) only when they can contrive it for purposes that drive their real goals – i.e., uprooting traditional social mores, hence undermining the rule of law and bringing anarchy cum tyranny via totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat.

You see, things like embryonic stem cell research (as opposed to non embryonic stem cell research) paves the way to creating drones in society to do the chores that people don’t want to do and for harvesting useful things like organs. Embryonic stem cell research paves the way to normalizing abortion, hence, murder – as long as that murder can be rationalized to suggest someone is not actually ‘human’ until a certain age ( e.g., 30 days out of the womb). Embryonic stem cell research paves the way for New Deal Liberals to reach their ultimate goal – i.e., to play God (more than they try to do now).

Why Is The Yield Curve Inverted?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To the question of why the Yield Curve is inverted:

The Fed lost much of its influence over long term bond prices once sovereign wealth funds (e.g., China) became majority shareholders of these instruments. Rational actors price risk according to, as people have pointed out previously, recessionary trends and other factors that affect opportunity cost. [Esp. foreign and lesser developed countries’] governments, however, act like institutional investors with a time horizon and risk assessment much different from that of Wall Street or Main Street.

There is an inversion in the yield curve from 6mos through two or three years because of the level ownership of these instruments in foreign countries. Sovereign wealth funds’ time horizons begin at one year and end at thirty, whereas [Wall Street and Main Street] begin their calculations, of course, at 30 days. So, for foreign governments, the yield curve is not necessarily inverted. Rather, the shape of the curve reflects the aforementioned demand assessments manifest in the levels of ownership of these instruments.

Even if the whole yield curve is inverted, however, that just means foreigners heavily value [the] stability [of US securities] over actual returns (even if ROI is negative after inflation). These cats will pay the cost of inflation for the effects of sterilization (to boost international trade) and of stimulus to their respective economies due to the phenomenon of coupling with America.