Bullshit

Chiara de Blasio:

As the only person who can diagnose myself, I believe that I was born with the disease of addiction.

Unless Chiara was born to a mother who was taking some substance that went through the placental barrier she was not born an addict. That is some self delusional bullshit. She might have been born with a genetic anomaly that lends her to being anxious and/or depressed but, with the exception made earlier, no one is born an addict.

Long Held By Who?

The new research challenges two long-held beliefs about human health: that the autonomic nervous system -- often called the "involuntary nervous system" -- is not subject to training in ways that would override its control of functions such as as heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, perspiration and digestion; and that no behavioral intervention (short of, say, going to the doctor's office and getting a vaccination) can influence the immune system to spin up or stand down.

LA Times Actually it has been long held in many parts of the world that a person, through meditation, can in fact control many so called "involuntary" responses. In fact many martial arts incorporate the deliberate cultivation of such control in a means of mastering and focusing energy. The LA Times should review it's biases.

Oscar Pistorius: I let off 4 shots but didn't mean to shoot anyone.

Guardian UK reports on the Pistorius trial:

He then questioned Pistorius about the moment he opened fire. The athlete described it as an "accident" and insisted that he had not intended to kill anyone, even an intruder. "I didn't have time to think," he said. "I just discharged my firearm.

"I didn't intend to shoot someone. I shot out of fear... I didn't intend to kill anyone... I didn't have time to think about what I was doing... Before thinking I fired four shots. [my underlines]

Contradictory anyone? He shot, 4 times, at a door, not the ceiling. not the floor, but at the door. By accident, not meaning to shoot anyone. Is anyone buying that?

RoboCop 2014

There was obvious political commentary in RoboCop. Over the top in many cases. I liked it. The movie started by dealing with one of my favorite subjects: drones. While the opening sequence was clearly an exaggeration of the attitudes it is also clear to anyone who is thinking long term that such drones will be the future of the US (and other) militaries as well as domestic policing.

One of the things that Sam Jackson's character does very well is to articulate the arguments that will be used to push for more drones. Is the senate pro crime? Is the senate for the death of American soldiers? Is the senate against saving the lives of citizens?

Mark my words when I say that these will be the very same arguments used as more and more automated technology is deployed by the state and citizens will be emotionally primed to accept these challenges. Risk is bad. Who wishes harm to the American soldiers? Who wants to be seen as pro crime? Already we have seen a proliferation of legislation with emotionally charged names and attached to emotionaly charged events. If you oppose a piece of gun legislation you are pro child killing. You are pro mall shooting.

Sam Jackson's character looks dead into the camera when he makes his charges, much like our cable news talking heads do. I was left wondering how many people in the audience really thought about the reality of his questions.

Understand that the defense department is, at this very moment, funding research into automated vehicles able to navigate various terrains without human input. Japan's Honda is going full on with their AIBO robot. Understand that this WILL be happening.

The next issue was the medical issue. Murphy has been reduced to lungs, heart, throat and head after his “event”. It's pretty clear he had no living will cause his wife is left to make a decision about his life that we find out he clearly did not want for himself.

Side note, how much blood did they have to remove given the smaller amount of “body” (if you want to call it that) he has? The brain uses 70% of the glucose in the body and 25% of the oxygen. Does he require less breathing to maintain optimal oxygen levels?

Anyway, the interesting proposition presented in the movie is that being human is all (or exclusively) about what happens in the brain. The body doesn't matter. But of more interest to me is that HE had no choice. His wife made a choice for him and then he was made into a robot for the sole purpose of serving the state and the profits of a corporation. Clearly with the type of body he was given (I guess flesh like material wasn't something that was being researched), there was never an intention to give him his life back, unless you think that his life consisted only of solving and preventing crime.

Maybe it's just me but the question I asked myself was how, when this guy gets “aroused” (in the mind) how exactly does he release that? I was pretty clear that he “enjoyed” his wife. The movie was also quite clear that his sex life was done for (not even taking into consideration that he must be hooked up to the blood-nutrient machine. I suppose we are to take the lesson that so long as he's alive he should be grateful.

I dunno.

I would think that a company with such technological advances would have been long able to produce human looking appendages. Even now we have the technology to repair the skin of burn victims without leaving the tell tale “burn” patterns and look that accompanies skin grafts. In the last “suit up” scene, I fully expected to see a more 'human” body to pop out of the ground. Maybe it's because I reject that being human, alive, is simply about the brain and it's processing of signals.

I suppose I would eat the red pill too.

It could come down to this: Would you prefer to be dead or “alive”, able to do many great things and unable to feel anything except whatever it feels like to have a malfunctioning suit? Take the questions seriously. The technology that will give us more artificial limbs whether they be as replacements for damaged/amputated ones, or as voluntarily added will be here sooner than later.

Some parents outraged that steamy 'Drunk In Love' performance aired at 8 p.m.

From the NY Daily News:

Some watchers took to Twitter complaining that Beyoncé's sexiness right at the beginning of the show was inappropriate, considering some children may have still been watching at that hour.

If you are a parent and have your kids up watching grown people TV you have no business complaining because you are already fucking up.

Tale of two guards: Kennedy Airport security personnel show divide in compensation

Kennedy Airport security guards Prince Jackson and Dolores Holman work the same job — but they receive very different pay.

The 56-year-old Jackson makes $8 an hour, receives no medical benefits and gets five days of paid vacation. Holman, 51, has a far cushier gig. She rakes in $17.43 an hour, enjoys full medical and dental coverage and gets 15 days of paid vacation. Holman even has an employer-sponsored 401(k) plan — a perk that Jackson can only dream about.

1) Clearly the company that hired Dolores Holman did not get the memo that she was to be paid 25% less that Prince Jackson.

2) At no point did I read that Prince Jackson was attempting to get employment at a security firm that at least pays better. It is indeed wrong that he is paid so little while others doing the same work are getting 50& more than he is but one does not sit on one's ass on your time off and NOT look for better work for better pay while complaining about the differences waiting for some savior to come by and fix stuff for you.

App Store Pulls 'Barbie' Plastic-Surgery App Following Backlash

The First Lady of the United States just said:

"Women should have the freedom to do whatever they need to do to feel good about themselves,

So that would include plastic surgery. So why pull the App? I mean if women should be able to do "anything" to feel good then "whatever" includes plastic surgery. So which is it?