A brown leaf that blows through the street on its own

The tales that migrate by word and tome

All is great that comes with with the northern wind

Well, today I lack much of this contextual knowledge but I have at last taken a step towards trying to actually make something that may (or may not) be considered art. I purchased a Canon EOS 40D DSLR. It was used and purchased from eBay but it operates beautifully. With it, I also purchased two lenses: the “nifty-fifty” EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and the “kit” EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Additionally, I also got a cleaning kit and a Caselogic SLRC-205 SLR Camera Sling bag. To top it all off. a friend gifted me a Canon Speedlite 580EX II Flash.

I didn’t know what to expect from my first venture into photography. I think I may have actually expected to abandon the hobby altogether within a couple of weeks. (Which could turn out to be the case, but let’s hope not!) In my excitement, I also began using an old Russian Zenit ET 35mm camera that I had lying around. Find my photos here.

Some photos (so far):

One issue is especially interesting to me however. That is, the creative power of man over a potentially intelligent being. I think it is worthy of considering the ethical repercussions of being part of a creator-creation relationship. These supercomputers, assuming they are truly intelligent, are intended to be a useful gadget of mankind. Would this then be a slave-master relationship? Is it ethically allowable to create an intelligent agent, biologically present or not, with a specific intended use? First, and foremost, it should be explored whether a supercomputer such as the one built by IBM could actually be “intelligent”. Achieving a brain-like neuron system replication is clearly within reach but this offers little information on whether a computer could have the same mind-like states of a human. The capacity for memory, learning, and decision making is not necessarily tied to the experience of these traits. Perhaps experience is not essential for being a being in the same scope as humans. Other characteristics are also important including free will or emotion. A neural system reproduction is capable of learning and memory but it is not clear as to whether the computer will be able to transcend the user input of the programmer in its output.

These problems can be highlighted by examining the human brain and how a person makes decisions. When faced with a decision, such as what food to eat, a person will typically base his decision on past experience. For instance, if I were to find a mushroom that, in the past, has made me ill, I will probably avoid it. For a computer, decisions can, too, be based on past occurrences but will, ultimately, depend on the foundation of programming that the computer began with. This programming will be the basis for how the computer learns and how it interprets information. So, would a computer, even a supercomputer of near-human capabilities in neural networking, be free from the programmer’s directions?

To return to my original idea of the relationship between the creation and the creator, it is interesting to consider what it means to create an intelligent agent with intended use in mind prior to its existence. In some ways, people have done just this for quite some time with some-what intelligent animals for a wide variety of useful purposes. However, the dilemma of artificial intelligence is a more curious case since this would be the creation of a an entirely new type of being – a being that rises above and beyond the physical form and only depends on a stream of information.

When someone decided to cheat or lie, are they conscious of the deceitful nature of their actions? Are they ignoring a desire that lives within them, that yearns to be truthful, despite the gut feeling that it may be the “right thing to do”? Are they paying no attention to this hypothetical gesture of hesitation towards the socially vilified act of lying? If it is the former, they believe what they are doing is bad, but choose to commit the act regardless. (This may be due to the possibility of this heinous act resulting in a more genuine and altruistic effect.) If it is the latter, they refuse to believe in the idea that good and bad can be conjoined with a behavior.

Consider the possibility of someone being involved in a dilemma in which they truly want to help someone by being honest but may, in turn, cause physical or emotional pain to that very person. In other words, do I follow my belief that I should be honest with my friends despite the almost assured chance of making them unhappy or do I allow them to continue living without knowing the truth that is absolutely relevant to their interests? Does my idealistic subscription to a belief that values genuineness grant me the right to cause someone pain and suffering?

To return to a previous point, even this example can be argued to nullity. To recap: I may follow my belief that honesty is best or I may allow my friend to continue being happily ignorant; and the question I raised is whether I can use the real emotional states of a person as a means to fulfill the demands of my beliefs. However, is the dilemma here actually that I find that both causing harm to someone and lying to someone are both void of moral worth. Can all of our real-life decisions be based only on ethical arguments? If so, how can we act in any way without rejecting some form of a higher good? Is this not the dilemma that is at the root of ethical debate?

Why is this relavent? It isn’t. I just thought it was fascinating how one new pair of headphones could make me fall in love with music all over again. Once I had my hands on the Sony’s, I diligently began downloading music in FLAC format rather than in MP3; something that would supposedly heighten the audio quality and eventual listening pleasure. How different is any of this from just listening to simple mp3′s over cheap in-ear buds? To me, the difference is so bold in several different ways that I can’t even imagine going back to what I had previously enjoyed. “Enjoyed” is not even a word I think of when I consider the overall comfort and joy I receive from listening to Pendulum or Radiohead through my new gear.

Over the last few weeks (or maybe months?) I’ve lost all interest in the community that, at some point in the past, led me to where I am now. In fact, I’ve not only lost interest, I have also lost trust in the authenticity of the individuals who visit said community. In fact, I find no distinct difference from this board to a TV or internet commercial that, with enough investment, will eventually grapple more consumers and send them on their way to the nearest headphone supplier. Do I regret my purchases? No in the least but I still feel like some people could be taken advantage of as they know very little about this particular field of products and are willing to take advice from any self-declared expert.

However, this online community, if it is in fact just one big commercial for headphones and sound cards, is freaking genius. What better way to disguise a commercialist approach in the era of Facebook and Myspace and whatever other ridiculous nonsense is out there? One does not even need to own the site itself but merely needs an agent to act as an respectable member and spew relentless praises for a particular brand.

Either way, I’d like to acknowledge the wonder of paying attention to the music one listens to rather than just mindlessly hearing it. Something spectacular comes about when you can take a deeper look into the song not as just a hit of the week but as a piece of art with many complex and beautiful components that take time and effort to uncover.

Some points of evidence presented by “witnesses” (many of whom are very well known in the sector of politics) argued that it would be wrong for the council members to vote for the amendment simply because it would be a detriment to the reputation of both the council as well as to the individual council members. As with the majority of the points given from either side, this was an attempt to imply that democratic principles were aligned with a particular opinion on the matter. This was a reoccurring theme; it was the democratic duty of the council members to allow the people of New York to vote, or it would be entirely dishonest of the council members to vote on a law that directly enforces their own jobs, or it is simply the role of the council to vote on matters such as this one. Almost every point dealt with the integrity of the council as it was and as it will become.

Some witnesses made a predication that could not be avoided and is something that was definitely on the mind of the council members who remained undecided up to that point – the threat of the public. This prediction was that the support for the amendment that would, in a sense, give representatives a chance to be in office for a longer period of time would, ultimately, be a detriment to his/her political career. This is, of course, because the voters will inevitably retaliate if the amendment is passed and this can come from two different ends: first, and foremost, from the New Yorkers who simply are against the amendment and, second, from New Yorkers who are dissatisfied with this issue being handled in the government offices rather than in the form of a referendum. Therefore, if a particular council member did vote for the amendment, it might be the very reason he/she will not have the opportunity to hold office in the future. And, according to some polls here and here, I feel that this may actually be something to be weary of. In some cases, people were in favor of extending the term limits but only if they were the ones to make the decision through a referendum and a slight majority of people were, in fact, opposed to the extension of term limits altogether. Thus, those council members who did vote for the amendment did so knowing that his/her decision on this matter might decide the chances for the next election.

One question proposed during the debates is whether or not it is ethically proper for the council to be the ones to make the final decision. Those were opposed to the amendment declared a conflict of interest to be a major issue since this amendment would directly affect the very people casting the vote. The council members are, in a sense, voting to keep their own jobs. This may be interpreted as a possible ground for asserting that a conflict of interest exists but I would disagree. It is not the case that all representatives (such as the mayor) will necessarily be in office longer due to this vote – the vote merely expands the possibility for someone like the mayor to stay in office by giving him/her the choice to run for a third term. This brings the debate to a main point given by witnesses who are for the amendment: that an increase in the possible term limits expands the freedom of the public. It serves us better to have the option of electing a candidate we feel is most qualified for the job three times in a row rather than to limit the representative to an arbitrary number of years in office that we might fee is too short. And as I have mentioned previously, there is also a danger in voting to extend term limits due to public opinion on the matter. For these reasons, the argument for a referendum due to the conflict of interest of the council members has little motivation.

When Mayor Bloomberg initially called for this amendment, he defended his position and his tactics by pointing out today’s economic crisis. He claims this meltdown must be handled by those who are more experienced – It is the conditions of candidacy that are calling for council members with experience to remain in office to better serve the people. But, I have to ask, aren’t the people who are standing in line to lead this city good enough? How can we trust in the more experienced to endure through these times if we couldn’t trust them to keep us out of this position. New York, like the nation, has an increasing problem debt and house foreclosures are becoming more common in almost every borough, and, after seven years, the World Trade Center has yet to be rebuilt. New York may perhaps be in need of new and younger people to be making decisions. (After all, isn’t that the mindset for the current Democratic nominee for the presidential election?)

Let’s begin at what appears to be the immediate problem. The American government recognizes marriage as something more than just an expensive and boring dinner with bad speeches. In fact, marriage has a heavy impact on a couple’s financial status, and it imparts numerous rights to the couple with regard to each other and their family as a whole. These rights usually consist of child custody, joint finances (which, in some cases, leads to a significant decrease in the amount a couple pays in taxes), monetary assistance in the incident of death or injury of a partner, rights to make medical decisions in the case of an emergency, full inheritance when no will had been prepared, etc. What many people feel is wrong with this policy is that not everyone has the capability of gaining such rights and benefits- namely, those the church doesn’t care to see married. Certain gay rights activists argue that this is a violation of the “separation of church and state” principal and that everyone should be allowed to have these rights.

I agree that everyone should be allowed to gain these rights and benefits, I also agree there is a serious problem with separation of church and state but not in the same way as the person who is happy to see the California ban lifted. In fact, I believe that the government should play no roll in who is allowed to go through the holy act of matrimony because it is a part of religious institutions. By forcing the church to recognize a homosexual’s right to marriage is itself a violation of the principal of separation of church and state. Who is allowed to get married should be decided by the church which conducts the marriages! If those in the administrative hierarchy of the church do not believe that their religion should support homosexuality through marriage, it is unconstitutional for the California supreme court to have any power over their ability to implement these beliefs.

What we must petition to change in the American system of government is the legal status of marriage. There is absolutely no purpose for a religious practice to have any consequence on legal matters. Those who currently oppose same-sex marriage insist that homosexuals take the other route to partnership and get a civil union. The problem is that a civil union is not a federally recognized partnership and it does not benefit the couple in the way a marriage would even in the state where the union was done. A civil union is a half-ass version of marriage that has little to offer to couples when compared to marriage.

Therefore, I propose that several steps are in order for the american people and their government: First, marriage is to be entirely stripped of all legal influences on a person’s life and property. Second, the government must cease and remove any alterations to the mandates of a religious organization. Obviously, no crime committed can be excused with a religious affiliation but a religion is entitled to their desire to commit such crimes. Third, civil unions will become federally acknowledged to provide the very same rights and benefits as marriage does (as we know it to be today). Lastly, there should be no restrictions on a person’s freedom to become part of a civil union whereby these limitations are the result of characteristics with no significance to the civil union process.

Gay rights activists have to stop empowering religious ideology and practices in politics. If you want equality, you must first eliminate the entity that is responsible for placing bigotry into our laws. Once you remove religion from our laws, then you can work without ignorant and hateful resistance to your cause.

It seems to me that religion is sort of like the living dead, but with stupid rules and the strange tendency to pray. Religion has opposed most scientific discoveries and has been consistently trying to get us to stop using common sense. Religious people are usually found in groups, and almost always saying the same thing as everyone else around them. This is the reason I have little hope in resolving this discord: zombies are fucking hard to get rid of. They go around killing real people. And, apparently, an infestation of the mindless can go on for thousands of years with no end in sight. This is serious because they target the only tool we have against them – our brain. I like my brain, I try to use it often and I advise that you do the same. Maybe, one day we’ll figure out a way to save humanity from this virus.

It appears to have started with a sort of infringement of land; Holy land tainted by the infidels and too many hands in the affairs of the Islamic countries. As problems began to stack, places like Egypt, Iraq, and Iran began to react to the influence of the western world with an unconventional means to regain what was lost. This reaction was martyrdom through sacrificial violence and subsequent death. It brought great attention and admiration to does who committed acts usually seen as evil. Patriotism ran like a hormone through the veins of muslim people, eager to commit themselves to their lord entirely.

It is, without a doubt, expected of western leaders to add the Islamic nations, especially those associated with radicalism, to the black book of politics. As soon as a suicide bomb reaches the 10o’clock news in America, every politician is stumbling to get attention by discussing what it means for the average American and what needs to be done. It is of no surprise that western countries began isolating Muslim countries and treating them as dogs that bite; they do, in fact, bite at the culture of the average westerner. Radical muslims threaten and terrorize and countries like America cannot bare to simply turn the other cheek. In the world of international relations, force may not be agreed upon or anticipated but is always returned.

So, we have America pushing nations like Iran. Radical Muslims react with violence, then and now seen as appropriate (depending on who you ask). America then counters with further pressure which only leads to further retaliation. They see us as immoral dictators and we see them as barbaric maniacs slaughtering innocent people. It was once the “murderous ping pong” suggested in the title but has, today, turned into a conquest to annihilate the evil enemy (which is the view shared by both parties). We both see the other as the obviously malevolent society, driven by ignorance of some high truth that only death can cure.

In my own opinion, America has to get a fucking clue and realize that long term goals are more important than immediate gratification. It has supported too many brother governments with disregard to the people of that country. What else can be the result of overthrowing leaders in order to push a friend into office simply for a short sighted goal. International allies and peace, doesn’t America consider that to be a reasonable goal? What’s the point of oil and political influence of a country that produces it if you start a war that will last for over several decades?
Muslim people have to stop complaining. It may be true that America and other western influences had a negative affect on your nation but radical religions that breed terrorism against the leaders of the world is only working against your interests. If you continue using threats and violence every time a westerner is responsible for death in a muslim land, the result will only be death for all.

Religious people in general need to shut the fuck up. Unless you prove to the world that what you say means anything more than an old book written by someone hundreds of years ago about what you have no real understanding of, keep it to yourself. The day an organized religion can significantly improve the quality of life in some systematic way that isn’t obvious and already accepted by everyone should it be even allowed to exist. So far, all that has been done by religion is limit the power of those who actually use science, logic, and meaningful application.

I’m no longer tired of the problems of religion in the world today, I’m exhausted of it. All I can think about is how bad life must have been in order for religions like Islam to become so widely loved and implemented. Fortunately, life involves time which does not stand still allowing something called information to flourish. No more do we rely on tales and mystical bullshit to make life seem interesting. In fact, making life interesting is not even a problem anymore (especially with all the war you people have caused), now we are trying to make life simply better. Please, stop fucking it up for everyone.