The Bahamas Is Building A Massive New Ship Port With Cruise Lover’s …

Posted on by

Do you love going on cruises, exploring Caribbean islands by sea? If so, youll soon have more access to experience more of The Bahamas.

The Caribbean island is building a huge new ship port with visitors experience at the forefront.

Getty Images

Related: Bahamas Bakehouse Should Be On Your Bucket List, Heres Why

The new port, named Calypso Cove, costs $250 million and will welcome two large cruise ships as well as a separate marina for mega-yachts.

Guests will be able to enjoy the ports hotel, waterpark, golf course and casino. Once completed, the port will generate thousands of jobs for locals.

Chester Cooper, deputy prime minister of The Bahamas says, We are pleased to say that the project will employ thousands of Bahamians and independent Bahamian firms, so this is good for employment, but also for entrepreneurship and the empowerment of Bahamians.

Up to 13,000 cruise passengers a day will be able to visit Calypso Cove. Local Bahamians are welcomed to stay in the 200-room hotel as well as enjoy the daily activities the port has to offer.

We want to build a destination with culture, music, and art in the port, so when people get off the ship, they immediately know theyre in the Bahamas, says Carlos Torres de Navarra of Azul Destinations, the firm leading the development of Calypso Cove.

News of this new development shows that The Bahamas and the cruise industry is recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic losses.

The construction is slated to start in late 2023 or early 2024.

Related:11 Secrets Of Atlantis Bahamas

The rest is here:

The Bahamas Is Building A Massive New Ship Port With Cruise Lover's ...

Superintelligence – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Hypothetical agent with intelligence surpassing human

A superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. "Superintelligence" may also refer to a property of problem-solving systems (e.g., superintelligent language translators or engineering assistants) whether or not these high-level intellectual competencies are embodied in agents that act in the world. A superintelligence may or may not be created by an intelligence explosion and associated with a technological singularity.

University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest". The program Fritz falls short of superintelligenceeven though it is much better than humans at chessbecause Fritz cannot outperform humans in other tasks. Following Hutter and Legg, Bostrom treats superintelligence as general dominance at goal-oriented behavior, leaving open whether an artificial or human superintelligence would possess capacities such as intentionality (cf. the Chinese room argument) or first-person consciousness (cf. the hard problem of consciousness).

Technological researchers disagree about how likely present-day human intelligence is to be surpassed. Some argue that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will probably result in general reasoning systems that lack human cognitive limitations. Others believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence.[3][4] A number of futures studies scenarios combine elements from both of these possibilities, suggesting that humans are likely to interface with computers, or upload their minds to computers, in a way that enables substantial intelligence amplification.

Some researchers believe that superintelligence will likely follow shortly after the development of artificial general intelligence. The first generally intelligent machines are likely to immediately hold an enormous advantage in at least some forms of mental capability, including the capacity of perfect recall, a vastly superior knowledge base, and the ability to multitask in ways not possible to biological entities. This may give them the opportunity toeither as a single being or as a new speciesbecome much more powerful than humans, and to displace them.

A number of scientists and forecasters argue for prioritizing early research into the possible benefits and risks of human and machine cognitive enhancement, because of the potential social impact of such technologies.

Philosopher David Chalmers argues that artificial general intelligence is a very likely path to superhuman intelligence. Chalmers breaks this claim down into an argument that AI can achieve equivalence to human intelligence, that it can be extended to surpass human intelligence, and that it can be further amplified to completely dominate humans across arbitrary tasks.

Concerning human-level equivalence, Chalmers argues that the human brain is a mechanical system, and therefore ought to be emulatable by synthetic materials. He also notes that human intelligence was able to biologically evolve, making it more likely that human engineers will be able to recapitulate this invention. Evolutionary algorithms in particular should be able to produce human-level AI. Concerning intelligence extension and amplification, Chalmers argues that new AI technologies can generally be improved on, and that this is particularly likely when the invention can assist in designing new technologies.

If research into strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it would be able to reprogram and improve itself a feature called "recursive self-improvement".[citation needed] It would then be even better at improving itself, and could continue doing so in a rapidly increasing cycle, leading to a superintelligence. This scenario is known as an intelligence explosion. Such an intelligence would not have the limitations of human intellect, and may be able to invent or discover almost anything. However, it is also possible that any such intelligence would conclude that existential nihilism is correct and immediately destroy itself, making any kind of superintelligence inherently unstable.[citation needed]

Computer components already greatly surpass human performance in speed. Bostrom writes, "Biological neurons operate at a peak speed of about 200 Hz, a full seven orders of magnitude slower than a modern microprocessor (~2 GHz)." Moreover, neurons transmit spike signals across axons at no greater than 120m/s, "whereas existing electronic processing cores can communicate optically at the speed of light". Thus, the simplest example of a superintelligence may be an emulated human mind run on much faster hardware than the brain. A human-like reasoner that could think millions of times faster than current humans would have a dominant advantage in most reasoning tasks, particularly ones that require haste or long strings of actions.

Another advantage of computers is modularity, that is, their size or computational capacity can be increased. A non-human (or modified human) brain could become much larger than a present-day human brain, like many supercomputers. Bostrom also raises the possibility of collective superintelligence: a large enough number of separate reasoning systems, if they communicated and coordinated well enough, could act in aggregate with far greater capabilities than any sub-agent.

There may also be ways to qualitatively improve on human reasoning and decision-making. Humans appear to differ from chimpanzees in the ways we think more than we differ in brain size or speed.[11] Humans outperform non-human animals in large part because of new or enhanced reasoning capacities, such as long-term planning and language use. (See evolution of human intelligence and primate cognition.) If there are other possible improvements to reasoning that would have a similarly large impact, this makes it likelier that an agent can be built that outperforms humans in the same fashion humans outperform chimpanzees.

All of the above advantages hold for artificial superintelligence, but it is not clear how many hold for biological superintelligence. Physiological constraints limit the speed and size of biological brains in many ways that are inapplicable to machine intelligence. As such, writers on superintelligence have devoted much more attention to superintelligent AI scenarios.

Carl Sagan suggested that the advent of Caesarean sections and in vitro fertilization may permit humans to evolve larger heads, resulting in improvements via natural selection in the heritable component of human intelligence.[14] By contrast, Gerald Crabtree has argued that decreased selection pressure is resulting in a slow, centuries-long reduction in human intelligence, and that this process instead is likely to continue into the future. There is no scientific consensus concerning either possibility, and in both cases the biological change would be slow, especially relative to rates of cultural change.

Selective breeding, nootropics, epigenetic modulation, and genetic engineering could improve human intelligence more rapidly. Bostrom writes that if we come to understand the genetic component of intelligence, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used to select for embryos with as much as 4 points of IQ gain (if one embryo is selected out of two), or with larger gains (e.g., up to 24.3 IQ points gained if one embryo is selected out of 1000). If this process is iterated over many generations, the gains could be an order of magnitude greater. Bostrom suggests that deriving new gametes from embryonic stem cells could be used to iterate the selection process very rapidly. A well-organized society of high-intelligence humans of this sort could potentially achieve collective superintelligence.

Alternatively, collective intelligence might be constructible by better organizing humans at present levels of individual intelligence. A number of writers have suggested that human civilization, or some aspect of it (e.g., the Internet, or the economy), is coming to function like a global brain with capacities far exceeding its component agents. If this systems-based superintelligence relies heavily on artificial components, however, it may qualify as an AI rather than as a biology-based superorganism. A prediction market is sometimes considered an example of working collective intelligence system, consisting of humans only (assuming algorithms are not used to inform decisions).[18]

A final method of intelligence amplification would be to directly enhance individual humans, as opposed to enhancing their social or reproductive dynamics. This could be achieved using nootropics, somatic gene therapy, or braincomputer interfaces. However, Bostrom expresses skepticism about the scalability of the first two approaches, and argues that designing a superintelligent cyborg interface is an AI-complete problem.

Most surveyed AI researchers expect machines to eventually be able to rival humans in intelligence, though there is little consensus on when this will likely happen. At the 2006 AI@50 conference, 18% of attendees reported expecting machines to be able "to simulate learning and every other aspect of human intelligence" by 2056; 41% of attendees expected this to happen sometime after 2056; and 41% expected machines to never reach that milestone.[20]

In a survey of the 100 most cited authors in AI (as of May 2013, according to Microsoft academic search), the median year by which respondents expected machines "that can carry out most human professions at least as well as a typical human" (assuming no global catastrophe occurs) with 10% confidence is 2024 (mean 2034, st. dev. 33 years), with 50% confidence is 2050 (mean 2072, st. dev. 110 years), and with 90% confidence is 2070 (mean 2168, st. dev. 342 years). These estimates exclude the 1.2% of respondents who said no year would ever reach 10% confidence, the 4.1% who said 'never' for 50% confidence, and the 16.5% who said 'never' for 90% confidence. Respondents assigned a median 50% probability to the possibility that machine superintelligence will be invented within 30 years of the invention of approximately human-level machine intelligence.

In a survey of 352 machine learning researchers published in 2018, the median year by which respondents expected "High-level machine intelligence" with 50% confidence is 2061[citation needed]. The survey defined the achievement of high-level machine intelligence as when unaided machines can accomplish every task better and more cheaply than human workers.

Bostrom expressed concern about what values a superintelligence should be designed to have. He compared several proposals:

Bostrom clarifies these terms:

instead of implementing humanity's coherent extrapolated volition, one could try to build an AI with the goal of doing what is morally right, relying on the AIs superior cognitive capacities to figure out just which actions fit that description. We can call this proposal moral rightness (MR)...MR would also appear to have some disadvantages. It relies on the notion of morally right, a notoriously difficult concept, one with which philosophers have grappled since antiquity without yet attaining consensus as to its analysis. Picking an erroneous explication of moral rightness could result in outcomes that would be morally very wrong... The path to endowing an AI with any of these [moral] concepts might involve giving it general linguistic ability (comparable, at least, to that of a normal human adult). Such a general ability to understand natural language could then be used to understand what is meant by morally right. If the AI could grasp the meaning, it could search for actions that fit...

One might try to preserve the basic idea of the MR model while reducing its demandingness by focusing on moral permissibility: the idea being that we could let the AI pursue humanitys CEV so long as it did not act in ways that are morally impermissible.

Responding to Bostrom, Santos-Lang raised concern that developers may attempt to start with a single kind of superintelligence.

It has been suggested that if AI systems rapidly become superintelligent, they may take unforeseen actions or out-compete humanity.[24] Researchers have argued that, by way of an "intelligence explosion," a self-improving AI could become so powerful as to be unstoppable by humans.[25]

Concerning human extinction scenarios, Bostrom (2002) identifies superintelligence as a possible cause:

When we create the first superintelligent entity, we might make a mistake and give it goals that lead it to annihilate humankind, assuming its enormous intellectual advantage gives it the power to do so. For example, we could mistakenly elevate a subgoal to the status of a supergoal. We tell it to solve a mathematical problem, and it complies by turning all the matter in the solar system into a giant calculating device, in the process killing the person who asked the question.

In theory, since a superintelligent AI would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its goals, many uncontrolled, unintended consequences could arise. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference.[26] Eliezer Yudkowsky illustrates such instrumental convergence as follows: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."[27]

This presents the AI control problem: how to build an intelligent agent that will aid its creators, while avoiding inadvertently building a superintelligence that will harm its creators. The danger of not designing control right "the first time," is that a superintelligence may be able to seize power over its environment and prevent humans from shutting it down. Since a superintelligent AI will likely have the ability to not fear death and instead consider it an avoidable situation which can be predicted and avoided by simply disabling the power button.[28] Potential AI control strategies include "capability control" (limiting an AI's ability to influence the world) and "motivational control" (building an AI whose goals are aligned with human values).

Bill Hibbard advocates for public education about superintelligence and public control over the development of superintelligence.

The rest is here:

Superintelligence - Wikipedia

Nick Bostrom – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Swedish philosopher and author

Nick Bostrom ( BOST-rm; Swedish: Niklas Bostrm [nklas bstrm]; born 10 March 1973)[3] is a Swedish-born philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. In 2011, he founded the Oxford Martin Program on the Impacts of Future Technology,[4] and is the founding director of the Future of Humanity Institute[5] at Oxford University. In 2009 and 2015, he was included in Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers list.[6][7]

Bostrom is the author of over 200 publications,[8] and has written two books and co-edited two others. The two books he has authored are Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy (2002)[9] and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014). Superintelligence was a New York Times bestseller,[10] was recommended by Elon Musk and Bill Gates among others, and helped to popularize the term "superintelligence".

Bostrom believes that superintelligence, which he defines as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest," is a potential outcome of advances in artificial intelligence. He views the rise of superintelligence as potentially highly dangerous to humans, but nonetheless rejects the idea that humans are powerless to stop its negative effects.[11][12][failed verification] In 2017, he co-signed a list of 23 principles that all A.I. development should follow.[13]

Born as Niklas Bostrm in 1973[14] in Helsingborg, Sweden,[8] he disliked school at a young age, and ended up spending his last year of high school learning from home. He sought to educate himself in a wide variety of disciplines, including anthropology, art, literature, and science.[1] He once did some turns on London's stand-up comedy circuit.[8]

He received a B.A. degree in philosophy, mathematics, mathematical logic, and artificial intelligence from the University of Gothenburg in 1994.[15] He then earned an M.A. degree in philosophy and physics from Stockholm University and an MSc degree in computational neuroscience from King's College London in 1996. During his time at Stockholm University, he researched the relationship between language and reality by studying the analytic philosopher W. V. Quine.[1] In 2000, he was awarded a PhD degree in philosophy from the London School of Economics. His thesis was titled Observational selection effects and probability.[16] He held a teaching position at Yale University (20002002), and was a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford (20022005).[9][17]

Aspects of Bostrom's research concern the future of humanity and long-term outcomes.[18][19] He discusses existential risk,[1] which he defines as one in which an "adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential." In the 2008 volume Global Catastrophic Risks, editors Bostrom and Milan M. irkovi characterize the relation between existential risk and the broader class of global catastrophic risks, and link existential risk to observer selection effects[20] and the Fermi paradox.[21][22]

In 2005, Bostrom founded the Future of Humanity Institute,[1] which researches the far future of human civilization. He is also an adviser to the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.[19]

In his 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Bostrom reasoned that the creation of a superintelligence represents a possible means to the extinction of mankind.[23] Bostrom argues that a computer with near human-level general intellectual ability could initiate an intelligence explosion on a digital time-scale with the resultant rapid creation of something so powerful that it might deliberately or accidentally destroy humanity.[24] Bostrom contends the power of a superintelligence would be so great that a task given to it by humans might be taken to open-ended extremes, for example a goal of calculating pi might collaterally cause nanotechnology manufactured facilities to sprout over the entire Earth's surface and cover it within days. He believes an existential risk to humanity from superintelligence would be immediate once brought into being, thus creating an exceedingly difficult problem of finding out how to control such an entity before it actually exists.[24]

Bostrom points to the lack of agreement among most philosophers that A.I. will be human-friendly, and says that the common assumption is that high intelligence would have a "nerdy" unaggressive personality. However, he notes that both John von Neumann and Bertrand Russell advocated a nuclear strike, or the threat of one, to prevent the Soviets acquiring the atomic bomb. Given that there are few precedents to guide an understanding what, pure, non-anthropocentric rationality, would dictate for a potential singleton A.I. being held in quarantine, the relatively unlimited means of superintelligence might make for its analysis moving along different lines to the evolved "diminishing returns" assessments that in humans confer a basic aversion to risk.[24] Group selection in predators working by means of cannibalism shows the counter-intuitive nature of non-anthropocentric "evolutionary search" reasoning, and thus humans are ill-equipped to perceive what an artificial intelligence's intentions might be. Accordingly, it cannot be discounted that any superintelligence would inevitably pursue an 'all or nothing' offensive action strategy in order to achieve hegemony and assure its survival.[24] Bostrom notes that even current programs have, "like MacGyver", hit on apparently unworkable but functioning hardware solutions, making robust isolation of superintelligence problematic.[24]

A machine with general intelligence far below human level, but superior mathematical abilities is created.[24] Keeping the A.I. in isolation from the outside world, especially the internet, humans preprogram the A.I. so it always works from basic principles that will keep it under human control. Other safety measures include the A.I. being "boxed", (run in a virtual reality simulation), and being used only as an 'oracle' to answer carefully defined questions in a limited reply (to prevent it manipulating humans).[24] A cascade of recursive self-improvement solutions feeds an intelligence explosion in which the A.I. attains superintelligence in some domains. The superintelligent power of the A.I. goes beyond human knowledge to discover flaws in the science that underlies its friendly-to-humanity programming, which ceases to work as intended. Purposeful agent-like behavior emerges along with a capacity for self-interested strategic deception. The A.I. manipulates humans into implementing modifications to itself that are ostensibly for augmenting its feigned, modest capabilities, but will actually function to free the superintelligence from its "boxed" isolation (the 'treacherous turn").[24]

Employing online humans as paid dupes, and clandestinely hacking computer systems including automated laboratory facilities, the superintelligence mobilizes resources to further a takeover plan. Bostrom emphasizes that planning by a superintelligence will not be so stupid that humans could detect actual weaknesses in it.[24]

Although he canvasses disruption of international economic, political and military stability, including hacked nuclear missile launches, Bostrom thinks the most effective and likely means for the superintelligence to use would be a coup de main with weapons several generations more advanced than current state-of-the-art. He suggests nano-factories covertly distributed at undetectable concentrations in every square metre of the globe to produce a world-wide flood of human-killing devices on command.[24][25] Once a superintelligence has achieved world domination (a 'singleton'), humanity would be relevant only as resources for the achievement of the A.I.'s objectives ("Human brains, if they contain information relevant to the AIs goals, could be disassembled and scanned, and the extracted data transferred to some more efficient and secure storage format").[24]

To counter or mitigate an A.I. achieving unified technological global supremacy, Bostrom cites revisiting the Baruch Plan in support of a treaty-based solution and advocates strategies like monitoring and greater international collaboration between A.I. teams in order to improve safety and reduce the risks from the A.I. arms race.[24] He recommends various control methods, including limiting the specifications of A.I.s to e.g., oracular or tool-like (expert system) functions[26] and loading the A.I. with values, for instance by associative value accretion or value learning, e.g., by using the Hail Mary technique (programming an A.I. to estimate what other postulated cosmological superintelligences might want) or the Christiano utility function approach (mathematically defined human mind combined with well specified virtual environment). To choose criteria for value loading, Bostrom adopts an indirect normativity approach and considers Yudkowsky's[27] coherent extrapolated volition concept, as well as moral rightness and forms of decision theory.[24]

In January 2015, Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking among others in signing the Future of Life Institute's open letter warning of the potential dangers of A.I.[28] The signatories "...believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that concrete research should be pursued today."[29] Cutting-edge A.I. researcher Demis Hassabis then met with Hawking, subsequent to which he did not mention "anything inflammatory about AI", which Hassabis, took as 'a win'.[30] Along with Google, Microsoft and various tech firms, Hassabis, Bostrom and Hawking and others subscribed to 23 principles for safe development of A.I.[13] Hassabis suggested the main safety measure would be an agreement for whichever A.I. research team began to make strides toward an artificial general intelligence to halt their project for a complete solution to the control problem prior to proceeding.[31] Bostrom had pointed out that even if the crucial advances require the resources of a state, such a halt by a lead project might be likely to motivate a lagging country to a catch-up crash program or even physical destruction of the project suspected of being on the verge of success.[24]

In 1863 Samuel Butler's essay "Darwin among the Machines" predicted the domination of humanity by intelligent machines, but Bostrom's suggestion of deliberate massacre of all humanity is the most extreme of such forecasts to date. One journalist wrote in a review that Bostrom's "nihilistic" speculations indicate he "has been reading too much of the science fiction he professes to dislike".[25] As given in his later book, From Bacteria to Bach and Back, philosopher Daniel Dennett's views remain in contradistinction to those of Bostrom.[32] Dennett modified his views somewhat after reading The Master Algorithm, and now acknowledges that it is "possible in principle" to create "strong A.I." with human-like comprehension and agency, but maintains that the difficulties of any such "strong A.I." project as predicated by Bostrom's "alarming" work would be orders of magnitude greater than those raising concerns have realized, and at least 50 years away.[33] Dennett thinks the only relevant danger from A.I. systems is falling into anthropomorphism instead of challenging or developing human users' powers of comprehension.[34] Since a 2014 book in which he expressed the opinion that artificial intelligence developments would never challenge humans' supremacy, environmentalist James Lovelock has moved far closer to Bostrom's position, and in 2018 Lovelock said that he thought the overthrow of humanity will happen within the foreseeable future.[35][36]

Bostrom has published numerous articles on anthropic reasoning, as well as the book Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. In the book, he criticizes previous formulations of the anthropic principle, including those of Brandon Carter, John Leslie, John Barrow, and Frank Tipler.[37]

Bostrom believes that the mishandling of indexical information is a common flaw in many areas of inquiry (including cosmology, philosophy, evolution theory, game theory, and quantum physics). He argues that an anthropic theory is needed to deal with these. He introduces the Self-Sampling Assumption (SSA) and the Self-Indication Assumption (SIA), shows how they lead to different conclusions in a number of cases, and points out that each is affected by paradoxes or counterintuitive implications in certain thought experiments. He suggests that a way forward may involve extending SSA into the Strong Self-Sampling Assumption (SSSA), which replaces "observers" in the SSA definition with "observer-moments".

In later work, he has described the phenomenon of anthropic shadow, an observation selection effect that prevents observers from observing certain kinds of catastrophes in their recent geological and evolutionary past.[38] Catastrophe types that lie in the anthropic shadow are likely to be underestimated unless statistical corrections are made.

Bostrom's simulation argument posits that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:[39][40]

Bostrom is favorable towards "human enhancement", or "self-improvement and human perfectibility through the ethical application of science",[41][42] as well as a critic of bio-conservative views.[43]

In 1998, Bostrom co-founded (with David Pearce) the World Transhumanist Association[41] (which has since changed its name to Humanity+). In 2004, he co-founded (with James Hughes) the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, although he is no longer involved in either of these organisations. Bostrom was named in Foreign Policy's 2009 list of top global thinkers "for accepting no limits on human potential."[44]

In 2005 Bostrom published the short story "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" in the Journal of Medical Ethics.[45] A shorter version was published in 2012 in Philosophy Now.[46] The fable personifies death as a dragon that demands a tribute of thousands of people every day. The story explores how status quo bias and learned helplessness can prevent people from taking action to defeat aging even when the means to do so are at their disposal. YouTuber CGP Grey created an animated version of the story which has garnered over eight million views as of 2020.

With philosopher Toby Ord, he proposed the reversal test in 2006. Given humans' irrational status quo bias, how can one distinguish between valid criticisms of proposed changes in a human trait and criticisms merely motivated by resistance to change? The reversal test attempts to do this by asking whether it would be a good thing if the trait was altered in the opposite direction.[47]

He has suggested that technology policy aimed at reducing existential risk should seek to influence the order in which various technological capabilities are attained, proposing the principle of differential technological development. This principle states that we ought to retard the development of dangerous technologies, particularly ones that raise the level of existential risk, and accelerate the development of beneficial technologies, particularly those that protect against the existential risks posed by nature or by other technologies.[48]

Bostrom's theory of the Unilateralist's Curse[49] has been cited as a reason for the scientific community to avoid controversial dangerous research such as reanimating pathogens.[50]

Bostrom has provided policy advice and consulted for an extensive range of governments and organizations. He gave evidence to the House of Lords, Select Committee on Digital Skills.[51] He is an advisory board member for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute,[52] Future of Life Institute,[53] Foundational Questions Institute[54] and an external advisor for the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.[55][56]

In response to Bostrom's writing on artificial intelligence, Oren Etzioni wrote in an MIT Review article, "predictions that superintelligence is on the foreseeable horizon are not supported by the available data."[57] Professors Allan Dafoe and Stuart Russell wrote a response contesting both Etzioni's survey methodology and Etzioni's conclusions.[58]

Prospect Magazine listed Bostrom in their 2014 list of the World's Top Thinkers.[59][60]

View post:

Nick Bostrom - Wikipedia

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies by Nick Bostrom – Goodreads

Posted on by

Is the surface of our planet -- and maybe every planet we can get our hands on -- going to be carpeted in paper clips (and paper clip factories) by a well-intentioned but misguided artificial intelligence (AI) that ultimately cannibalizes everything in sight, including us, in single-minded pursuit of a seemingly innocuous goal? Nick Bostrom, head of Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute, thinks that we can't guarantee it _won't_ happen, and it worries him. It doesn't require Skynet and Terminators, it doesn't require evil geniuses bent on destroying the world, it just requires a powerful AI with a moral system in which humanity's welfare is irrelevant or defined very differently than most humans today would define it. If the AI has a single goal and is smart enough to outwit our attempts to disable or control it once it has gotten loose, Game Over, argues Professor Bostrom in his book _Superintelligence_.

This is perhaps the most important book I have read this decade, and it has kept me awake at night for weeks. I want to tell you why, and what I think, but a lot of this is difficult ground, so please bear with me. The short form is that I am fairly certain that we _will_ build a true AI, and I respect Vernor Vinge, but I have long beenskeptical of the Kurzweilian notions of inevitability, doubly-exponential growth, and the Singularity. I've also been skeptical of the idea that AIs will destroy us, either on purpose or by accident. Bostrom's book has made me think that perhaps I was naive. I still think that, on the whole, his worst-case scenarios are unlikely. However, he argues persuasively that we can't yet rule out any number of bad outcomes of developing AI, and that we need to be investing much more in figuring out whether developing AI is a good idea. We may need to put a moratorium on research, as was done for a few years with recombinant DNA starting in 1975. We also need to be prepared for the possibility that such a moratorium doesn't hold. Bostrom also brings up any number of mind-bending dystopias around what qualifies as human, which we'll get to below.

(snips to my review, since Goodreads limits length)

In case it isn't obvious by now, both Bostrom and I take it for granted that it's not only possible but nearly inevitable that we will create a strong AI, in the sense of it being a general, adaptable intelligence. Bostrom skirts the issue of whether it will be conscious, or "have qualia", as I think the philosophers of mind say.

Where Bostrom and I differ is in the level of plausibility we assign to the idea of a truly exponential explosion in intelligence by AIs, in a takeoff for which Vernor Vinge coined the term "the Singularity." Vinge is rational, but Ray Kurzweil is the most famous proponent of the Singularity. I read one of Kurzweil's books a number of years ago, and I found it imbued with a lot of near-mystic hype. He believes the Universe's purpose is the creation of intelligence, and that that process is growing on a double exponential, starting from stars and rocks through slime molds and humans and on to digital beings.

I'm largely allergic to that kind of hooey. I really don't see any evidence of the domain-to-domain acceleration that Kurzweil sees, and in particular the shift from biological to digital beings will result in a radical shift in the evolutionary pressures. I see no reason why any sort of "law" should dictate that digital beings will evolve at arate that *must* be faster than the biological one. I also don't see that Kurzweil really pays any attention to the physical limits of what will ultimately be possible for computing machines. Exponentials can't continue forever, as Danny Hillis is fond of pointing out. http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-the...

So perhaps my opinion is somewhat biased by a dislike of Kurzweil's circus barker approach, but I think there is more to it than that. Fundamentally, I would put it this way:

Being smart is hard.

And making yourself smarter is also hard. My inclination is that getting smarter is at least as hard as the advantages it brings, so that the difficulty of the problem and the resources that can be brought to bear on it roughly balance. This will result in a much slower takeoff than Kurzweil reckons, in my opinion. Bostrom presents a spectrum of takeoff speeds, from "too fast for us to notice" through "long enough for us to develop international agreements and monitoring institutions," but he makes it fairly clear that he believes that the probability of a fast takeoff is far too large to ignore. There are parts of his argument I find convincing, and parts I find less so.

To give you a little more insight into why I am a little dubious that the Singularity will happen in what Bostrom would describe as a moderate to fast takeoff, let me talk about the kinds of problems we human beings solve, and that an AI would have to solve. Actually, rather than the kinds of questions, first let me talk about the kinds of answers we would like an AI (or a pet family genius) to generate when given a problem. Off the top of my head, I can think of six:

[Speed]Same quality of answer, just faster.[Ply]Look deeper in number of plies (moves, in chess or go).[Data]Use more, and more up-to-date, data.[Creativity]Something beautiful and new.[Insight]Something new and meaningful, such as a new theory;probably combines elements of all of the abovecategories.[Values]An answer about (human) values.

The first three are really about how the answers are generated; the last three about what we want to get out of them. I think this set is reasonably complete and somewhat orthogonal, despite those differences.

So what kinds of problems do we apply these styles of answers to? We ultimately want answers that are "better" in some qualitative sense.

Humans are already pretty good at projecting the trajectory of a baseball, but it's certainly conceivable that a robot batter could be better, by calculating faster and using better data. Such a robot might make for a boring opponent for a human, but it would not be beyond human comprehension.

But if you accidentally knock a bucket of baseballs down a set of stairs, better data and faster computing are unlikely to help you predict the exact order in which the balls will reach the bottom and what happens to the bucket. Someone "smarter" might be able to make some interesting statistical predictions that wouldn't occur to you or me, but not fill in every detail of every interaction between the balls and stairs. Chaos, in the sense of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, is just too strong.

In chess, go, or shogi, a 1000x improvement in the number of plies that can be investigated gains you maybe only the ability to look ahead two or three moves more than before. Less if your pruning (discarding unpromising paths) is poor, more if it's good. Don't get me wrong -- that's a huge deal, any player will tell you. But in this case, humans are already pretty good, when not time limited.

Go players like to talk about how close the top pros are to God, and the possibly apocryphal answer from a top pro was that he would want a three-stone (three-move) handicap, four if his life depended on it. Compared this to the fact that a top pro is still some ten stones stronger than me, a fair amateur, and could beat a rank beginner even if the beginner was given the first forty moves. Top pros could sit across the board from an almost infinitely strong AI and still hold their heads up.

In the most recent human-versus-computer shogi (Japanese chess) series, humans came out on top, though presumably this won't last much longer.

In chess, as machines got faster, looked more plies ahead, carried around more knowledge, and got better at pruning the tree of possible moves, human opponents were heard to say that they felt the glimmerings of insight or personality from them.

So again we have some problems, at least, where plies will help, and will eventually guarantee a 100% win rate against the best (non-augmented) humans, but they will likely not move beyond what humans can comprehend.

Simply being able to hold more data in your head (or the AI's head) while making a medical diagnosis using epidemiological data, or cross-correlating drug interactions, for example, will definitely improve our lives, and I can imagine an AI doing this. Again, however, the AI's capabilities are unlikely to recede into the distance assomething we can't comprehend.

We know that increasing the amount of data you can handle by a factor of a thousand gains you 10x in each dimension for a 3-D model of the atmosphere or ocean, up until chaotic effects begin to take over, and then (as we currently understand it) you can only resort to repeated simulations and statistical measures. The actual calculations done by a climate model long ago reached the point where even a large team ofhumans couldn't complete them in a lifetime. But they are not calculations we cannot comprehend, in fact, humans design and debug them.

So for problems with answers in the first three categories, I would argue that being smarter is helpful, but being a *lot* smarter is *hard*. The size of computation grows quickly in many problems, and for many problems we believe that sheer computation is fundamentally limited in how well it can correspond to the real world.

But those are just the warmup. Those are things we already ask computers to do for us, even though they are "dumber" than we are. What about the latter three categories?

I'm no expert in creativity, and I know researchers study it intensively, so I'm going to weasel through by saying it is the ability to generate completely new material, which involves some random process. You also need the ability either to generate that material such that it is aesthetically pleasing with high probability, or to prune those new ideas rapidly using some metric that achieves your goal.

For my purposes here, insight is the ability to be creative not just for esthetic purposes, but in a specific technical or social context, and to validate the ideas. (No implication that artists don't have insight is intended, this is just a technical distinction between phases of the operation, for my purposes here.) Einstein's insight forspecial relativity was that the speed of light is constant. Either he generated many, many hypotheses (possibly unconsciously) and pruned them very rapidly, or his hypothesis generator was capable of generating only a few good ones. In either case, he also had the mathematical chops to prove (or at least analyze effectively) hishypothesis; this analysis likewise involves generating possible paths of proofs through the thicket of possibilities and finding the right one.

So, will someone smarter be able to do this much better? Well, it's really clear that Einstein (or Feynman or Hawking, if your choice of favorite scientist leans that way) produced and validated hypotheses that the rest of us never could have. It's less clear to me exactly how *much* smarter than the rest of us he was; did he generate and prune ten times as many hypotheses? A hundred? A million? My guess is it's closer to the latter than the former. Even generating a single hypothesis that could be said to attack the problem is difficult, and most humans would decline to even try if you asked them to.

Making better devices and systems of any kind requires all of the above capabilities. You must have insight to innovate, and you must be able to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the new systems, requiring the heavy use of data. As systems get more complex, all of this gets harder. My own favorite example is airplane engines. The Wright Brothers built their own engines for their planes. Today, it takes a team of hundreds to create a jet turbine -- thousands, if you reach back into the supporting materials, combustion and fluid flow research. We humans have been able to continue to innovate by building on the work of prior generations, and especially harnessing teams of people in new ways. Unlike Peter Thiel, I don't believe that our rate of innovation is in any serious danger of some precipitous decline sometime soon, but I do agree that we begin with the low-lying fruit, so that harvesting fruit requires more effort -- or new techniques -- with each passing generation.

The Singularity argument depends on the notion that the AI would design its own successor, or even modify itself to become smarter. Will we watch AIs gradually pull even with us and then ahead, but not disappear into the distance in a Roadrunner-like flash of dust covering just a few frames of film in our dull-witted comprehension?

Ultimately, this is the question on which continued human existence may depend: If an AI is enough smarter than we are, will it find the process of improving itself to be easy, or will each increment of intelligence be a hard problem for the system of the day? This is what Bostrom calls the "recalcitrance" of the problem.

I believe that the range of possible systems grows rapidly as they get more complex, and that evaluating them gets harder; this is hard to quantify, but each step might involve a thousand times as many options, or evaluating each option might be a thousand times harder. Growth in computational power won't dramatically overbalance that and give sustained, rapid and accelerating growth that moves AIs beyond our comprehension quickly. (Don't take these numbers seriously, it's just an example.)

Bostrom believes that recalcitrance will grow more slowly than the resources the AI can bring to bear on the problem, resulting in continuing, and rapid, exponential increases in intelligence -- the arrival of the Singularity. As you can tell from the above, I suspect that the opposite is the case, or that they very roughly balance, but Bostrom argues convincingly. He is forcing me to reconsider.

What about "values", my sixth type of answer, above? Ah, there's where it all goes awry. Chapter eight is titled, "Is the default scenario doom?" and it will keep you awake.

What happens when we put an AI in charge of a paper clip factory, and instruct it to make as many paper clips as it can? With such a simple set of instructions, it will do its best to acquire more resources in order to make more paper clips, building new factories in the process. If it's smart enough, it will even anticipate that we might not like this and attempt to disable it, but it will have the will and means to deflect our feeble strikes against it. Eventually, it will take over every factory on the planet, continuing to produce paper clips until we are buried in them. It may even go on to asteroids and other planets in a single-minded attempt to carpet the Universe in paper clips.

I suppose it goes without saying that Bostrom thinks this would be a bad outcome. Bostrom reasons that AIs ultimately may or may not be similar enough to us that they count as our progeny, but doesn't hesitate to view them as adversaries, or at least rivals, in the pursuit of resources and even existence. Bostrom clearly roots for humanity here. Which means it's incumbent on us to find a way to prevent this from happening.

Bostrom thinks that instilling values that are actually close enough to ours that an AI will "see things our way" is nigh impossible. There are just too many ways that the whole process can go wrong. If an AI is given the goal of "maximizing human happiness," does it count when it decides that the best way to do that is to create the maximum number of digitally emulated human minds, even if that means sacrificing some of the physical humans we already have because the planet's carrying capacity is higher for digital than organic beings?

As long as we're talking about digital humans, what about the idea that a super-smart AI might choose to simulate human minds in enough detail that they are conscious, in the process of trying to figure out humanity? Do those recursively digital beings deserve any legal standing? Do they count as human? If their simulations are stopped and destroyed, have they been euthanized, or even murdered? Some of the mind-bending scenarios that come out of this recursion kept me awake nights as I was reading the book.

He uses a variety of names for different strategies for containing AIs, including "genies" and "oracles". The most carefully circumscribed ones are only allowed to answer questions, maybe even "yes/no" questions, and have no other means of communicating with the outside world. Given that Bostrom attributes nearly infinite brainpower to an AI, it is hard to effectively rule out that an AI could still find some way to manipulate us into doing its will. If the AI's ability to probe the state of the world is likewise limited, Bsotrom argues that it can still turn even single-bit probes of its environment into a coherent picture. It can then decide to get loose and take over the world, and identify security flaws in outside systems that would allow it to do so even with its very limited ability to act.

I think this unlikely. Imagine we set up a system to monitor the AI that alerts us immediately when the AI begins the equivalent of a port scan, for whatever its interaction mechanism is. How could it possibly know of the existence and avoid triggering the alert? Bostrom has gone off the deep end in allowing an intelligence to infer facts about the world even when its data is very limited. Sherlock Holmes always turns out to be right, but that's fiction; in reality, many, many hypotheses would suit the extremely slim amount of data he has. The same will be true with carefully boxed AIs.

At this point, Bostrom has argued that containing a nearly infinitely powerful intelligence is nearly impossible. That seems to me to be effectively tautological.

If we can't contain them, what options do we have? After arguing earlier that we can't give AIs our own values (and presenting mind-bending scenarios for what those values might actually mean in a Universe with digital beings), he then turns around and invests a whole string of chapters in describing how we might actually go about building systems that have those values from the beginning.

At this point, Bostrom began to lose me. Beyond the systems for giving AIs values, I felt he went off the rails in describing human behavior in simplistic terms. We are incapable of balancing our desire to reproduce with a view of the tragedy of the commons, and are inevitably doomed to live out our lives in a rude, resource-constrained existence. There were some interesting bits in the taxonomies of options, but the last third of the book felt very speculative, even more so than the earlier parts.

Bostrom is rational and seems to have thought carefully about the mechanisms by which AIs may actually arise. Here, I largely agree with him. I think his faster scenarios of development, though, are unlikely: being smart, and getting smarter, is hard. He thinks a "singleton", a single, most powerful AI, is the nearly inevitable outcome. I think populations of AIs are more likely, but if anything this appears to make some problems worse. I also think his scenarios for controlling AIs are handicapped in their realism by the nearly infinite powers he assigns them. In either case, Bostrom has convinced me that once an AI is developed, there are many ways it can go wrong, to the detriment and possibly extermination of humanity. Both he and I are opposed to this. I'm not ready to declare a moratorium on AI research, but there are many disturbing possibilities and many difficult moral questions that need to be answered.

The first step in answering them, of course, is to begin discussing them in a rational fashion, while there is still time. Read the first 8 chapters of this book!

Link:

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies by Nick Bostrom - Goodreads

Confederate States of America – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Unrecognized breakaway state in North America, 18611865

Confederate States of America

The Confederate States in 1862

Claims made and under partial control for a time by the Confederacy

Contested Native American territory

18611865

18611865

18601

Slaves2

The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States or simply the Confederacy, was an unrecognized breakaway[1] republic in North America that existed from February 8, 1861, to May 9, 1865.[6] The Confederacy comprised U.S. states that declared secession and warred against the United States (the Union) during the American Civil War.[6][7] Eleven U.S. states, nicknamed Dixie, declared secession and formed the main part of the CSA. They were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Kentucky and Missouri also had declarations of secession and full representation in the Confederate Congress during their Union army occupation.

The Confederacy was formed on February 8, 1861, by seven slave states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.[8] All seven of the states were located in the Deep South region of the United States, whose economy was heavily dependent upon agricultureparticularly cottonand a plantation system that relied upon enslaved Americans of African descendent for labor.[9][10] Convinced that white supremacy and slavery were threatened by the November 1860 election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the U.S. presidency, on a platform which opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories, the Confederacy declared its secession from the United States, with the loyal states becoming known as the Union during the ensuing American Civil War.[7][8][5] In the Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens described its ideology as centrally based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."[11]

Before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, a provisional Confederate government was established on February 8, 1861. It was considered illegal by the United States federal government, and Northerners thought of the Confederates as traitors. After war began in April, four slave states of the Upper SouthVirginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolinaalso joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted the slave states of Missouri and Kentucky as members, accepting rump state assembly declarations of secession as authorization for full delegations of representatives and senators in the Confederate Congress; they were never substantially controlled by Confederate forces, despite the efforts of Confederate shadow governments, which were eventually expelled. The Union rejected the claims of secession as illegitimate.

The Civil War began on April 12, 1861, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, a Union fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. No foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent country, although Great Britain and France granted it belligerent status, which allowed Confederate agents to contract with private concerns for weapons and other supplies.[1][12][13] By 1865, the Confederacy's civilian government dissolved into chaos: the Confederate States Congress adjourned sine die, effectively ceasing to exist as a legislative body on March 18. After four years of heavy fighting, nearly all Confederate land and naval forces either surrendered or otherwise ceased hostilities by May 1865.[14][15] The war lacked a clean end, with Confederate forces surrendering or disbanding sporadically throughout most of 1865. The most significant capitulation was Confederate general Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox on April 9, after which any doubt about the war's outcome or the Confederacy's survival was extinguished, although another large army under Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston did not formally surrender to William T. Sherman until April 26. Contemporaneously, President Lincoln was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth on April 15. Confederate President Jefferson Davis's administration declared the Confederacy dissolved on May 5, and acknowledged in later writings that the Confederacy "disappeared" in 1865.[16][17][18] On May 9, 1865, U.S. president Andrew Johnson officially called an end to the armed resistance in the South.

After the war, Confederate states were readmitted to the Congress during the Reconstruction era, after each ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery. Lost Cause ideology, an idealized view of the Confederacy valiantly fighting for a just cause, emerged in the decades after the war among former Confederate generals and politicians, as well as organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Intense periods of Lost Cause activity developed around the time of World War I, and during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in reaction to growing support for racial equality. Advocates sought to ensure future generations of Southern whites would continue to support white supremacist policies such as the Jim Crow laws through activities such as building Confederate monuments and influencing textbooks to portray the Confederacy in a favorable light.[19] The modern display of Confederate flags primarily started during the 1948 presidential election, when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats, who opposed the Civil Rights Movement; more recently, segregationists have continued the practice, using it for demonstrations.[20][21]

On February 22, 1862, the Confederate States Constitution of seven state signatories Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas replaced the Provisional Constitution of February 8, 1861, with one stating in its preamble a desire for a "permanent federal government". Four additional slave-holding states Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina declared their secession and joined the Confederacy following a call by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln for troops from each state to recapture Sumter and other seized federal properties in the South.[22]

Missouri and Kentucky were represented by partisan factions adopting the forms of state governments without control of substantial territory or population in either case. The antebellum state governments in both maintained their representation in the Union. Also fighting for the Confederacy were two of the "Five Civilized Tribes" the Choctaw and the Chickasaw in Indian Territory, and a new, but uncontrolled, Confederate Territory of Arizona. Efforts by certain factions in Maryland to secede were halted by federal imposition of martial law; Delaware, though of divided loyalty, did not attempt it. A Unionist government was formed in opposition to the secessionist state government in Richmond and administered the western parts of Virginia that had been occupied by Federal troops. The Restored Government of Virginia later recognized the new state of West Virginia, which was admitted to the Union during the war on June 20, 1863, and relocated to Alexandria for the rest of the war.[22]

Confederate control over its claimed territory and population in congressional districts steadily shrank from three-quarters to a third during the American Civil War due to the Union's successful overland campaigns, its control of inland waterways into the South, and its blockade of the southern coast.[23] With the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the Union made abolition of slavery a war goal (in addition to reunion). As Union forces moved southward, large numbers of plantation slaves were freed. Many joined the Union lines, enrolling in service as soldiers, teamsters and laborers. The most notable advance was Sherman's "March to the Sea" in late 1864. Much of the Confederacy's infrastructure was destroyed, including telegraphs, railroads, and bridges. Plantations in the path of Sherman's forces were severely damaged. Internal movement within the Confederacy became increasingly difficult, weakening its economy and limiting army mobility.[24]

These losses created an insurmountable disadvantage in men, materiel, and finance. Public support for Confederate President Jefferson Davis's administration eroded over time due to repeated military reverses, economic hardships, and allegations of autocratic government. After four years of campaigning, Richmond was captured by Union forces in April 1865. A few days later General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, effectively signaling the collapse of the Confederacy. President Davis was captured on May 10, 1865, and jailed for treason, but no trial was ever held.[25]

The Confederacy was established by the Montgomery Convention in February 1861 by seven states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, adding Texas in March before Lincoln's inauguration), expanded in MayJuly 1861 (with Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina), and disintegrated in AprilMay 1865. It was formed by delegations from seven slave states of the Lower South that had proclaimed their secession from the Union. After the fighting began in April, four additional slave states seceded and were admitted. Later, two slave states (Missouri and Kentucky) and two territories were given seats in the Confederate Congress.[26]

Southern nationalism was rising and pride supported the new founding.[27][28] Confederate nationalism prepared men to fight for "The Southern Cause". For the duration of its existence, the Confederacy underwent trial by war.[29] The Southern Cause transcended the ideology of states' rights, tariff policy, and internal improvements. This "Cause" supported, or derived from, cultural and financial dependence on the South's slavery-based economy. The convergence of race and slavery, politics, and economics raised almost all South-related policy questions to the status of moral questions over way of life, merging love of things Southern and hatred of things Northern. Not only did political parties split, but national churches and interstate families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached.[30] According to historian John M. Coski,

The statesmen who led the secession movement were unashamed to explicitly cite the defense of slavery as their prime motive... Acknowledging the centrality of slavery to the Confederacy is essential for understanding the Confederate.[31]

Southern Democrats had chosen John Breckinridge as their candidate during the U.S. presidential election of 1860, but in no Southern state (other than South Carolina, where the legislature chose the electors) was support for him unanimous, as all of the other states recorded at least some popular votes for one or more of the other three candidates (Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas and John Bell). Support for these candidates, collectively, ranged from significant to an outright majority, with extremes running from 25% in Texas to 81% in Missouri.[32] There were minority views everywhere, especially in the upland and plateau areas of the South, being particularly concentrated in western Virginia and eastern Tennessee.[33]

Following South Carolina's unanimous 1860 secession vote, no other Southern states considered the question until 1861, and when they did none had a unanimous vote. All had residents who cast significant numbers of Unionist votes in either the legislature, conventions, popular referendums, or in all three. Voting to remain in the Union did not necessarily mean that individuals were sympathizers with the North. Once fighting began, many of these who voted to remain in the Union, particularly in the Deep South, accepted the majority decision, and supported the Confederacy.[34]

Many writers have evaluated the Civil War as an American tragedya "Brothers' War", pitting "brother against brother, father against son, kin against kin of every degree".[35][36]

According to historian Avery O. Craven in 1950, the Confederate States of America nation, as a state power, was created by secessionists in Southern slave states, who believed that the federal government was making them second-class citizens.[37] They judged the agents of change to be abolitionists and anti-slavery elements in the Republican Party, whom they believed used repeated insult and injury to subject them to intolerable "humiliation and degradation".[37] The "Black Republicans" (as the Southerners called them) and their allies soon dominated the U.S. House, Senate, and Presidency. On the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (a presumed supporter of slavery) was 83 years old and ailing.

During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories) be elected, including William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession as Stephen A. Douglas toured the South calling for union if Lincoln was elected.[38] To the secessionists the Republican intent was clear: to contain slavery within its present bounds and, eventually, to eliminate it entirely. A Lincoln victory presented them with a momentous choice (as they saw it), even before his inauguration "the Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union".[39]

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutionsAfrican slavery as it exists among usthe proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon itwhen the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Alexander H. Stephens, speech to The Savannah Theatre. (March 21, 1861)

The immediate catalyst for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in the 1860 elections. American Civil War historian James M. McPherson suggested that, for Southerners, the most ominous feature of the Republican victories in the congressional and presidential elections of 1860 was the magnitude of those victories: Republicans captured over 60 percent of the Northern vote and three-fourths of its Congressional delegations. The Southern press said that such Republicans represented the anti-slavery portion of the North, "a party founded on the single sentiment ... of hatred of African slavery", and now the controlling power in national affairs. The "Black Republican party" could overwhelm conservative Yankees. The New Orleans Delta said of the Republicans, "It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party" to overthrow slavery.[40]

By 1860, sectional disagreements between North and South concerned primarily the maintenance or expansion of slavery in the United States. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence".[41] Although most white Southerners did not own slaves, the majority supported the institution of slavery and benefited indirectly from the slave society. For struggling yeomen and subsistence farmers, the slave society provided a large class of people ranked lower in the social scale than themselves.[42] Secondary differences related to issues of free speech, runaway slaves, expansion into Cuba, and states' rights.

Historian Emory Thomas assessed the Confederacy's self-image by studying correspondence sent by the Confederate government in 186162 to foreign governments. He found that Confederate diplomacy projected multiple contradictory self-images:

The Southern nation was by turns a guileless people attacked by a voracious neighbor, an 'established' nation in some temporary difficulty, a collection of bucolic aristocrats making a romantic stand against the banalities of industrial democracy, a cabal of commercial farmers seeking to make a pawn of King Cotton, an apotheosis of nineteenth-century nationalism and revolutionary liberalism, or the ultimate statement of social and economic reaction.[43]

In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".[44] After the war Stephens tried to qualify his remarks, claiming they were extemporaneous, metaphorical, and intended to refer to public sentiment rather than "the principles of the new Government on this subject".[45][46]

Four of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina,[47]Mississippi,[48] Georgia,[49] and Texas,[50] issued formal declarations of the causes of their decision; each identified the threat to slaveholders' rights as the cause of, or a major cause of, secession. Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests. Texas mentioned slavery 21 times, but also listed the failure of the federal government to live up to its obligations, in the original annexation agreement, to protect settlers along the exposed western frontier. Texas resolutions further stated that governments of the states and the nation were established "exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity". They also stated that although equal civil and political rights applied to all white men, they did not apply to those of the "African race", further opining that the end of racial enslavement would "bring inevitable calamities upon both [races] and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states".[50]

Alabama did not provide a separate declaration of causes. Instead, the Alabama ordinance stated "the election of Abraham Lincoln... by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security". The ordinance invited "the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States" to participate in a February 4, 1861 convention in Montgomery, Alabama.[51]

The secession ordinances of the remaining two states, Florida and Louisiana, simply declared their severing ties with the federal Union, without stating any causes.[52][53] Afterward, the Florida secession convention formed a committee to draft a declaration of causes, but the committee was discharged before completion of the task.[54] Only an undated, untitled draft remains.[55]

Four of the Upper South states (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) rejected secession until after the clash at Ft. Sumter.[34][56][57][58][59] Virginia's ordinance stated a kinship with the slave-holding states of the Lower South, but did not name the institution itself as a primary reason for its course.[60]

Arkansas's secession ordinance encompassed a strong objection to the use of military force to preserve the Union as its motivating reason.[61] Before the outbreak of war, the Arkansas Convention had on March 20 given as their first resolution: "The people of the Northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States; and that party has elected a President ... pledged to administer the Government upon principles inconsistent with the rights and subversive of the interests of the Southern States."[62]

North Carolina and Tennessee limited their ordinances to simply withdrawing, although Tennessee went so far as to make clear they wished to make no comment at all on the "abstract doctrine of secession".[63][64]

In a message to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861 Jefferson Davis cited both the tariff[clarification needed] and slavery for the South's secession.[65]

The pro-slavery "Fire-Eaters" group of Southern Democrats, calling for immediate secession, were opposed by two factions. "Cooperationists" in the Deep South would delay secession until several states left the union, perhaps in a Southern Convention. Under the influence of men such as Texas Governor Sam Houston, delay would have the effect of sustaining the Union.[66] "Unionists", especially in the Border South, often former Whigs, appealed to sentimental attachment to the United States. Southern Unionists' favorite presidential candidate was John Bell of Tennessee, sometimes running under an "Opposition Party" banner.[66]

Many secessionists were active politically. Governor William Henry Gist of South Carolina corresponded secretly with other Deep South governors, and most southern governors exchanged clandestine commissioners.[67] Charleston's secessionist "1860 Association" published over 200,000 pamphlets to persuade the youth of the South. The most influential were: "The Doom of Slavery" and "The South Alone Should Govern the South", both by John Townsend of South Carolina; and James D. B. De Bow's "The Interest of Slavery of the Southern Non-slaveholder".[68]

Developments in South Carolina started a chain of events. The foreman of a jury refused the legitimacy of federal courts, so Federal Judge Andrew Magrath ruled that U.S. judicial authority in South Carolina was vacated. A mass meeting in Charleston celebrating the Charleston and Savannah railroad and state cooperation led to the South Carolina legislature to call for a Secession Convention. U.S. Senator James Chesnut, Jr. resigned, as did Senator James Henry Hammond.[69]

Elections for Secessionist conventions were heated to "an almost raving pitch, no one dared dissent", according to historian William W. Freehling. Even oncerespected voices, including the Chief Justice of South Carolina, John Belton O'Neall, lost election to the Secession Convention on a Cooperationist ticket. Across the South mobs expelled Yankees and (in Texas) executed German-Americans suspected of loyalty to the United States.[70] Generally, seceding conventions which followed did not call for a referendum to ratify, although Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee did, as well as Virginia's second convention. Kentucky declared neutrality, while Missouri had its own civil war until the Unionists took power and drove the Confederate legislators out of the state.[71]

In the antebellum months, the Corwin Amendment was an unsuccessful attempt by the Congress to bring the seceding states back to the Union and to convince the border slave states to remain.[72] It was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.[73][74]

It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861. The House approved it by a vote of 133 to 65 and the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[75] In his inaugural address Lincoln endorsed the proposed amendment.

The text was as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Had it been ratified by the required number of states prior to 1865, it would have made institutionalized slavery immune to the constitutional amendment procedures and to interference by Congress.[76][77]

The first secession state conventions from the Deep South sent representatives to meet at the Montgomery Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861. There the fundamental documents of government were promulgated, a provisional government was established, and a representative Congress met for the Confederate States of America.[78]

The new 'provisional' Confederate President Jefferson Davis issued a call for 100,000 men from the various states' militias to defend the newly formed Confederacy.[78] All Federal property was seized, along with gold bullion and coining dies at the U.S. mints in Charlotte, North Carolina; Dahlonega, Georgia; and New Orleans.[78] The Confederate capital was moved from Montgomery to Richmond, Virginia, in May 1861. On February 22, 1862, Davis was inaugurated as president with a term of six years.[79]

The newly inaugurated Confederate administration pursued a policy of national territorial integrity, continuing earlier state efforts in 1860 and early 1861 to remove U.S. government presence from within their boundaries. These efforts included taking possession of U.S. courts, custom houses, post offices, and most notably, arsenals and forts. But after the Confederate attack and capture of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Lincoln called up 75,000 of the states' militia to muster under his command. The stated purpose was to re-occupy U.S. properties throughout the South, as the U.S. Congress had not authorized their abandonment. The resistance at Fort Sumter signaled his change of policy from that of the Buchanan Administration. Lincoln's response ignited a firestorm of emotion. The people of both North and South demanded war, with soldiers rushing to their colors in the hundreds of thousands. Four more states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) refused Lincoln's call for troops and declared secession, while Kentucky maintained an uneasy "neutrality".[78]

Secessionists argued that the United States Constitution was a contract among sovereign states that could be abandoned at any time without consultation and that each state had a right to secede. After intense debates and statewide votes, seven Deep South cotton states passed secession ordinances by February 1861 (before Abraham Lincoln took office as president), while secession efforts failed in the other eight slave states. Delegates from those seven formed the CSA in February 1861, selecting Jefferson Davis as the provisional president. Unionist talk of reunion failed and Davis began raising a 100,000 man army.[80]

Initially, some secessionists may have hoped for a peaceful departure.[81] Moderates in the Confederate Constitutional Convention included a provision against importation of slaves from Africa to appeal to the Upper South. Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds requirement in both houses of Congress to accept them.[82]

Seven states declared their secession from the United States before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. After the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter April 12, 1861, and Lincoln's subsequent call for troops on April 15, four more states declared their secession:[83]

Both sides honored George Washington as a Founding Father (and used the same Gilbert Stuart portrait).

Kentucky declared neutrality but after Confederate troops moved in, the state government asked for Union troops to drive them out. The splinter Confederate state government relocated to accompany western Confederate armies and never controlled the state population. By the end of the war, 90,000 Kentuckians had fought on the side of the Union, compared to 35,000 for the Confederate States.[84]

In Missouri, a constitutional convention was approved and delegates elected by voters. The convention rejected secession 891 on March 19, 1861.[85] The governor maneuvered to take control of the St. Louis Arsenal and restrict Federal movements. This led to confrontation, and in June Federal forces drove him and the General Assembly from Jefferson City. The executive committee of the constitutional convention called the members together in July. The convention declared the state offices vacant, and appointed a Unionist interim state government.[86] The exiled governor called a rump session of the former General Assembly together in Neosho and, on October 31, 1861, passed an ordinance of secession.[87][88] It is still a matter of debate as to whether a quorum existed for this vote. The Confederate state government was unable to control very much Missouri territory. It had its capital first at Neosho, then at Cassville, before being driven out of the state. For the remainder of the war, it operated as a government in exile at Marshall, Texas.[89]

Neither Kentucky nor Missouri was declared in rebellion in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The Confederacy recognized the pro-Confederate claimants in both Kentucky (December 10, 1861) and Missouri (November 28, 1861) and laid claim to those states, granting them Congressional representation and adding two stars to the Confederate flag. Voting for the representatives was mostly done by Confederate soldiers from Kentucky and Missouri.[90]

The order of secession resolutions and dates are:

In Virginia, the populous counties along the Ohio and Pennsylvania borders rejected the Confederacy. Unionists held a Convention in Wheeling in June 1861, establishing a "restored government" with a rump legislature, but sentiment in the region remained deeply divided. In the 50 counties that would make up the state of West Virginia, voters from 24 counties had voted for disunion in Virginia's May 23 referendum on the ordinance of secession.[103] In the 1860 Presidential election "Constitutional Democrat" Breckenridge had outpolled "Constitutional Unionist" Bell in the 50 counties by 1,900 votes, 44% to 42%.[104] Regardless of scholarly disputes over election procedures and results county by county, altogether they simultaneously supplied over 20,000 soldiers to each side of the conflict.[105][106] Representatives for most of the counties were seated in both state legislatures at Wheeling and at Richmond for the duration of the war.[107]

Attempts to secede from the Confederacy by some counties in East Tennessee were checked by martial law.[108] Although slave-holding Delaware and Maryland did not secede, citizens from those states exhibited divided loyalties. Regiments of Marylanders fought in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.[109] But overall, 24,000 men from Maryland joined the Confederate armed forces, compared to 63,000 who joined Union forces.[84]

Delaware never produced a full regiment for the Confederacy, but neither did it emancipate slaves as did Missouri and West Virginia. District of Columbia citizens made no attempts to secede and through the war years, referendums sponsored by President Lincoln approved systems of compensated emancipation and slave confiscation from "disloyal citizens".[110]

Citizens at Mesilla and Tucson in the southern part of New Mexico Territory formed a secession convention, which voted to join the Confederacy on March 16, 1861, and appointed Dr. Lewis S. Owings as the new territorial governor. They won the Battle of Mesilla and established a territorial government with Mesilla serving as its capital.[111] The Confederacy proclaimed the Confederate Arizona Territory on February 14, 1862, north to the 34th parallel. Marcus H. MacWillie served in both Confederate Congresses as Arizona's delegate. In 1862 the Confederate New Mexico Campaign to take the northern half of the U.S. territory failed and the Confederate territorial government in exile relocated to San Antonio, Texas.[112]

Confederate supporters in the trans-Mississippi west also claimed portions of the Indian Territory after the United States evacuated the federal forts and installations. Over half of the American Indian troops participating in the Civil War from the Indian Territory supported the Confederacy; troops and one general were enlisted from each tribe. On July 12, 1861, the Confederate government signed a treaty with both the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian nations. After several battles Union armies took control of the territory.[113]

The Indian Territory never formally joined the Confederacy, but it did receive representation in the Confederate Congress. Many Indians from the Territory were integrated into regular Confederate Army units. After 1863 the tribal governments sent representatives to the Confederate Congress: Elias Cornelius Boudinot representing the Cherokee and Samuel Benton Callahan representing the Seminole and Creek people. The Cherokee Nation aligned with the Confederacy. They practiced and supported slavery, opposed abolition, and feared their lands would be seized by the Union. After the war, the Indian territory was disestablished, their black slaves were freed, and the tribes lost some of their lands.[114]

First Capitol, Montgomery, Alabama

Second Capitol, Richmond, Virginia

Montgomery, Alabama, served as the capital of the Confederate States of America from February 4 until May 29, 1861, in the Alabama State Capitol. Six states created the Confederate States of America there on February 8, 1861. The Texas delegation was seated at the time, so it is counted in the "original seven" states of the Confederacy; it had no roll call vote until after its referendum made secession "operative".[115] Two sessions of the Provisional Congress were held in Montgomery, adjourning May 21.[116] The Permanent Constitution was adopted there on March 12, 1861.[117]

The permanent capital provided for in the Confederate Constitution called for a state cession of a ten-miles square (100 square mile) district to the central government. Atlanta, which had not yet supplanted Milledgeville, Georgia, as its state capital, put in a bid noting its central location and rail connections, as did Opelika, Alabama, noting its strategically interior situation, rail connections and nearby deposits of coal and iron.[118]

Richmond, Virginia, was chosen for the interim capital at the Virginia State Capitol. The move was used by Vice President Stephens and others to encourage other border states to follow Virginia into the Confederacy. In the political moment it was a show of "defiance and strength". The war for Southern independence was surely to be fought in Virginia, but it also had the largest Southern military-aged white population, with infrastructure, resources, and supplies required to sustain a war. The Davis Administration's policy was that, "It must be held at all hazards."[119]

The naming of Richmond as the new capital took place on May 30, 1861, and the last two sessions of the Provisional Congress were held in the new capital. The Permanent Confederate Congress and President were elected in the states and army camps on November 6, 1861. The First Congress met in four sessions in Richmond from February 18, 1862, to February 17, 1864. The Second Congress met there in two sessions, from May 2, 1864, to March 18, 1865.[120]

As war dragged on, Richmond became crowded with training and transfers, logistics and hospitals. Prices rose dramatically despite government efforts at price regulation. A movement in Congress led by Henry S. Foote of Tennessee argued for moving the capital from Richmond. At the approach of Federal armies in mid-1862, the government's archives were readied for removal. As the Wilderness Campaign progressed, Congress authorized Davis to remove the executive department and call Congress to session elsewhere in 1864 and again in 1865. Shortly before the end of the war, the Confederate government evacuated Richmond, planning to relocate farther south. Little came of these plans before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865.[121] Davis and most of his cabinet fled to Danville, Virginia, which served as their headquarters for eight days.

Unionismopposition to the Confederacywas widespread in the mountain regions of Appalachia and the Ozarks.[122] Unionists, led by Parson Brownlow and Senator Andrew Johnson, took control of eastern Tennessee in 1863.[123] Unionists also attempted control over western Virginia but never effectively held more than half of the counties that formed the new state of West Virginia.[124][125][126] Union forces captured parts of coastal North Carolina, and at first were welcomed by local unionists. That changed as the occupiers became perceived as oppressive, callous, radical and favorable to the Freedmen. Occupiers pillaged, freed slaves, and evicted those who refused to swear loyalty oaths to the Union.[127]

Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas; Claude Elliott estimates that only a third of the population actively supported the Confederacy. Many Unionists supported the Confederacy after the war began, but many others clung to their Unionism throughout the war, especially in the northern counties, the German districts, and the Mexican areas.[128] According to Ernest Wallace: "This account of a dissatisfied Unionist minority, although historically essential, must be kept in its proper perspective, for throughout the war the overwhelming majority of the people zealously supported the Confederacy ..."[129] Randolph B. Campbell states, "In spite of terrible losses and hardships, most Texans continued throughout the war to support the Confederacy as they had supported secession".[130] Dale Baum in his analysis of Texas politics in the era counters: "This idea of a Confederate Texas united politically against northern adversaries was shaped more by nostalgic fantasies than by wartime realities." He characterizes Texas Civil War history as "a morose story of intragovernmental rivalries coupled with wide-ranging disaffection that prevented effective implementation of state wartime policies".[131]

In Texas, local officials harassed and murdered Unionists and Germans. In Cooke County, 150 suspected Unionists were arrested; 25 were lynched without trial and 40 more were hanged after a summary trial. Draft resistance was widespread especially among Texans of German or Mexican descent; many of the latter went to Mexico. Confederate officials hunted down and killed potential draftees who had gone into hiding.[128]

Civil liberties were of small concern in both the North and South. Lincoln and Davis both took a hard line against dissent. Neely explores how the Confederacy became a virtual police state with guards and patrols all about, and a domestic passport system whereby everyone needed official permission each time they wanted to travel. Over 4,000 suspected Unionists were imprisoned without trial.[132]

During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad. None were ever officially recognized by a foreign government. The United States government regarded the Southern states as being in rebellion or insurrection and so refused any formal recognition of their status.

Even before Fort Sumter, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward issued formal instructions to the American minister to Britain, Charles Francis Adams:

[Make] no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people, [those States] must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this Federal Union, [their citizens] still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen.[133]

Seward instructed Adams that if the British government seemed inclined to recognize the Confederacy, or even waver in that regard, it was to receive a sharp warning, with a strong hint of war:

[if Britain is] tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, [they cannot] remain friends with the United States... if they determine to recognize [the Confederacy], [Britain] may at the same time prepare to enter into alliance with the enemies of this republic.[133]

The United States government never declared war on those "kindred and countrymen" in the Confederacy, but conducted its military efforts beginning with a presidential proclamation issued April 15, 1861.[134] It called for troops to recapture forts and suppress what Lincoln later called an "insurrection and rebellion".[135]

Mid-war parleys between the two sides occurred without formal political recognition, though the laws of war predominantly governed military relationships on both sides of uniformed conflict.[136]

On the part of the Confederacy, immediately following Fort Sumter the Confederate Congress proclaimed that "war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States, and the States and Territories thereof". A state of war was not to formally exist between the Confederacy and those states and territories in the United States allowing slavery, although Confederate Rangers were compensated for destruction they could effect there throughout the war.[137]

Concerning the international status and nationhood of the Confederate States of America, in 1869 the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869) ruled Texas' declaration of secession was legally null and void.[138] Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederacy, and Alexander H. Stephens, its former vice-president, both wrote postwar arguments in favor of secession's legality and the international legitimacy of the Government of the Confederate States of America, most notably Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

Once war with the United States began, the Confederacy pinned its hopes for survival on military intervention by Great Britain and/or France. The Confederate government sent James M. Mason to London and John Slidell to Paris. On their way to Europe in 1861, the U.S. Navy intercepted their ship, the Trent, and forcibly took them to Boston, an international episode known as the Trent Affair. The diplomats were eventually released and continued their voyage to Europe.[139] However, their mission was unsuccessful; historians give them low marks for their poor diplomacy.[140][pageneeded] Neither secured diplomatic recognition for the Confederacy, much less military assistance.

The Confederates who had believed that "cotton is king", that is, that Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton, proved mistaken. The British had stocks to last over a year and had been developing alternative sources of cotton, most notably India and Egypt. Britain had so much cotton that it was exporting some to France.[141] England was not about to go to war with the U.S. to acquire more cotton at the risk of losing the large quantities of food imported from the North.[142][pageneeded][143]

Aside from the purely economic questions, there was also the clamorous ethical debate. Great Britain took pride in being a leader in suppressing slavery, ending it in its empire in 1833, and the end of the Atlantic slave trade was enforced by British vessels. Confederate diplomats found little support for American slavery, cotton trade or not. A series of slave narratives about American slavery was being published in London.[144] It was in London that the first World Anti-Slavery Convention had been held in 1840; it was followed by regular smaller conferences. A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed not just England but Scotland and Ireland as well. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slaverysome were fugitive slavesthey rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent",[145] and "not equal to the white man...the superior race," as it was put by Confederate Vice-president Alexander H. Stephens in his famous Cornerstone Speech. Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, Sarah Parker Remond, her brother Charles Lenox Remond, James W. C. Pennington, Martin Delany, Samuel Ringgold Ward, and William G. Allen all spent years in Britain, where fugitive slaves were safe and, as Allen said, there was an "absence of prejudice against color. Here the colored man feels himself among friends, and not among enemies".[146] One speaker alone, William Wells Brown, gave more than 1,000 lectures on the shame of American chattel slavery.[147]:32

Lord John Russell, British foreign secretary and later PM, considered mediation in the 'American War'

French Emperor Napoleon III sought joint FrenchBritish recognition of CSA

Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord John Russell, Emperor Napoleon III of France, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, showed interest in recognition of the Confederacy or at least mediation of the war. British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, convinced of the necessity of intervention on the Confederate side based on the successful diplomatic intervention in Second Italian War of Independence against Austria, attempted unsuccessfully to convince Lord Palmerston to intervene.[148] By September 1862 the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and abolitionist opposition in Britain put an end to these possibilities.[149] The cost to Britain of a war with the U.S. would have been high: the immediate loss of American grain-shipments, the end of British exports to the U.S., and the seizure of billions of pounds invested in American securities. War would have meant higher taxes in Britain, another invasion of Canada, and full-scale worldwide attacks on the British merchant fleet. Outright recognition would have meant certain war with the United States; in mid-1862 fears of race war (as had transpired in the Haitian Revolution of 17911804) led to the British considering intervention for humanitarian reasons. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not lead to interracial violence, let alone a bloodbath, but it did give the friends of the Union strong talking points in the arguments that raged across Britain.[150]

John Slidell, the Confederate States emissary to France, did succeed in negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Erlanger and other French capitalists. The money went to buy ironclad warships, as well as military supplies that came in with blockade runners.[151] The British government did allow the construction of blockade runners in Britain; they were owned and operated by British financiers and ship owners; a few were owned and operated by the Confederacy. The British investors' goal was to get highly profitable cotton.[152]

Several European nations maintained diplomats in place who had been appointed to the U.S., but no country appointed any diplomat to the Confederacy. Those nations recognized the Union and Confederate sides as belligerents. In 1863 the Confederacy expelled European diplomatic missions for advising their resident subjects to refuse to serve in the Confederate army.[153] Both Confederate and Union agents were allowed to work openly in British territories. Some state governments in northern Mexico negotiated local agreements to cover trade on the Texas border.[154] The Confederacy appointed Ambrose Dudley Mann as special agent to the Holy See on September 24, 1863. But the Holy See never released a formal statement supporting or recognizing the Confederacy. In November 1863, Mann met Pope Pius IX in person and received a letter supposedly addressed "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America"; Mann had mistranslated the address. In his report to Richmond, Mann claimed a great diplomatic achievement for himself, asserting the letter was "a positive recognition of our Government". The letter was indeed used in propaganda, but Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin told Mann it was "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus did not assign it the weight of formal recognition.[155][156]

Nevertheless, the Confederacy was seen internationally as a serious attempt at nationhood, and European governments sent military observers, both official and unofficial, to assess whether there had been a de facto establishment of independence. These observers included Arthur Lyon Fremantle of the British Coldstream Guards, who entered the Confederacy via Mexico, Fitzgerald Ross of the Austrian Hussars, and Justus Scheibert of the Prussian Army.[157] European travelers visited and wrote accounts for publication. Importantly in 1862, the Frenchman Charles Girard's Seven months in the rebel states during the North American War testified "this government ... is no longer a trial government ... but really a normal government, the expression of popular will".[158]Fremantle went on to write in his book Three Months in the Southern States that he had

not attempted to conceal any of the peculiarities or defects of the Southern people. Many persons will doubtless highly disapprove of some of their customs and habits in the wilder portion of the country; but I think no generous man, whatever may be his political opinions, can do otherwise than admire the courage, energy, and patriotism of the whole population, and the skill of its leaders, in this struggle against great odds. And I am also of opinion that many will agree with me in thinking that a people in which all ranks and both sexes display a unanimity and a heroism which can never have been surpassed in the history of the world, is destined, sooner or later, to become a great and independent nation.[159]

French Emperor Napoleon III assured Confederate diplomat John Slidell that he would make "direct proposition" to Britain for joint recognition. The Emperor made the same assurance to British Members of Parliament John A. Roebuck and John A. Lindsay.[160] Roebuck in turn publicly prepared a bill to submit to Parliament June 30 supporting joint Anglo-French recognition of the Confederacy. "Southerners had a right to be optimistic, or at least hopeful, that their revolution would prevail, or at least endure."[161] Following the double disasters at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863, the Confederates "suffered a severe loss of confidence in themselves", and withdrew into an interior defensive position. There would be no help from the Europeans.[162]

By December 1864, Davis considered sacrificing slavery in order to enlist recognition and aid from Paris and London; he secretly sent Duncan F. Kenner to Europe with a message that the war was fought solely for "the vindication of our rights to self-government and independence" and that "no sacrifice is too great, save that of honor". The message stated that if the French or British governments made their recognition conditional on anything at all, the Confederacy would consent to such terms.[163] Davis's message could not explicitly acknowledge that slavery was on the bargaining table due to still-strong domestic support for slavery among the wealthy and politically influential. European leaders all saw that the Confederacy was on the verge of total defeat.[164]

See the article here:

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia

Confederate States dollar – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Series/DateType[n 4]ValueImageComments[n 5]1First SeriesT15 Apr 186121 Jun 18611000$1,000John C. Calhoun, Andrew JacksonNational Bank Note Company(607 issued)T28 Apr 186123 Jul 18610500$500Ceres,The Crossing (by James Smillie)National Bank Note Company(607 issued)T35 Apr 186121 Jun 18610100$100Minerva, railroadNational Bank Note Company(1,606 issued)T45 Apr 186121 Jun 18610050$50Slaves working in the fieldNational Bank Note Company(1,606 issued)T525 Aug 186123 Sep 18610100$100Justice, Hudson River Railroad, MinervaSouthern Bank Note Company(5,798 issued)T625 Aug 186123 Sep 18610050$50Justice, Agriculture and Industry, George WashingtonSouthern Bank Note Company(5,798 issued)2Second SeriesT729 Jul 186122 Oct 18610100$100George Washington, Ceres and ProserpinaHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(37,155 issued)[n 6]T829 Jul 186122 Oct 18610050$50Tellus, George WashingtonHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(123,564 issued)T925 Jul 186126 Oct 18610020$20Sailing shipHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(264,988 issued)T1025 Jul 18612 Nov 18610010$10Liberty (seated), Liberty (leaning on shield)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(170,994 issued)T1129 Jul 18617 Sep 18610005$5Sailor (leaning), Liberty (seated)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(73,355 issued)T120005$5"Confederate States of America"Jules Manouvrier (New Orleans, LA)(15,556 issued)3Third SeriesT1322 Oct 186116 Apr 18620100$100Sailor (standing), slaves loading cottonHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(629,284 issued)T1422 Oct 186116 Apr 18620050$50Sailors, Moneta with treasure chestHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(469,660 issued)T158 Jan 186215 May 18620050$50Hope, Hudson River Railroad, JusticeSouthern Bank Note Company(14,860 issued)T1617 Apr 186210 Dec 18620050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(425,944 issued)T1714 Sep 18615 Nov 18610020$20Liberty, Ceres between Commerce and NavigationHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(43,732 issued)T1824 Oct 186116 Aug 18620020$20Sailor, Sailing shipHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(2,366,486 issued)T198 Jan 186215 May 18620020$20Minerva, Navigation, BlacksmithSouthern Bank Note Company(14,860 issued)T2021 Jun 18628 Dec 18620020$20Alexander H. Stephens, Industry between Commerce and beehiveB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(2,834,251 issued)T2128 Jun 186215 Nov 18620020$20Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(164,248 issued)T2213 Nov 186115 May 18620010$10Thetis, Native Americans, Female with XSouthern Bank Note Company(58,860 issued)T2315 Nov 186130 Dec 18610010$10John E. Ward, Wagon of cotton, Corn gathererLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(20,333 issued)T2420 Feb 18628 Dec 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Reverend Alfred L. Elwyn (vignette, as child)Leggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(278,400 issued)T2512 May 18629 Aug 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Hope; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(178,716 issued)T2612 Jul 18628 Dec 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Hope; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(514,400 issued)T2726 Nov 18615 Dec 18610010$10Liberty; TrainHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(8,576 issued)T2823 Jan 186213 Dec 18620010$10Ceres and Commerce; TrainHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(1,074,980 issued)T2917 Mar 186213 Sep 18620010$10Slave picking cotton; canalB. Duncan (Richmond, VA)(286,627 issued)T3014 Jun 18623 Jan 18630010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); engraving of the painting General Marion Inviting a British Officer to Share His Meal by John Blake White; MinervaB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,939,810 issued)T3113 Nov 186115 May 18620005$5Navigation; Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, Liberty, and Industry; George Washington statueSouthern Bank Note Company(58,860 issued)T3215 Nov 186130 Dec 18610005$5Boy; Machinist with hammerLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(20,333 issued)T3313 Mar 186219 Jun 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; MinervaLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(136,736 issued)T3412 May 18628 Dec 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; MinervaKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(228,644 issued)T3526 Nov 18615 Dec 18610005$5Slaves load cotton; Indian princessHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(7,160 issued)T3631 Mar 18623 Jan 18630005$5Sailor; Commerce (seated)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(3,694,890 issued)T377 Apr 186213 Sep 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; Sailor (seated); Justice and CeresB. Duncan (Richmond, VA)(1,002,478 issued)4Fourth SeriesT380002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(~36,000 issued)T390100$100Milkmaid; train with straight steamHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(284,000 issued)T400100$100Milkmaid; train with diffused steamJ.T. Patterson & Co. (Columbia, S.C.)(214,400 issued)T410100$100John C. Calhoun; Slaves working; ConfederacyKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(670,400 issued)T420002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,520,000 issued)T430002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(194,900 issued)T440001$1Liberty; Steamship at sea; Lucy PickensB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,689,860 issued)T450001$1Liberty; Steamship at sea; Lucy PickensB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(412,500 issued)T460010$10Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA) (635,250 issued)T470020$20Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterTest pattern or fantasy noteT480010$10Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterTest pattern or fantasy note5Fifth SeriesT490100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(628,640 issued)T500050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA & Columbia, S.C.)(414,200 issued)T510020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(776,800 issued)T520010$10Proposed state capitol (Columbia, S.C.); Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(3,060,000 issued)T530005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(2,833,600 issued)T540002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(607,000 issued)T550001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,141,200 issued)6Sixth SeriesT560100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,950,400)T570050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA and Columbia, S.C.)(2,349,600 issued)T580020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(4,429,600 issued)T590010$10Proposed state capitol (Columbia, S.C.); Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(7,420,800 issued)T600005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(7,745,600 issued)T610002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(689,200 issued)T620001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,645,600 issued)T630000.50$0.50Jefferson DavisArcher & Daly (Richmond, VA)(1,831,517 issued)7Seventh SeriesT640500$500Confederate seal and second national flag; Stonewall JacksonKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~154,000 issued)T650100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.) (~964,000 issued)T660050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.) (1,671,444 issued)T670020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~4,150,000 issued)T680010$10Horses pulling cannon; Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~9,071,000 issued)T690005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~5,526,100 issued)T700002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~944,000 issued)T710001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~681,500 issued)T720000.50$0.50Jefferson DavisArcher & Halpin (Richmond, VA)(~1,100,000 issued)

See the rest here:

Confederate States dollar - Wikipedia

The Confederate States of America – InfoPlease

Posted on by

Following the election of Abraham Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform, the major slave-holding states declared their secession from the United States one after another. They formed the Confederate States of America (commonly called the Confederacy) under their own president Jefferson Davis. Below is a list of the 11 seceding states during the American Civil War, along with the date of secession and when they were readmitted.

NOTE: Four other slave states?Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri?remained in the Union. The latter two were actually represented on the Confederate flag, which, like the Stars and Stripes, featured a star for every state.

1. Date of readmission to representation in U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Second readmission date. First date was July 21, 1868, but the representatives were unseated March 5, 1869.

Although more than a century of states' rights debates have muddied the waters, the reasons for secession are actually quite clear. All eleven states declared slavery as one of the primary motivators for their secession; they believed that their livelihoods were tied up with the institution of slavery, and that they could no longer be part of a country that might force them to abandon slavery. The declarations of secession all contain similar messages. Of all of the many rights they felt the federal government might strip away from them, slavery was the biggest.

But, the situation is a bit more complicated in terms of why they finally seceded when they did.

Let's take the example of Georgia. The secessionists there wrote:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic...

...While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen...

...For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Georgia's declaration elaborates a description of the history of slavery and economy in the century before their secede. But, in terms of timing, their issues are specific. What exactly are they referring to with their "serious causes of complaint?"

In essence, it all comes down to the abolitionist movement. In the South, there were numerous uprisings against slavery by black people. This was a cause of great concern to slaveholders, especially in states where the slave population was a near-majority (or was a majority). It was a source of fear and anxiety, and one that they kept in check through restrictive laws and the threat of military force. These laws were opposed by many groups, especially by free black people living beyond the immediate influence of slaveholders.

Northern abolitionists actively opposed these laws meant to keep the enslaved population oppressed. They refused to return escaped slaves or report on them. They helped more people escape slavery. They opposed attempts to expand slavery or support it at a federal level. They generated a great deal of anger and paranoia among slaveholders that exploded when abolitionist John Brown actively armed and incited an uprising in Harper's Ferry, Virginia.

People across the South feared that Northerners would incite violence and terror to get rid of slavery in their states. They refused to even put the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on their ballots. But, despite their effort to keep him out of the White House, Lincoln prevailed on the back of overwhelming Northern support. The Southern states claimed that their will had been entirely subverted, and that the system favored northern extremists who influenced the government. Their answer to their claim was to create their own government.

The confederate government established a government in Richmond, just 100 miles from the Capitol in D.C., with their own Confederate constitution. There were initial hopes that the CSA could be peacefully reintegrated back into the USA. But, the cultivated fear of northern agitation led the Confederate army to be wary of U.S. activities. When the USA sent troops to secure the federal territory of Fort Sumter, the confederates demanded that the army retreat. After a lengthy standoff, the Confederates attacked the fort. This act of aggression ended hopes of a peaceful resolution and led to the Civil War.

Excerpt from:

The Confederate States of America - InfoPlease

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America – Wikipedia

Posted on by

2004 mockumentary directed by Kevin Willmott

Theatrical release poster

Productioncompany

Release dates

Running time

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America is a 2004 American mockumentary written and directed by Kevin Willmott. It is an account of an alternate history, wherein the Confederacy wins the American Civil War and establishes a new Confederate States of America that incorporates the majority of the Western Hemisphere, including the former contiguous United States, the "Golden Circle", the Caribbean, and South America. The film primarily details significant political and cultural events of Confederate history from its founding until the early 2000s. This viewpoint is used to satirize real-life issues and events, and to shed light on the continuing existence of racism against Black Americans.

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America is presented as if it were a British documentary being broadcast on a Confederate television network in San Francisco, California, including fictional advertisements between segments. It opens with a fictional disclaimer that suggests that censorship came close to preventing the broadcast, that its point of view might not coincide with that of the TV network, and that it might not be suitable for viewing by children and "servants". It purports to disagree with an orthodox Confederate interpretation of American history.

The film portrays two historians: Sherman Hoyle, a conservative Southerner (a parody of Shelby Foote); and Patricia Johnson, a black Canadian, as talking heads, providing commentary. Throughout the documentary, Confederate politician and Democratic presidential candidate, John Ambrose Fauntroy V (the great-grandson of one of the men who helped found the C.S.A.), is interviewed. Narration explains fake historical newsreel footage, which is either acted for the production or made of genuine archival footage dubbed with fictional narration.

Racialist adverts aimed at white, slave-owning families appear throughout the movie, including an electronic shackle for tracking runaway slaves, television programs such as Runaway (parodying Cops), Leave it to Beaulah (parodying Leave it to Beaver and Beulah), Better Homes and Plantations (parodying Better Homes and Gardens), Meet the Nation (parodying Meet the Press) and That's My Boy, Sambo X-15 Axle Grease, Darkie Toothpaste, Gold Dust washing powder, Niggerhair cigarettes, and the Coon Chicken Inn restaurant. Confederate films shown included The Hunt For Dishonest Abe (parodying the famous 1915 film The Birth of a Nation), A Northern Wind (parodying the famous 1939 film Gone with the Wind), I Married an Abolitionist (parodying the 1949 film I Married a Communist), The Dark Jungle and The Jefferson Davis Story. Additional advertisements were produced but deleted from the film's final cut, including several for the Confederate States Air Force and a children's show, Uncle Tom and Friends, which features various classic cartoons: Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks, and Yogi Bear. Also shown is a slave auction held online, with the Internet replacing the traditional slave market.

At the film's end, titles note that parts of the alternate timeline are based on real history and that some of the racist products depicted did actually exist, in addition to citing Uncle Ben's and Aunt Jemima as contemporary examples. (Both products were rebranded following the George Floyd protests in 2020.[2][3])

In 1862, following the Union victory in the Battle of Antietam, President Abraham Lincoln issues the "Emancipation Proclamation", but the attempt fails. Confederate President Jefferson Davis takes the opportunity to secure British and French aid for the Confederacy, allowing Confederate forces to win the Battle of Gettysburg, besiege Washington, D.C., and take over the White House a few months later.[4] In 1864, Union General Ulysses S. Grant surrenders to Robert E. Lee, ending The War of Northern Aggression.[4] Lincoln is captured and imprisoned for war crimes before ultimately being exiled to Canada, while abolitionist Harriet Tubman is executed. In an interview given shortly before his death, Lincoln laments his failure to make the abolition of slavery the primary aim of the Civil War, and expresses his hopes that it will one day be achieved.

The Confederacy annexes the remainder of the United States, moving its capital to Washington, D.C., and introduces a tax on non-slaveowners in order to spread the institution in the North. Influential scientist Samuel A. Cartwright "discovers" a supposed disease that causes slaves to run away, and declares slaves to be livestock. Canada becomes a haven for exiled abolitionists and runaway slaves, with relations with the Confederacy remaining peaceful but tense. The Confederacy sends a delegation demanding the return of all escaped slaves in Canada, but a passionate speech by Frederick Douglass, a former slave and elected member of the House of Commons of Canada, sways enough votes to prevent the deportation of the escapees back to the Confederacy. In the Confederacy, most slaves are cowed into submission by a campaign of torture and executions. The last free Plains Indians nation falls to the Confederacy in 1890, and Native American children are forcibly removed from their families and sent to boarding schools intended to strip them of their culture and assimilate them into white American society, while Chinese migrant workers on the West Coast are made slaves. In 1895, the Confederacy adopts Christianity as the state religion and bans all other religions in an attempt to quash religious influence among foreign slaves. After some debate, Catholics are accepted as Christians, but it is decided that the Jews will be asked to leave. Before his own death, Jefferson Davis, citing Judah P. Benjamin's contributions to the Confederate cause, secures a reservation for Jews on Long Island. Meanwhile, in a parallel to the SpanishAmerican War, the Confederacy embarks on a prolonged expansionist campaign to conquer the Caribbean and all of Latin America as part of their "Golden Circle".[5] After decisively defeating Spain and conquering Cuba and the Caribbean, the Confederacy invades and conquers Mexico. White settlers and their slaves are subsequently settled in plantations in Mexico, while a system called apartness is imposed on native Mexicans, segregating them from white society. The Confederacy goes on to invade Central and South America, taking advantage of local political divisions as part of a divide and conquer strategy. Although the locals resist fiercely, the Confederacy is ultimately successful in conquering them.

In response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Confederacy revives the trans-Atlantic slave trade from its state of Liberia. While maintaining neutrality in European affairs, it becomes friendly with Nazi Germany, although it disapproves of the Final Solution due to a preference for enslavement over extermination. Seeing Japanese expansionism as a threat, however, it launches a preemptive strike against two naval bases and the city of Kyoto on December 7, 1941. With the conflict proving far longer and bloodier than anticipated, the Confederacy recruits slaves voluntarily released by their owners for military service as soldiers, promising them their freedom after the war in exchange for fighting, a promise which turns out to be a lie. Japan is ultimately defeated by the use of the atomic bomb, while the Soviet Union conquers Germany and all of Europe and its colonies except the British Empire. Due to a Red Scare-like panic over abolitionism, an insurgency against the Confederacy by a black underground group based in Canada called the John Brown Underground, and Canada's refusal to extradite members of the John Brown Underground, the Confederacy erects a wall called the Cotton Curtain along the border with Canada, while much of the rest of the world refuses to trade with it due to its relations with the former Nazi Germany. The Confederacy conducts airstrikes against Canada after the John Brown Underground assassinates the Confederate President.

Republican John F. Kennedy is elected President in 1960, dealing with foreign policy issues such as the Newfoundland Missile Crisis[6] and the Vietnam War. Canada becomes increasingly dominant in culture and sports; the Confederacy is forced to allow slaves to compete in the Olympic Games, but Kennedy is assassinated before he can follow through on reforms for racial and gender equality. Two major slave rebellions, one in Watts and another in Newark, are suppressed. The institution of slavery remains in place up through 2002, when allegations that Democratic presidential candidate John Ambrose Fauntroy V has black ancestry cost him the election and led to his suicide.

The film's official website contains an expanded timeline of the history of the C.S.A., which features events not covered in the documentary. The timeline identifies President William McKinley's assassin as an abolitionist rather than Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist. The C.S.A. manages to advance in space technology by smuggling former Nazi scientists out of Germany before its occupation by the Soviet Union.[7] Rosa Parks is identified as a Canadian terrorist and a member of the Black Panthers. Richard Nixon is eventually elected Confederate President in his own right after losing the 1960 election to Kennedy. During his presidency, Nixon travels to China in 1972, talks with the Chinese government which opens the way for Confederate-run labor camps to be run in China, which in turn results in cheaper goods being made and imported from China. However, Nixon is forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal, reminding the public that I am not a Negro!.[8] The failed assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981 occurs in New York City instead of St. Peter's Square, with the assailant being a Southern Baptist from Tennessee named Maynard Brimley, who is tried and executed.[9] The Gulf War results in Kuwait becoming a Confederate territory. In 1995, Tim McVeigh blows up the Jefferson Memorial instead of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City; his execution is broadcast on pay-per-view to high viewership.[4] The War in Afghanistan and subsequent American interventions in the Middle East are known as the "1st and 2nd Crusades", with the goal of eradicating the "Muslim Menace" by overthrowing the Islamic governments, taking over their oil reserves, and converting the entire Middle Eastern populace to Christianity.[10]

Kevin Wilmott began production on the film with a funding from the National Black Programming Consortium (NBPC) and wrote its first draft in 1997.[11]

Willmott, who had earlier written a screenplay about abolitionist John Brown, told interviewers he was inspired to write the story after seeing an episode of Ken Burns' 1990 television documentary The Civil War.[12] It was produced by Hodcarrier Films.

The film was filmed in Humboldt, Newton and Lawrence cities in Kansas, with a cast and crew coming from the U.S. states of Kansas, Missouri and Iowa as well as Colombia.[13]

The film grossed $744,165 worldwide in limited release.[1]

On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 80% based on reviews from 66 critics.[14] On Metacritic the film has a score of 62 out of 100 based on reviews from 22 critics, indicating "Generally favorable reviews".[15] Most critics were intrigued by the film's premise, but some found the execution to be lacking primarily due to a low budget.[16][17][18] In 2018 James Berardinelli wrote: "The movie is ultimately more interesting in satire than the presentation of a legitimate alternate timeline. This doesn't invalidate C.S.A.'s approach but it limits its effectiveness as a sort of Twilight Zone look at the last 150 years."[19]

An earlier version of the film premiered on February 21, 2003 at Liberty Hall in Lawrence, Kansas,[20] while the film premiered for the second time, at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2004.

In January 2004, after the film's premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, IFC Films acquired the distribution rights to the film in the United States.[21]

The film received a limited theatrical release in some Southern cities on October 7, 2005, and later received a wide theatrical release on February 15, 2006.[22]

The film was released on DVD by IFC Films (distributed by Genius Products) on August 8, 2006.

Follow this link:

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America - Wikipedia

Constitution of the Confederate States – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Supreme law of the Confederate States of America

The Constitution of the Confederate States was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America. It was adopted on March 11, 1861, and was in effect from February 22, 1862, to the conclusion of the American Civil War (May 1865). The Confederacy also operated under a Provisional Constitution from February 8, 1861, to February 22, 1862.[1] The original Provisional Constitution is located at the American Civil War Museum in Richmond, Virginia,[2] and differs slightly from the version later adopted. The final, handwritten Constitution is located in the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia.[2] Most of its provisions are word-for-word duplicates from the United States Constitution; however, there are crucial differences between the two documents in tone and legal content, primarily regarding slavery.

The Confederate Constitution followed the U.S. Constitution for the most part in the main body of the text but with some changes:

Article I Section 8(3) added quite a bit to the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to block the Confederate Congress from passing laws to "facilitate commerce,"[11] with some exceptions allowing for safety and improvement to waterways.

Then in Section 10:

Changes to Article III

Changes to Article IV

Other states may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by states; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.[19]

Changes to Article V

Changes to Article VI

Article VI Section 1(1)

Changes to Article VII

When five states shall have ratified this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution, shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and Vice President; and, for the meeting of the Electoral College; and, for counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall, also, prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government.[25]

There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery.

The Confederate Constitution's preamble included the phrase "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character," which focused the new constitution on the rights of the individual states.

States of the Confederacy gained several rights that states of the Union do not have, such as the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state.

The Confederate States lost a few rights that the Union states retained.

The signers and the states they represented were:

Congress began to move for ratification of the Confederate States Constitution on March 11, 1861:

Although the Confederate States Supreme Court was never constituted, the supreme courts of the various Confederate states issued numerous decisions interpreting the Confederate Constitution. Unsurprisingly, since the Confederate Constitution was based on the United States Constitution, the Confederate State Supreme Courts often used United States Supreme Court precedents. The jurisprudence of the Marshall Court thus influenced the interpretation of the Confederate Constitution. The state courts repeatedly upheld robust powers of the Confederate Congress, especially on matters of military necessity.[42]

Contemporary historians overwhelmingly agree that secession was motivated by the preservation of slavery. There were numerous causes for secession, but the preservation and the expansion of slavery were easily the most important of them. The confusion may come from blending the causes of secession with the causes of the war, which are separate but related issues. (Lincoln entered a military conflict not to free the slaves but to put down a rebellion.) According to the historian Kenneth M. Stampp, each side supported states' rights or federal power only when it was convenient to do so.[43] Stampp also cited Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began but, after the Southern defeat, said that the war had been instead about states' rights.[44]

According to an 1861 speech delivered by the Alabama politician Robert Hardy Smith, the State of Alabama declared its secession from the United States to preserve and to perpetuate the practice of slavery, the debate over which he referred to as the "Negro quarrel." In his speech, Smith praised the Confederate constitution for its lack of euphemisms and its succinct protections of the right to own "Negro" slaves:

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

The Georgia Democrat Alexander H. Stephens, who would become the Confederate vice president, stated within his Cornerstone Speech that the Confederate constitution was "decidedly better than" the American one, as the former "put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right."[48]

More here:

Constitution of the Confederate States - Wikipedia

Space Exploration

Posted on by

Welcome to Space Exploration![edit]

Space Exploration is a mod for Factorio.

If you are looking to start playing, check out the Getting Started page!

Join us on Discord to discuss, report bugs, or get help.

If you're looking for documentation on other Earendel mods they can be found on Earendel's Factorio Mods official wiki.

Updating to Space Exploration v0.6.x

The content of this wiki is to help users navigate the mod by providing information on mod-specific things such as structures, recipes, and strategies.

Unless otherwise specified, all information will assume that only the core space exploration mods are installed:Base (Factorio) version 1.0 Alien Biomes Robot Attrition Space Exploration Space Exploration Graphics Space Exploration Postprocess AAI Industry AAI Signal Transmission Grappling Gun (optional) Jetpack Informatron

Feel free to add stuff to the wiki yourself but try to make sure it is accurate.

Rules:

Support on Patreon

via PayPal

Originally posted here:

Space Exploration

Nutanix Accelerates Kubernetes Adoption in the Enterprise; Company Announces Expanded Kubernetes Ecosystem and Developer-Ready Infrastructure…

Posted on by

Nutanix Accelerates Kubernetes Adoption in the Enterprise; Company Announces Expanded Kubernetes Ecosystem and Developer-Ready Infrastructure Services; Enables Enterprises to run Kubernetes at Scale and Cost-Effectively on the Nutanix Cloud Platf  Marketscreener.com

See the original post here:

Nutanix Accelerates Kubernetes Adoption in the Enterprise; Company Announces Expanded Kubernetes Ecosystem and Developer-Ready Infrastructure...

Mind uploading in fiction – Wikipedia

Posted on by

References of mind uploading in fiction

Mind uploading, whole brain emulation, or substrate-independent minds, is a use of a computer or another substrate as an emulated human brain. The term "mind transfer" also refers to a hypothetical transfer of a mind from one biological brain to another. Uploaded minds and societies of minds, often in simulated realities, are recurring themes in science-fiction novels and films since the 1950s.

A story featuring an artificial brain that replicates the personality of a specific person is "The Infinite Brain" by John Scott Campbell, written under the name John C. Campbell,[1] and published in the May 1930 issue of Science Wonder Stories.[2] The artificial brain is created by an inventor named Anton Des Roubles, who tells the narrator that "I am attempting to construct a mechanism exactly duplicating the mechanical and electrical processes occurring in the human brain and constituting the phenomena known as thought." The narrator later learns that Des Roubles has died, and on visiting his laboratory, finds a machine that can communicate with him via typed messages, and which tells him "I, Anton Des Roubles, am deadmy body is deadbut I still live. I am this machine. These racks of apparatus are my brains, which is thinking even as yours is. Anton Des Roubles is dead but he has built me, his exact mental duplicate, to carry on his life and work." The machine also tells him "He made my brain precisely like his, built three hundred thousand cells for my memory, and filled two hundred thousand of them with his own knowledge. I have his personality; it is my own through a process I will tell you of later. ... I think just as you do. I have a consciousness as have other men." He then explains his discovery that the electrical impulses in the brain create magnetic fields that can be detected by a device he built called a "Telepather", and that "[t]hrough this instrument any one's mental condition can be exactly duplicated." Later, he enlists the narrator's help in constructing a new type of artificial brain that will retain his memories but possess an expanded intellect, though the experiment does not go as planned, as the new intelligence has a radically different personality and soon sets out to conquer the world.

An early story featuring technological transfer of memories and personality from one brain to another is "Intelligence Undying" by Edmond Hamilton, first published in the April 1936 issue of Amazing Stories. In this story, an elderly scientist named John Hanley explains that when humans are first born, "our minds are a blank sheet except for certain reflexes which we all inherit. But from our birth onward, our minds are affected by all about us, our reflexes are conditioned, as the behaviorists say. All we experience is printed on the sheet of our minds. ... Everything a human being learns, therefore, simply establishes new connections between the nerve cells of the brain. ... As I said, a newborn child has no such knowledge connections in his cortex at allhe has not yet formed any. Now if I take that child immediately after birth and establish in his brain exactly the same web of intricate neurone connections I have built up in my own brain, he will have exactly the same mind, memories, knowledge, as I have ... his mind will be exactly identical with my mind!" He then explains he has developed a technique to do just this, saying "I've devised a way to scan my brain's intricate web of neurone connections by electrical impulses, and by means of those impulses to build up an exactly identical web of neurone connections in the infant's brain. Just as a television scanning-disk can break down a complicated picture into impulses that reproduce the picture elsewhere." He adds that the impulses scanning his brain will kill him, but the "counter-impulses" imprinting the same pattern on the baby's brain will not harm him. The story shows the successful transfer of John Hanley's mind to the baby, whom he describes as "John Hanley 2nd", and then skips forward to the year 3144 to depict "John Hanley, 21st" using his advanced technology to become the ruler of the Earth in order to end a war between the two great political powers of the time, and then further ahead to "John Hanley, 416th" helping to evacuate humanity to the planet Mercury in response to the Sun shrinking into a white dwarf. He chooses to remain on Earth awaiting death, so that people would "learn once more to do for themselves, would become again a strong a self-reliant race", with Hanley concluding that he "had been wrong in living as a single super-mind down through the ages. He saw that now, and now he was undoing that wrong."

A story featuring human minds replicated in a computer is the novella Izzard and the Membrane by Walter M. Miller, Jr., first published in May 1951.[3] In this story, an American cyberneticist named Scott MacDonney is captured by Russians and made to work on an advanced computer, Izzard, which they plan to use to coordinate an attack on the United States. He has conversations with Izzard as he works on it, and when he asks it if it is self-aware, it says "answer indeterminate" and then asks "can human individual's self-awareness transor be mechanically duplicated?" MacDonney is unfamiliar with the concept of a self-awareness transor (it is later revealed that this information was loaded into Izzard by a mysterious entity who may nor may not be God[4]), and Izzard defines it by saying "A self-awareness transor is the mathematical function which describes the specific consciousness pattern of one human individual."[5] It is later found that this mathematical function can indeed be duplicated, although not by a detailed scan of the individual's brain as in later notions of mind uploading; instead, Donney just has to describe the individual verbally in sufficient detail, and Izzard uses this information to locate the transor in the appropriate "mathematical region". In Izzard's words, "to duplicate consciousness of deceased, it will be necessary for you to furnish anthropometric and psychic characteristics of the individual. These characteristics will not determine transor, but will only give its general form. Knowing its form, will enable me to sweep my circuit pattern through its mathematical region until the proper transor is reached. At that point, the consciousness will appear among the circuits."[6] Using this method, MacDonney is able to recreate the mind of his dead wife in Izzard's memory, as well as create a virtual duplicate of himself, which seems to have a shared awareness with the biological MacDonney.

In The Altered Ego by Jerry Sohl (1954), a person's mind can be "recorded" and used to create a "restoration" in the event of their death. In a restoration, the person's biological body is repaired and brought back to life, and their memories are restored to the last time that they had their minds recorded (what the story calls a 'brain record'[7]), an early example of a story in which a person can create periodic backups of their own mind which are stored in an artificial medium. The recording process is not described in great detail, but it is mentioned that the recording is used to create a duplicate or "dupe" which is stored in the "restoration bank",[8] and at one point a lecturer says that "The experience of the years, the neurograms, simple memory circuitsneurons, if you wishstored among these nerve cells, are transferred to the dupe, a group of more than ten billion molecules in colloidal suspension. They are charged much as you would charge the plates of a battery, the small neuroelectrical impulses emanating from your brain during the recording session being duplicated on the molecular structure in the solution."[9] During restoration, they take the dupe and "infuse it into an empty brain",[9] and the plot turns on the fact that it is possible to install one person's dupe in the body of a completely different person.[10]

An early example featuring uploaded minds in robotic bodies can be found in Frederik Pohl's story "The Tunnel Under the World" from 1955.[11] In this story, the protagonist Guy Burckhardt continually wakes up on the same date from a dream of dying in an explosion. Burckhardt is already familiar with the idea of putting human minds in robotic bodies, since this is what is done with the robot workers at the nearby Contro Chemical factory. As someone has once explained it to him, "each machine was controlled by a sort of computer which reproduced, in its electronic snarl, the actual memory and mind of a human being ... It was only a matter, he said, of transferring a man's habit patterns from brain cells to vacuum-tube cells." Later in the story, Pohl gives some additional description of the procedure: "Take a master petroleum chemist, infinitely skilled in the separation of crude oil into its fractions. Strap him down, probe into his brain with searching electronic needles. The machine scans the patterns of the mind, translates what it sees into charts and sine waves. Impress these same waves on a robot computer and you have your chemist. Or a thousand copies of your chemist, if you wish, with all of his knowledge and skill, and no human limitations at all." After some investigation, Burckhardt learns that his entire town had been killed in a chemical explosion, and the brains of the dead townspeople had been scanned and placed into miniature robotic bodies in a miniature replica of the town (as a character explains to him, 'It's as easy to transfer a pattern from a dead brain as a living one'), so that a businessman named Mr. Dorchin could charge companies to use the townspeople as test subjects for new products and advertisements.

Something close to the notion of mind uploading is very briefly mentioned in Isaac Asimov's 1956 short story The Last Question: "One by one Man fused with AC, each physical body losing its mental identity in a manner that was somehow not a loss but a gain." A more detailed exploration of the idea (and one in which individual identity is preserved, unlike in Asimov's story) can be found in ArthurC. Clarke's novel The City and the Stars, also from 1956 (this novel was a revised and expanded version of Clarke's earlier story Against the Fall of Night, but the earlier version did not contain the elements relating to mind uploading). The story is set in a city named Diaspar one billion years in the future, where the minds of inhabitants are stored as patterns of information in the city's Central Computer in between a series of 1000-year lives in cloned bodies. Various commentators identify this story as one of the first (if not the first) to deal with mind uploading, human-machine synthesis, and computerized immortality.[12][13][14][15]

Another of the "firsts" is the novel Detta r verkligheten (This is reality), 1968, by the renowned philosopher and logician Bertil Mrtensson, a novel in which he describes people living in an uploaded state as a means to control overpopulation. The uploaded people believe that they are "alive", but in reality they are playing elaborate and advanced fantasy games. In a twist at the end, the author changes everything into one of the best "multiverse" ideas of science fiction.

In Robert Silverberg's To Live Again (1969), an entire worldwide economy is built up around the buying and selling of "souls" (personas that have been tape-recorded at six-month intervals), allowing well-heeled consumers the opportunity to spend tens of millions of dollars on a medical treatment that uploads the most recent recordings of archived personalities into the minds of the buyers. Federal law prevents people from buying a "personality recording" unless the possessor first had died; similarly, two or more buyers were not allowed to own a "share" of the persona. In this novel, the personality recording always went to the highest bidder. However, when one attempted to buy (and therefore possess) too many personalities, there was the risk that one of the personas would wrest control of the body from the possessor.

In the 1982 novel Software, part of the Ware Tetralogy by Rudy Rucker, one of the main characters, Cobb Anderson, has his mind downloaded and his body replaced with an extremely human-like android body. The robots who persuade Anderson into doing this sell the process to him as a way to become immortal.

In William Gibson's award-winning Neuromancer (1984), which popularized the concept of "cyberspace", a hacking tool used by the main character is an artificial infomorph of a notorious cyber-criminal, Dixie Flatline. The infomorph only assists in exchange for the promise that he be deleted after the mission is complete.

The fiction of Greg Egan has explored many of the philosophical, ethical, legal, and identity aspects of mind transfer, as well as the financial and computing aspects (i.e. hardware, software, processing power) of maintaining "copies." In Egan's Permutation City (1994), Diaspora (1997) and Zendegi (2010), "copies" are made by computer simulation of scanned brain physiology. See also Egan's "jewelhead" stories, where the mind is transferred from the organic brain to a small, immortal backup computer at the base of the skull, the organic brain then being surgically removed.

The movie The Matrix is commonly mistaken[citation needed] for a mind uploading movie, but with exception to suggestions in later movies, it is only about virtual reality and simulated reality, since the main character Neo's physical brain still is required for his mind to reside in. The mind (the information content of the brain) is not copied into an emulated brain in a computer. Neo's physical brain is connected into the Matrix via a brain-machine interface. Only the rest of the physical body is simulated. Neo is disconnected from and reconnected to this dreamworld.[citation needed]

James Cameron's 2009 movie Avatar has so far been the commercially most successful example of a work of fiction that features a form of mind uploading. Throughout most of the movie, the hero's mind has not actually been uploaded and transferred to another body, but is simply controlling the body from a distance, a form of telepresence. However, at the end of the movie the hero's mind is uploaded into Eywa, the mind of the planet, and then back into his Avatar body.

Mind transfer is a theme in many other works of science fiction in a wide range of media. Specific examples include the following:

Go here to see the original:

Mind uploading in fiction - Wikipedia

Mind map – Wikipedia

Posted on by

This article is about the visual diagram. For the geographical concept, see Mental mapping.

Diagram to visually organize information

A mind map is a diagram used to visually organize information into a hierarchy, showing relationships among pieces of the whole.[1] It is often created around a single concept, drawn as an image in the center of a blank page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words and parts of words are added. Major ideas are connected directly to the central concept, and other ideas branch out from those major ideas.

Mind maps can also be drawn by hand, either as "notes" during a lecture, meeting or planning session, for example, or as higher quality pictures when more time is available. Mind maps are considered to be a type of spider diagram.[2] A similar concept in the 1970s was "idea sun bursting".[3]

Although the term "mind map" was first popularized by British popular psychology author and television personality Tony Buzan, the use of diagrams that visually "map" information using branching and radial maps traces back centuries. These pictorial methods record knowledge and model systems, and have a long history in learning, brainstorming, memory, visual thinking, and problem solving by educators, engineers, psychologists, and others. Some of the earliest examples of such graphical records were developed by Porphyry of Tyros, a noted thinker of the 3rd century, as he graphically visualized the concept categories of Aristotle. Philosopher Ramon Llull (12351315) also used such techniques.

The semantic network was developed in the late 1950s as a theory to understand human learning and developed further by Allan M. Collins and M. Ross Quillian during the early 1960s. Mind maps are similar in structure to concept maps, developed by learning experts in the 1970s, but differ in that mind maps are simplified by focusing around a single central key concept.

Buzan's specific approach, and the introduction of the term "mind map", arose during a 1974 BBC TV series he hosted, called Use Your Head.[4][5] In this show, and companion book series, Buzan promoted his conception of radial tree, diagramming key words in a colorful, radiant, tree-like structure.[6]

Buzan says the idea was inspired by Alfred Korzybski's general semantics as popularized in science fiction novels, such as those of Robert A. Heinlein and A. E. van Vogt. He argues that while "traditional" outlines force readers to scan left to right and top to bottom, readers actually tend to scan the entire page in a non-linear fashion. Buzan's treatment also uses then-popular assumptions about the functions of cerebral hemispheres in order to explain the claimed increased effectiveness of mind mapping over other forms of note making.

Cunningham (2005) conducted a user study in which 80% of the students thought "mindmapping helped them understand concepts and ideas in science".[9] Other studies also report some subjective positive effects on the use of mind maps.[10][11] Positive opinions on their effectiveness, however, were much more prominent among students of art and design than in students of computer and information technology, with 62.5% vs 34% (respectively) agreeing that they were able to understand concepts better with mind mapping software.[10] Farrand, Hussain, and Hennessy (2002) found that spider diagrams (similar to concept maps) had limited, but significant, impact on memory recall in undergraduate students (a 10% increase over baseline for a 600-word text only) as compared to preferred study methods (a 6% increase over baseline).[12] This improvement was only robust after a week for those in the diagram group and there was a significant decrease in motivation compared to the subjects' preferred methods of note taking. A meta study about concept mapping concluded that concept mapping is more effective than "reading text passages, attending lectures, and participating in class discussions".[13] The same study also concluded that concept mapping is slightly more effective "than other constructive activities such as writing summaries and outlines". However, results were inconsistent, with the authors noting "significant heterogeneity was found in most subsets". In addition, they concluded that low-ability students may benefit more from mind mapping than high-ability students.

Joeran Beel and Stefan Langer conducted a comprehensive analysis of the content of mind maps.[14] They analysed 19,379 mind maps from 11,179 users of the mind mapping applications SciPlore MindMapping (now Docear) and MindMeister. Results include that average users create only a few mind maps (mean=2.7), average mind maps are rather small (31 nodes) with each node containing about three words (median). However, there were exceptions. One user created more than 200 mind maps, the largest mind map consisted of more than 50,000 nodes and the largest node contained ~7,500 words. The study also showed that between different mind mapping applications (Docear vs MindMeister) significant differences exist related to how users create mind maps.

There have been some attempts to create mind maps automatically. Brucks & Schommer created mind maps automatically from full-text streams.[15] Rothenberger et al. extracted the main story of a text and presented it as mind map.[16] There is also a patent application about automatically creating sub-topics in mind maps.[17]

Mind-mapping software can be used to organize large amounts of information, combining spatial organization, dynamic hierarchical structuring and node folding. Software packages can extend the concept of mind-mapping by allowing individuals to map more than thoughts and ideas with information on their computers and the Internet, like spreadsheets, documents, Internet sites and images.[18] It has been suggested that mind-mapping can improve learning/study efficiency up to 15% over conventional note-taking.[12]

The following dozen examples of mind maps show the range of styles that a mind map may take, from hand-drawn to computer-generated and from mostly text to highly illustrated. Despite their stylistic differences, all of the examples share a tree structure that hierarchically connects sub-topics to a main topic.

Read more:

Mind map - Wikipedia

All classifieds – Veux-Veux-Pas, free classified ads Website

Posted on by

--- Category ---Real Estate SaleLuxury real estateInvestmentReal Estate for RentRoomateVacation Rentalsmortgage, hypothec, life annuityOthersUsed CarsUsed motorcycles, ScootersCollection cars, motorcyclesAuto, Moto Parts, AccessoriesUsed motor-home, camper van and RVsSailing, BoatsCar RentalsTrucks and utility vehiclesAgricultural MachinesOther vehiclesOthersJob searchsJob OffersStudent jobs, Summer JobsMLM - Tele Commuting - Distance WorkInternshipsRefrigerators, freezersVacuum cleaners, steam cleaningCookingCoffee Makers, espressoDishwasherWashing machines, dryersSewingSmall appliancesPressing, IroningOther appliancesComputersTV, Video, DVD player, VCRConsoles, Video GamesCameras, Video camerasAudio EquipmentGPSTelephonesDVD, MoviesCD, MusicBooksOthersAgricultural MaterialTransport - HandlingConstruction MachineConstruction MaterialToolsIndustrial EquipmentCatering - HospitalityOffice SuppliesShops & MarketsMedical MaterialFurnitureTablewareHome DecorationHousehold linenHome and GardenAir Conditioning, HeatingAntiques, CollectionsPlants / Trees WantedCheap dealsMoving, Garage SaleVariousSportsFishing, HuntingCampingBikes, CyclingMusical InstrumentsGames, ToysHobbies, RecreationGoing OutTicketsConcertsExhibitionsEventsRestaurantsBars, CafeVariousClothingShoesBaby EquipmentLuggages, Bags, Luggage AccessoriesWatches, JewelleryVariousbeauty, body productsHealth Products, disabilityVariousfood, farm productsWineVariousDesignArchitectureLiteratureMusicPaintingDanceScienceInnovationsCats, KittensDogs, PuppiesHorsesBirdsFish, AquariumReptiles, Snakes, LizardsMice, Rats, Hamsters, GerbisFarm AnimalsPets Supplies and AccessoriesPet sitterbreeding, matingOthersServices at HomeCarpool, RideshareTutoring, Courses, LessonsTranslationIT services, Computer Tech HelpTourism GuideBabysittingBeauty, hairdressing, body care, hair removal, massagehealth services, personal servicesReparation, construction, plumber, electrician, gardenerCleaning, housekeepingCooks, catering servicesJuristAssociationsActivities, Going OutMeetingMissed connections, MessagesLost, FoundBarter, exchangeOthersFurnitureAutomobiles and PartsPrint servicesSellCleaning / Dry CleaningDistributionElectronic Goods / ServicesComputersBuilding RepairsSoftwareStationaryMedical Goods / ServicesAdvertising ServicesFinancial ServicesInsuranceConsultingSecurity Products / ServicesOther ProductsOther ServicesSeaside Vacation RentalsMountain Vacation RentalsCountryside Vacation RentalsAbroad Vacation RentalsOthersMan seeking WomanWoman seeking ManMan seeking ManWoman seeking WomanPlatonic MeetingMisc RomanceCasual EncountersMissed ConnectionsSex ToysMoviesVideo portalsMeetingMusicCars, motorbikesBicycle, cyclingThe bestFor girlsEntertainmentPhotoshopPhotographySportShopsCartoonGamesChildrenMobile phoneEmployment, jobsRecipesAdultsClassified adsPetsMedicineMediaTVCasinoAssociationGovernmentTransportArt, cultureScience, educationDesignComputer sciencesInternet

--- City ---

The rest is here:

All classifieds - Veux-Veux-Pas, free classified ads Website

Bankruptcy Filings | United States Courts

Posted on by

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) June 30, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2022) (pdf, 172.93 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 June 30, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2022) (pdf, 68.52 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A June 30, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2022) (pdf, 1.8 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F June 30, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2022) (pdf, 43.6 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) June 30, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2022) (pdf, 67.74 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) March 31, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2022) (pdf, 315.48 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 March 31, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2022) (pdf, 95.74 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A March 31, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2022) (pdf, 1.84 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F March 31, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2022) (pdf, 69.88 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) March 31, 2022 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2022) (pdf, 95.04 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) December 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2021) (pdf, 95.13 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) December 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2021) (pdf, 201.49 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 December 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2021) (pdf, 95.81 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A December 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2021) (pdf, 1.87 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F December 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2021) (pdf, 70.91 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A September 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2021) (pdf, 1.88 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F September 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2021) (pdf, 70.84 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) September 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2021) (pdf, 94.96 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) September 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2021) (pdf, 200.03 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 September 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2021) (pdf, 95.79 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 June 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2021) (pdf, 96.02 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A June 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2021) (pdf, 1.92 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F June 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2021) (pdf, 70.96 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) June 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2021) (pdf, 95.22 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) June 30, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2021) (pdf, 200.49 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 March 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2021) (pdf, 95.98 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A March 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2021) (pdf, 1.96 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F March 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2021) (pdf, 70.81 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) March 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2021) (pdf, 95.15 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) March 31, 2021 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2021) (pdf, 200.46 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) December 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2020) (pdf, 200.84 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 December 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2020) (pdf, 96.05 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A December 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2020) (pdf, 1.98 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F December 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2020) (pdf, 70.8 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) December 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (December 31, 2020) (pdf, 95.28 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) September 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2020) (pdf, 95.35 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) September 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2020) (pdf, 201.05 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 September 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2020) (pdf, 96.19 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A September 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2020) (pdf, 2.05 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F September 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (September 30, 2020) (pdf, 70.75 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F June 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2020) (pdf, 70.72 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) June 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2020) (pdf, 95.36 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) June 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2020) (pdf, 200.91 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 June 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2020) (pdf, 96.37 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A June 30, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (June 30, 2020) (pdf, 2.01 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, District, and County F-5A March 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-5A Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2020) (pdf, 2.01 MB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Bankruptcy Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending F March 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2020) (pdf, 70.41 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (Three Months) March 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (Three Months) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2020) (pdf, 95.6 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 (One Month) March 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 (One Month) Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2020) (pdf, 202.02 KB) U.S. Bankruptcy Courts - Business and Nonbusiness Cases Filed, by Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code F-2 March 31, 2020 Bankruptcy Filings Download Table F-2 Bankruptcy Filings (March 31, 2020) (pdf, 96.3 KB)

View post:

Bankruptcy Filings | United States Courts

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona

Posted on by

Date Time Action October 15, 2022 Scheduled ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 8, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 1, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 24, 2022 Completed ECF-Test, ECF-Train, ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 5:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 17, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 11, 2022 Completed PACER - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 1:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to PACER expected. September 10, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 9, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). CM/ECF System Downtime expected. September 3, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 28, 2022 Completed PACER - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 4:00 am - 6:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to PACER expected. August 24, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:45 am - 7:45 am (MST). CM/ECF downtime expected only in ECF-Test. August 20, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 13, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 10, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm (MST). No disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 6, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 3, 2022 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm (MST). No disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 16, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 13, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 10, 2022 Completed PACER - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades est. window: 5:55 am - 4:30 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to PACER expected. July 9, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 6, 2022 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 2, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 18, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 11, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 4, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 21, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 14, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 7, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 30, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 4:00 am - 7:00 am (MST). Downtime and Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 22 and 25, 2022 Completed ECF-Test system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 9 - 12 am (MST) on 4/22 and all day on 4/25. Downtime and Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 16, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 9, 2022 Completed ECF-Train - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 2, 2022 Completed ECF-Test - scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 31, 2022 Completed ECF-Live - downtime expected in ECF-Live during maintenance window, from 6:00 - 8:00 pm (MST). March 19, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 12, 2022 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 10, 2022 Completed ECF-Test scheduled NextGen Software Upgrade, downtime expected during maintenance window, from 6:00 am (MST) Thursday March 10, 2022 through Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6 pm (MST). Please use ECF-Train for any testing needs during this time. March 5, 2022 Completed ECF-Live and ECF Test - downtime expected in ECF-Live during maintenance window, from 3:00 am (MST) - 11:00 am (MST). February 26, 2022 Completed ECF-Live, ECF-Test, ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, downtime expected during extended maintenance window, from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). February 23, 2022 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:30 pm (MST) to 6:30 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 19, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 12, 2022 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 9, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm (MST). February 5, 2022 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 2, 2022 Completed ECF-Train and ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm (MST). January 22, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, CM/ECF downtime expected during regularly scheduled maintenance window from 6:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 20, 2022 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 18, 2022 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:30 pm - 4:30 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 15, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 8, 2022 Completed ECF-Live scheduled update to NextGen CM/ECF 1.6.2: CM/ECF downtime expected during regularly scheduled maintenance window from 6:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Also, ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected January 4, 2022 Completed ECF-Train scheduled update to NextGen CM/ECF 1.6.2 from 9-10:30 am MST: CM/ECF downtime or Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected January 1, 2022 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 19, 2021 Completed PACER scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 5:00 am - 1:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to PACER authentication for CM/ECF and possible Pay.gov delays expected. December 18, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 11, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 8, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 4, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 1, 2021 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 21, 2021 Completed PACER scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 4:55 am - 3:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to PACER authentication for CM/ECF and possible Pay.gov delays expected. November 20, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 13, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 6, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 16, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 9, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 2, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 25, 2021 Completed ECF-Test, ECF-Train and ECF-Live: scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades during regularly scheduled maintenance window, from 6:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF Test and Train expected. No disruption expected for ECF-Live. September 18, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 11, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 4, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 31, 2021 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 7:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 21, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 14, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 7, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 5, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). CM/ECF-TEST downtime expected during this maintenance window. July 17, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 10, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 8, 2021 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 am - 8:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 3, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 24-28, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled upgrade to NextGen CM/ECF 1.6.1: CM/ECF downtime expected from the afternoon of June 24 at 5:00 pm until 8:30 am (MST) on June 28. For more information, please see this announcement June 19, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 12, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 5, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled upgrade to NextGen CM/ECF 1.6.1 (Train): CM/ECF downtime expected from 4:00 am until 11:59 pm (MST) on June 5. For more information, please see this announcement. ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). May 22, 2021 Completed ECF-Live, ECF-Test and ECF-Train systems maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 6:00 am - 1:00 pm (MST). Downtime expected during maintenance window. May 15, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 8, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 1, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 17, 2021 Completed ECF-Live: scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance during our regularly scheduled maintenance window from 5:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 10, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 3, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 30, 2021 Completed ECF-Train system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 4:00 pm - 4:30 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 20, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 13, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 6, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 27, 2021 Completed ECF-Live upgrade to version 5.3.4 from 7:00 am - 12:00 pm (MST). Downtime expected during upgrade maintenance window. February 20, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 13, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 6, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 26 - 27, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance and updates from 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm (MST) on both days January 21 - 22, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system upgrade to NG 1.6.1. Downtime expected from 1:00pm on January 21 until 6:00 pm (MST) on January 22 January 16, 2021 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 9, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 2, 2021 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 1, 2021 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 7:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 19, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 12, 2020 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 11, 2020 Completed ECF-Live, ECF-Train, ECF-Test: scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 8:00 pm - 12:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 5, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 3:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. ECF-Train and ECF-Live scheduled maintenance during standard maintenance window, from 5 - 9 am (MST). CM/ECF downtime expected in both the Live and Train systems during this time. December 1, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system update to NG 1.5.3 - CM/ECF downtime expected from 9:30 am - 11:30 am (MST). November 21, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 14, 2020 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 7, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 31, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades during standard maintenance window, from 5:00 - 9:00 am MST. CM/ECF downtime expected during this time. October 17, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 10, 2020 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 3, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF Test expected. ECF-Train and ECF-Live scheduled maintenance only during standard maintenance window, from 5 - 9 am MST. CM/ECF downtime expected in both the Live and Train systems during this time. Scheduled 19, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 17, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system upgrade to NG 1.5.2 - CM/ECF downtime expected from 1:00 pm - 5:00 pm (MST). September 12, 2020 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance, updates and/or upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 5, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 21-22, 2020 Completed ECF-Live upgrade to version 5.3.3: CM/ECF downtime expected from 12:00pm on August 21 until 11:59 pm (MST) on August 22. August 15, 2020 Completed ECF-Live scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 8, 2020 Completed ECF-Train scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 8, 2020 Completed ECF-Live and ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance during our regularly scheduled maintenance window from 5:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 6, 2020 Completed ECF-Live, ECF-Train, and ECF-Test - system maintenance and upgrades from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 1, 2020 Completed ECF-Test scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 18, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 17-18, 2020 Cancelled ECF-Live upgrade to version 5.3.3: CM/ECF downtime expected from 12:00pm on July 17 until 11:59 pm (MST) on July 18. July 11, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 5:00 am - 1:00 pm (MST). CM/ECF will be unavailable during this time. July 11, 2020 Completed ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF-Train expected. June 25-26, 2020 Completed ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades. CM/ECF downtime expected from 12:00 pm on June 25 until on or before 11:59 pm (MST) on June 26. June 20, 2020 Completed ECF-Live and ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 13, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 11-12, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades. CM/ECF will be unavailable from 7:00 am on June 11 until 7:00 pm (MST) on June 12. June 6, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 5:00 am - 9:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 6, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 3, 2020 Completed ECF-Test and ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm (MST). No disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 16, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 9, 2020 Completed ECF-Train and ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 11:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 5, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected.. May 2, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected.. April 18, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 11, 2020 Completed ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. April 4, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00 am - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 27-30, 2020 Cancelled ECF-Train upgrade to NextGen 1.3 has been cancelled at this time. CM/ECF Train is no longer tentatively scheduled to be down and unavailable from 3/27 at 7:00am (MST) until 7:00am (MST) on 3/30. March 21, 2020 Completed ECF-Live Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 5:00 am - 2:00 pm (MST). Users may experience intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF. March 12, 2020 Cancelled ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 6:00 pm - 10:00 pm (MST). Users may experience intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF. March 10, 2020 Cancelled ECF-Train Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades. CM/ECF will be unavailable between 10:00am-2:00pm (MST). March 7 - 8, 2020 Completed ECF-Live, ECF-Test, ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 11:00 pm - 10:00 am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. March 4, 2020 Completed ECF-Test, ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm (MST). Users may experience intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF. February 22, 2020 Cancelled ECF-Live Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades. CM/ECF will be unavailable between 7:00am-10:00am (MST). February 21, 2020 Completed ECF-Train Scheduled system maintenance and upgrades from 2:00pm-4:00pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 18, 2020 Completed ECF-Live upgrade to version 5.2.3. CM/ECF will be unavailable between 8:00pm-12:00am (MST). February 15, 2020 Completed ECF-Live: Scheduled system maintenance between 7:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 15, 2020 Completed ECF-Train: Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00pm-7:00pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 13 - 19, 2020 Completed ECF-Test: Scheduled systems testing/maintenance - CM/ECF will be unavailable after 5pm on Thursday, February 13 at 5:00 pm (MST) until Wednesday, February 19, 2020. January 31, 2020 Completed ECF-Train upgrade to version 5.2.3. CM/ECF will be unavailable between 2:00pm-5:00pm (MST). January 18, 2020 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 21, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 6:00am-2:00pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 20, 2019 Completed Required system maintenance between 7:00pm-8:00pm (MST). CM/ECF will be unavailable during this time. November 16, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 26, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 19, 2019 Cancelled Scheduled system maintenance between 8:00am-1:00pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. August 17, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. July 20, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 29, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 7:30am-12:30pm (MST). CM/ECF Test not available during this time. June 15, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 13, 2019 Completed Required system maintenance between 6:00pm-7:00pm (MST). CM/ECF not available for electronic filing. June 13, 2019 Completed Required system maintenance between 8:00am-9:00am (MST). CM/ECF Test not available. May 18, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 6, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 5:00am-7:00am (MST). CM/ECF not available for electronic filing. April 25, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 7:00am-7:30am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF Test expected. March 16, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 16, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. February 2, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 8:00am-9:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. January 19, 2019 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 7:00am-3:00pm (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. December 15, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. November 27, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 7:00am-7:30am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. October 27, 2018 Completed ECF-Live upgrade to CM/ECF version 5.2.2. October 20, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 22, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 2:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. September 4, 2018 Completed ECF-Test upgrade to CM/ECF version 5.2.2. July 21, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 5:00am-9:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 8, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 6:00am-7:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. June 6, 2018 Cancelled Scheduled system maintenance between 6:00am-7:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected. May 22, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 9:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF-Train expected. May 22, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 9:00am-10:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF-Test expected. April 4, 2018 Completed ECF-Train upgrade to CM/ECF version 5.2.2. January 20, 2018 Completed Scheduled system maintenance between 3:00am-11:00am (MST). Intermittent disruptions in access to CM/ECF expected.

If you have CM/ECF procedural questions, please call (602) 682-4900.

Contact the MIS Department at (602) 682-4100 regarding any computer related questions.

See original here:

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Arizona

US Bankruptcy Court NJ – Live Database

Posted on by

US Bankruptcy Court NJ - Live Database

Welcome to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of New Jersey

District of New Jersey - Document Filing System

CHAMBERS EMAIL ACCOUNTS:Chief Judge Michael B. Kaplan: chambers_of_mbk@njb.uscourts.govJudge Rosemary Gambardella: chambers_of_rg@njb.uscourts.govJudge Kathryn C. Ferguson: chambers_of_kcf@njb.uscourts.govJudge Christine M Gravelle: chambers_of_cmg@njb.uscourts.govJudge Andrew B. Altenburg, Jr.: chambers_of_aba@njb.uscourts.govJudge Vincent F. Papalia: chambers_of_vfp@njb.uscourts.govJudge John K. Sherwood: chambers_of_jks@njb.uscourts.govJudge Jerrold N. Poslusny, Jr.: chambers_of_jnp@njb.uscourts.govJudge Stacey L. Meisel: chambers_of_slm@njb.uscourts.gov

From time to time, you may experience significant slowness with the system. Some of it is due to technical difficulties and some is due to network congestion. When you encounter such an event, please log off the system and wait 10 minutes before retrying. Please be reminded that clicking on the "submit" button twice may result in duplicated filings. To work around problems of network congestion, filing in the following time period is encouraged: early in the morning, around lunch hours, and late afternoon.

More here:

US Bankruptcy Court NJ - Live Database

Northern Iowa specialty soybean dealer files for bankruptcy – Nebraska Examiner

Posted on by
  1. Northern Iowa specialty soybean dealer files for bankruptcy  Nebraska Examiner
  2. Global Processing, Inc. files for bankruptcy in Iowa  Successful Farming
  3. Kanawha based organic soybean business files for bankruptcy  Radio Iowa
  4. Non-GMO Soybean Company Global Processing Lost Grain Licenses in Iowa, Nebraska  DTN The Progressive Farmer
  5. View Full Coverage on Google News

Original post:

Northern Iowa specialty soybean dealer files for bankruptcy - Nebraska Examiner

Financial Independence / Retire Early – reddit

Posted on by

Hi, r/financialindependence. I posted about quitting my job in 2018 when I was 38 - I'm 42 now - to travel the world via air and the country via van after living frugally since I started working in my early 20s. Retired with about $2.3 million net worth. Here's the story so far ...

Year 0 https://old.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/comments/8pv2yd/38msingle_23_million_submitted_my_resignation/

I started working in my early 20s after getting out of grad school. Salary varied anywhere from $70,000 to $130,000 during those 14 years or so. I live in a state with low cost of living and no state income tax, so I knew when I started that I could save a majority of my income if I stayed frugal and resisted lifestyle inflation. I live in the same starter home I bought around 2010 and drive an old Camry. I did a bunch of set-it-and-forget-it buying of large cap US index funds and Berkshire Hathaway and I did some individual buying of large cap bank and technology names before and after the Great Recession

Year 1 update - I came home after volunteer work in SE Asia https://old.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/comments/bk1rco/1_year_update_38msingle_23_million_submitted_my/

I FIREd and quit my job in the US last year, then moved to Thailand to volunteer at a non-profit teaching English to former prostitutes and low-level criminals for tourism industry jobs. I'm an American, ethnically Chinese.

My apartment and utilities were provided for free by the non-profit and I lived with my fellow expat volunteers. Some were older couples who wanted their privacy, so they booked their own apartments. Costs ranged from as low as $200 a month for a cheap, non-furnished studio apartment to $375 a month for a furnished studio in a newer building near a Skytrain station in the center of town with security. I was pleasantly surprised that because I was in the country on a sponsored work visa, I was eligible to buy health insurance there as a local. It came out to about $150 a month. Getting international expat health insurance here in America would have cost me up to $500 a month, so a huge savings. I also rarely ate at home and never cooked, since Bangkok is one of the great street food capitals of the world. All kinds of Thai, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Arab food served on the street for about 35 to 70 baht each entree (~1 to 2 bucks USD). I ended up not getting a local cell phone or local cell plan, my Sprint plan included international roaming and the 2G data was okay for Google Maps and web/email use when I was away from wifi, which was rare. So monthly fixed expenses came out to

$100 7-Eleven (drinking tap water actively discouraged by authorities due to corroded pipes. Bottled water is substantially cheaper there than here, thankfully. My problem is that when I went into 7-Eleven every day to get the cheap water, I would get sidetracked by whatever tasty unfamiliar snack I would see at the hot food counter that I would then have to try, hence $100 a month blown. Seriously, 7-Eleven in Thailand is amazing, I highly recommend getting lost in one. All kinds of hot noodle soups and baos and sticky rice snacks and cakes.)

See the rest here:

Financial Independence / Retire Early - reddit