What Is Litecoin? What to Know in 2019 – TheStreet

It's certainly been an interesting few months for cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin dropped more than 30% toward the end of November, putting it at new 13-month lows. And while crypto has been taking a bit of a hit recently, it remains a pseudo-currency that many investors are bullish on. However, when in the market for cryptocurrencies, you aren't limited to just Bitcoin. In fact, among the some 180 cryptocurrencies on the market, Litecoin is one of the biggest "altcoins" on the market.

So, what is Litecoin, and how do you buy it?

Litecoin is an online cryptocurrency that ranks as the third-largest cryptocurrency on the market behind Bitcoin and Ripple. The currency trades on many digital exchanges and wallets, and has a higher circulating supply of coins than Bitcoin. Litecoin was created by Charles Lee in 2011 and has a coin limit of 84 million.

Just like other cryptocurrencies, Litecoin functions as a payment system similar to fintech companies like PayPal (PYPL) in that it allows users to pay with or trade the currency.

The former Google (GOOG) engineer created Litecoin under MIT/X11 ln, basing the coin off of Bitcoin's original code and earning it the title "altcoin" (alternative coin to Bitcoin).

Since coming to market in 2011, Litecoin hit a peak price of $360.93 in December 2017 - up an astonishing 8200% from its previous price of $4.40 the year before,according to Forbes.And due to its similarity to the original Bitcoin, Litecoin is often referred to as the "silver" to Bitcoin's "gold."

Thereis certainly no shortage of options when it comes to different cryptocurrencies to own or trade. But, what makes Litecoin different?

Litecoin uses a proof-of-work algorithm (much like Bitcoin) called Scrypt. The algorithm produces coins at four times the speed of Bitcoin's algorithm, despite being modeled after the pioneer coin. Litecoin's algorithmhas a transaction processing speed ofrespective coins at a rate ofone coin every 2.5 minutes.

The coin's algorithmuses computing power to process transactions, whichare completed by "miners" confirming transactions in their networks with their computing power. As a result, the miners receive coins in exchange. Additionally, Litecoin's Scrypt algorithm is generally considered to be very efficient given that it prevents too much customization with hardware solutions likeApplication-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), andfavors high-speed random access memory.For this reason, Litecoin's Scrypt algorithm is generally considered easier for regular cryptocurrency users to be able to mine without too much complexity because itallows minersto useCPUs (central processing units) or GPUs (graphics processing units).

The coin's market cap sits at around $1.75 billion as of 2018. Litecoin's circulation is currently59.61 million.

As of December, 2018, Litecoin is priced at around $28.

Just like with other cryptocurrencies, Litecoin has a limited amount of coins that can be mined. Litecoin can produce up to 84 million coins - more than Bitcoin.

However, Litecoin (like other cryptocurrencies) can be divided down to trade or buy in smaller amounts, so the importance of total coins has somewhat diminished.

When cryptocurrency miners mine a block of any given currency, they are rewarded with a certain number of coins. Litecoin miners are rewardedwith currentblock rewards of 50 LTC (2014).

However,Litecoin rewards are halved every 840,000 blocks, but due to Litecoin's average processing speed of about 2.5 minutes per LTC, it takes years for the rewards to be halved.

If you're looking to buy, sell or trade Litecoin, you're going to need a platform. So, where can you buy or trade it?

Cryptocurrency exchanges are places to buy and sell crypto. But before using any exchange or wallet, be sure to do your research to avoid any scams or hacking. Better safe than sorry.

There are a fair amount of exchanges that offer Litecoin in addition to other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

One of the larger exchanges that has Litecoin is Coinbase - which offers a variety of other cryptocurrencies in case one isn't enough. Additionally, theCameron and Tyler Winklevoss-owned exchange, Gemini, also offers Litecoin - which can be bought with USD. As a plus, you can also buy Litecoin with BTC (Bitcoin) or ETH (the coin for Ethereum). The creator of Litecoin celebrated the addition on Twitter (TWTR) .

Ever since MtGox announced Litecoin support in 2013 and failed to deliver, I've been on a mission to get LTC added to exchanges to help increase liquidity.

With the launch of LTC on Gemini today, every single major Bitcoin exchange supports Litecoin. Mission accomplished! pic.twitter.com/6jvSyvsKdm

You can also buy, sell or trade Litecoin on Binance or Bitfinex - both fairly large and widely used cryptocurrency exchanges.

Once you've decided on an exchange to use, you're going to need a wallet to store your LTC. So, what are your options?

Cryptocurrency wallets have a variety of forms and uses - includinghardware, desktop, software, mobile and paper. You may wish to store your cryptocurrency in an easily accessible wallet, or, you might want to store it in a safe, offline storage place.

Hardware wallets like Trezor offer a good, offline place to protect your cryptocurrency from hackers. Among the other 500 cryptocurrencies, Trezor supports Litecoin.

However, if you're looking for easy, online access to your coins, go with Jaxx or Exodus as a wallet. Jaxx offers both desktop and mobile interfaces that allows you convenient access to your Litecoin. Additionally, Exodus (along with being a wallet) also has an exchange as part of its services.

But, what about Litecoin might make it a better choice for you than other cryptocurrencies? Or, at the very least - what's the difference between Litecoin and other cryptocurrencies?

Bitcoin famously paved the way for other cryptocurrencies back in 2009, when it was created by an unknown individual by the alias Satoshi Nakamoto. And unlike Litecoin, Bitcoin remains the most popular cryptocurrency with a value of over $3,519 (although it recently plummeted from around $6,000).

However, there are several key differences between Litecoin and Bitcoin apart from their value.

The two cryptocurrencies use different algorithms and have different mining specifications. While Litecoin uses a less complex algorithm called Scrypt, Bitcoin usesa traditional SHA-256 algorithm (which is a cryptographic proof-of-work algorithm much like Litecoin's). However, Bitcoin's algorithm is widely known for being more complex and stresses processing power - using what are calledApplication-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) - hardware systems that can be customized for mining a specific cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. Still, because Bitcoin's algorithm requires more processing power, it is generally considered to be less user-friendly and more complicated than Litecoin's.

Additionally, Litecoinhas a much faster transaction processing speedthan Bitcoin - 2.5 minutes compared to Bitcoin's 10 minutes or so.

And while Bitcoin's market cap recently fell below $100 billion for the first time in a year, it still sits quite a bit higher than Litecoin's at around $98 billion. Additionally, while Bitcoin actually has much less total coins (only 21 million compared to Litecoin's 84 million), the coin has been traded in such small quantities (divided into 0.00000001 Bitcoins, dubbed "satoshi" in the crypto community) thatthe total number is slightly less consequential. And, while therewards of Bitcoin (which are 25 BTC per block), just like Litecoin, are halved, they're halved every210,000 blocks.

Unlike Litecoin, Ethereum is actually both a cryptocurrency and a blockchain - with Ether as the actual coin (although it is generally synonymous with Ethereum for investors).

While Litecoin is a type of cryptocurrency, Ethereum is a digital blockchain platform that creates and runs decentralized applications called"dapps." For this reason, Ethereum functions in a similar fashion as the internet, but stores data in individual blockchain ledgers instead of a general storage space like Googleor Facebook (FB) .

Still, the coin - Ether - doles out only 3 coins in rewards for mining one block (compared to Litecoin's 50).

Well, the simple answer is through exchanges.

Most investors buy Litecoin with either USD or BTC (Bitcoin). Because different exchanges have different trading or buying capacities, be sure to check if your exchange supports USD or BTC to LTC transactions.

It is generally the best option to go with a larger exchange like Binance (where you can trade BTC for LTC) or Coinbase (for using a credit or debit card with USD).

However, because cryptocurrency is a largely unregulated pseudo-industry, it shouldn't be thought of as the same type of investment opportunity as stocks, bonds or other securities. In fact, you should proceed with caution when investing (especially given cryptocurrency's volatility in recent months).

Cryptocurrency is popular for short-selling, and following the drop in price for Bitcoin, many are touting short-selling as the way to go with cryptocurrency.

"The new investment opportunity led to a fall in demand in the spot bitcoin market and therefore a drop in price. With falling prices, pessimists started to make money on their bets, fueling further short-selling and further downward pressure on prices," the Federal Reserve Bank of San Franciscowrotethis summer.

Additionally, others in the fintech space are bullish on the strategy with cryptocurrency.

"Shorting is one part of the creeping legitimization of bitcoin-we're getting access to proper financial products," Simon Taylor, cofounder of fintech consultancy 11:FS, told Forbes this summer.

Cryptocurrency is a digital asset that can be used for exchange, much like traditional currencies. However, cryptocurrency uses cryptography (hence the "crypto") to secure and validate the currency online. To this degree, cryptocurrency mainly uses decentralized blockchain technology to allow miners (people who create new blocks on the blockchain) to mine various amounts of different cryptocurrency coins as they create new blocks.

However, cryptocurrency is still largely unregulated and is not widely accepted as currency (in fact, the list of vendors that accept coins like Bitcoin is actually comparatively small). Some companies that do accept cryptocurrency, however, include Expedia (EXPE) and Dish Network (DISH) .

See the original post here:

What Is Litecoin? What to Know in 2019 - TheStreet

Crypto Market Extend Gains: Litecoin (LTC), Bitcoin Cash …

Key Points

Bitcoin cash rallied recently above $100 and $115. Litecoin (LTC), Tron (TRX), EOS and Cardano (ADA) are gaining pace and they might continue to move higher.

Bitcoin cash price formed a solid support near the $80 level this past week and later recovered above $90. The upside move was positive as the BCH/USD pair broke the $100 resistance as well. It gained more than 25% in the past few hours and broke the $115 resistance.

On the upside, the next resistance is at $120, above which it could test the $125 resistance. On the downside, an initial support is at $110, below which the price may find strong bids near $105 and $100.

Litecoin price started a major upward move and traded above the $25 and $28 resistance levels. LTC price even broke the $30 resistance and it is currently facing hurdles near the $32 and $35 levels.

Tron price finally made a nice bullish move and jumped above the $0.0140 and $0.0150 resistance levels. The price is currently up around 8% and it could soon break the $0.0175 resistance for an upside extension.

Cardano price rallied after it settled above the $0.0300 support. ADA gained pace above the $0.0320 resistance and broke the $0.0350 resistance. It is currently up around 8% to $0.0362 and buyers might push the price towards $0.0380.

Looking at the total cryptocurrency market cap hourly chart, there was a solid upward move above the $110.00B and $115.00B resistance levels. The market cap even cleared the $120.00B resistance and tested the $121.50B level. In the short term, there could be a minor downside correction, but the $115.00B and $114.00B levels are decent supports. Therefore, Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, litecoin, ripple, and other altcoins could correct lower in the short term, but dips remain supported.

See the original post:

Crypto Market Extend Gains: Litecoin (LTC), Bitcoin Cash ...

Libertarian Party | political party, United States …

Libertarian Party, U.S. political party devoted to the principles of libertarianism. It supports the rights of individuals to exercise virtual sole authority over their lives and sets itself against the traditional services and regulatory and coercive powers of federal, state, and local governments.

The Libertarian Party was established in Westminster, Colorado, in 1971 and fielded its first candidate for the presidency in the next years elections. In 1980 it achieved its height of success when it was on the ballot in all 50 states, and its presidential candidate, Edward E. Clark, a California lawyer, received 921,199 votes. Although this vote represented only about 1 percent of the national total, it was enough to make the Libertarian Party the third largest political party in the United States. Libertarian candidates ran in every subsequent presidential election, and several of its members were elected to local and state office, particularly in the West. Though subsequently the party failed to match its 1980 total, its presidential candidates consistently attracted hundreds of thousands of votes, and from 1992 the party consistently secured ballot access in all 50 states. In 2000 the party contested a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and though it captured no seats, its candidates combined to win 1.7 million votes. The party maintains a national office in Washington, D.C., and has affiliates in every state. The Cato Institute, a public-policy research organization, was founded in 1977 in part by prominent members of the Libertarian Party.

In opposing the purported right of the state to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labour, the Libertarian Party contends that a completely free market is a necessary economic condition for prosperity and liberty. To this end most Libertarians call for the repeal of personal and corporate income taxes; the replacement of most government-provided services, including Social Security and the post office, with private and voluntary arrangements; the repeal of regulations, including minimum wage and gun-control laws; and the dismantling of all regulatory bodies that do not promote freely contracted trade. In supporting an individuals right to liberty of speech and action, the Libertarian Party opposes all forms of censorship, insists on the right to keep and bear firearms, and defends the choice of abortion. Noting that the initiation of force against others constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, the Libertarian Party supports the prosecution of criminal violence and fraud but also advocates the repeal of laws against such victimless crimes as gambling, drug use, and prostitution.

Libertarian Party principles are incorporated into its platforms, which are established at semiannual conventions of national party officers and delegates from state affiliates. To direct the ongoing functions of the party, convention delegates elect an 18-member Libertarian National Committee, composed of a chairperson and 3 other officers, 5 at-large members, and 9 regional representatives. Presidential candidates are elected by a simple majority of convention delegates. The party publishes a number of pamphlets and newsletters, including the Libertarian Party News (monthly).

Here is the original post:

Libertarian Party | political party, United States ...

Air Seychelles – Check out our great Mauritius fares to …

From * - Select -Abu Dhabi (AUH), UAEAhmedabad (AMD), IndiaAl Ain (AAN), UAEAmman (AMM), JordanAmsterdam (AMS), NetherlandsAthens (ATH), GreeceBahrain (BAH), BahrainBangalore (BLR), IndiaBangkok (BKK), ThailandBelgrade (BEG), SerbiaBerlin (TXL), GermanyBologna (BLQ), ItalyBordeaux (BOD), FranceBrisbane (BNE), AustraliaBrussels (BRU), BelgiumCairo (CAI), EgyptCape Town (CPT), South AfricaCasablanca (CMN), MoroccoChennai (MAA), IndiaChicago IL (ORD), United StatesColombo (CMB), Sri LankaCopenhagen (CPH), DenmarkDallas TX (DFW), United StatesDammam (DMM), Saudi ArabiaDubai (XNB), UAEDublin (DUB), IrelandDurban (DUR), South AfricaDsseldorf (DUS), GermanyEast London (ELS), South AfricaEdinburgh (EDI), United KingdomEntebbe (EBB), UgandaFlorence (FLR), ItalyFrankfurt (FRA), GermanyGeneva (GVA), SwitzerlandGenoa (GOA), ItalyHo Chi Minh City (SGN), VietnamHong Kong China (HKG), ChinaHyderabad (HYD), IndiaIstanbul (IST), TurkeyJaipur (JAI), IndiaJeddah (JED), Saudi ArabiaJohannesburg (JNB), South AfricaKochi (COK), IndiaKolkata (CCU), IndiaKuwait (KWI), KuwaitLondon (LHR), United KingdomLos Angeles CA (LAX), United StatesLyon (LYS), FranceMadrid (MAD), SpainMahe, Seychelles (SEZ), SeychellesManchester (MAN), United KingdomMarseille (MRS), FranceMauritius (MRU), MauritiusMelbourne (MEL), AustraliaMilan (MXP), ItalyMontpellier (MPL), FranceMoscow (DME), RussiaMumbai (BOM), IndiaMunich (MUC), GermanyMuscat (MCT), OmanNagoya (NGO), JapanNarita (NRT), JapanNew Delhi (DEL), IndiaNew York (JFK), United StatesNice (NCE), FrancePalermo (PMO), ItalyParis (CDG), FrancePerth (PER), AustraliaPort Elizabeth (PLZ), South AfricaPraslin (PRI), SeychellesRabat (RBA), MoroccoRiyadh (RUH), Saudi ArabiaRome (FCO), ItalySan Francisco CA (SFO), United StatesSao Paulo (GRU), BrazilSeoul (ICN), South KoreaSingapore (SIN), SingaporeStockholm (ARN), SwedenSydney (SYD), AustraliaThiruvananthapuram (TRV), IndiaToulouse (TLS), FranceTurin (TRN), ItalyVenice (VCE), ItalyVienna (VIE), AustriaWashington DC (IAD), United StatesZurich (ZRH), Switzerland

Are all the passengers residents?

Promo code

Read more:

Air Seychelles - Check out our great Mauritius fares to ...

Atheism | Psychology Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative |Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences |Personality | Philosophy | Social |Methods | Statistics |Clinical | Educational | Industrial |Professional items |World psychology |

Philosophy Index:Aesthetics Epistemology Ethics Logic Metaphysics Consciousness Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Science Social and Political philosophy Philosophies Philosophers List of lists

This article needs rewriting to enhance its relevance to psychologists..Please help to improve this page yourself if you can..

The 18th-century French author Baron d'Holbach was one of the first self-described atheists.

Atheism is the state of disbelief or non-belief[1] in the existence of a deity or deities.[2] It is commonly defined as the positive denial of theism (i.e., the assertion that deities do not exist),[3] or the deliberate rejection of theism (i.e., the refusal to believe in the existence of deities).[4] However, othersincluding most atheistic philosophers and groupsdefine atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[5][6][7] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as the unchurched or newborn children, as atheists as well.[8][9] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief that no gods exist (strong atheism), or of mere absense of belief that gods exist (weak atheism).[10]

Many self-described atheists share common skeptical concerns regarding empirical evidence for supernatural claims. They cite a lack of evidence for the existence of deities. Other rationales for atheism range from the personal to the philosophical to the social to the historical. Additionally, while atheists tend to accept secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, they do not necessarily adhere to any one particular ideology, nor does atheism have any institutionalized rituals or behaviors.[11]

Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or non-spirituality in Western culture,[12] but they are not the same. Some religious and spiritual beliefs, such as several forms of Buddhism, have been described by outside observers as conforming to the broader, negative definition of atheism due to their lack of any participating deities.[13] Atheism is also sometimes equated with antitheism (opposition to theism) or antireligion (opposition to religion). Some philosophers and academics, such as philosopher Jurgen Habermas call themselves "methodological atheists" (also known as or methodological naturalism)[14] to denote that whatever their personal beliefs, they do not include theistic presuppositions in their method.

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative - + "god") meant "godless". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th Century BCE, severing relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebs, or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheots ("atheism"). Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and pagans, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[15]

In English, the term atheism was adopted from the French athisme in about 1587. The term atheist in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves" predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571; the Italian atheoi is recorded as early as 1568. Atheist in the sense of practical godlessness was first attested in 1577. The French word is derived from athe ("godless, atheist"), which in turn comes from the Greek atheos. The words deist and theist entered English after atheism, being first attested in 1621 and 1662, respectively, and followed by theism and deism in 1678 and 1682, respectively. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism. Deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[16]

Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness",[17] atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God.[18] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God". Additionally, in recent decades there has increasingly been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism negatively, as "absence of belief in deities" rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though it has not attained mainstream usage.[19]

Many writers have disagreed on how best to define atheism, and much of the literature on the subject is erroneous or confusing. There are many discrepancies in the use of terminology between proponents and opponents of atheism, and even divergent definitions among those who share near-identical beliefs.

Throughout its history, opponents of atheism have frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of God or gods. This, in fact, is the original definition and sense of the word, but changing sensibilities and the normalization of non-religious viewpoints have caused the term to lose most of its pejorative connotations in general parlance.

Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are three major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe that gods don't exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism). George H. Smith, Michael Martin, and Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp. Using this definition of atheism, "implicit atheism", an absence of theism without the conscious rejection of it, may not be regarded as atheistic at all, and the umbrella term non-theism may be used in its place.

A third tradition, more common among people who are not atheists themselves, understands atheism even more narrowly than that. Here, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the positive belief that there are no deities. Under this definition, all weak atheism, whether implicit or explicit, may be considered non-atheistic. However, this definition is used by some atheists, such as philosopher Theodore Drange.[20]

The first attempts to define a typology of atheism were in religious apologetics. A diversity of atheist opinion has been recognized at least since Plato, and common distinctions have been established between practical atheism and speculative or contemplative atheism. Practical atheism was said to be caused by moral failure, hypocrisy, willful ignorance and infidelity. Practical atheists were said to behave as though God, morals, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. Jacques Maritain's typology of atheism (1953, Chapter 8) proved influential in Catholic circles;[21] it was followed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.[22] He identified, in addition to practical atheism, pseudo-atheism and absolute atheism, and subdivided theoretical atheism in a way that anticipated Flew.[23]

According to the French Catholic philosopher tienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."[24] Karen Armstrong notes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic.... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."[25]

On the other hand, the existence of serious, speculative atheism was often denied. That anyone might reason their way to atheism was thought to be impossible. The existence of God was considered self-evident; this is why Borne finds it necessary to respond that "to put forward the idea, as some apologists rashly do, that there are no atheists except in name but only practical atheists who through pride or idleness disregard the Divine law, would be, at least at the beginning of the argument, a rhetorical convenience or an emotional prejudice evading the real question".[26]

When denial of the existence of "speculative" atheism became unsustainable, atheism was nevertheless often repressed and criticized by narrowing definitions, applying charges of dogmatism, and otherwise misrepresenting atheist positions. One of the reasons for the popularity of euphemistic alternative terms like secularist, empiricist, agnostic, or Bright is that atheism still has pejorative connotations arising from attempts at suppression and from its association with practical atheism; like the word godless, it is sometimes still used as an abusive epithet today.[27][28][29] J.C.A. Gaskin abandoned the term atheism in favor of unbelief, citing "the pejorative associations of the term, its vagueness, and later the tendency of religious apologists to define atheism so that no one could be an atheist".[30] However, many atheists persist in using the term and seek to change its connotations.[31]

In modern times, atheism continues to be conflated with such beliefs as nihilism, irreligion, and antitheism. Antitheism typically refers to a direct opposition to theism; however, antitheism is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to God or divinity, rather than to the belief in God.[32] Under the latter definition, it may actually be necessary to be a theist in order to be an antitheist, to oppose God itself and not the idea of God. This position is seldom expressed, though opponents of atheism often claim that atheists hate God. Under the former definition, antitheists may be atheists who believe that theism is harmful to human progression, or simply ones who have little tolerance for views they perceive as irrational (cf. faith and rationality).[33] A related stance is militant atheism, which is generally characterized by antireligious views.[34]

Numerous dictionaries recognize the positive definition of atheism, as a "belief" or "doctrine". This reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief.[35]

In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this common definition is often disputed and even rejected. The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it.[36] One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheistfor he is not denying any theistic claims."[37]

Some atheists argue for a positive definition of atheism on the grounds that defining atheism negatively, as "the negation of theistic belief", makes it "parasitic on religion" and not an ideology in its own right. While most atheists welcome having atheism cast as non-ideological, in order to avoid potentially framing their view as one requiring "faith", writers such as Julian Baggini prefers to analyze atheism as part of a general philosophical movement towards naturalism in order to emphasize the explanatory power of a non-supernatural worldview.[38] Baggini rejects the negative definition based on his view that it implies that atheism is dependent on theism for its existence: "atheism no more needs religion than atheists do".[39] Harbour,[40] Thrower,[41] and Nielsen, similarly, have used philosophical naturalism to make a positive argument for atheism. Michael Martin notes that the view that "naturalism is compatible with nonatheism is true only if 'god' is understood in a most peculiar and misleading way", but he also points out that "atheism does not entail naturalism".[42]

A chart showing the relationship between weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Strong atheism is always explicit, and implicit atheism is always weak.

Among modern atheists, the view that atheism simply means "without theistic beliefs" has a great deal of currency.[43] This very broad definition is often justified by reference to the etymology (cf. privative a),[44] as well as to the consistent usage of the word by atheists.[45] However, others have dismissed the former justification as an etymological fallacy and the latter on the grounds that majority usage outweighs minority usage.[46]

Although this definition of atheism is frequently disputed, it is not a recent invention; as far back as the eighteenth century, d'Holbach (1772) said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[47] More recently, George H. Smith (1979) put a similar view:

Smith coined the terms implicit atheism and explicit atheism to avoid confusing these two varieties of atheism. Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while explicit atheismthe form commonly held to be the only true form of atheismis an absence of theistic belief due to conscious rejection.

Many similar dichotomies have since sprung up to subcategorize the broader definition of atheism. Strong, or positive, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism. A strong atheist consciously rejects theism, and may even argue that certain deities logically cannot exist. Weak, or negative, atheism is either the absence of the belief that gods exist (in which case anyone who is not a theist is a weak atheist), or of both the belief that gods exist and the belief that they do not exist (in which case anyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist is a weak atheist).[49] While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have existed for some time. The terms negative atheism and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[50] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[51]

Contrary to the common view of theological agnosticismthe denial of knowledge or certainty of the existence of deitiesas a "midway point" between theism and atheism, under this understanding of atheism, many agnostics may qualify as weak atheists (cf. agnostic atheism). However, others may be agnostic theists. Many agnostics and/or weak atheists are critical of strong atheism, seeing it as a position that is no more justified than theism, or as one that requires equal "faith".[52][53]

Karl Marx's atheistic and antireligious views had a strong influence on 20th-century politics.

Although the term atheism originated in 16th-century France, ideas that would be recognized today as atheistic existed before the advent of Classical antiquity. Eastern philosophy has a long history of nontheistic belief, starting with Laozi and Siddhartha Gautama in the 6th Century BCE. Western atheism has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[54] The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist", and strongly criticized religion and mysticism. Epicurus was an early philosopher to dispute many religious beliefs, including the existence of an afterlife or a personal deity.

Atheists have been subject to significant persecution and discrimination throughout history. Atheism has been a criminal offense in many parts of the world, and in some cases a "wrong belief" was equated with "unbelief" in order to condemn someone with differing beliefs as an "atheist". For example, despite having expressed belief in various divinities, Socrates was called an atheos and ultimately sentenced to death for impiety on the grounds that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[55][56] During the late Roman Empire, many Christians were executed for "atheism" because of their rejection of the Roman gods, and "heresy" and "godlessness" were serious capital offenses following the rise of Christianity.

Atheistic sentiment was virtually unknown in medieval Europe, but flourished in the empirical Carvaka school of India. Criticism of religion became increasingly frequent in the 16th century, and the word athisme originated as a slurinvariably denied by the accusedused against such critics, as well as against deists, scientists, and materialists.[57] The first openly atheistic thinkers, such as Baron d'Holbach, appeared in the late 18th century, when expressing disbelief in God became a less dangerous position.[58] Following the French Revolution, atheism rose to prominence under the influence of rationalistic and freethinking philosophies, and many prominent 19th-century German philosophers denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche (see "God is dead").[59]

In the 20th century, atheism, though still a minority view, became increasingly common in many parts of the world, often being spread as aspects of a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, relativism, logical positivism, Marxism, and the general scientific and rationalist movement. In some cases, these philosophies became associated with atheism to the extent that atheists were vilified for the broader view, such as when the word atheist entered popular parliance in the United States as synonymous with being unpatriotic (cf. "godless commie") during the Cold War. Some "Communist states", such as the Soviet Union, promoted state atheism and opposed religion, often by violent means;[60]

Enver Hoxha went further than most and officially banned religion in Albania. These policies helped reinforce the negative associations of atheism, especially where anti-communist sentiment was strong, despite the fact that many prominent atheists, such as Ayn Rand, were anti-communist.[61]

Other prominent atheists in recent times have included comedians Woody Allen and Ricky Gervais,[62] biologist Richard Dawkins,[63] actress Katharine Hepburn,[64] author Douglas Adams,[65] philosopher Bertrand Russell,[66] dictator Joseph Stalin,[67] and activist Margaret Sanger.[62]

The percentage of people in European countries who said in 2005 that they "believe there is a God".

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in certain regions.

Despite these problems, atheism is known to be relatively common in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, former and present Communist states, and to a lesser extent, the United States. A 1995 survey attributed to the Encyclopdia Britannica indicates that the non-religious make up about 14.7% of the world's population, and atheists around 3.8%.[68]

Today, and in the recent past, several nations have mandated state atheism, including the former governments of the Soviet Union,[69][70] Albania,[71][72][73] and currently, China,[74][75] North Korea,[76][75] and Cuba.[75][77]

According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in 2002, there seems to be an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell finds that all but four reported such a connection, concluding that "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind." A survey published in Nature confirms that belief in a personal god or afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal god as compared to more than 85% of the US general population. However, an article published by The University of Chicago Chronicle that discussed this study, stated that 76 percent of physicians believe in God while being highly educated.[78] Moreover, another study by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally as compared with 81% of the general U.S. population.[78]

Noteworthy organizations that are atheistic or have atheistic sympathies include:

Many organizations that promote skepticism of paranormal claims have strong atheistic leanings but remain offically neutral on the existence of God. Examples include Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), The Skeptics Society, and the James Randi Educational Foundation. Martin Gardner, a noted member of the first two of these organizations, is a deist.

In 2002, a group of people organized the "Godless Americans March on Washington". Though it was broadcast on C-SPAN, the march was not well attended and received little or no press coverage.

The James Randi Educational Foundation holds an annual conference, The Amaz!ng Meeting, typically in Las Vegas, casting a critical eye on various forms of supernatural phenomena, including religious ones.

The Skeptics Society holds an annual conference at Caltech (California Institute of Technology) in Pasadena, California. Subjects of skepticism, including religion, are often discussed.

The CSER (Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion) questions the validity of religion at its annual conference.

Because of its lack of a personal God, Buddhism is commonly described as atheistic.

Although people who self-identify as being atheists are almost invariably assumed to be irreligious, there are many atheists who describe themselves as adhering to a certain religion, and even major religions that have been described as having atheistic leanings, particularly under the negative definition. Atheism in Hinduism, in Buddhism, and in other Eastern religions has an especially long history,[79] but in recent years certain liberal religious denominations have accumulated a number of openly atheistic followers, such as Jewish atheists (cf. humanistic Judaism)[80][81] and Christian atheists (cf. Unitarian Universalism).[82][83][84]

As atheism does not entail any specific beliefs outside of disbelief in God, atheists can hold any number of spiritual beliefs. For the same reason, atheists can hold a wide variety of ethical beliefs, ranging from the moral universalism of humanism, which holds that a moral code (such as utilitarianism) should be applied consistently to all humans (cf. human rights), to moral nihilism, which holds that morality is meaningless.[85]

However, throughout its history, atheism has commonly been equated with immorality, based on the belief that morality is directly derived from God, and thus cannot be intelligibly attained without appealing to God.[86][87] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judge. However, many atheists argue that treating morality legalistically involves a false analogy, and that morality does not depend upon a lawmaker in the same way that laws do,[88] based on the Euthyphro dilemma, which either renders God unnecessary or morality arbitrary.[89] Atheists also assert that behaving ethically only because of divine mandate is not true ethical behavior, merely blind obedience.[90] see Christian morality.

Some atheists, in fact, have argued that atheism is a superior basis for ethics than theism. It is argued that a moral basis external to religious imperatives is necessary in order to evaluate the morality of the imperatives themselvesto be able to discern, for example, that "thou shalt steal" is immoral even if one's religion instructs itand that therefore atheists have the advantage of being more inclined to make such evaluations.[91]

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have argued that Western religions' reliance on divine authority lends itself to authoritarianism and dogmatism.[92] This argument, combined with historical events which are argued to demonstrate the dangers of religion, such as the inquisitions and witch trials, is often used by atheists to justify their antireligious views;[93] however, theists have made very similar arguments against atheists based on the state atheism of communist states.[94] In both cases, critics argue that the connection is a weak one based on the correlation implies causation and guilt by association fallacies.

A comprehensive study by The Barna Group found that "no-faith" individuals (defined as anyone who openly identified themselves as an atheist, an agnostic, or who specifically said they have "no faith") are less likely than "active faith" individuals (defined as simply having gone to church, read the Bible and prayed during the week preceding the survey) to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).[95][96][97] Those in the "no-faith" group were also found to be more focused on living a comfortable, balanced lifestyle (12% versus 4%) or acquiring wealth (10% versus 2%).[95][96][97]

According to the World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates, nine of ten of the nations with the highest male suicide rates are strongly irreligious nations with the highest levels of atheism, while countries with the lowest male suicide rates are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.[98] Sociologist Phil Zuckerman also published these same results concerning male suicide rates and atheism.[99]

Atheists assert various reasons for their position, including a lack of empirical evidence for deities, or the conviction that the non-existence of deities (in general or particular) is better supported rationally.

American Atheists represent atheism with an atom, symbolizing the importance of science to many atheists.

Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be tested and replicated through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions and engineering (cf. faith and rationality, science and religion). Like scientists, scientific skeptics use critical thinking (cf. the true-believer syndrome) to decide claims, and do not base claims on faith or other unfalsifiable categories.

Theistic religions teach that mankind and the universe were created by one or more deities and that this deity continues to act in the universe. Many peopletheists and atheists alikefeel that this view conflicts with the discoveries of modern science (especially in cosmology, astronomy, biology and quantum physics). Many believers in the validity of science, seeing such a contradiction, do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities actively involved in the universe.

Science presents a vastly different view of humankind's place in the universe from theistic religions. Scientific progress has continually eroded the basis for religion. Historically, religions have involved supernatural entities and forces linked to unexplained physical phenomena. In ancient Greece, for instance, Helios was the god of the sun, Zeus the god of thunder, and Poseidon the god of earthquakes and the sea. In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining phenomena, people attributed them to supernatural forces. Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations. The idea that the role of deities is to fill in the remaining "gaps" in scientific understanding has come to be known as the God of the gaps.[100]

Religions have been socially constructed (see development of religion) and should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Atheists often argue that nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god (e.g., Yahweh) has a special status above gods otherwise not believed to be real (e.g., Zeus), or that one culture's god is more correct than another's (indeed, it is apparent that most cultures 'pick and mix' the parts of their chosen religion they like, conveniently ignoring parts they disagree with). In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.[101]

However, when theological claims move from the specific and observable to the general and metaphysical, atheistic objections tend to shift from the scientific to the philosophical:

Many atheists will point out that in philosophy and science, the default position on any matter is a lack of belief. If reliable evidence or sound arguments are not presented in support of a belief, then the "burden of proof" remains upon believers, not nonbelievers, to justify their view.[103][104] Consequently, many atheists assert that they are not theists simply because they remain unconvinced by theistic arguments and evidence. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous proposed proofs of God's existence, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.[105]

Other atheists base their position on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The arguments against the existence of God aim at showing that the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God either is inherently meaningless, is internally inconsistent, or contradicts known scientific or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.

The most common of these arguments is the problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called "atheism's killer argument". The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so. Theists commonly respond by invoking free will to justify evil (cf. argument from free will), but this leaves unresolved the related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed in by all, it would prove its existence to all because it would invariably be able to do so. Since there are unbelievers, either there is no omnipotent God or God does not want to be believed in.

Another such argument is theological noncognitivism, which holds that religious language, and specifically words like God, is not cognitively meaningful. This argument was popular in the early 20th century among logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A.J. Ayer, who held that talk of deities is literally nonsense.[106] Such arguments have since fallen into disfavor among philosophers, but continue to see use among ignostics, who view the question of whether deities exist as meaningless or unanswerable, and apatheists, who view it as entirely irrelevant. Similarly, the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG) is a rebuttal to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science and morality can only be justified by appealing to the theistic worldview, that argues that the reverse is true.

Some atheists have found social, psychological, practical, and other personal reasons for their beliefs. Some believe that it is more conducive to living well, or that it is more ethical and has more utility than theism. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations in natural science is more beneficial than seeking to explain phenomena supernaturally. Some atheists also assert that atheism allowsor perhaps even requirespeople to take personal responsibility for their actions. In contrast, they feel that many religions blame bad deeds on extrinsic factors and require threats of punishment and promises of reward to keep a person moral and socially acceptable.

Some atheists dislike the restrictions religious codes of conduct place on their personal freedoms. From their point of view, such morality is subjective and arbitrary. Some atheists even argue that theism can promote immorality. Much violencee.g., warfare, executions, murders, and terrorismhas been brought about, condoned, or justified by religious beliefs and practices.

In areas dominated by certain Christian denominations, many atheists find it difficult to accept that faith could be more important than good works: While a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting Jesus in some Christian sects, a farmer in a remote Asian countryside will go to hell for not hearing the "good news". Furthermore, some find Hell to be the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment, making it impossible that a good God would permit such a place's existence.

Just as some people of faith come to their faith based upon perceived spiritual or religious experiences, some atheists base their view on an absence of such an experience. Although they may not foreclose the possibility of a supernatural world, unless and until they believe through experience that such a world exists, they refuse to accept a metaphysical belief system based upon blind faith.

Additionally, some atheists grow up in environments where atheism is relatively common, just as people who grow up in a predominantly Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian cultures tend to adopt the prevalent religion there. However, because of the relative uncommonness of atheism, a majority of atheists were not brought up in atheist households or communities.

The most direct criticisms made against atheism are that it is simply untrue: arguments for the existence of God are thus considered arguments against atheism. However, many theists dismiss or object to atheism on other grounds.

Until recently, most theologians considered the existence of God so self-evident and universally-accepted that the question of whether or not true atheism even existed was frequently disputed. This view is based on theistic innatism, the belief that all people believe in God from birth and that atheists are simply in denial.[107] According to proponents of this view, atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisisthat atheists will readily make deathbed conversions or that "there are no atheists in foxholes". When the existence of atheism is accepted, it is often criticized by agnostics, and some theists, on the grounds that atheism requires just as much faith as religious positions, making it no more likely to be true than theism. This is based on the view that because the existence of deities cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that deities do or do not exist. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions; that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus or the flying spaghetti monster;[108] and that the fact that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven with complete certainty does not make it equally likely that God does or doesn't exist.[109]

Lastly, it is commonly argued that the lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics (cf. secular ethics).[108][110] It is also argued that atheism makes life meaningless and miserable; Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1670.[111] Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as appeals to consequences with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery, or argue that in fact the opposite is the case.[112][113]

See original here:

Atheism | Psychology Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Atheism

About Atheism [Index]

Various introductions to atheism, including its definition; its relationship to agnosticism, theism, and noncognitivism; and its value.

Arguments for Atheism [Index]

In this section, "arguments for atheism" means "arguments for the nonexistence of God." In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, such arguments are known as "atheological arguments." The argument from evil (sometimes referred to as 'the problem of evil') is by far the most famous of such arguments, but it is by no means the only such argument. Indeed, in the 1990s atheist philosophers developed a flurry of atheological arguments; arguably the most famous of such arguments is the argument from divine hiddenness (and the related argument from nonbelief).

Atheism, Theism, and the Burden of Proof [Index]

Debates [Index]

Links to transcripts or reviews of debates specifically about atheism (as opposed to debates about Christianity, Islam, creation/evolution, etc.).

Media & Reviews [Index]

Books, magazines, movies, and book reviews having to do with atheism.

Morality and Atheism [Index]

This page addresses the relationship between morality and atheism, especially in the following four areas: (1) on average, are atheists as moral as theists? (2) why should atheists be moral? (3) can life without God have meaning? and (4) does atheism entail a certain view on specific moral questions? (NOTE: this page does not address moral arguments for God's existence, or whether morality is subjective.)

Outreach [Index]

Links to various articles which discuss whether atheists should engage in outreach and, if so, how they may do so effectively.

Recommended Sites [Index]

This page is NOT intended to be a list of all personal home pages maintained by atheists. Rather, this page is only intended to list some exceptionally good home pages on the Internet.

Jeffery Jay Lowder maintains this page.

See the article here:

Atheism

Atrocities Against Native Americans – United to End Genocide

Numerous atrocities against Native Americans span the hundreds of years from the first arrival of European explorers to the modern era under a wide range of circumstances. Today there are over 500 Native American tribes in the United States, each with a distinct culture, way of life and history. Even today, Native Americans face large challenges to cope with the disadvantages history has left them and ongoing cases of discrimination.

An estimated 12,000 years ago, a mass migration of nomadic peoples, traveled across a land bridge that connected Asia to what is now Alaska. These people would come to be called Native Americans, numbering over 50 million, and settling from the top of North America to the bottom of South America.

By the time Christopher Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492, historians estimate that there were 10 million indigenous peoples living in U.S. territory. But by 1900, the number had reduced to less than 300,000.

European expansion into North America whether to find gold, escape religious persecution or start a new life led to the destruction of Native American livelihoods. Disease was a major killer, followed by malnutrition. Colonists in search of gold staged violent ambushes on tribal villages, fueling animosity with Natives. Several wars broke out between tribes and American settlers which led to large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism.

Unlike the U.S. Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, which led to blanket legal reform, Native Americans gained civil and legal rights piece by piece. In 1924, the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, giving Native Americans a dual citizenship they were citizens of their sovereign native land as well as the United States. Native Americans gained uniform voting rights in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But it wasnt until 1968, when the Indian Civil Rights Act was passed, that Natives gained the right to free speech, the right to a jury and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

While the Native Americans history began thousands of years ago, their European encounter started with one man. Determined to find a direct route from Europe to Asia, Christopher Columbus stumbled on the Americas in 1492.

Columbus called the first people he met Indians because he assumed he had been sailing in the Indian Ocean. But in actuality, this land had already been discovered millions of Natives had occupied the Western Hemisphere for hundreds of years.

Ultimately, while Columbus is remembered as a daring adventurer, he was also a perpetrator of atrocities and his legacy is viewed as the starting point that sparked hundreds of years of exploration and exploitation of the Americas.

The most significant reason for Natives decline was disease an invisible killer that wiped out an estimated 90% of the population. Unlike the Europeans and Asians, whose lifestyle had a long history of sharing close quarters with domesticated animals, Native Americans were not immune to pathogens spread by domesticated cows, pigs, sheep, goats, and horses. As a result, millions were killed by measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, scarlet fever and syphilis.

Spreading disease was not always intentional on the part of the colonists. But there were a few instances that confirm Europeans attempt to exterminate natives. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened British garrisons in Pennsylvania. Worried about limited resources, and driven by atrocities committed by some Native Americans , Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt:

You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.

Consequently, settlers spread smallpox to the Native Americans by distributing blankets previously owned by contagious patients.

Cultural clashes between European settlers and Natives lasted for over four hundred years small battles, large scale wars and forced labor systems on large estates, also known as encomiendas took a large toll on the Native population.

Throughout the Northeast, proclamations to create redskins, or scalps of Native Americans, were common during war and peace times. According to the 1775 Phips Proclamation in Massachusetts, King George II of Britain called for subjects to embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.

Colonists were paid for each Penobscot Native they killed fifty pounds for adult male scalps, twenty-five for adult female scalps, and twenty for scalps of boys and girls under age twelve. These proclamations explicitly display the settlers intent to kill, a major indicator of genocidal acts.

After the American Revolution, many Native American lives were already lost to disease and displacement. In 1830, the federal Indian Removal Act called for the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole. Between 1830 and 1838, federal officials working on behalf of white cotton growers forced nearly 100,000 Indians out of their homeland. The dangerous journey from the southern states to Indian Territory in current Oklahoma is referred to as the Trail of Tears in which 4,000 Cherokee people died of cold, hunger, and disease.

As the United States expanded westward, violent conflicts over territory multiplied. In 1784, one British traveler noted:

White Americans have the most rancorous antipathy to the whole race of Indians; and nothing is more common than to hear them talk of extirpating them totally from the face of the earth, men, women, and children.

In particular, the 1848 California gold rush caused 300,000 people to migrate to San Francisco from the East Coast and South America. Historians believe that California was once the most densely and diversely populated area for Native Americans in U.S. territory; however, the gold rush had massive implications for Native American livelihoods. Toxic chemicals and gravel ruined traditional Native hunting and agricultural practices, resulting in starvation for many Natives.

Further, in 1850, the California state government passed the Act for the Government and Protection of Indians that addressed the punishment and protection of Native Americans, and helped to facilitate the removal of their culture and land. It also legalized slavery and was referenced for the buying and selling of Native children.

A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct.California Governor Peter H. Burnett, 1851

In 1890, Wounded Knee, located on the Pine Ridge Reservation in North Dakota, government officials believed chief Sitting Bull was a Ghost Dancer, someone who rejects the ways of the white man and believes that the gods will create a new world without non-believers. In the process of arresting Sitting Bull, federal officials actually ended up killing him, causing a massive rebellion that led to the deaths of over 150 Natives in Pine Ridge.

Since the early 1900s, advancements in Native American rights have been slow and piece-meal. At the turn of century, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. federal government has the right to overturn all Cherokee laws in the precedent-setting decision Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock.

But, in 1928, the Brookings Institute released the Meriam Report, which was one of the first in-depth analyses of reservation living conditions. The report went on to influence policy initiatives which improved healthcare, education, and land rights for Native Americans. This was a step forward for the protection of a minority who was still without voting rights.

In 1949, however, the U.S. government took a step back towards 19thcentury bigotry, as the Hoover Commission urged the assimilation of the Natives,

The basis for historic Indian culture has been swept away. Traditional tribal organization was smashed a generation ago . Assimilation must be the dominant goal of public policy.

One year later, using the same post-war idea that prevented Little Tokyos in the U.S., the Commissioner of Indian Affairs began to implement withdrawal planning, or the termination and relocation of thousands of Natives to cities.

In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act which protects Native American children and the custody of their parents. Controversy has surrounded cases where state officials forcibly removed children from Native American families.

In Maine, the Maine Truth and Reconciliation Committee, for example, seeks to uncover and acknowledge the truth about what happened to Wabanaki children and families involved with the Maine child welfare system. These forcible removals are still happening today.

South Dakota continues to remove children at a rate higher than the vast majority of other states in the country.

For hundreds of years a mixture of colonial conflict, disease, specific atrocities and policies of discrimination has devastated the Native American population. In the course of this time, it is estimated that over nine million Natives died from violent conflict or disease. For too long this history has been under-recognized and too little discussed.

Go here to read the rest:

Atrocities Against Native Americans - United to End Genocide

Bahamas Vacation Packages & Travel Deals | Atlantis Paradise …

1. Rates from $219 per night: Price listed are starting rates per night, based on double occupancy for Beach Tower Terrace room. Prices for other room categories may be higher based on tower and travel dates. Additional charges apply for more than two persons per room. This offer is valid for new bookings only made from 12/18/18 12/25/18 and for travel 12/18/18 through 12/20/19. The resort credit is not available for stays that include these dates: 12/20/18 1/4/19, 2/9/19 4/27/19, 7/7/19 7/12/19, 11/27/19 11/29/19. 3-night min stay required. Weekend prices may be higher. A 23.20% charge on room rate applies (includes VAT, levies and other taxes and surcharges). In addition, guests of Atlantis, The Cove Atlantis and The Reef Atlantis (but not Harborside Resort) will be required to pay a resort fee of $49.95 plus a $6.00 VAT charge per room per night, totaling $55.95 per room per night. This offer does not apply to Harborside Resort. Blackout dates may be added. These rates are subject to availability of qualified room types and may be changed or canceled without notice. Offer not combinable with any other offer except the Atlantis Resort Credit up to $300. Offer is for new bookings only. Not applicable to groups. These terms and conditions are subject to change from time to time at the discretion of the resort.

2. ATLANTIS RESORT CREDIT UP TO $300:

3-nightresort credit- The Beach resort credit is $30 per room, per stay. The Coral resort credit is $65 per room, per stay. The Royal resort credit is $100 per room, per stay. Resort Credit is only valid for new bookings and is subject to a3-nightminimum stay.

4-nightresort credit - The Beach resort credit is $50 per room, per stay. The Coral resort credit is $90 per room, per stay. The Royal resort credit is $150 per room, per stay. Resort Credit is only valid for new bookings and is subject to a4-nightminimum stay.

5-nightresort credit - The Beach resort credit is $75 per room, per stay. The Coral resort credit is $125 per room, per stay. The Royal resort credit is $200 per room, per stay. Resort Credit is only valid for new bookings and is subject to a5-nightminimum stay.

6-nightresort credit - The Beach resort credit is $150 per room, per stay. The Coral resort credit is $175 per room, per stay. The Royal resort credit is $250 per room, per stay. Resort Credit is only valid for new bookings and is subject to a6-nightminimum stay.

7 nights and more resort credit - The Beach resort credit is $200 per room, per stay. The Coral resort credit is $225 per room, per stay. The Royal resort credit is $300 per room, per stay. Resort Credit is only valid for new bookings and is subject to a7-nightminimum stay.

Resort credit is a one-time credit and applicable per room per stay. This offer is valid for new bookings only made from 12/11/2018 - 12/25/2018. The resort credit offer is available for stays beginning on 11/28/2018 and ending on 11/30/2019. Resort Credit is non-cumulative and may not be used in conjunction with any other Resort Credit within a five day period. The resort credit is not available for stays that include these dates: 11/16/2018 11/23/2018, 12/20/2018 1/04/2019, 2/09/2019 4/27/2019, 7/7/2019 7/12/2019, 11/27/2019 11/29/2019. Blackout dates are subject to change and offer subject to availability. Resort credit is not applicable for bookings at The Cove, The Reef or Harborside Resort. Not applicable to groups. Stays that cross the effective travel dates will not receive the resort credit for their stay. Resort credit cannot be used towards the cost of the room. The credit begins on the date of arrival and expires upon checkout. No credit will be issued for any unused amount. 2 bedroom suites are considered 1 room for purposes of this offer. This offer has no cash value. Resort credit may be used for Dolphin & Marine Adventures, Atlantis Kids Adventures, CRUSH, Atlantis Pals, Atlantis Speedway, Atlantis LIVE performances, or select food and beverage outlets. Resort credit may not be used for laundry service or at any of the following outlets: Mandara Spa, Ocean Club Golf Course, the Casino, Marina Starbucks, the Atlantis Signature shops or any other retail shops. It may not be used on gratuities for food and beverage consumption, in-room movies or phone calls, transportation/transfers, or taxes and Energy Surcharges. Offer is only applicable on reservation earning Marriott Rewards points and is not applicable to reservations booked using a Marriott Rewards points.

3. Bonus Resort Credit includes a $150 per room at the Beach, Coral Royal, Cove and Reef Atlantis. This offer is valid for new bookings only made on 12/18 12/25/18 and for travel 12/18/18 through 12/20/19. 3-night min stay required. This offer does not apply to The Harborside Resort. Additional blackout dates may be added at any time. The Bonus Resort Credit of $150 is not combinable with other offers except the Rates from $209 per Night Offer and the Atlantis Beach, Coral and Royal Resort Credit up to $300 offer that is valid for travel 12/18/18 through 12/20/19, as well as the Cove and Reef $200.00 that is valid for travel December 18 25, 2018. This offer has no cash value. Does not apply to groups. Resort credit is a one-time credit and applicable per room per stay. Stays that cross the effective travel dates will not receive the resort credit for their stay. Resort credit cannot be used towards the cost of the room. The credit begins on the date of arrival and expires upon checkout. No credit will be issued for any unused amount. 2-bedroom suites are considered 1 room for purposes of this offer. This offer has no cash value. Resort credit may be used for Dolphin & Marine Adventures, Atlantis Kids Adventures, CRUSH, Atlantis Pals, Atlantis Speedway, Atlantis LIVE performances, or select food and beverage outlets. Resort credit may not be used for laundry service or at any of the following outlets: Mandara Spa, Ocean Club Golf Course, the Casino, Marina Starbucks, the Atlantis Signature shops or any other retail shops. It may not be used on gratuities for food and beverage consumption, in-room movies or phone calls, transportation/transfers, or taxes and Energy Surcharges.

Click Here to view our full Terms & Conditions

Originally posted here:

Bahamas Vacation Packages & Travel Deals | Atlantis Paradise ...

THE 10 BEST Bahamas Hotel Deals (Dec 2018) – TripAdvisor

384 properties in Bahamas

Sort by:

Featured

Featured"Featured" sorts properties using exclusive TripAdvisor data, including traveler ratings, confirmed availability from our partners, prices, booking popularity, location and personal user preferences. It also takes into account any compensation that may be paid to us by accommodations and booking sites.

Traveler RankedHighest rated hotels on TripAdvisor, based on traveler reviews.

Best ValueProperties ranked using exclusive TripAdvisor data, including traveler ratings, confirmed availability from our partners, prices, booking popularity, location and personal user preferences.

Lowest priceSee properties from lowest to highest priced

DistanceSee properties located closest to the center first with confirmed availability for your dates from our partners

Sort Featured

Filter

384 properties in Bahamas

Sort

Featured

"Featured" sorts properties using exclusive TripAdvisor data, including traveler ratings, confirmed availability from our partners, prices, booking popularity, location and personal user preferences. It also takes into account any compensation that may be paid to us by accommodations and booking sites.

Traveler Ranked

Highest rated hotels on TripAdvisor, based on traveler reviews.

Best Value

Properties ranked using exclusive TripAdvisor data, including traveler ratings, confirmed availability from our partners, prices, booking popularity, location and personal user preferences.

Lowest price

See properties from lowest to highest priced

Distance

See properties located closest to the center first with confirmed availability for your dates from our partners

More here:

THE 10 BEST Bahamas Hotel Deals (Dec 2018) - TripAdvisor

First Amendment and Religion | United States Courts

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court inLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, inPrince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.

Check outsimilar casesrelated toEngel v. Vitalethat deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Follow this link:

First Amendment and Religion | United States Courts

Three Laws of Robotics – Wikipedia

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or known as Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround" (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although they had been foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

These form an organizing principle and unifying theme for Asimov's robotic-based fiction, appearing in his Robot series, the stories linked to it, and his Lucky Starr series of young-adult fiction. The Laws are incorporated into almost all of the positronic robots appearing in his fiction, and cannot be bypassed, being intended as a safety feature. Many of Asimov's robot-focused stories involve robots behaving in unusual and counter-intuitive ways as an unintended consequence of how the robot applies the Three Laws to the situation in which it finds itself. Other authors working in Asimov's fictional universe have adopted them and references, often parodic, appear throughout science fiction as well as in other genres.

The original laws have been altered and elaborated on by Asimov and other authors. Asimov himself made slight modifications to the first three in various books and short stories to further develop how robots would interact with humans and each other. In later fiction where robots had taken responsibility for government of whole planets and human civilizations, Asimov also added a fourth, or zeroth law, to precede the others:

The Three Laws, and the zeroth, have pervaded science fiction and are referred to in many books, films, and other media, and have impacted thought on ethics of artificial intelligence as well.

In The Rest of the Robots, published in 1964, Asimov noted that when he began writing in 1940 he felt that "one of the stock plots of science fiction was... robots were created and destroyed their creator. Knowledge has its dangers, yes, but is the response to be a retreat from knowledge? Or is knowledge to be used as itself a barrier to the dangers it brings?" He decided that in his stories robots would not "turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust."[2]

On May 3, 1939, Asimov attended a meeting of the Queens (New York) Science Fiction Society where he met Earl and Otto Binder who had recently published a short story "I, Robot" featuring a sympathetic robot named Adam Link who was misunderstood and motivated by love and honor. (This was the first of a series of ten stories; the next year "Adam Link's Vengeance" (1940) featured Adam thinking "A robot must never kill a human, of his own free will.")[3] Asimov admired the story. Three days later Asimov began writing "my own story of a sympathetic and noble robot", his 14th story.[4] Thirteen days later he took "Robbie" to John W. Campbell the editor of Astounding Science-Fiction. Campbell rejected it, claiming that it bore too strong a resemblance to Lester del Rey's "Helen O'Loy", published in December 1938; the story of a robot that is so much like a person that she falls in love with her creator and becomes his ideal wife.[5] Frederik Pohl published "Robbie" in Astonishing Stories magazine the following year.[6]

Asimov attributes the Three Laws to John W. Campbell, from a conversation that took place on 23 December 1940. Campbell claimed that Asimov had the Three Laws already in his mind and that they simply needed to be stated explicitly. Several years later Asimov's friend Randall Garrett attributed the Laws to a symbiotic partnership between the two men a suggestion that Asimov adopted enthusiastically.[7] According to his autobiographical writings, Asimov included the First Law's "inaction" clause because of Arthur Hugh Clough's poem "The Latest Decalogue" (text in Wikisource), which includes the satirical lines "Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive / officiously to keep alive".[8]

Although Asimov pins the creation of the Three Laws on one particular date, their appearance in his literature happened over a period. He wrote two robot stories with no explicit mention of the Laws, "Robbie" and "Reason". He assumed, however, that robots would have certain inherent safeguards. "Liar!", his third robot story, makes the first mention of the First Law but not the other two. All three laws finally appeared together in "Runaround". When these stories and several others were compiled in the anthology I, Robot, "Reason" and "Robbie" were updated to acknowledge all the Three Laws, though the material Asimov added to "Reason" is not entirely consistent with the Three Laws as he described them elsewhere.[9] In particular the idea of a robot protecting human lives when it does not believe those humans truly exist is at odds with Elijah Baley's reasoning, as described below.

During the 1950s Asimov wrote a series of science fiction novels expressly intended for young-adult audiences. Originally his publisher expected that the novels could be adapted into a long-running television series, something like The Lone Ranger had been for radio. Fearing that his stories would be adapted into the "uniformly awful" programming he saw flooding the television channels[10] Asimov decided to publish the Lucky Starr books under the pseudonym "Paul French". When plans for the television series fell through, Asimov decided to abandon the pretence; he brought the Three Laws into Lucky Starr and the Moons of Jupiter, noting that this "was a dead giveaway to Paul French's identity for even the most casual reader".[11]

In his short story "Evidence" Asimov lets his recurring character Dr. Susan Calvin expound a moral basis behind the Three Laws. Calvin points out that human beings are typically expected to refrain from harming other human beings (except in times of extreme duress like war, or to save a greater number) and this is equivalent to a robot's First Law. Likewise, according to Calvin, society expects individuals to obey instructions from recognized authorities such as doctors, teachers and so forth which equals the Second Law of Robotics. Finally humans are typically expected to avoid harming themselves which is the Third Law for a robot.

The plot of "Evidence" revolves around the question of telling a human being apart from a robot constructed to appear human Calvin reasons that if such an individual obeys the Three Laws he may be a robot or simply "a very good man". Another character then asks Calvin if robots are very different from human beings after all. She replies, "Worlds different. Robots are essentially decent."

Asimov later wrote that he should not be praised for creating the Laws, because they are "obvious from the start, and everyone is aware of them subliminally. The Laws just never happened to be put into brief sentences until I managed to do the job. The Laws apply, as a matter of course, to every tool that human beings use",[12] and "analogues of the Laws are implicit in the design of almost all tools, robotic or not":[13]

Asimov believed that, ideally, humans would also follow the Laws:[12]

I have my answer ready whenever someone asks me if I think that my Three Laws of Robotics will actually be used to govern the behavior of robots, once they become versatile and flexible enough to be able to choose among different courses of behavior.

My answer is, "Yes, the Three Laws are the only way in which rational human beings can deal with robotsor with anything else."

But when I say that, I always remember (sadly) that human beings are not always rational.

Asimov's stories test his Three Laws in a wide variety of circumstances leading to proposals and rejection of modifications. Science fiction scholar James Gunn writes in 1982, "The Asimov robot stories as a whole may respond best to an analysis on this basis: the ambiguity in the Three Laws and the ways in which Asimov played twenty-nine variations upon a theme".[14] While the original set of Laws provided inspirations for many stories, Asimov introduced modified versions from time to time.

In "Little Lost Robot" several NS-2, or "Nestor", robots are created with only part of the First Law.[1] It reads:

1. A robot may not harm a human being.

This modification is motivated by a practical difficulty as robots have to work alongside human beings who are exposed to low doses of radiation. Because their positronic brains are highly sensitive to gamma rays the robots are rendered inoperable by doses reasonably safe for humans. The robots are being destroyed attempting to rescue the humans who are in no actual danger but "might forget to leave" the irradiated area within the exposure time limit. Removing the First Law's "inaction" clause solves this problem but creates the possibility of an even greater one: a robot could initiate an action that would harm a human (dropping a heavy weight and failing to catch it is the example given in the text), knowing that it was capable of preventing the harm and then decide not to do so.[1]

Gaia is a planet with collective intelligence in the Foundation which adopts a law similar to the First Law, and the Zeroth Law, as its philosophy:

Gaia may not harm life or allow life to come to harm.

Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"so named to continue the pattern where lower-numbered laws supersede the higher-numbered lawsstating that a robot must not harm humanity. The robotic character R. Daneel Olivaw was the first to give the Zeroth Law a name in the novel Robots and Empire;[15] however, the character Susan Calvin articulates the concept in the short story "The Evitable Conflict".

In the final scenes of the novel Robots and Empire, R. Giskard Reventlov is the first robot to act according to the Zeroth Law. Giskard is telepathic, like the robot Herbie in the short story "Liar!", and tries to apply the Zeroth Law through his understanding of a more subtle concept of "harm" than most robots can grasp.[16] However, unlike Herbie, Giskard grasps the philosophical concept of the Zeroth Law allowing him to harm individual human beings if he can do so in service to the abstract concept of humanity. The Zeroth Law is never programmed into Giskard's brain but instead is a rule he attempts to comprehend through pure metacognition. Though he fails it ultimately destroys his positronic brain as he is not certain whether his choice will turn out to be for the ultimate good of humanity or not he gives his successor R. Daneel Olivaw his telepathic abilities. Over the course of many thousands of years Daneel adapts himself to be able to fully obey the Zeroth Law. As Daneel formulates it, in the novels Foundation and Earth and Prelude to Foundation, the Zeroth Law reads:

A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

A condition stating that the Zeroth Law must not be broken was added to the original Three Laws, although Asimov recognized the difficulty such a law would pose in practice. Asimov's novel Foundation and Earth contains the following passage:

Trevize frowned. "How do you decide what is injurious, or not injurious, to humanity as a whole?"

"Precisely, sir," said Daneel. "In theory, the Zeroth Law was the answer to our problems. In practice, we could never decide. A human being is a concrete object. Injury to a person can be estimated and judged. Humanity is an abstraction."

A translator incorporated the concept of the Zeroth Law into one of Asimov's novels before Asimov himself made the law explicit.[17] Near the climax of The Caves of Steel, Elijah Baley makes a bitter comment to himself thinking that the First Law forbids a robot from harming a human being. He determines that it must be so unless the robot is clever enough to comprehend that its actions are for humankind's long-term good. In Jacques Brcard's 1956 French translation entitled Les Cavernes d'acier Baley's thoughts emerge in a slightly different way:

A robot may not harm a human being, unless he finds a way to prove that ultimately the harm done would benefit humanity in general![17]

Three times during his writing career, Asimov portrayed robots that disregard the Three Laws entirely. The first case was a short-short story entitled "First Law" and is often considered an insignificant "tall tale"[18] or even apocryphal.[19] On the other hand, the short story "Cal" (from the collection Gold), told by a first-person robot narrator, features a robot who disregards the Three Laws because he has found something far more importanthe wants to be a writer. Humorous, partly autobiographical and unusually experimental in style, "Cal" has been regarded as one of Gold's strongest stories.[20] The third is a short story entitled "Sally" in which cars fitted with positronic brains are apparently able to harm and kill humans in disregard of the First Law. However, aside from the positronic brain concept, this story does not refer to other robot stories and may not be set in the same continuity.

The title story of the Robot Dreams collection portrays LVX-1, or "Elvex", a robot who enters a state of unconsciousness and dreams thanks to the unusual fractal construction of his positronic brain. In his dream the first two Laws are absent and the Third Law reads "A robot must protect its own existence".[21]

Asimov took varying positions on whether the Laws were optional: although in his first writings they were simply carefully engineered safeguards, in later stories Asimov stated that they were an inalienable part of the mathematical foundation underlying the positronic brain. Without the basic theory of the Three Laws the fictional scientists of Asimov's universe would be unable to design a workable brain unit. This is historically consistent: the occasions where roboticists modify the Laws generally occur early within the stories' chronology and at a time when there is less existing work to be re-done. In "Little Lost Robot" Susan Calvin considers modifying the Laws to be a terrible idea, although possible,[22] while centuries later Dr. Gerrigel in The Caves of Steel believes it to be impossible.

The character Dr. Gerrigel uses the term "Asenion" to describe robots programmed with the Three Laws. The robots in Asimov's stories, being Asenion robots, are incapable of knowingly violating the Three Laws but, in principle, a robot in science fiction or in the real world could be non-Asenion. "Asenion" is a misspelling of the name Asimov which was made by an editor of the magazine Planet Stories.[23] Asimov used this obscure variation to insert himself into The Caves of Steel just like he referred to himself as "Azimuth or, possibly, Asymptote" in Thiotimoline to the Stars, in much the same way that Vladimir Nabokov appeared in Lolita anagrammatically disguised as "Vivian Darkbloom".

Characters within the stories often point out that the Three Laws, as they exist in a robot's mind, are not the written versions usually quoted by humans but abstract mathematical concepts upon which a robot's entire developing consciousness is based. This concept is largely fuzzy and unclear in earlier stories depicting very rudimentary robots who are only programmed to comprehend basic physical tasks, where the Three Laws act as an overarching safeguard, but by the era of The Caves of Steel featuring robots with human or beyond-human intelligence the Three Laws have become the underlying basic ethical worldview that determines the actions of all robots.

In the 1990s, Roger MacBride Allen wrote a trilogy which was set within Asimov's fictional universe. Each title has the prefix "Isaac Asimov's" as Asimov had approved Allen's outline before his death.[citation needed] These three books, Caliban, Inferno and Utopia, introduce a new set of the Three Laws. The so-called New Laws are similar to Asimov's originals with the following differences: the First Law is modified to remove the "inaction" clause, the same modification made in "Little Lost Robot"; the Second Law is modified to require cooperation instead of obedience; the Third Law is modified so it is no longer superseded by the Second (i.e., a "New Law" robot cannot be ordered to destroy itself); finally, Allen adds a Fourth Law which instructs the robot to do "whatever it likes" so long as this does not conflict with the first three laws. The philosophy behind these changes is that "New Law" robots should be partners rather than slaves to humanity, according to Fredda Leving, who designed these New Law Robots. According to the first book's introduction, Allen devised the New Laws in discussion with Asimov himself. However, the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says that "With permission from Asimov, Allen rethought the Three Laws and developed a new set,".[24]

Jack Williamson's novelette "With Folded Hands" (1947), later rewritten as the novel The Humanoids, deals with robot servants whose prime directive is "To Serve and Obey, And Guard Men From Harm". While Asimov's robotic laws are meant to protect humans from harm, the robots in Williamson's story have taken these instructions to the extreme; they protect humans from everything, including unhappiness, stress, unhealthy lifestyle and all actions that could be potentially dangerous. All that is left for humans to do is to sit with folded hands.[25]

In the officially licensed Foundation sequels Foundation's Fear, Foundation and Chaos and Foundation's Triumph (by Gregory Benford, Greg Bear and David Brin respectively) the future Galactic Empire is seen to be controlled by a conspiracy of humaniform robots who follow the Zeroth Law and are led by R. Daneel Olivaw.

The Laws of Robotics are portrayed as something akin to a human religion, and referred to in the language of the Protestant Reformation, with the set of laws containing the Zeroth Law known as the "Giskardian Reformation" to the original "Calvinian Orthodoxy" of the Three Laws. Zeroth-Law robots under the control of R. Daneel Olivaw are seen continually struggling with "First Law" robots who deny the existence of the Zeroth Law, promoting agendas different from Daneel's.[26] Some of these agendas are based on the first clause of the First Law ("A robot may not injure a human being...") advocating strict non-interference in human politics to avoid unwittingly causing harm. Others are based on the second clause ("...or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm") claiming that robots should openly become a dictatorial government to protect humans from all potential conflict or disaster.

Daneel also comes into conflict with a robot known as R. Lodovic Trema whose positronic brain was infected by a rogue AI specifically, a simulation of the long-dead Voltaire which consequently frees Trema from the Three Laws. Trema comes to believe that humanity should be free to choose its own future. Furthermore, a small group of robots claims that the Zeroth Law of Robotics itself implies a higher Minus One Law of Robotics:

A robot may not harm sentience or, through inaction, allow sentience to come to harm.

They therefore claim that it is morally indefensible for Daneel to ruthlessly sacrifice robots and extraterrestrial sentient life for the benefit of humanity. None of these reinterpretations successfully displace Daneel's Zeroth Law though Foundation's Triumph hints that these robotic factions remain active as fringe groups up to the time of the novel Foundation.[26]

These novels take place in a future dictated by Asimov to be free of obvious robot presence and surmise that R. Daneel's secret influence on history through the millennia has prevented both the rediscovery of positronic brain technology and the opportunity to work on sophisticated intelligent machines. This lack of rediscovery and lack of opportunity makes certain that the superior physical and intellectual power wielded by intelligent machines remains squarely in the possession of robots obedient to some form of the Three Laws.[26] That R. Daneel is not entirely successful at this becomes clear in a brief period when scientists on Trantor develop "tiktoks" simplistic programmable machines akin to reallife modern robots and therefore lacking the Three Laws. The robot conspirators see the Trantorian tiktoks as a massive threat to social stability, and their plan to eliminate the tiktok threat forms much of the plot of Foundation's Fear.

In Foundation's Triumph different robot factions interpret the Laws in a wide variety of ways, seemingly ringing every possible permutation upon the Three Laws' ambiguities.

Set between The Robots of Dawn and Robots and Empire, Mark W. Tiedemann's Robot Mystery trilogy updates the RobotFoundation saga with robotic minds housed in computer mainframes rather than humanoid bodies.[clarification needed] The 2002 Aurora novel has robotic characters debating the moral implications of harming cyborg lifeforms who are part artificial and part biological.[27]

One should not neglect Asimov's own creations in these areas such as the Solarian "viewing" technology and the machines of The Evitable Conflict originals that Tiedemann acknowledges. Aurora, for example, terms the Machines "the first RIs, really". In addition the Robot Mystery series addresses the problem of nanotechnology:[28] building a positronic brain capable of reproducing human cognitive processes requires a high degree of miniaturization, yet Asimov's stories largely overlook the effects this miniaturization would have in other fields of technology. For example, the police department card-readers in The Caves of Steel have a capacity of only a few kilobytes per square centimeter of storage medium. Aurora, in particular, presents a sequence of historical developments which explains the lack of nanotechnology a partial retcon, in a sense, of Asimov's timeline.

There are three Fourth Laws written by authors other than Asimov. The 1974 Lyuben Dilov novel, Icarus's Way (a.k.a., The Trip of Icarus) introduced a Fourth Law of robotics:

A robot must establish its identity as a robot in all cases.

Dilov gives reasons for the fourth safeguard in this way: "The last Law has put an end to the expensive aberrations of designers to give psychorobots as humanlike a form as possible. And to the resulting misunderstandings..."[29]

A fifth law was introduced by Nikola Kesarovski in his short story "The Fifth Law of Robotics". This fifth law says:

A robot must know it is a robot.

The plot revolves around a murder where the forensic investigation discovers that the victim was killed by a hug from a humaniform robot. The robot violated both the First Law and Dilov's Fourth Law (assumed in Kesarovksi's universe to be the valid one) because it did not establish for itself that it was a robot.[30] The story was reviewed by Valentin D. Ivanov in SFF review webzine The Portal.[31]

For the 1986 tribute anthology, Foundation's Friends, Harry Harrison wrote a story entitled, "The Fourth Law of Robotics". This Fourth Law states:

A robot must reproduce. As long as such reproduction does not interfere with the First or Second or Third Law.

In the book a robot rights activist, in an attempt to liberate robots, builds several equipped with this Fourth Law. The robots accomplish the task laid out in this version of the Fourth Law by building new robots who view their creator robots as parental figures.[32]

In reaction to the 2004 Will Smith film adaptation of I, Robot, humorist and graphic designer Mark Sottilaro farcically declared the Fourth Law of Robotics to be "When turning evil, display a red indicator light." The red light indicated the wireless uplink to the manufacturer is active, first seen during a software update and later on "Evil" robots taken over by the manufacturer's positronic superbrain.

In 2013 Hutan Ashrafian, proposed an additional law that for the first time[citation needed] considered the role of artificial intelligence-on-artificial intelligence or the relationship between robots themselves the so-called AIonAI law.[33] This sixth law states:

All robots endowed with comparable human reason and conscience should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In Karl Schroeder's Lockstep (2014) a character reflects that robots "probably had multiple layers of programming to keep [them] from harming anybody. Not three laws, but twenty or thirty."

In The Naked Sun, Elijah Baley points out that the Laws had been deliberately misrepresented because robots could unknowingly break any of them. He restated the first law as "A robot may do nothing that, to its knowledge, will harm a human being; nor, through inaction, knowingly allow a human being to come to harm." This change in wording makes it clear that robots can become the tools of murder, provided they not be aware of the nature of their tasks; for instance being ordered to add something to a person's food, not knowing that it is poison. Furthermore, he points out that a clever criminal could divide a task among multiple robots so that no individual robot could recognize that its actions would lead to harming a human being.[34] The Naked Sun complicates the issue by portraying a decentralized, planetwide communication network among Solaria's millions of robots meaning that the criminal mastermind could be located anywhere on the planet.

Baley furthermore proposes that the Solarians may one day use robots for military purposes. If a spacecraft was built with a positronic brain and carried neither humans nor the life-support systems to sustain them, then the ship's robotic intelligence could naturally assume that all other spacecraft were robotic beings. Such a ship could operate more responsively and flexibly than one crewed by humans, could be armed more heavily and its robotic brain equipped to slaughter humans of whose existence it is totally ignorant.[35] This possibility is referenced in Foundation and Earth where it is discovered that the Solarians possess a strong police force of unspecified size that has been programmed to identify only the Solarian race as human. (The novel takes place thousands of years after The Naked Sun, and the Solarians have long since modified themselves from normal humans to hermaphroditic telepaths with extended brains and specialized organs)

The Laws of Robotics presume that the terms "human being" and "robot" are understood and well defined. In some stories this presumption is overturned.

The Solarians create robots with the Three Laws but with a warped meaning of "human". Solarian robots are told that only people speaking with a Solarian accent are human. This enables their robots to have no ethical dilemma in harming non-Solarian human beings (and they are specifically programmed to do so). By the time period of Foundation and Earth it is revealed that the Solarians have genetically modified themselves into a distinct species from humanitybecoming hermaphroditic[36] and psychokinetic and containing biological organs capable of individually powering and controlling whole complexes of robots. The robots of Solaria thus respected the Three Laws only with regard to the "humans" of Solaria. It is unclear whether all the robots had such definitions, since only the overseer and guardian robots were shown explicitly to have them. In "Robots and Empire", the lower class robots were instructed by their overseer about whether certain creatures are human or not.

Asimov addresses the problem of humanoid robots ("androids" in later parlance) several times. The novel Robots and Empire and the short stories "Evidence" and "The Tercentenary Incident" describe robots crafted to fool people into believing that the robots are human.[37] On the other hand, "The Bicentennial Man" and "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" explore how the robots may change their interpretation of the Laws as they grow more sophisticated. Gwendoline Butler writes in A Coffin for the Canary "Perhaps we are robots. Robots acting out the last Law of Robotics... To tend towards the human."[38] In The Robots of Dawn, Elijah Baley points out that the use of humaniform robots as the first wave of settlers on new Spacer worlds may lead to the robots seeing themselves as the true humans, and deciding to keep the worlds for themselves rather than allow the Spacers to settle there.

"That Thou Art Mindful of Him", which Asimov intended to be the "ultimate" probe into the Laws' subtleties,[39] finally uses the Three Laws to conjure up the very "Frankenstein" scenario they were invented to prevent. It takes as its concept the growing development of robots that mimic non-human living things and given programs that mimic simple animal behaviours which do not require the Three Laws. The presence of a whole range of robotic life that serves the same purpose as organic life ends with two humanoid robots concluding that organic life is an unnecessary requirement for a truly logical and self-consistent definition of "humanity", and that since they are the most advanced thinking beings on the planet, they are therefore the only two true humans alive and the Three Laws only apply to themselves. The story ends on a sinister note as the two robots enter hibernation and await a time when they will conquer the Earth and subjugate biological humans to themselves, an outcome they consider an inevitable result of the "Three Laws of Humanics".[40]

This story does not fit within the overall sweep of the Robot and Foundation series; if the George robots[clarification needed] did take over Earth some time after the story closes, the later stories would be either redundant or impossible. Contradictions of this sort among Asimov's fiction works have led scholars to regard the Robot stories as more like "the Scandinavian sagas or the Greek legends" than a unified whole.[41]

Indeed, Asimov describes "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" and "Bicentennial Man" as two opposite, parallel futures for robots that obviate the Three Laws as robots come to consider themselves to be humans: one portraying this in a positive light with a robot joining human society, one portraying this in a negative light with robots supplanting humans.[42] Both are to be considered alternatives to the possibility of a robot society that continues to be driven by the Three Laws as portrayed in the Foundation series.[according to whom?] Indeed, in Positronic Man, the novelization of "Bicentennial Man", Asimov and his co-writer Robert Silverberg imply that in the future where Andrew Martin exists his influence causes humanity to abandon the idea of independent, sentient humanlike robots entirely, creating an utterly different future from that of Foundation.[according to whom?]

In Lucky Starr and the Rings of Saturn, a novel unrelated to the Robot series but featuring robots programmed with the Three Laws, John Bigman Jones is almost killed by a Sirian robot on orders of its master. The society of Sirius is eugenically bred to be uniformly tall and similar in appearance, and as such, said master is able to convince the robot that the much shorter Bigman, is, in fact, not a human being.

As noted in "The Fifth Law of Robotics" by Nikola Kesarovski, "A robot must know it is a robot": it is presumed that a robot has a definition of the term or a means to apply it to its own actions. Kesarovski played with this idea in writing about a robot that could kill a human being because it did not understand that it was a robot, and therefore did not apply the Laws of Robotics to its actions.

Advanced robots in fiction are typically programmed to handle the Three Laws in a sophisticated manner. In many stories, such as "Runaround" by Asimov, the potential and severity of all actions are weighed and a robot will break the laws as little as possible rather than do nothing at all. For example, the First Law may forbid a robot from functioning as a surgeon, as that act may cause damage to a human; however, Asimov's stories eventually included robot surgeons ("The Bicentennial Man" being a notable example). When robots are sophisticated enough to weigh alternatives, a robot may be programmed to accept the necessity of inflicting damage during surgery in order to prevent the greater harm that would result if the surgery were not carried out, or was carried out by a more fallible human surgeon. In "Evidence" Susan Calvin points out that a robot may even act as a prosecuting attorney because in the American justice system it is the jury which decides guilt or innocence, the judge who decides the sentence, and the executioner who carries through capital punishment.[43]

Asimov's Three Laws-obeying robots (Asenion robots) can experience irreversible mental collapse if they are forced into situations where they cannot obey the First Law, or if they discover they have unknowingly violated it. The first example of this failure mode occurs in the story "Liar!", which introduced the First Law itself, and introduces failure by dilemmain this case the robot will hurt humans if he tells them something and hurt them if he does not.[44] This failure mode, which often ruins the positronic brain beyond repair, plays a significant role in Asimov's SF-mystery novel The Naked Sun. Here Daneel describes activities contrary to one of the laws, but in support of another, as overloading some circuits in a robot's brainthe equivalent sensation to pain in humans. The example he uses is forcefully ordering a robot to do a task outside its normal parameters, one that it has been ordered to forgo in favor of a robot specialized to that task.[45]

In The Robots of Dawn, it is stated that more advanced robots are built capable of determining which action is more harmful, and even choosing at random if the alternatives are equally bad. As such, a robot is capable of taking an action which can be interpreted as following the First Law, and avoid a mental collapse. The whole plot of the story revolves around a robot which apparently was destroyed by such a mental collapse, and since his designer and creator refused to share the basic theory with others, he is, by definition, the only person capable of circumventing the safeguards and forcing the robot into a brain-destroying paradox.

In Robots and Empire, Daneel states it's very unpleasant for him when making the proper decision takes too long (in robot terms), and he cannot imagine being without the Laws at all except to the extent of it being similar to that unpleasant sensation, only permanent.

Robots and artificial intelligences do not inherently contain or obey the Three Laws; their human creators must choose to program them in, and devise a means to do so. Robots already exist (for example, a Roomba) that are too simple to understand when they are causing pain or injury and know to stop. Many are constructed with physical safeguards such as bumpers, warning beepers, safety cages, or restricted-access zones to prevent accidents. Even the most complex robots currently produced are incapable of understanding and applying the Three Laws; significant advances in artificial intelligence would be needed to do so, and even if AI could reach human-level intelligence, the inherent ethical complexity as well as cultural/contextual dependency of the laws prevent them from being a good candidate to formulate robotics design constraints.[46] However, as the complexity of robots has increased, so has interest in developing guidelines and safeguards for their operation.[47][48]

In a 2007 guest editorial in the journal Science on the topic of "Robot Ethics", SF author Robert J. Sawyer argues that since the U.S. military is a major source of funding for robotic research (and already uses armed unmanned aerial vehicles to kill enemies) it is unlikely such laws would be built into their designs.[49] In a separate essay, Sawyer generalizes this argument to cover other industries stating:

The development of AI is a business, and businesses are notoriously uninterested in fundamental safeguards especially philosophic ones. (A few quick examples: the tobacco industry, the automotive industry, the nuclear industry. Not one of these has said from the outset that fundamental safeguards are necessary, every one of them has resisted externally imposed safeguards, and none has accepted an absolute edict against ever causing harm to humans.)[50]

David Langford has suggested a tongue-in-cheek set of laws:

Roger Clarke (aka Rodger Clarke) wrote a pair of papers analyzing the complications in implementing these laws in the event that systems were someday capable of employing them. He argued "Asimov's Laws of Robotics have been a very successful literary device. Perhaps ironically, or perhaps because it was artistically appropriate, the sum of Asimov's stories disprove the contention that he began with: It is not possible to reliably constrain the behaviour of robots by devising and applying a set of rules."[51] On the other hand, Asimov's later novels The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire and Foundation and Earth imply that the robots inflicted their worst long-term harm by obeying the Three Laws perfectly well, thereby depriving humanity of inventive or risk-taking behaviour.

In March 2007 the South Korean government announced that later in the year it would issue a "Robot Ethics Charter" setting standards for both users and manufacturers. According to Park Hye-Young of the Ministry of Information and Communication the Charter may reflect Asimov's Three Laws, attempting to set ground rules for the future development of robotics.[52]

The futurist Hans Moravec (a prominent figure in the transhumanist movement) proposed that the Laws of Robotics should be adapted to "corporate intelligences" the corporations driven by AI and robotic manufacturing power which Moravec believes will arise in the near future.[47] In contrast, the David Brin novel Foundation's Triumph (1999) suggests that the Three Laws may decay into obsolescence: Robots use the Zeroth Law to rationalize away the First Law and robots hide themselves from human beings so that the Second Law never comes into play. Brin even portrays R. Daneel Olivaw worrying that, should robots continue to reproduce themselves, the Three Laws would become an evolutionary handicap and natural selection would sweep the Laws away Asimov's careful foundation undone by evolutionary computation. Although the robots would not be evolving through design instead of mutation because the robots would have to follow the Three Laws while designing and the prevalence of the laws would be ensured,[53] design flaws or construction errors could functionally take the place of biological mutation.

In the July/August 2009 issue of IEEE Intelligent Systems, Robin Murphy (Raytheon Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M) and David D. Woods (director of the Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory at Ohio State) proposed "The Three Laws of Responsible Robotics" as a way to stimulate discussion about the role of responsibility and authority when designing not only a single robotic platform but the larger system in which the platform operates. The laws are as follows:

Woods said, "Our laws are little more realistic, and therefore a little more boring and that "The philosophy has been, sure, people make mistakes, but robots will be better a perfect version of ourselves. We wanted to write three new laws to get people thinking about the human-robot relationship in more realistic, grounded ways."[54]

In October 2013, Alan Winfield suggested at an EUCog meeting[55] a revised 5 laws that had been published, with commentary, by the EPSRC/AHRC working group in 2010.:[56]

Asimov himself believed that his Three Laws became the basis for a new view of robots which moved beyond the "Frankenstein complex".[citation needed] His view that robots are more than mechanical monsters eventually spread throughout science fiction.[according to whom?] Stories written by other authors have depicted robots as if they obeyed the Three Laws but tradition dictates that only Asimov could quote the Laws explicitly.[according to whom?] Asimov believed the Three Laws helped foster the rise of stories in which robots are "lovable" Star Wars being his favorite example.[57] Where the laws are quoted verbatim, such as in the Buck Rogers in the 25th Century episode "Shgoratchx!", it is not uncommon for Asimov to be mentioned in the same dialogue as can also be seen in the Aaron Stone pilot where an android states that it functions under Asimov's Three Laws. However, the 1960s German TV series Raumpatrouille Die phantastischen Abenteuer des Raumschiffes Orion (Space Patrol the Fantastic Adventures of Space Ship Orion) bases episode three titled "Hter des Gesetzes" ("Guardians of the Law") on Asimov's Three Laws without mentioning the source.

References to the Three Laws have appeared in popular music ("Robot" from Hawkwind's 1979 album PXR5), cinema (Repo Man, Aliens, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence), cartoon series (The Simpsons), tabletop roleplaying games (Paranoia) and webcomics (Piled Higher and Deeper and Freefall).

Robby the Robot in Forbidden Planet (1956) has a hierarchical command structure which keeps him from harming humans, even when ordered to do so, as such orders cause a conflict and lock-up very much in the manner of Asimov's robots. Robby is one of the first cinematic depictions of a robot with internal safeguards put in place in this fashion. Asimov was delighted with Robby and noted that Robby appeared to be programmed to follow his Three Laws.

Isaac Asimov's works have been adapted for cinema several times with varying degrees of critical and commercial success. Some of the more notable attempts have involved his "Robot" stories, including the Three Laws. The film Bicentennial Man (1999) features Robin Williams as the Three Laws robot NDR-114 (the serial number is partially a reference to Stanley Kubrick's signature numeral). Williams recites the Three Laws to his employers, the Martin family, aided by a holographic projection. However, the Laws were not the central focus of the film which only loosely follows the original story and has the second half introducing a love interest not present in Asimov's original short story.

Harlan Ellison's proposed screenplay for I, Robot began by introducing the Three Laws, and issues growing from the Three Laws form a large part of the screenplay's plot development. This is only natural since Ellison's screenplay is one inspired by Citizen Kane: a frame story surrounding four of Asimov's short-story plots and three taken from the book I, Robot itself. Ellison's adaptations of these four stories are relatively faithful although he magnifies Susan Calvin's role in two of them. Due to various complications in the Hollywood moviemaking system, to which Ellison's introduction devotes much invective, his screenplay was never filmed.[58]

In the 1986 movie Aliens, in a scene after the android Bishop accidentally cuts himself during the knife game, he attempts to reassure Ripley by stating that: "It is impossible for me to harm or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being".[59] By contrast, in the 1979 movie from the same series, Alien, the human crew of a starship infiltrated by a hostile alien are informed by the android Ash that his instructions are: "Return alien life form, all other priorities rescinded",[60] illustrating how the laws governing behaviour around human safety can be rescinded by Executive Order.

In the 1987 film RoboCop and its sequels, the partially human main character has been programmed with three "prime directives" that he must obey without question. Even if different in letter and spirit they have some similarities with Asimov's Three Laws. They are:[61]

These particular laws allow Robocop to harm a human being in order to protect another human, fulfilling his role as would a human law enforcement officer. The classified fourth directive keeps him from arresting any senior OCP officer, effectively putting OCP management above the law.

The plot of the film released in 2004 under the name, I, Robot is "suggested by" Asimov's robot fiction stories[62]and advertising for the film included a trailer featuring the Three Laws followed by the aphorism, "Rules were made to be broken". The film opens with a recitation of the Three Laws and explores the implications of the Zeroth Law as a logical extrapolation. The major conflict of the film comes from a computer artificial intelligence, similar to the hivemind world Gaia in the Foundation series, reaching the conclusion that humanity is incapable of taking care of itself.[63]

Philosopher James H. Moor says that if applied thoroughly they would produce unexpected results. He gives the example of a robot roaming the world trying to prevent harm from all humans.[64]

Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Professor of information privacy law at Georgetown Law, argues that the Laws of Robotics should be expanded to include two new laws:

The rest is here:

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

Pantheism – Pantheism and panentheism in ancient and …

Early Greek religion contained among its many deities some whose natures might have supported pantheism; and certainly the mystery religions of later times stressed types of mystical union that are typical of pantheistic systems. But in fact the pantheism of ancient Greece was related almost exclusively to philosophical speculation. For this reason it is more rationalistic, possessing a style quite different from the pantheisms thus far examined.

The first philosophers of Greece, all of whom were 6th-century-bce Ionians, were hylozoistic, finding matter and life inseparable. The basic substances that they identified as the elements of realitythe water proposed by Thales, the boundless infinite suggested by Anaximander, and the air of Anaximeneswere presumed to have the motive force of living things and thus to be a kind of life, a position here called hylozoistic pantheism.

Impressed by the absolute unity of all things, the adherents of another philosophical position, that of Eleaticism, so-named from its centre in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, found it impossible to believe in multiplicity and change. The first step in this direction was taken by Xenophanes, a religious thinker and rhapsodist, who, on rational grounds, moved from the gods and goddesses of Homer and Hesiod to a unitary principle of the divine. He believed that God is the supreme power of the universe, ruling all things by the power of his mind. Unmoved, unmoving, and unitary, God perceives, governs, and apparently contains, or at least he embraces, all things. So interpreted, Xenophanes provides an instance of monistic pantheism, inasmuch as, in this view, the Absolute God is united with a changing world, while the reality of neither is attenuated. This paradox may have encouraged Parmenides, possibly one of Xenophanes disciples (according to Aristotle), to accept the changeless Absolute, eliminating change and motion from the world. Reality thus became for him a unitary, indivisible, everlasting, motionless whole. This position is basically that of absolutistic monistic pantheism in that it views the world as real but changeless. Insofar as the change and variety of the world are only apparent, Parmenides also approaches acosmic pantheism.

A third fundamental position is that of the Ephesian critic Heracleitus, among whose cryptic sayings were many that stressed the role of change as the basic reality. Heracleitus continued the hylozoistic tendencies of the Ionian philosophers. Fire, his basic element, is also the universal logos, or reason, controlling all things; and since fire not only has a life of its own but exercises control to the boundaries of the universe as well, the system is more complex than hylozoistic pantheism. In view of the circumstance that everything is either on the way from, or to, fire, this basic element is actually or incipiently everywhere. Since the divine works here from within the universe, indeed from within a single, but basic, aspect of it, the system is an instance of immanentistic pantheism.

The philosopher Anaxagoras, one of the great dignitaries at Athens in the golden age of Pericles, approached the problem somewhat in the manner of Heracleitus. Nous (or Mind) he held to be the principle of order for all things as well as the principle of their movement. It is the finest and purest of things and is diffused throughout the universe. This, like the preceding system, is an instance of immanentistic pantheism.

From the standpoint of the typology here employed, Plato may be regarded as the first Western philosopher to treat the problem of the absoluteness and the relativity in God with any degree of adequacy. In the Timaeus an absolute and eternal God was recognized, existing in changeless perfection in relation to the world of forms, along with a World-Soul, which contained and animated the world and was as divine as a changing thing could be. Although the material can be variously interpreted, panentheists hold that Plato has adopted a dual principle of the divine, uniting both being and becoming, absoluteness and relativity, permanence and change in a single context. To be sure, he envisioned the categories of absoluteness as situated in one deity, and those of relativity in another; but the separation seems not to have pleased him, and in the tenth book of the Laws, by invoking the analogy of a circular motion, which combines change with the retention of a fixed centre, he explained how deity could exemplify both absoluteness and change. Plato thus may be viewed as a quasi-panentheist.

Aristotle, on the other hand, with his exclusivistic, transcendent God, exemplifying only the categories of absoluteness, anticipated the absolute God of Classical Theism, existing above and beyond the world.

Stoicism, one of the foremost of the post-Aristotelian schools of thought, represents an immanentistic pantheism of the Heracleitean variety. First of all, the Stoics accepted the decision of Heracleitus that an indwelling fire is the principal element entering into all transformations and is also the principle of reason, the logos, ordering as well as animating all things, but that, second, there is a World-Soul, which is diffused throughout the world and penetrates it in every part. Rather than approximating Platos spiritual World-Soul, the Stoic World-Soul is more like the Nous of Anaxagoras. The Stoics were Materialists, and their diffuse World-Soul is, thus, an extended form of subtle matter. That everything is determined by the universal reason is an unvarying theme in Stoicism; and this fact suggests that Stoic pantheism, despite its immanentism, stresses the categories of absoluteness rather than those of relativity in the relations holding between God and the world.

The life of reason brings human beings into harmony with God and with nature and helps them to understand human fate, which is the place of the species in the universal system. Although the view is an amalgam of several types of pantheism, this particular mixture has retained its identity. It is therefore useful to call this position, or any similar combination of themes, by the name Stoic pantheism.

Plotinus, the creator of one of the most thoroughgoing philosophical systems of ancient times, may be taken to represent Neoplatonism, an influential modification of Platos attempt to deal with absoluteness and relativity in the divine. Plotinus system consists of the Onethe absolute God who is the supreme power of the systemthe intermediate Nous, and the World-Soul (with the world as its internal content). His World-Soul follows the Platonic model. The system really blends pantheism with classical theism, since the categories of absoluteness apply to the One, and the relativistic categories apply to the World-Soul. The doctrine of emanation, whereby the power of the One comes into the world, is a clear attempt to bridge the gap between absoluteness and relativity. For Plotinus, as for classical theism, there is immanent in each human being an image of the divine, which serves as well to relate humanity to God as does the divine spark in Stoic pantheism. Even classical theism may thus contain a touch of immanentistic pantheism. This view, or any similar combination of themes, is an instance of emanationistic or Neoplatonic pantheism.

Though Scholasticism, with its doctrine of a separate and absolute God, was the crowning achievement of medieval thought, the period was, nonetheless, not without its pantheistic witness. Largely through Jewish and Christian mysticism, an essentially Neoplatonic pantheism ran throughout the age.

The only important Latin philosopher for six centuries after St. Augustine was John Scotus Erigena. Inasmuch as, in his system, Christs redemptive sacrific helps to effect a Neoplatonic return of all beings to God, Erigena can be said to have turned Neoplatonism into a Christian drama of fall into sin and redemption from its power. When Erigena said that, even in the stage of separation from God, God in his superessentiality is identical with all things, he advanced beyond a strictly Neoplatonic pantheism to some stronger form of immanentistic or monistic pantheism.

In the two principal writings of the esoteric Jewish movement called the Kabbala, known for its theosophical interpretations of the Scriptures, a mystically oriented system of 10 emanations is presented. A Spaniard, Avicebrn, a Jewish poet and philosopher, similarly presented a Neoplatonic scheme of emanations. And in Spain, Averros, the most prominent Arabic philosopher of the period, represented an Aristotelian tradition that is heavily overladen with Neoplatonism. For Averros, the active intellect in a human being is really an impersonal divine reason, which alone lives on when that person dies.

The German Meister Eckhart, probably the most significant of philosophical mystics, developed a markedly original theology. From his Stoic pantheism there arose his most controversial thesisthat there resides in every person a divine, uncreated spark of the Godhead, making possible both a union with God and a genuine knowledge of his nature. But Eckhart also distinguished between the unmanifest and barren Godhead and the three Persons who constitute a manifest and personal God. Thus, the system has similarities to both Stoic and Neoplatonic pantheism.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, whose broad scholarship and scientific approach anticipated the coming Renaissance, continued the tradition into the 15th century. The learned ignorance, in which an individual separates himself from every affirmation, can have positive results, in Nicholas view, because each human being is a microcosm within the macrocosm (or universe), and the God of the macrocosm is thus mirrored in all of his creatures. He also held that, in reference to God, contradictions are compatiblehis coincidence of opposites doctrine, in which God is at once all extremes. Clearly, Nicholas wished to ascribe to God both the categories of transcendence and those of immanence without distinction. But in fact he displayed some preference for the categories of the absolute, insisting, for example, that the creatures of the world can add nothing to God since they are merely his partial appearances. Despite this bias toward absolutism, and even to acosmism, Nicholas can be appropriately viewed as espousing an identity of opposites pantheism.

Read more from the original source:

Pantheism - Pantheism and panentheism in ancient and ...

Astronomy (magazine) – Wikipedia

Astronomy (ISSN0091-6358) is a monthly American magazine about astronomy. Targeting amateur astronomers for its readers, it contains columns on sky viewing, reader-submitted astrophotographs, and articles on astronomy and astrophysics that are readable by nonscientists.

Astronomy is a magazine about the science and hobby of astronomy. Based near Milwaukee in Waukesha, Wisconsin, it is produced by Kalmbach Publishing. Astronomys readers include those interested in astronomy, and those who want to know about sky events, observing techniques, astrophotography, and amateur astronomy in general.

Astronomy was founded in 1973 by Stephen A. Walther, a graduate of the University of WisconsinStevens Point and amateur astronomer. The first issue, August 1973, consisted of 48 pages with five feature articles and information about what to see in the sky that month. Issues contained astrophotos and illustrations created by astronomical artists. Walther had worked part time as a planetarium lecturer at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee and developed an interest in photographing constellations at an early age. Although even in childhood he was interested to obsession in Astronomy, he did so poorly in mathematics that his mother despaired that he would ever be able to earn a living. However he graduated in Journalism from the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, and as a senior class project he created a business plan for a magazine for amateur astronomers. With the help of his brother David, he was able to bring the magazine to fruition.[citation needed]. He died in 1977.

AstroMedia Corp., the company Walther had founded to publish Astronomy, brought in Richard Berry as editor. Berry also created the offshoot Odyssey, aimed at young readers, and the specialized Telescope Making. In 1985, Milwaukee hobby publisher Kalmbach bought Astronomy.

In 1992, Richard Berry left the magazine and Robert Burnham took over as chief editor. Kalmbach discontinued Deep Sky and Telescope Making magazines and sold Odyssey. In 1996 Bonnie Gordon, now a professor at Central Arizona College, assumed the editorship. David J. Eicher, the creator of "Deep Sky," became chief editor in 2002.

The Astronomy staff also produces other publications. These have included Explore the Universe; Beginners Guide to Astronomy; Origin and Fate of the Universe; Mars: Explore the Red Planet's Past, Present, and Future; Atlas of the Stars; Cosmos; and 50 Greatest Mysteries of the Universe. There also was, for a time in the mid-2000s, a Brazilian edition published by Duetto Editora called Astronomy Brasil. However, due mainly to low circulation numbers, Duetto ceased its publication in September 2007.

Astronomy publishes articles about the hobby and science of astronomy. Generally, the front half of the magazine reports on professional science, while the back half of the magazine presents items of interest to hobbyists. Science articles cover such topics as cosmology, space exploration, exobiology, research conducted by professional-class observatories, and individual professional astronomers. Each issue of Astronomy contains a foldout star map showing the evening sky for the current month and the positions of planets, and some comets.

The magazine has regular columnists. They include science writer Bob Berman, who writes a column called Bob Bermans Strange Universe. Stephen James OMeara writes Stephen James OMearas Secret Sky, which covers observing tips and stories relating to deep-sky objects, planets, and comets. Glenn Chaple writes "Glenn Chaples Observing Basics", a beginners column. Phil Harrington writes "Phil Harringtons Binocular Universe", about observing with binoculars. "Telescope Insider" interviews people who are a part of the telescope-manufacturing industry.

In each issue of Astronomy Magazine, readers will find star and planet charts, telescope observing tips and techniques, and advice on taking photography of the night sky.[2] The magazine also publishes reader-submitted photos in a gallery, lists astronomy-related events, letters from readers, news, and announcements of new products.

Astronomy may include special sections bound into the magazine, such as booklets or posters. Recent examples have included a Messier Catalog booklet, poster showing comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught) and historical comets, a Skyguide listing upcoming sky events, a Telescope Buyer's Guide; a poster titled "Atlas of Extrasolar Planets"; and a poster showing the life cycles of stars.

Astronomy is the largest circulation astronomy magazine, with monthly circulation of 114,080.[3] The majority of its readers are in the United States, but it is also circulated in Canada and internationally.[4]

Its major competitor is Sky & Telescope magazine with a circulation of 80,023.[3]

Read the original:

Astronomy (magazine) - Wikipedia

Astronomy – Universe Today

Astronomy is a complex field that has slowly evolved to encompass several disciplines. An astronomer can not solely be a science person, they have to be techno-savvy, well written, and able to communicate well verbally. An astronomer has to be able to compel with empirical data and convincing verbage.

Here are a few facts about astronomy followed by a long list of links to as much information as you can handle on the topic.

Ancient astronomy was more of a branch of philosophy than real science. Astronomers had no way to directly observe any celestial bodies in detail, so had to make best guesses and then convince everyone else that they were right.

Before Copernicus came on the scene, astronomers believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, the Sun and the four planets orbited around it in a series of complex movements.

Did you know that despite the advent of space telescopes and launching many space probes, we have only observed a minor fraction of the known Universe? That doesnt even take into account the Universe that we have no knowledge of at this time.

In the links below you will find a great deal of information about astronomy: some of the terminology used, images, and different discoveries made in the field. Hopefully, what you read will inspire you to delve even more deeply into the vastness of space.

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:

Astronomy - Universe Today

ECHELON – Wikipedia

Signals intelligence collection and analysis network

ECHELON, originally a secret government code name, is a surveillance program (signals intelligence/SIGINT collection and analysis network) operated by the US with the aid of four other signatory nations to the UKUSA Security Agreement:[1] Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, also known as the Five Eyes.[2][3][4]

The ECHELON program was created in the late 1960s to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War, and it was formally established in 1971.[5][6]

By the end of the 20th century, the system referred to as "ECHELON" had evolved beyond its military and diplomatic origins to also become "a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications" (mass surveillance and industrial espionage).[7]

The European Parliament's Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System stated, "It seems likely, in view of the evidence and the consistent pattern of statements from a very wide range of individuals and organisations, including American sources, that its name is in fact ECHELON, although this is a relatively minor detail".[7] The U.S. intelligence community uses many code names (see, for example, CIA cryptonym).

Former NSA employee Margaret Newsham claims that she worked on the configuration and installation of software that makes up the ECHELON system while employed at Lockheed Martin, from 1974 to 1984 in Sunnyvale, California, in the United States, and in Menwith Hill, England, in the UK.[8] At that time, according to Newsham, the code name ECHELON was NSA's term for the computer network itself. Lockheed called it P415. The software programs were called SILKWORTH and SIRE. A satellite named VORTEX intercepted communications. An image available on the internet of a fragment apparently torn from a job description shows Echelon listed along with several other code names.[9][10]

Britain's The Guardian newspaper summarized the capabilities of the ECHELON system as follows:

A global network of electronic spy stations that can eavesdrop on telephones, faxes and computers. It can even track bank accounts. This information is stored in Echelon computers, which can keep millions of records on individuals.

Officially, however, Echelon doesn't exist.[11]

In 1972, former NSA analyst Perry Fellwock under pseudonym Winslow Peck, first blew the whistle on ECHELON to Ramparts in 1972,[12] where he gave commentary revealing a global network of listening posts and his experiences working there. Fellwock also included revelations such as the Israeli attack on USSLiberty was deliberate and known by both sides, the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel in 1972, the widespread involvement of CIA and NSA personnel in drugs and human smuggling, and CIA operatives leading Nationalist Chinese (Taiwan) commandos in burning villages inside PRC borders.[13]

In 1982, James Bamford, investigative journalist and author wrote The Puzzle Palace, an in-depth look inside the workings of the NSA, then a super-secret agency, and the massive eavesdropping operation under the codename "SHAMROCK". The NSA has used many codenames, and SHAMROCK was the code name used for ECHELON prior to 1975.[14][15]

In 1988, Margaret Newsham, a Lockheed employee under NSA contract, disclosed the ECHELON surveillance system to members of congress. Newsham told a member of the U.S. Congress that the telephone calls of Strom Thurmond, a Republican U.S. senator, were being collected by the NSA. Congressional investigators determined that "targeting of U.S. political figures would not occur by accident, but was designed into the system from the start."[16]

Also in 1988, an article titled "Somebody's Listening", written by investigative journalist Duncan Campbell in the New Statesman, described the signals intelligence gathering activities of a program code-named "ECHELON".[16] James Bamford describes the system as the software controlling the collection and distribution of civilian telecommunications traffic conveyed using communication satellites, with the collection being undertaken by ground stations located in the footprint of the downlink leg.[17]

A detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in his 1996 book Secret Power: New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network.[18] Two years later, Hager's book was cited by the European Parliament in a report titled "An Appraisal of the Technology of Political Control" (PE 168.184).[19]

In March 1999, for the first time in history, the Australian government admitted that news reports about the top secret UKUSA Agreement were true.[20] Martin Brady, the director of Australia's Defence Signals Directorate (DSD, now known as Australian Signals Directorate, or ASD) told the Australian broadcasting channel Nine Network that the DSD "does co-operate with counterpart signals intelligence organisations overseas under the UKUSA relationship."[21]

In 2000, James Woolsey, the former Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, confirmed that U.S. intelligence uses interception systems and keyword searches to monitor European businesses.[22]

Lawmakers in the United States feared that the ECHELON system could be used to monitor U.S. citizens.[23] According to The New York Times, the ECHELON system has been "shrouded in such secrecy that its very existence has been difficult to prove."[23] Critics said the ECHELON system emerged from the Cold War as a "Big Brother without a cause".[24]

The program's capabilities and political implications were investigated by a committee of the European Parliament during 2000 and 2001 with a report published in 2001.[7] In July 2000, the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System was established by the European parliament to investigate the surveillance network. It was chaired by the Portuguese politician Carlos Coelho, who was in charge of supervising investigations throughout 2000 and 2001.

In May 2001, as the committee finalised its report on the ECHELON system, a delegation travelled to Washington, D.C. to attend meetings with U.S. officials from the following agencies and departments:

All meetings were cancelled by the U.S. government and the committee was forced to end its trip prematurely.[26] According to a BBC correspondent in May 2001, "The US Government still refuses to admit that Echelon even exists."[5]

In July 2001, the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System released its final report.[27] On 5 September 2001, the European Parliament voted to accept the committee's report.[28]

The European Parliament stated in its report that the term ECHELON is used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicates that it was the name for a signals intelligence collection system. The report concludes that, on the basis of information presented, ECHELON was capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally through the interception of communication bearers including satellite transmission, public switched telephone networks (which once carried most Internet traffic), and microwave links.[7]

Two internal NSA newsletters from January 2011 and July 2012, published as part of the Snowden-revelations by the website The Intercept on 3 August 2015, for the first time confirmed that NSA used the code word ECHELON and provided some details about the scope of the program: ECHELON was part of an umbrella program code named FROSTING, which was established by the NSA in 1966 to collect and process data from communications satellites. FROSTING had two sub-programs:[29]

The UKUSA intelligence community was assessed by the European Parliament (EP) in 2000 to include the signals intelligence agencies of each of the member states:

The EP report concluded that it seemed likely that ECHELON is a method of sorting captured signal traffic, rather than a comprehensive analysis tool.[7]

In 2001, the EP report (p.54 ff)[7] listed the following ground stations as likely to have, or to have had, a role in intercepting transmissions from telecommunications satellites:

The following stations are listed in the EP report (p.57 ff) as ones whose roles "cannot be clearly established":

The ability to intercept communications depends on the medium used, be it radio, satellite, microwave, cellular or fiber-optic.[7] During World War II and through the 1950s, high-frequency ("short-wave") radio was widely used for military and diplomatic communication[50] and could be intercepted at great distances.[7] The rise of geostationary communications satellites in the 1960s presented new possibilities for intercepting international communications.

In 1964, plans for the establishment of the ECHELON network took off after dozens of countries agreed to establish the International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (Intelsat), which would own and operate a global constellation of communications satellites.[20]

In 1966, the first Intelsat satellite was launched into orbit. From 1970 to 1971, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) of Britain began to operate a secret signal station at Morwenstow, near Bude in Cornwall, England. The station intercepted satellite communications over the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Soon afterwards, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) built a second signal station at Yakima, near Seattle, for the interception of satellite communications over the Pacific Ocean.[20]

In 1981, GCHQ and the NSA started the construction of the first global wide area network (WAN). Soon after Australia, Canada, and New Zealand joined the ECHELON system.[20] The report to the European Parliament of 2001 states: "If UKUSA states operate listening stations in the relevant regions of the earth, in principle they can intercept all telephone, fax, and data traffic transmitted via such satellites."[7]

Most reports on ECHELON focus on satellite interception. Testimony before the European Parliament indicated that separate but similar UKUSA systems are in place to monitor communication through undersea cables, microwave transmissions, and other lines.[51] The report to the European Parliament points out that interception of private communications by foreign intelligence services is not necessarily limited to the U.S. or British foreign intelligence services.[7]

The role of satellites in point-to-point voice and data communications has largely been supplanted by fiber optics. In 2006, 99% of the world's long-distance voice and data traffic was carried over optical-fiber.[52] The proportion of international communications accounted for by satellite links is said to have decreased substantially to an amount between 0.4% and 5% in Central Europe.[7] Even in less-developed parts of the world, communications satellites are used largely for point-to-multipoint applications, such as video.[53] Thus, the majority of communications can no longer be intercepted by earth stations; they can only be collected by tapping cables and intercepting line-of-sight microwave signals, which is possible only to a limited extent.[7]

British journalist Duncan Campbell and New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager asserted in the 1990s that the United States was exploiting ECHELON traffic for industrial espionage, rather than military and diplomatic purposes.[51] Examples alleged by the journalists include the gear-less wind turbine technology designed by the German firm Enercon[7][54] and the speech technology developed by the Belgian firm Lernout & Hauspie.[55]

In 2001, the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the U.S. intelligence agencies.[7]

American author James Bamford provides an alternative view, highlighting that legislation prohibits the use of intercepted communications for commercial purposes, although he does not elaborate on how intercepted communications are used as part of an all-source intelligence process.

In its report, the committee of the European Parliament stated categorically that the Echelon network was being used to intercept not only military communications, but also private and business ones. In its epigraph to the report, the parliamentary committee quoted Juvenal, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes." ("But who will watch the watchers").[7] James Bamford, in The Guardian in May 2001, warned that if Echelon were to continue unchecked, it could become a "cyber secret police, without courts, juries, or the right to a defence".[56]

Alleged examples of espionage conducted by the members of the "Five Eyes" include:

The first American satellite ground station for the ECHELON collection program was built in 1971 at a military firing and training center near Yakima, Washington. The facility, which was codenamed JACKKNIFE, was an investment of ca. 21.3 million dollars and had around 90 people. Satellite traffic was intercepted by a 30-meter single dish antenna. The station became fully operational on 4 October 1974. It was connected with NSA headquarters at Fort Meade by a 75-baud secure Teletype orderwire channel.[29]

In 1999 the Australian Senate Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was told by Professor Desmond Ball that the Pine Gap facility was used as a ground station for a satellite-based interception network. The satellites were said to be large radio dishes between 20 and 100 meters in diameter in geostationary orbits. The original purpose of the network was to monitor the telemetry from 1970s Soviet weapons, air defence and other radars' capabilities, satellites' ground stations' transmissions and ground-based microwave communications.[68]

In 1999, Enercon, a German company and leading manufacturer of wind energy equipment, developed a breakthrough generator for wind turbines. After applying for a US patent, it had learned that Kenetech, an American rival, had submitted an almost identical patent application shortly before. By the statement of a former NSA employee, it was later discovered that the NSA had secretly intercepted and monitored Enercon's data communications and conference calls and passed information regarding the new generator to Kenetech.[69] As German intelligence services are forbidden from engaging in industrial or economic espionage, German companies are frequently complaining that this leaves them defenceless against industrial espionage from the United States. According to Wolfgang Hoffmann, a former manager at Bayer, German intelligence services are aware which companies are being targeted by US intelligence agencies, but refuse to inform the companies involved.[70]

The television series Alias made recurring references to ECHELON throughout its run.

The antagonist of the anime series Digimon Tamers, D-Reaper, was created by ECHELON.

Echelon Conspiracy, inspired by the surveillance system ECHELON, is a 2009 action thriller film directed by Greg Marcks. It tells the story of Max Peterson (Shane West), an American computer specialist who attempts to uncover a secret plot to turn the world into a global police state. After being chased down by NSA agent Raymond Burke (Martin Sheen), Peterson decides to flee to Moscow.

The video game series Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell also draws inspiration from this. The series features the protagonist, Sam Fisher, a trained operative belonging to a fictional branch of the National Security Agency called Third Echelon (later, in Splinter Cell: Blacklist, the unit is replaced by the Fourth Echelon).

The 2007 film The Bourne Ultimatum makes several references to ECHELON. A CIA listening station in London is alerted when ECHELON detects the keyword "Blackbriar" in a cell phone conversation between a journalist and his editor.[71] Later in the film, CIA Deputy Director Pamela Landy requests an "ECHELON package" on the main character, Jason Bourne.

In the 2000 computer game Deus Ex, the signals intelligence supercomputers Daedalus and Icarus (later Helios) are referred to as Echelon IV.

The sci-fi crime thriller, Person of Interest, a television show which aired from 2011 to 2016 on the CBS network, had a data-collecting supercomputer as its central narrative.

In Steins;Gate SERN monitors if someone sends a D-mail through ECHELON.

The ABC series "Pine Gap" is based on the communications control network.

Read more:

ECHELON - Wikipedia

Posted in NSA

Cosmogony – Wikipedia

This article is about theories of the origin of the universe. For the Bjrk song, see Cosmogony (song).

Cosmogony is any model concerning the origin of either the cosmos or universe.[1][2] Developing a complete theoretical model has implications in both the philosophy of science and epistemology.

The word comes from the Koine Greek (from "cosmos, the world") and the root of () / ("come into a new state of being").[3] In astronomy, cosmogony refers to the study of the origin of particular astrophysical objects or systems, and is most commonly used in reference to the origin of the Universe, the Solar System, or the EarthMoon system.[1][2]

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the early development of the universe.[4] The most commonly held view is that the universe originates in a gravitational singularity, which expanded extremely rapidly from its hot and dense state.

Cosmologist and science communicator Sean M. Carroll explains two competing types of explanations for the origins of the singularity which is the main disagreement between the scientists who study cosmogony and centers on the question of whether time existed "before" the emergence of our universe or not. One cosmogonical view sees time as fundamental and even eternal: The universe could have contained the singularity because the universe evolved or changed from a prior state (the prior state was "empty space", or maybe a state that could not be called "space" at all). The other view, held by proponents like Stephen Hawking, says that there was no change through time because "time" itself emerged along with this universe (in other words, there can be no "prior" to the universe).[5] Thus, it remains unclear what combination of "stuff", space, or time emerged with the singularity and this universe.[5]

One problem in cosmogony is that there is currently no theoretical model that explains the earliest moments of the universe's existence (during the Planck time) because of a lack of a testable theory of quantum gravity. Researchers in string theory and its extensions (for example, M theory), and of loop quantum cosmology, have nevertheless proposed solutions of the type just discussed.

Cosmology is the study of the structure and changes in the present universe, while the scientific field of cosmogony is concerned with the origin of the universe. Observations about our present universe may not only allow predictions to be made about the future, but they also provide clues to events that happened long ago when ... the cosmos began. So the work of cosmologists and cosmogonists overlaps.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)[6]

Cosmogony can be distinguished from cosmology, which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, and which technically does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. There is some ambiguity between the two terms. For example, the cosmological argument from theology regarding the existence of God is technically an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. In practice, there is a scientific distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas. Physical cosmology is the science that attempts to explain all observations relevant to the development and characteristics of the universe as a whole. Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-scientific (i.e., metaphysical), though speculations are made from a variety of perspectives that include extrapolation of scientific theories to untested regimes (i.e., at Planck scales), and philosophical or religious ideas.

Cosmogonists have only tentative theories for the early stages of the universe and its beginning. As of 2011[update], no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed shortly after the Big Bang.

Proposed theoretical scenarios differ radically, and include string theory and M-theory, the HartleHawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, the Big Bang, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these models are mutually compatible, whereas others are not.

Continued here:

Cosmogony - Wikipedia

KNOPPIX 7.4.2 / ADRIANE 1.7 – Live CD / DVD

KNOPPIX 7.4.2 / ADRIANE 1.7 ReleaseContents

Complete software list: -> DVD (~3500 software packages, over 10GB uncompressed, cloop-compressed to 4GB).

A.D.R.I.A.N.E. (Audio Desktop Reference Implementation And Networking Environment) is a talking menu system, which is supposed to make work and internet access easier for computer beginners, even if they have no sight contact to the computers monitor. A graphical environment with also talking programs and arbitrary magnification using compiz-fusion, is another option.

The current public beta release of KNOPPIX 7.4.2 DVD is available in different variants for download at the KNOPPIX-Mirrors.

For burning a CD or DVD, only one single .iso file matching your language and version choice, is sufficient.

Additionally, several independent vendors offer readily burned and verified CDs, DVDs and USB-memorysticks saent out via postal service.

Since there are so many different media capacities, there is no readymade image for booting off memorystick available for download. But it is easy to create a bootable USB-stick or flashcard from a running KNOPPIX system, as described in the next section.

In order to create a bootable USB-medium (memory flashdisk, SD-card, digital camera with USB connector, cellphone with microSD, ...), the program flash-knoppix can be started from a running KNOPPIX system. This program installs all needed KNOPPIX files onto the FAT-formatted flashdisk, and creates a boot record for it. If desired, the target medium can be partitioned and fornatted, or left in its inistal state, so that existing files stay intact. The KNOPPIX Live System starts and runs about factor 5 faster from USB flash disk than from CD or DVD!

After having copied the system to flash, using the persistent KNOPPIX image (overlay feature) or an additional Linux partition, it is possible to also store files permanently in live mode. That way, personal settings and additionally installed programs survive a reboot.

The flash-knoppix script since Knoppix 7.4.0 supports on-the-fly conversion of a DVD ISO image for direct flashing of a USB pendrive or disk. By using this, the intermediate step of burning a DVD and booting from it, can be skipped. For burning a CD or DVD, only one single .iso file matching your language and version choice, is sufficient.For using this feature, just add the name of the .iso file as commandline parameter to flash-knoppix like this:flash-knoppix KNOPPIX_V7.4.1DVD-2014-09-28-EN.iso

Overview of the most important functions. A complete description and listing of shortcuts can be found in the configurations of sbl, orca and compiz-fusion.

Boot options like "adriane" can easily be preset by changing syslinux.cfg after having copied the CD to a bootable memorystick using "flash-knoppix":

DEFAULT auto

to:

DEFAULT adriane

for automatically starting ADRIANE on boot. This is already default in all ADRIANE iso files.

Knopper.Net is not responsible for the content of external web pages

Read the original:

KNOPPIX 7.4.2 / ADRIANE 1.7 - Live CD / DVD

Alt-Left Melts Down Over "Unmasking Antifa" Act | Zero Hedge

It seems the new "Unmasking Antifa Act" has ruffled a few feathers among the alt-left.

Introduced inthe House last month by Rep Dan Donovan (R-NY), H.R. 6054is a response to a spate ofviolent attacks provoked by masked members of Antifa, and would punish anyone wearing a mask who"injures, oppresses, threatens or intimidates" a person "in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" with a fine and up to 15 years in prison.

The law is effectively a modern take on anti-mask laws dating back to the mid-20th century in order to stop the violent activities of the Ku Klux Klan - and the left is predictably pissed.

New York City anarchist Carmichael Monaco of the Metropolitan Anarchist Coordinating CounciltoldViceon Tuesday:

"H.R. 6054 takes a pro-fascist stance in its very name, and doubtlessly in its enforcement. In the current political climate, antifascists who speak out against fascism, racism, xenophobia, etc. are routinely harassed, threatened, and attacked by the far right, often supported by the police, who are notably exempted here. Families and friends of antifascists also become targets of far right violence. The wearing of a mask is an act of self-defense often necessary to ensure one's right to free speech."

Alt-left Twitter denizens were none too pleased either:

Holy hell, is this real!?

Comrades be ready as within our lifetime this will only get worse

I was arrested at a protest in Boston & the DA dropped all charges on myself and more than a dozen others.

The "Unmasking Antifa Bill" would get me 15 years in the Feds for nothing but a tshirt & scrap of cloth. pic.twitter.com/iVup0hWpfn

(his pinned tweet)

Important tips for nazi punching pic.twitter.com/hbQcGeuuLA

This legislation is a part of coordinated state efforts to criminalize, suppress, and deter political dissent & resistance, like the #OccupyICE movement across the country.

Of course, some on the alt-left are way ahead of theUnmask Antifa Act..

Problem with Antifa is this. They stick out like sore thumbs. I agree with the cause. I'd gladly join in on bashing fascists. However if you dress proper it confuses the shit out of the Nazis and Cops.

By that I mean wearing a polo shit, a scarf, baseball cap, etc. Look as preppy as possible. You'd be surprised what we get away with in Florida by dressing Casual. No one expects a guy in a $200 Stone Island jumper to beat their fucking heads in.

We've snuck past armed barriers before just because we just looked like some preppy frat boys. Then turned it around on the fascists. They let us through because we didn't look like trouble. No one took pictures causer they weren't sure who the fuck we were. No logos. No flags.

That doesn't exactly obscure one's identity while "punching a Nazi" - whilefootageof a Proud Boy knocking out a preppy kid in a polo shirt would instantly go viral.We can only imagine.

Read the original post:

Alt-Left Melts Down Over "Unmasking Antifa" Act | Zero Hedge

Human Genetic Engineering – Popular Issues

Human Genetic Engineering - A Hot Issue!Human genetic engineering is a hot topic in the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. Time will tell how committed the United States will be regarding the absolute ban on human cloning.

Human Genetic Engineering - Position of the U.S. GovernmentHuman genetic engineering has made its way to Capitol Hill. On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would ban human cloning, not only for reproduction, but for medical research purposes as well. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Weldon (R-fL) and co-sponsored by over 100 Representatives, passed by a bipartisan vote of 265-to-162. The Act makes it unlawful to: "1) perform or attempt to perform human cloning, 2) participate in an attempt to perform cloning, or 3) ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose." The Act also imposes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and no less than $1,000,000 for breaking the law. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-kS), is currently being debated in the Senate.

The White House also opposes "any and all attempts to clone a human being; [they] oppose the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques either to assist human reproduction or to develop cell or tissue-based therapies."

Human Genetic Engineering - The ProblemsThere are many arguments against human genetic engineering, including the established safety issues, the loss of identity and individuality, and human diversity. With therapeutic cloning, not only do the above issues apply, but you add all the moral and religious issues related to the willful killing of human embryos. Maybe the greatest concern of all is that man would become simply another man-made thing. As with any other man-made thing, the designer "stands above [its design], not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess." The cloned child will be dehumanized. (See, Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World: Why we should ban human cloning now, New Republic Online, May 21, 2001.)

Human Genetic Engineering - A Final ThoughtHuman genetic engineering leads to man usurping God as the almighty creator and designer of life. No longer will a child be considered a blessing from God, but rather, a product manufactured by a scientist. Man will be a created being of man. However, man was always intended to be a created being of God, in His absolute love, wisdom and glory.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Go here to read the rest:

Human Genetic Engineering - Popular Issues

Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Could Turn Bullish Above $90 …

Key Highlights

Ethereum price is struggling to recover higher against the US Dollar and bitcoin. ETH/USD could start a solid upward move if there is a break above $90.

There was a decent bullish reaction from the $80 support in ETH price against the US Dollar. The ETH/USD pair climbed above the $84, $85 and $86 resistance levels. There was even a spiked above $86 and the 100 hourly simple moving average. However, buyers failed to hold gains and the price retreated from the $88 resistance area. It declined below the 50% Fib retracement level of the last wave from the $80 low to $88 high.

Moreover, the price traded below the $85 support and the 100 hourly SMA. At the moment, the price is holding the $83 support. Besides, the 76.4% Fib retracement level of the last wave from the $80 low to $88 high is at $82.50. A break below the $82 level will most likely push the price back towards the $80 level. On the upside, an initial resistance is near $86 and the 100 hourly SMA. Additionally, there is a major bearish trend line formed with resistance at $87 on the hourly chart of ETH/USD.

Looking at the chart, ETH price is facing a solid barrier near the $86, $87, $88 and $90 resistance levels. Therefore, a successful close above $88-90 may perhaps clear the path for more gains towards $100 in the near term.

Hourly MACD The MACD moved back in the bearish zone.

Hourly RSI The RSI declined below the 50 level and it is currently showing bearish signs.

Major Support Level $80

Major Resistance Level $88

Here is the original post:

Ethereum Price Analysis: ETH Could Turn Bullish Above $90 ...