On the High Seas, Keeping Vigil for an Unwanted Minority …

As a result of the Thai warning, the Phoenix retreated into international waters. Mr. Cauchi, the captain, worried that we might miss the fishing skiff crammed with 36 Rohingya if it chose to hug the coast on its journey south.

With Thailand and Malaysia not eager to accept boats, its difficult to see anything but disaster if the seaborne migration of Rohingya picks up again.

As we scoured the waters north of Thailands Similan Islands, news arrived from Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine State, where around 120,000 Rohingya have been imprisoned in internment camps since 2012. The boat with 36 Rohingya had turned back because of engine trouble.

The Phoenix, stocked with life jackets and a full medical clinic, would not be saving any Rohingya this sailing season. The monsoons would soon be coming, making the Andaman too dangerous to cross.

A few days later, a different story emerged from Rohingya leaders in Sittwe. The boat, they said, had been intercepted by Myanmar maritime authorities less than 30 nautical miles from where we were waiting. Mr. Cauchis calculations had been right.

The week before, another vessel laden with Rohingya had been captured by Myanmar patrol boats. In both cases, those on board were arrested and charged with the crime of being illegal migrants.

That designation is meant to highlight the supposed foreign roots of the Rohingya, who the Myanmar government contends originally came from Bangladesh. But it also raises a question: If the Rohingya are truly foreign interlopers in Myanmar, why are they being stopped from leaving?

They dont want us here and they dont want us to go, said U Kyaw Hla Aung, a Rohingya lawyer now interned in Sittwe. It makes our lives impossible.

Originally posted here:

On the High Seas, Keeping Vigil for an Unwanted Minority ...

High Seas Motel – TripAdvisor

High Seas Motel - UPDATED 2018 Prices & Reviews (Bar Harbor, Maine) - TripAdvisor

Travelers talk about

AMENITIES

Free Wifi

Free Parking

Air Conditioning

Pool

Non-Smoking Hotel

Additional information

Visit Hotel Website

{"containerClass":null,"containerAttributes":null,"widget":{"name":"ibex_photo_carousel","template":"ibex_photo_carousel__widget","moduleList":["handlers"],"divClasses":"prw_rup prw_ibex_photo_carousel","js":{"handlers":"(ta.prwidgets.getjs(this,'handlers'))"},"dust":{"nav_controls":"ibex_photo_carousel__nav_controls"}},"scriptFlags":null}

Standard Room

Getting you more information on this room More

Free Cancellation

Book now, pay at stay!

Sorry, this partner no longer has rooms available on TripAdvisor. Please visit one of our 0 partner sites to see rooms from .

{"BOOKING_FEATURES": ["IB_IRG_RATE_VERIFICATION","IB_STREAMLINED_SELECTED_ROOM","IB_POST_BOOKING_LOGIN_US","IB_SHOW_EMAIL_FOR_INSECURE_LOGIN","VISA_SPONSORSHIP_WEB","RCMS_INLINE_ROOM_GRID_MAX_OCC","IB_POST_BOOKING_LOGIN","IB_IRG_PERFORMANCE_METRICS","IB_IRG_MATCH_META","MOB_BOOKING_EMAIL_AGREE_HIDE","CHILDREN_SEARCH","IB_EXPRESS_BOOK","HR_IB_EXCLUDE_TAXES_AND_FEES","IB_DW_CCNAME_WITH_AUTOCOMPLETE","IB_IRG_PERFORMANCE_METRICS_MOBILE","IB_BOOKNOW_CLEAN_WITH_ICON_SHORT_BTN","STORED_CARDS","IB_PRICE_WINS_COPY","IB_PRICES_OUTSIDE_ROOM_BUTTON","IB_EXIT_INTERRUPTER","IB_SHOW_AMENITIES_AS_ICONS","META_AIR","IB_REVIEW_BOOKING_BUTTON","IB_INLINE_ROOM_GRID","IBEX_HIGH_EQUITY_BRANDING","IB_PRICE_WINS_POST_TX","IB_BOOKING_FORM_FAVICON","IB_KIPLINGER_AWARD","IB_URGENCY_BLOCK"] , "IMPRESSION_KEY": "723c7c1041b44f69bdfad41f9d73b780", "roomSelectionModel": {"partnerInfos":[],"multiplePartners":false,"polling":{"locationId":669620,"bookingSessionId":null,"detailedAvailabilityKey":null,"commerceContentIds":[104945927],"additionalContentIds":[],"pollCount":0,"checkin":{"day":17,"month":6,"year":2018},"checkout":{"day":18,"month":6,"year":2018},"adults":2,"child_rm_ages":"","rooms":1,"display_rooms":300,"entryPrice":-1,"entryCurrency":"USD","complete":false,"formKey":"","showAllRooms":true,"genNewBookingSessionId":false,"winningProviderAtClick":"","selectedRoomKey":"","impressionKey":"723c7c1041b44f69bdfad41f9d73b780","navArea":null,"referringServlet":"Hotel_Review","highestMetaPrice":0,"lowestMetaPrice":0,"additionalPartner":false,"highestMetaPriceDisplay":0,"roomsToVerify":[],"clazz":null},"summary":null,"unavailable":true,"metaOffers":[],"mismatchCheckModel":null,"totalMediaCount":0,"hotelPhotos":[],"noticeHeaderMessage":null,"moreProviders":null,"lowestPricePartner":null,"showAllRooms":true,"isMetaCheaper":false,"isBookingLessThanOrEqualToMeta":null,"avgHistoricalPrice":0.0,"avgHistoricalDisplayPrice":null,"expressBookState":null,"highestMetaPrice":-1,"lowestMetaPrice":-1,"highestMetaPriceDisplay":-1,"hotelName":"High Seas Motel","hasSpecialTimeOfStayTaxes":false,"trackingTree":null,"trackingTreeId":null,"showPriceHoverTooltip":false,"trackingContext":"eyJzdGF0ZSI6IkhPVEVMX0FVQ1RJT04iLCJwIjoiSFJfTWFpbkNvbW1lcmNlIiwiaWRzIjp7IkJGSyI6IjcyM2M3YzEwNDFiNDRmNjliZGZhZDQxZjlkNzNiNzgwIiwiQUlLIjoiYTgyMDUwNTFjNGZhNGMyMWIwMjZjMTE0ZWMxMDE2OTAifSwiZW50cnlTZXJ2bGV0IjoiSG90ZWxfUmV2aWV3In0=","cheaperPricesExist":false,"enableLPF":false,"priceDropPercent":0,"canExpandRooms":false,"expandRoomsToAllPartners":false,"roomSelectionKey":null,"useSupplierDirectTreatment":false,"isSupplierDirect":false,"showProviderSeparator":false,"clazz":null,"seeMoreMessage":null,"seeMoreIFrameMessage":null,"isPricelineCom":false,"isPriceDrawerEnabled":false,"isMetaMarketingLandOnBookingFormEnabled":false}, "ibAvailability": false, "metaAvailability": false, "topOfferIsIB": false, "numHacTries": 1, "checkIn": "06/17/2018", "checkOut": "06/18/2018", "lowestPrice": null, "hasDates": true, "hacComplete": false, "contentIdMappings": {"104945927":"BookingCom"}, "pollingEnabled": false, "preventScroll": false, "offerClickToken": null, "conditionalUpdate": false, "mightGetRooms": false, "divClasses": "ppr_rup ppr_priv_resp_hr_room_grid", "singlePartnerRoomGridWidget": {"containerClass":null,"containerAttributes":null,"widget":{"name":"ibex_room_grid_responsive","template":"ibex_room_grid_responsive__widget","moduleList":["handlers","tracking"],"divClasses":"prw_rup prw_ibex_room_grid_responsive","js":{"handlers":"(ta.prwidgets.getjs(this,'handlers'))","tracking":"(ta.prwidgets.getjs(this,'tracking'))"},"dust":{"sub_header":"ibex_room_grid_responsive__sub_header"}},"scriptFlags":null}, "multiPartnerRoomGridWidget": null, "mismatchMessage": {"containerClass":null,"containerAttributes":null,"widget":{"name":"ibex_mismatch_message","template":"ibex_mismatch_message__widget","moduleList":["handler"],"divClasses":"prw_rup prw_ibex_mismatch_message","js":{"handler":"(ta.prwidgets.getjs(this,'handler'))"},"dust":{}},"scriptFlags":null}, "maxRoomsToShow": 300, "isTablet": false, "roomGridRowWidget": {"containerClass":null,"containerAttributes":null,"widget":{"name":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive","template":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__widget","moduleList":[],"divClasses":"prw_rup prw_ibex_room_grid_row_responsive","js":{},"dust":{"amenities":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__amenities","occupancy":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__occupancy","condition_col":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__condition_col","price_text":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__price_text","reservation_col":"ibex_room_grid_row_responsive__reservation_col"}},"scriptFlags":null}, "mismatchMessageLightbox": null, "deviceInfo": "Linux Firefox", "bookOnTripAdvisor": "Book on "}

Show reviews that mention

All reviewsvending arearoad constructionminiature golfspacious and clean roomsmainely meatsthe pool looked nicerestaurants within walking distancegave us a maplog cabin restaurantcouple of nightsstayed one nightnice staypicnic tablesacadia park entranceacadia and bar harborlaundry facilitiescoffee tea

This was easily the best deal we got on a hotel during our entire trip. The room was very clean and nicely decorated. It was very quiet. There was also a great vending area with fresh coffee and tea and tables set up. I would...More

davidhB4918SN

Portland, Maine

My wife and I stayed at this hotel for 9 days on our honeymoon. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about this site. I highly recommend it! The staff was very accommodating and met all of our requests. The rooms were excellent and clean....More

Having never visited Bar Harbor or Acadia National Park before, The High Seas Motel seemed like a a good place to call home for a couple of nights. We weren't disappointed. It is very close to the entrance to Acadia National Park and close to...More

We stayed three nights. Everything went well. The room was not large but it suited our needs. The bed was comfortable, the AC was good and very quiet, the shower was more than adequate, and the TV was larger than expected. The owners were very...More

CO_Traveller62

Denver, Colorado

The High Seas Motel met what we wanted for a quick visit to Bar Harbor. The price was good - atleast for Bar Harbor, the room was clean and the staff of the family owned establishment were friendly. It sort of felt like being back...More

View more reviews

Awards & Recognition

Amenities

Top amenities

Pool

Free Parking

Free High Speed Internet (WiFi)

Hotel Amenities

Free Parking

Self-Serve Laundry

Room amenities

Air Conditioning

Refrigerator in room

Things to do

Pool

Heated pool

Outdoor pool

Details

Price range

$69 - $151 (Based on Average Rates for a Standard Room)

Hotel Style

#4 Best Value Hotel in Bar Harbor

#12 Family Hotel in Bar Harbor

#23 Romantic Hotel in Bar Harbor

Room types

Non-Smoking Rooms, Accessible rooms

All photos (31) 31

Full view

Is This Your TripAdvisor Listing?

Continue reading here:

High Seas Motel - TripAdvisor

Peterson Law Firm PA | Fort Mill, SC

Why is it so important to have an attorney handle your estate planning?Estate planning involves much more than a set of documents.

When it comes to planning your estate, the first thing to keep in mind is the fact that you have an estate, no matter how small. Whether your anticipated estate is big or small, your loved ones are counting on you to plan for their safety and financial wellbeing. Your home, your life insurance, your retirement, your automobile, your family heirlooms and personal belongings, and even a future inheritance are all assets that require planning to ensure surviving family members (including any minor children) can access and benefit from them effectively and in a timely way on your death or disability.

A good estate planning attorney can help you: (1) identify all of the property and people in your life requiring protection; (2) evaluate your familys financial needs, wants, and abilities; (3) evaluate alternative cost effective ways and methods to provide for and protect your family in the event of your death or disability; and (4) choose, design, and implement the appropriate estate plan that is right for you.

A good plan helps to ensure that your assets are distributed and available to your chosen family members if there is a fatality or an accident or medical condition that leaves you disabled or otherwise incapacitated. A good plan with a Medical Power of Attorney and Financial Power of Attorney in place keeps you (and your family) out of probate court if you suffer from an accident or medical condition. If you have minor children, it is all the more urgent that a good plan is in place.

We can help you create a new plan, modify an existing plan, or simply confirm your existing plan does what you think it does. Most importantly, we can help you ensure your estate plan conforms to applicable laws and protects the financial futures of those who need your protection. Estate planning and probate can be confusing, often overwhelming, and affected by laws that are different in every state and seem to change daily. We are here to guide you through these complicated processes and areas of law. Contact Peterson Law Firm, P.A. for an estate planning consultation. For additional estate planning information, click here.

See original here:

Peterson Law Firm PA | Fort Mill, SC

Welcome to Peterson Machinery Sales

Since 1980, we have used our extensive experience in manufacturing and engineering to evaluate customer needs and provide the correct used machine for the application. With nearly 1,000 used metal working machines in stock, we have the largest inventory in Arizona and New Mexico. Our inventory includes presses, fabricating machines, and machine tools, as well as forklifts, cranes, and material handling equipment. Centrally located in Casa Grande, AZ we can demonstrate many machines under power at our 100,000 sq/ft warehouses. Most machines have been reconditioned and are ready for shipment, installation, and production.

We are always looking to buy your used machinery either out right or on trade. However, if you would prefer we can sell your machine through our consignment sales program. Our international marketing connections are set up to produce an expedited sale and recovery of your investment. Which ever option you choose we look forward to working with you. We also offer warehousing and storage with related services to accommodate your needs at very affordable rates.

Contact Us Today.

Continued here:

Welcome to Peterson Machinery Sales

NanoTech Institute – The University of Texas at Dallas

Guided by theory and enabled by synthesis, the NanoTech Institute develops new science and technology exploiting the nanoscale.

Our researchers inspire students by creating an atmosphere of excitement, fun, and creativity.

Quick Links

Facilities Campus Maps Ray H. Baughman NanoWeb Forms Facebook YouTube

Mailing Address:

The University of Texas at Dallas [ Recipient's Name ] * The Alan G MacDiarmid NanoTech Institute, BE 26 800 West Campbell Road Richardson, TX 75080-3021

Phone: 972-883-6530 Fax: 972-883-6529

Follow us on Facebook!

On August 20th, the 2013 class of NanoExplorers will presenting their research that they conducted along the researchers of the NanoTech Institute. See this flyer for more information. See the schedule here.

An article covering Ali Aliev's and his collegues work on carbon nanotube thermoacustic transducers has been put online. You can read the whole article here.

The faculty, staff, and students of the Alan G. MacDiarmid NanoTech Institute at The University of Texas at Dallas welcome the 2013 class of NanoExplorers. We had over 200 highly qualified applicants this year. (see more)

The talk is devoted to recent achievements made by our Russian (NUST MISiS, Moscow) and French (G2Elab, Grenoble) groups in application of original shape memory composites for both microactuation and thermal energy harvesting. Novel prestrained scheme of shape memory composite allows creating actuators able to giant reversible bending deformation. (see more)

The faculty, staff, and students of the Alan G. MacDiarmid NanoTech Institute at The University of Texas at Dallas welcome the 2012 class of NanoExplorers. We had over 200 highly qualified applicants this year. (see more)

Read about former NanoExplorer Amy Chyao and her work at UT Dallas

Experience the collaboration of the NanoTech Institute with the University of Guanajuato (Guanajuato, Mexico) through the eyes of Raquel Ovalle Robles.

Discover the NanoTech Institute's work through its library of publications.

Use the NanoTech Institute's facilities to conduct cutting-edge research.

See the original post here:

NanoTech Institute - The University of Texas at Dallas

Roger Ver: "Ethereum Will Overtake Bitcoin in Market Cap"

Roger Ver is quite an intriguing and somewhat controversial figure in the cryptocurrency world. As a notorious early Bitcoin investor, he has also kept close tabs on other currencies. During a recent interview, Roger mentioned how Ethereum will eventually overtake Bitcoin. A remarkable thought, even though Bitcoin is not without flaws by any means.

In the world of cryptocurrency, virtually everyone knows the name Roger Ver. He is one of the earliest Bitcoin investors and made a lot of good money doing so. He is also a very strong [financial] supporter of the Bitcoin Cash venture. This Bitcoin hard fork has made quite the impact on the overall cryptocurrency market in recent months. Diversification is key in the world of cryptocurrency, as there is a lot more to check out than just Bitcoin.

Unsurprisingly, Roger Ver is not too convinced Bitcoin will remain the top dog for much longer. In a recent interview, he mentions how Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin in the near future. Given the recent price surge of Ether, Ethereums native token, it is evident things will only get better from here on out. A lot of innovation is coming to Ethereum, as are some much-needed network improvements.

According to Roger Ver, Ether is well underway to surpass Bitcoin. All it takes is doubling in price one more time to effectively reach this goal. That is, assuming the Bitcoin price doesnt increase further. Rest assured BTC is not done just yet in this regard either. An interesting battle has been going on between both of these currencies. Market cap is just one of the metrics people need to pay attention to when it comes to these cryptocurrencies, though.

More specifically, Ether has surpassed Bitcoin in a few other key metrics. It is cheaper to use most of the time, and a lot faster in terms of confirmations. Ethereums throughput has also surpassed that of Bitcoin on multiple occasions in the past. All of this may change with improved SegWit adoption and the Lightning network launch in a few months. Until that happens, it seems Ether will remain in the lead regarding the metrics that actually matter.

Roger Ver is also impressed with Ethereums developers, by the look of things. In his opinion, Bitcoin no longer holds the top spot in a lot of regards. Once people start to realize that is exactly the case, things will get very interesting across all markets. Especially Ethereums switch to proof-ofstake will be pretty significant for the network as a whole. When Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin, remains to be determined, though.

All of this paints an interesting outlook for both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Assuming Roger Ver is correct in his assessment, we will either see a major Ethereum price increase of a big Bitcoin price dip. Right now, the latter seems almost impossible, as the Bitcoin price has been moving up as of late. Ethereum, on the other hand, has been stuck in sideways momentum for several weeks now. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in this regard. Anything is possible in the cryptocurrency world.

Originally posted here:

Roger Ver: "Ethereum Will Overtake Bitcoin in Market Cap"

Roger Ver on ‘the Flippening’: Ethereum Will Upstage …

Osato Avan-Nomayo May 30, 2018 5:30 pm

Roger Ver believes Bitcoins days at the top of the crypto tree are numbered. In an interview with The Independent, the former Bitcoin evangelist said that other cryptocurrencies were more technologically advanced than Bitcoin. He identified Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash as the harbingers of the coming flippening.

Roger Ver used to be one of the staunchest Bitcoin proponents around. These days, however, his tent is firmly pitched in the Bitcoin Cash camp, the first and most popular of all the Bitcoin forks. According to Ver, Bitcoin is outdated when compared to the technically superior features of the other coins presently in existence.

Ver believes that Bitcoins technology is rife with defects. These defects will ultimately lead to reduced interest in the premier cryptocurrency. In his opinion, many of the more than 1,600 digital currencies currently in existence have been developed to offer more robust and efficient solutions that Bitcoin.

Ver states that Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash will experience significantly higher growths than Bitcoin in the coming months and years. He even goes as far as predicting that Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin before the year is out, with Bitcoin Cash taking center stage by 2020.

I see it happening, and I believe its imminent. Ethereum could overtake Bitcoin by the end of the year, and Bitcoin Cash could do the same before 2020.

This series of events, known as the flippening, will occur when Bitcoin is no longer the dominant digital currency in the crypto market. According to Ver, Bitcoins modest gains over the next few years and months will be unable to keep up with the relentless march of Ethereum and Bitcoin Cash.

Not everyone agrees with Vers logic, however. Some experts believe that Bitcoin can assimilate any paradigm-shifting technology, thus maintaining its dominance of the market. Michael Jackson of venture firm Mangrove Capital Partnersbelieves that Bitcoin will overcome the problems currently facing the network:

There is so much talent in the crypto space, and people are working on solving these scalability problems. I dont see why bitcoin shouldnt remain in the number one spot. It is still by far the best known, and it is ultimately the reserve currency in the space.

Do you agree with those who say the so-called flippening is nigh? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

Images courtesy of LeWeb13/Flickr,Kostack Studio/YouTube

Read more here:

Roger Ver on 'the Flippening': Ethereum Will Upstage ...

Principality of Sealand – Wikipedia

The Principality of Sealand, more commonly known as Sealand, is a micronation that claims Roughs Tower, an offshore platform located in the North Sea approximately 12 kilometres (7.5mi) off the coast of Suffolk, England, as its territory. Roughs Tower is a disused Maunsell Sea Fort, originally called HM Fort Roughs, built as an anti-aircraft defensive gun platform by the British during World War II.[3][4]

Since 1967, the decommissioned HM Fort Roughs has been occupied by family and associates of Paddy Roy Bates, who claim that it is an independent sovereign state.[3] Bates seized it from a group of pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 with the intention of setting up his own station at the site.[5] He attempted to establish Sealand as a nation-state in 1975 with the writing of a national constitution and establishment of other national symbols.[3]

While it has been described as the world's smallest country[6] or nation,[7] Sealand is not officially recognised by any established sovereign state in spite of Sealand's government's claim that it has been de facto recognised by the United Kingdom[3] and Germany.[8] The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in force since 1994 states "Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf".[9] Since 1987, Sealand lies within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.[10]

Bates moved to the mainland when he became elderly, naming his son, Michael, as regent. Bates died in October 2012 at the age of 91.[11] Michael lives in Suffolk, England.[12]

In 1943, during World War II, HM Fort Roughs (sometimes called Roughs Tower) was constructed by the United Kingdom as one of the Maunsell Forts,[13] primarily to defend the vital shipping lanes in nearby estuaries against German Navy mine-laying aircraft. It consisted of a floating pontoon base with a superstructure of two hollow towers joined by a deck upon which other structures could be added. The fort was towed to a position above the Rough Sands sandbar, where its base was deliberately flooded to sink it on its final resting place. This is approximately 7 nautical miles (13km) from the coast of Suffolk, outside the then 3nmi (6km) claim of the United Kingdom and, therefore, in international waters.[13] The facility was occupied by 150300 Royal Navy personnel throughout World War II; the last full-time personnel left in 1956.[13]

Roughs Tower was occupied in February and August 1965 by Jack Moore and his daughter Jane, squatting on behalf of the pirate station Wonderful Radio London.

On 2 September 1967, the fort was occupied by Major Paddy Roy Bates, a British subject and pirate radio broadcaster, who ejected a competing group of pirate broadcasters.[5] Bates intended to broadcast his pirate radio station called Radio Essex from the platform.[14] Despite having the necessary equipment, he never began broadcasting.[15] Bates declared the independence of Roughs Tower and deemed it the Principality of Sealand.[5]

In 1968, British workmen entered what Bates claimed to be his territorial waters to service a navigational buoy near the platform. Michael Bates (son of Paddy Roy Bates) tried to scare the workmen off by firing warning shots from the former fort. As Bates was a British subject at the time, he was summoned to court in England on firearms charges following the incident.[16] But as the court ruled that the platform (which Bates was now calling "Sealand") was outside British territorial limits, being beyond the then 3-nautical-mile (6km) limit of the country's waters, the case could not proceed.[17]

In 1975, Bates introduced a constitution for Sealand, followed by a national flag, a national anthem, a currency and passports.[3]

In August 1978, Alexander Achenbach, who describes himself as the Prime Minister of Sealand, hired several German and Dutch mercenaries to spearhead an attack on Sealand while Bates and his wife were in England.[8] They stormed the platform with speedboats, Jet Skis and helicopters, and took Bates' son Michael hostage. Michael was able to retake Sealand and capture Achenbach and the mercenaries using weapons stashed on the platform. Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treason against Sealand[8] and was held unless he paid DM75,000 (more than US$35,000 or 23,000).[18] The governments of the Netherlands, Austria and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed his imprisonment, citing the 1968 court decision.[3] Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Sealand to negotiate for Achenbach's release. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat's visit constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany.[8]

Following the former's repatriation, Achenbach and Gernot Ptz established a government in exile, sometimes known as the Sealand Rebel Government or Sealandic Rebel Government, in Germany.[8] Achenbach's appointed successor, Johannes Seiger, continues to claim via his website that he is Sealand's legitimate ruling authority.[19]

The claim that Sealand is an independent sovereign state is based on an interpretation of a 1968 decision of an English court, in which it was held that Roughs Tower was in international waters and thus outside the jurisdiction of the domestic courts.[3]

In international law, the most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declaratory theories of state creation. The constitutive theory is the standard nineteenth-century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the twentieth century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires 'diplomatic recognition' or merely 'recognition of existence'. No other state grants Sealand official recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany following a brief hostage incident constituted 'recognition of existence' (and, since the German government reportedly sent an ambassador to the tower, diplomatic recognition). In the declaratory theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood. Therefore, recognition by other states is purely 'declaratory'.[34]

In 1987, the UK extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles (6 to 22km). Sealand now sits inside British waters.[10] The United Kingdom is one of 165 parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (in force since 1994), which states in Part V, Article 60, that: 'Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf'.[9] In the opinion of law academic John Gibson, there is little chance that Sealand would be recognised as a nation because it is a man-made structure.[10]

In a 1990 court case (and a 1991 appeal) in the United States regarding registering ships in Sealand as a flag of convenience, the court ruled against allowing Sealand flagged vessels; the case was never contested by the Bateses.

Irrespective of its legal status, Sealand is managed by the Bates family as if it were a recognised sovereign entity and they are its hereditary royal rulers. Roy Bates styled himself as 'Prince Roy' and his wife 'Princess Joan'. Their son is known as 'His Royal Highness Prince Michael' and has been referred to as the 'Prince regent' by the Bates family since 1999.[35] In this role, he apparently serves as Sealand's acting 'Head of State' and also its 'Head of Government'.[36] At a micronations conference hosted by the University of Sunderland in 2004, Sealand was represented by Michael Bates' son James. The facility is now occupied by one or more caretakers representing Michael Bates, who himself resides in Essex, England.[35]

Sealand's constitution was instituted in 1974. It consists of a preamble and seven articles.[37] The preamble asserts Sealand's independence, while the articles variously deal with Sealand's status as a constitutional monarchy, the empowerment of government bureaux, the role of an appointed, advisory senate, the functions of an appointed, advisory legal tribunal, a proscription against the bearing of arms except by members of a designated 'Sealand Guard', the exclusive right of the sovereign to formulate foreign policy and alter the constitution, and the hereditary patrilinear succession of the monarchy.[38] Sealand's legal system is claimed to follow British common law, and statutes take the form of decrees enacted by the sovereign.[39] Sealand has issued "fantasy passports" (as termed by the Council of the European Union), which are not valid for international travel,[40] and holds the Guinness World Record for 'the smallest area to lay claim to nation status'.[41] Sealand's motto is E Mare Libertas (From the Sea, Freedom). It appears on Sealandic items such as stamps, passports and coins and is the title of the Sealandic anthem. The anthem was composed by Londoner Basil Simonenko;[42] being an instrumental anthem, it does not have lyrics. In 2005, the anthem was recorded by the Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra and released on their CD National Anthems of the World, Vol. 7: Qatar Syria.

Sealand has been involved in several commercial operations, including the issuing of coins and postage stamps and the establishment of an offshore Internet hosting facility, or 'data haven'.[43][44] Sealand also has an official website and publishes an online newspaper, Sealand News.[45] In addition, a number of amateur athletes 'represent' Sealand in sporting events, including unconventional events like the World Egg Throwing Championship, which the Sealand team won in 2008.[46]

Several dozen different Sealand coins have been minted since 1972. In the early 1990s, Achenbach's German group also produced a coin, featuring a likeness of 'Prime Minister Seiger'.[47] Sealand's coins and postage stamps are denominated in 'Sealand dollars', which it deems to be at parity with the US dollar.[48] Sealand first issued postage stamps in 1969, and issues through 1977. No further stamps were produced until 2010. Sealand is not a member of the Universal Postal Union, therefore its inward address is a PO Box in the United Kingdom.[49] Once an item is mailed to Sealand's tourist and government office, it will then be taken to Sealand. Sealand only has one street address, The Row.[50]

A Sealand mailing address looks like this:[50]

Bureau of Internal Affairs5, The RowSEALAND 1001(c/o Sealand Post Bag, IP11 9SZ, UK)

Sealand also sells titles of individual nobility including Lord, Baron, Count and those titles' distaff equivalents. Following Roy Bates' 2012 death, Sealand also began publicly offering knighthoods & Coats of Arms.[51][52]

In 1978, following the invasion, the Knights of the Sovereign Military Order of Sealand were formed by Prince Roy and Prince Michael to provide for the Principality's defence should it come under threat or attack. In 2012, following the death of Prince Roy, membership in the Order was opened to sale to the general public.[53]

In 2000, worldwide publicity was created about Sealand following the establishment of a new entity called HavenCo, a data haven, which effectively took control of Roughs Tower itself; however, Ryan Lackey, HavenCo's founder, later quit and claimed that Bates had lied to him by keeping the 19901991 court case[clarification needed] from him and that, as a result, he had lost the money he had invested in the venture.[54] In November 2008, operations of HavenCo ceased without explanation.[55]

Sealand is not recognised by any major international sporting body, and its population is insufficient to maintain a team composed entirely of Sealanders in any team sport. However, Sealand claims to have official national athletes, including non-Sealanders. These athletes take part in various sports, such as curling, mini-golf, football, fencing, ultimate, table football and athletics, although all its teams compete out of the country.[56] The Sealand National Football Association is an associate member of the Nouvelle Fdration-Board, a football sanctioning body for non-recognised states and states not members of FIFA. It administers the Sealand national football team. In 2004 the national team played its first international game against land Islands national football team, drawing 22.[57]

Sealand claims that its first official athlete was Darren Blackburn of Oakville, Ontario, Canada, who was appointed in 2003. Blackburn has represented Sealand at a number of local sporting events, including marathons and off-trail races.[58] In 2004, mountaineer Slader Oviatt carried the Sealandic flag to the top of Muztagh Ata.[59] Also in 2007, Michael Martelle represented the Principality of Sealand in the World Cup of Kung Fu, held in Quebec City, Canada; bearing the designation of Athleta Principalitas Bellatorius (Principal Martial Arts Athlete and Champion), Martelle won two silver medals, becoming the first-ever Sealand athlete to appear on a world championship podium.[60]

In 2008, Sealand hosted a skateboarding event with Church and East sponsored by Red Bull.[61][62][63]

In 2009, Sealand announced the revival of the Football Association and their intention to compete in a future Viva World Cup. Scottish author Neil Forsyth was appointed as President of the Sealand Football Association.[64] Sealand played the second game in their history against Chagos Islands on 5 May 2012, losing 31. The team included actor Ralf Little and former Bolton Wanderers defender Simon Charlton.[65]

In 2009 and 2010, Sealand sent teams to play in various ultimate club tournaments in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands. They placed 11th at UK nationals in 2010.[66]

From early summer of 2012 Sealand has been represented in the flat track variant of roller derby, by a team principally composed of skaters from the South Wales area.[67]

Sealand played a friendly match in aid of charity against an "All Stars" team from Fulham F.C. on 18 May 2013, losing 57.[68][69]

On 22 May 2013, the mountaineer Kenton Cool placed a Sealand flag at the summit of Mount Everest.[70]

Coordinates: 515342.6N 12849.8E / 51.895167N 1.480500E / 51.895167; 1.480500

View original post here:

Principality of Sealand - Wikipedia

Welcome to UTMB Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch

***Staff are also welcome to attend this session***

June 6th Session- 2pm in Jennie Sealy 2.506A

Presenter: Monica Mehalshick, Directory of Adult Recovery Services, Gulf Coast Center

Topic: Substance Abuse and Caregiving

Overview: The negative consequence of alcohol and drug abuse are not limited to the person using substances; rather they impact their families and caregivers as well. Families and caregivers who have loved ones that struggle with substance abuse, are encouraged to attend this session to learn more about building coping skills, finding resources and addressing their own self-care.

Please encourage caregivers and family members to attend!

"Time-Out is a weeklyeducational/support session for caregivers and family membersof UTMB patients, to support them in their adjustment and maintenance of their caregiving role. These sessions will not be tied to a specific diagnosis-all caregivers and family members are welcome. The hope is that these sessions will provide a chance for them to have time out to relieve some stress, have a little fun, build on care giving skills, decrease burnout and affirm thatthey are not alone in the role of caregiving.

These sessions are facilitated by UTMB students and staff and will occurevery Wednesday at 2pm in Jennie Sealy 2.506A. Sessions will last around 30 minutes and will address topics that falls into the following categories:Relaxation, Self-Care, Discharge Planning and Medical Topics.

If you have questions or are interested in facilitating a session, please contact Savannah Parksatsjparks@utmb.edu or409-266-7542.

Original post:

Welcome to UTMB Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch

Nihilism Embodiment | Superpower Wiki | FANDOM powered by …

Nihilism EmbodimentPower/Ability to:

Become the embodiment of nihilism.

The ability to become the embodiment of nihilism. Variation of Philosophy Embodimentand Oblivion Embodiment. Opposite to Meaningfulness Embodiment.

Users become the living embodiment of nihilism and gain the ability to feed off of the unimportance of everything in existence. What the user sees is deemed nothing worth while, or of absolute insignificance: the opponent is deemed weak or worthless and can be destroyed by the user.

Xemnas (Kingdom Hearts) represents Nihilism, wielding the power of nothingness.

Yuchi Hirose (Alive: The Final Evolution) took in the Heart of Akuro to completely become the Void, and became completely emotionless as a result.

Kefka Palazzo (Final Fantasy) is a powerful being who enjoys nothing but chaos and destruction.

Utsuro (Gintama) considers his 500 years of immortality being an empty and meaningless existence; even the mind-reading Batou considers him to be "empty".

Kyurem (Pokmon) represents the absence of yin and yang.

Emo Dandy (Space Dandy) is a parallel version of Dandy whose life is so depressing and meaningless that nothing matters to him anymore, leaving him a personification of emptiness and nihilism.

View original post here:

Nihilism Embodiment | Superpower Wiki | FANDOM powered by ...

John McAfee announces bid for 2020 US presidential election

Cryptocurrency firebrand John McAfee yesterday announced his intent to run in the 2020 US presidential race.

File this under: Not a chance in hell. McAfee, a British-born US citizen with a checkered past, sought the Libertarian party candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, but lost to Gary Johnson.

This time, however, he appears to be ready to sally forth even if he cant get the Libertarian nomination:

Its worth mentioning, in 2015 McAfee announced his candidacy with the creation of the Cyber party, but eventually ended up seeking the Libertarian bid instead.

What a platform: John McAfee is a cryptocurrency advocate who believe cannabis should be legalized, businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, and the transportation security administration should be shut down.

Hes also been implicated in a murder by the government of Belize which he claims is part of a conspiracy to extort him and, if the value of a bitcoin doesnt reach $1 million by the end of 2020, hell eat his own penis.

The impact: I see old people. They dont know theyre old. The upcoming 2020 US presidential elections may end up containing one of the oldest candidate pools ever. Heres an entirely plausible list of candidates we could see along with their current age:

For comparison, Barrack Obama is 56 now, and George W. Bush was 62 when he left office after two terms.

Would you vote for John McAfee? If so, tell us your ridiculous reasons why in the comments section.

Published June 4, 2018 15:37 UTC

Here is the original post:

John McAfee announces bid for 2020 US presidential election

Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural SelectionWhile Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In CrisisDarwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Explore More Now!

Footnotes:

See the rest here:

Darwin's Theory Of Evolution

Immortality Immorality – TV Tropes

"When one tries to rise above Nature one is liable to fall below it... Consider, Watson, that the material, the sensual, the worldly would all prolong their worthless lives. The spiritual would not avoid the call to something higher. It would be the survival of the least fit. What sort of cesspool may not our poor world become?"

Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Creeping Man

open/close all folders

Anime and Manga

Comic Books

Fan Fiction

...having been all but immortal from birth, never knowing vulnerability, far too many of them never developed notions of empathy or restraint, or found them far too late.

Films Animated

Films Live-Action

Teague: The trick isn't living forever, Jackie. The trick is living with yourself forever.

Blackbeard: I'm a bad man.

Literature

Kumori: Can you imagine if da Vinci had continued to live, to study, to paint, to invent? That the remarkable accomplishments of his lifetime could have continued through the centuries rather than dying in the dim past? Can you imagine going to see Beethoven in concert? Taking a theology class taught by Martin Luther? Attending a symposium hosted by Einstein? Think, Dresden. It boggles the mind.

"Her only sin was that she loved life and all the meanings of life," said the Stygian girl. "To win life she courted death. She could not bear to think of growing old and shriveled and worn, and dying at last as hags die. She wooed Darkness like a lover and his gift was lifelife that, not being life as mortals know it, can never grow old and fade. She went into the shadows to cheat age and death "

Live-Action TV

Tabletop Games

Video Games

Web Original

Webcomics

Western Animation

Narrator: [singing] Oh Marceline! Why are you so mean?

Marceline: '[singing back] I'm not mean, I'm a thousand years old, and I just lost track of my moral code.

Real Life

See the original post:

Immortality Immorality - TV Tropes

Immortality, Transhumanism, and Ray Kurzweils Singularity

Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended. Vernor Vinge, Technological Singularity, 1983

Futurist and Inventor Ray Kurzweil has a plan: He wants to never die.

In order to achieve this goal, he currently takes over 150 supplements per day, eats a calorie restricted diet (a proven technique to prolong lifespan), drinks ionized water (a type of alkalinized water that supposedly protects against free radicals in the body), and exercises daily, all to promote the healthy functioning of his body; and at 60 years old, he reportedly has the physiology of a man 20 years younger.

But the human body, no matter how well you take care of it, is susceptible to illness, disease, and senescence the process of cellular change in the body that results in that little thing we all do called aging. (This cellular process is why humans are physiologically unable to live past the age of around 125 years old.) Kurzweil is well aware of this, but has a solution: he is just trying to live long enough in his human body until technology reaches the point where man can meld with machine, and he can survive as a cyborg with robotically enhanced features; survive, that is, until the day when he can eventually upload his consciousness onto a harddrive, enabling him to live forever as bits of information stored indefinitely; immortal, in a sense, as long as he has a copy of himself in case the computer fails.

What happens if these technological abilities dont come soon enough? Kurzweil has a back-up plan. If, for some reason, this mind-machine blend doesnt occur in his biological lifetime, Kurzweil is signed up at Alcor Life Extension Foundation to be cryonically frozen and kept in Scottsdale, Arizona, amongst approximately 900 other stored bodies (including famous baseball player Ted Williams) who are currently stored. There at Alcor, he will wait until the day when scientists discover the ability to reanimate life back into him and not too long, as Kurzweil believes this day will be in about 50 years.

Watch a video on Alcor and Cryonics here:

Ray Kurzweil is a fascinating and controversial figure, both famous and infamous for his technological predictions. He is a respected scientist and inventor, known for his accurate predictions of a number of technological events, and recently started The Singularity University here in Silicon Valley, an interdisciplinary program (funded in part by Google) aimed to assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders around issues of accelerating technologies.

Ray Kurzweil

Kurzweils most well-known predictions are encapsulated in this event he forecasts called The Singularity, a period of time he predicts in the next few decades when artificial intelligence will exceed human intelligence, and technologies like genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and computer technology will radically transform human life, enabling mind, body and machine to become one.

He is also a pioneer of a movement called transhumanism, which is defined by this belief that technology will ultimately replace biology, and rid human beings of all the things that, well, make us human, like disease, aging, and you guessed itdeath. Why be human when you can be something better? When Artificial intelligence and nanotechnology comes around in the singularity, Kurzweil thinks, being biologically human will become obsolete. With cyborg features and enhanced cognitive capacities, we will have fewer deficiencies, and more capabilities; we will possess the ability to become more like machines, and well be better for it.

Watch A Preview For A Film About Kurzweil entitled Transcendent Man:

Kurzweil outlines his vision of our technological future in his article Reinventing Humanity: The Future of Machine-Human Intelligence for Futurist Magazine, which raises some juicy points to consider from the perspective of ethics and technology. He explains The Singularity, in his own words,:

We stand on the threshold of the most profound and transformative event in the history of humanity, the singularity.

What is the Singularity? From my perspective, the Singularity is a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so fast and far-reaching that human existence on this planet will be irreversibly altered. We will combine our brain powerthe knowledge, skills, and personality quirks that make us humanwith our computer power in order to think, reason, communicate, and create in ways we can scarcely even contemplate today.

This merger of man and machine, coupled with the sudden explosion in machine intelligence and rapid innovation in the fields of gene research as well as nanotechnology, will result in a world where there is no distinction between the biological and the mechanical, or between physical and virtual reality. These technological revolutions will allow us to transcend our frail bodies with all their limitations. Illness, as we know it, will be eradicated. Through the use of nanotechnology, we will be able to manufacture almost any physical product upon demand, world hunger and poverty will be solved, and pollution will vanish. Human existence will undergo a quantum leap in evolution. We will be able to live as long as we choose. The coming into being of such a world is, in essence, the Singularity.

The details of the coming Singularity, Kurzweil outlines, will occur in three areas: The genetic revolution, the nanotech revolution, and strong AI: which means, essentially, machines that are smarter than humans.

The first he describes is the nanotechnology revolution, which refers to a type of technology that manipulates matter on an atomic and molecular scale, potentially allowing us to reassemble matter in a variety of ways. Kurzweil believes nanotechnology will give us the capability to create atomic size robots that can clean our blood cells and eradicate disease; he also thinks nanotechnology will allow us to create essentially anything by assembling it through nanobots (for example, he thinks that nanotechnology will enable us to e-mail physical things like clothing, much like we can currently e-mail audio-files). He explains:

The nanotechnology revolution will enable us to redesign and rebuildmolecule by moleculeour bodies and brains and the world with which we interact, going far beyond the limitations of biology.

In the future, nanoscale devices will run hundreds of tests simultaneously on tiny samples of a given substance. These devices will allow extensive tests to be conducted on nearly invisible samples of blood.

In the area of treatment, a particularly exciting application of this technology is the harnessing of nanoparticles to deliver medication to specific sites in the body. Nanoparticles can guide drugs into cell walls and through the blood-brain barrier. Nanoscale packages can be designed to hold drugs, protect them through the gastrointestinal tract, ferry them to specific locations, and then release them in sophisticated ways that can be influenced and controlled, wirelessly, from outside the body.

In regards to AI, Kurzweil envisions what will eventually become a post-human future, where we upload our consciousness to computers and live forever as stored information:

The implementation of artificial intelligence in our biological systems will mark an evolutionary leap forward for humanity, but it also implies we will indeed become more machine than human. Billions of nanobots will travel through the bloodstream in our bodies and brains. In our bodies, they will destroy pathogens, correct DNA errors, eliminate toxins, and perform many other tasks to enhance our physical well-being. As a result, we will be able to live indefinitely without aging.

Despite the wonderful future potential of medicine, real human longevity will only be attained when we move away from our biological bodies entirely. As we move toward a software-based existence, we will gain the means of backing ourselves up (storing the key patterns underlying our knowledge, skills, and personality in a digital setting) thereby enabling a virtual immortality. Thanks to nanotechnology, we will have bodies that we can not just modify but change into new forms at will. We will be able to quickly change our bodies in full-immersion virtual-reality environments incorporating all of the senses during the 2020s and in real reality in the 2040s.

Now, the idea of becoming nanobot driven robots is hard to wrap ones head around, particurlaly living in a time when people struggle to get their blue-tooths to work correctly. But even though to most people, these predictions seem very extreme, Kurzweil explains why he thinks these changes are coming fast, even if we cant conceive of them now. He explains that, in the vein of Moores law (which describes how the density of transistors on computer chips has doubled every two years since its invention), technology develops exponentially and thus the rate of change is rapidly increasing in the modern day:

We wont experience 100 years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of 20,000 years of progress

How is it possible we could be so close to this enormous change and not see it? The answer is the quickening nature of technological innovation. In thinking about the future, few people take into consideration the fact that human scientific progress is exponential

In other words, the twentieth century was gradually speeding up to todays rate of progress; its achievements, therefore, were equivalent to about 20 years of progress at the rate of 2000. Well make another 20 years of progress in just 14 years (by 2014), and then do the same again in only seven years. To express this another way, we wont experience 100 years of technological advance in the twenty-first century; we will witness on the order of 20,000 years of progress (again, when measured by todays progress rate), or progress on a level of about 1,000 times greater than what was achieved in the twentieth century.

Reflections

There are so many questions to ask, its hard to know where to start. Considering The Singularity, many questions arise (the first, which youre probably thinking, is Is this really possible?!) But that question put temporarily aside, some questions seem to be: what are the promise and perils of nanotechnology, and how can we approach them responsibly?What types of genetic engineering, if any, should we pursue, and what types should we avoid? If we really could live forever, should weparticularly if it meant living no longer as humans, but as machines? And what happens to who we are as human beings our beliefs, our religions and faiths, our thoughts about our purpose if we pursue this type of future?

Each of these topics is rife with ethical and existential questions; and discussion of many of them requires scientific knowledge that extends beyond my ability to represent them here. But contemplating these questions broadly, even in spite of extensive knowledge of their specifics, brings into focus some fundamental questions about the principles of human experience, and about the broad issue of our technological future and how to approach it.The more we envision a technologically saturated future, I think, the more our human values are called upon to be revealed as we react, respond, flinch, or embrace the pictures of our future reflected in these predictions. They ask us to consider: what do we value about being human? What do we want to hold on to about being human, and what do want to replace, augment, and transform with technology? Is living as stored information really any life at all?

In addition to these questions, exploring these futuristic issues calls us to consider some of our fundamental principles about technology. A basic yet extremely complex question arises: Should all technology be pursued? In other words, should we ever restrict technological innovation, and say that some technologies, because of their risks to humanity, or to certain human values simply shouldnt be developed?

Reflections on this question bring up the topic of techno-optimism and techno-pessimism, which I wrote about briefly here.

Kurzweil, it seems to go without saying, is a fullfledged techno-optimist, interested in letting technology run its full reign, even if that means leaving everything that is recognizeably human behind. He concedes that we need to be responsible about our use of nanotechnology a technology which some fear could bring about the end of the world (see the grey goo theory) but for the most part is a proponent of full fledged technological expansion. Reflection is important, but no amount should limit technologies:

We dont have to look past today to see the intertwined promise and peril of technological advancement, he says. Imagine describing the dangers (atomic and hydrogen bombs for one thing) that exist today to people who lived a couple of hundred years ago. They would think it mad to take such risks. But how many people in 2006 would really want to go back to the short, brutish, disease-filled, poverty-stricken, disaster-prone lives that 99% of the human race struggled through two centuries ago?

We may romanticize the past, but up until fairly recently most of humanity lived extremely fragile lives in which one all-too-common misfortune could spell disaster. Two hundred years ago, life expectancy for females in the record-holding country (Sweden) was roughly 35-five years, very brief compared with the longest life expectancy today-almost 85 years for Japanese women. Life expectancy for males was roughly 33 years, compared with the current 79 years. Half a day was often required to prepare an evening meal, and hard labor characterized most human activity. There were no social safety nets. Substantial portions of our species still live in this precarious way, which is at least one reason to continue technological progress and the economic improvement that accompanies it. Only technology, with its ability to provide orders of magnitude of advances in capability and affordability has the scale to confront problems such as poverty, disease, pollution, and the other overriding concerns of society today. The benefits of applying ourselves to these challenges cannot be overstated.

But another, more technologically conservative view is important to consider, one characterized by thinkers who question whether these technologies should be proliferated, or even pursued at all.

William Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, famously countered Kurzweils predictions in his article, Why The Future Doesnt Need Us. He opens his article discussing his meeting with Kurzweil:

I had always felt sentient robots were in the realm of science fiction. But now, from someone I respected, I was hearing a strong argument that they were a near-term possibility

From the moment I became involved in the creation of new technologies, their ethical dimensions have concerned me, but it was only in the autumn of 1998 that I became anxiously aware of how great are the dangers facing us in the 21st century. I can date the onset of my unease to the day I met Ray Kurzweil, the deservedly famous inventor of the first reading machine for the blind and many other amazing things.

I had always felt sentient robots were in the realm of science fiction. But now, from someone I respected, I was hearing a strong argument that they were a near-term possibility. I was taken aback, especially given Rays proven ability to imagine and create the future. I already knew that new technologies like genetic engineering and nanotechnology were giving us the power to remake the world, but a realistic and imminent scenario for intelligent robots surprised me.

Joy then discusses how these technologies (namely nanotechnology and artificial intelligence) pose a new, unparralleled threat to humanity, and that as a result, we shouldnt pursue them in fact, we should purposefully restrict them, on the principle that the amount of harm and threat they pose to humanity itself outweighs what benefit they could bring.

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.

Failing to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are in the rapture of discovery and innovation seems to be a common fault of scientists and technologists; we have long been driven by the overarching desire to know that is the nature of sciences quest, not stopping to notice that the progress to newer and more powerful technologies can take on a life of its own.

We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes. Have we already gone too far down the path to alter course? I dont believe so, but we arent trying yet, and the last chance to assert control the fail-safe point is rapidly approaching. We have our first pet robots, as well as commercially available genetic engineering techniques, and our nanoscale techniques are advancing rapidly. While the development of these technologies proceeds through a number of steps, it isnt necessarily the case as happened in the Manhattan Project and the Trinity test that the last step in proving a technology is large and hard. The breakthrough to wild self-replication in robotics, genetic engineering, or nanotechnology could come suddenly, reprising the surprise we felt when we learned of the cloning of a mammal.

He closes his essay saying:

Thoreau also said that we will be rich in proportion to the number of things which we can afford to let alone. We each seek to be happy, but it would seem worthwhile to question whether we need to take such a high risk of total destruction to gain yet more knowledge and yet more things; common sense says that there is a limit to our material needs and that certain knowledge is too dangerous and is best forgone.

Neither should we pursue near immortality without considering the costs A technological approach to Eternity near immortality through robotics may not be the most desirable utopia, and its pursuit brings clear dangers. Maybe we should rethink our utopian choices.

Another view that counters Kurzweils is presented by Richard Eckersley, focused a bit less on the scientific dangers and more on the threat to human values:

Why pursue this(Kurzweils) future?The future world that Ray Kurzweil describes bears almost no relationship to human well-being that I am aware of. In essence, human health and happiness comes from being connected and engaged, from being suspended in a web of relationships and interestspersonal, social and spiritual that give meaning to our lives. The intimacy and support provided by close personal relationships seem to matter most; isolation exacts the highest price. The need to belong is more important than the need to be rich. Meaning matters more than money and what it buys.

We are left with the matter of destiny: it is our preordained fate, Kurzweil suggests, to advance technologically until the entire universe is at our fingertips. The question then becomes, preordained by whom or what? Biological evolution has not set this course for us; Is technology itself the planner? Perhaps it will eventually be, but not yet.

We are left to conclude that we will do this because it is we who have decided it is our destiny.

Joy and Eckersley powerfully warn against our pursuit of a Kurzweil-type future. So we may be able to have the technical ability to achieve machine-like capacities; does that mean we should? This technological future, though perhaps possible, should not be preferable. The technologies that Kurzweil speaks of are dangerous, presenting a new type of threat that we have not before faced as humans and the risks of pursuing them far outweigh the benefits.

We may find ourselves equipped with the capacity to alter ourselves and the world, and yet unable to handle or control that immense power

If we are to continue down Kurzweils path, we may be able to pursue remarkable things conceived of mostly so far in science fiction a future where we are no longer humans at all, but artifacts of our own technological creations. But if we are to heed Joys and Eckersleys views, we would practice saying enough is enough we would say we have sufficient technology to live reasonably happy lives, and by encouraging the development of these new technologies, we might be unleashing entities of pandoras box that could put humanity in ruins forever. We would say, Yes, there is tremendous promise in these technologies; but there is more so a tremendous risk. We need to hold fast to the human values of restraint and temperance, lest we find ourselves equippedwiththe capacity to alter ourselves and the world, and yet unable to handle or control that immense power.

So the camps seem to be these: Kurzweil believes technology reduces suffering, and that we should pursue it for that reason to any end even until we are no longer human, but become technology ourselves. (Indeed, he feels we have a moral imperative to pursue them for this reason.) Joy believes there are too many dangers in this type of future. And Eckersley asks, why would we want this future, anyway? I am left thinking about a number of things:

First, I am intrigued by Kurzweils unwavering love for technology because it seems to me like technology has both its strengths and its weaknesses, and that such faith in a technological system greatly overinflates the capacities of technology to cure all of the worlds problems while overlooking its very real drawbacks.I wonder about putting so much faith in technology, to solve all our ills, and replace all our deficiencies. Is it really such a healing, improving force? Would it really be possible to achieve this technological utopia without some potentially disastrous consequences?

I also cant help but wonder what role technology, as its own force, plays in this debate. People often fear about rebellious robots or artificially intelligent beings taking over; but is technology already, in a sense guiding us, in control of us, instead of us controlling it? It seems harder and harder to resist the grip of technology, even as we face a future that, as Joy says, no longer needs us. Isnt there something a bit strange about humans contemplatingand preferring a post-human future? Does it indicate, in some sense, that technology has already overtaken man, and is gearing us down a path until it fully reigns supreme?

If we arent drawing the line at genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, does that mean we will never actually draw a line?

I am also left wondering, in part because of the aforementioned reason, whether it is possible to forego the development of certain technologies, as Joy suggests, given our current track record and inclinations towards the use of technology. It always seems with technology that if we have the capacity to do something, then we inevitably will. Is it possible to stop the development of technology, especially if that means also giving up some of its potential benefits? And if we arent drawing the line at genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, does that mean we will never actually draw a line? What does that say about human nature that we forever seek this sort of technological progress, even when it robs us of what we currently conceive of as making us human? Are there core values to being human that will persevere, or are we really just a fleeting blip in the evolutionary climb towards becoming transhumans?

Concluding Thoughts

The ideas Kurzweil puts forth as his vision of our future really forces one to consider what things about being human seem worth holding onto (if any). And even if his predictions dont materialize in the way or the time frame he anticipates, it does seem undeniable that we are at a critical turning point in our species history. Indeed, the decisions we choose to make now in regards to these fundamentally reshaping technologies will affect generations to come in a profound way generations whose lives will be radically different based on what roads we choose to go down in regards to genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology.

But making these choices is not strictly a technical task, concerned merely with what we are able to, technologically speaking, accomplish; rather, it really requires us to decideour core beliefs about what makes a good life; to consider what is worth risking about being human beings, not only to alleviate suffering but also to engage in these self-enhancing technologies that will supposedly make us stronger, smarter, and less destructible; and to grapple with these fundamental questions of life and death that are not technological issues but rather metaphysical ones. Indeed, its no small philosophical feat to reshape and change the human genome; its no small feat to create artificial beings smarter than human beings; and its no small feat to eradicate what has, since the birth of mankind, defined our human experience: the fleeting nature of life, and the inevitability of death. Taking this power and control into our own hands requires not just the capability to achieve extended life from a technical standpoint, but a completely redefined scope of who we are, what we want, and what our purpose is on this planet.

There are questions, of course, about the moral decision of living forever. What would we do about overpopulation would we stop procreating completely? Does a person living now have more of a right to be alive than a person who hasnt been born yet? Where would we derive purpose from in life if there was no end point? These would all be real questions to consider in this type of scenario; and they are questions that would require real reflection. With a reshaped experience of what it means to be human, we would be required to make decisions about our lives that weve never even had to consider making before.

But if Kurzweil is correct, then never have we had such power over our own destinies. In Kurzweils world, there is no higher power or God divining our life course, nor is there an afterlife or Heaven worth gaining entrance to. The biological and technical underpinnings of life are, in his view, manipulatable at our will; we can defy what some might call our God- given biology and we can become our own makers. We can even make our own rules. And along with that power, would come the responsibility to answer some very weighty philosophical questions, for nothing else would be determining those answers for us.

My question is, do we really want that responsibility? Are we really equipped to handle that type of power? And furthermore, does getting caught up in all the ways these technologies could enhance our lives in getting caught up in the idea that all technological innovation is definitively progress are we less and less able to step back and ask the philosophical and ethical questions about if this isreally what a good life looks like?

Questions:

When you envision our technological future, do you share Kurzweils dreams? Joys fears? Eckersleys questions about our human values being lost?

Should we place limits on certain technologies, given the dangers they present? Are there any types of technologies we simply shouldnt pursue?

Go here to read the rest:

Immortality, Transhumanism, and Ray Kurzweils Singularity

ACN Offshore

N-ERGISEprovides a wealth of experience to support the oil & gas and renewables sectors, with a senior management team deploying knowledge and expertise spanning more than 40 years in the industry.

N-ERGISE provides a wide range of services that includes fabrication, commissioning, decommissioning, hook-ups, fabric maintenance,onshore & offshore shutdowns, offshore maintenance, E&I, project management and personnel supply.

N-ERGISE builds enduring relationships with its clients by ensuring that their requirements are always met on time and are cost-efficient. N-ERGISE are able to offer an integrated service from design planning, project management to installation.

The companyis headed by a core team of seasoned and dedicated industry professionals who provide clients with proven experience and a strong history of successful project completions. This experience allows N-ERGISE to offer a full turnkey project solution.

Located in Great Yarmouth, N-ERGISE is in a prime location to service the North Sea offshore industry.Facilities availableincludeopen and closed storage areas, fully equipped machine shop and serviced fabrication and welding shop.

The N-ERGISE philosophy centres on providing a safe solution with a positive delivery to all projects, regardless of magnitude.

Read the original post:

ACN Offshore

Admission to the Chemical Engineering and NanoEngineering …

Welcome to the NanoEngineering Department and congratulations on being admitted to UC San Diego.If you are interested in applying to the Chemical Engineering (CE25) and NanoEngineering (NA25) majors, please read below.

Applications for the NanoEngineering major are open each quarter. The next application periodfor current studentsfor the NanoEngineering major will be Monday, June 18th to Sunday, July 1st, 2018. Incoming freshmenwill apply during the application period starting Monday, June 18th to Sunday July 1st, 2018.

Applications for the Chemical Engineering majorwill only beaccepted at the end of Spring quarter, each year. The application period for Fall 2018begins Monday, June 18th, 2018to Sunday, July 1, 2018 for all students.

Students must submit their application through the My Jacobs School of Engineering Major Change Application. If the application states that you are not eligible to applybut you have met all of the admission requirements, we recommend you continue submitting an application.

Prospective undergraduate students can click here for more information about transferring into an engineering major, capped majors, student advising, and more.

Change of Major Requirements - Effective Fall 2017 Quarter and later

Current students - First and second year current students can apply to both majors (B.S. Chemical Engineering and B.S. NanoEngineering). Admission into both majors is limited. Studentsthat have applied to an oversubscribed major will be further evaluated by the Office of Admissions for admission to the major, taking into consideration the number of spaces available in the major. First year studentscan apply at the end of their third quarter at UC San Diego. As continuing students, applications are also accepted until the end of their 6th quarter. Current students must have completed all screening courses (below) and earned a minimum of 3.0 GPA in screening courses to be eligible.

Transfer Students - The NanoEngineering Department will admit a predetermined number of transfer students into the Chemical Engineering or NanoEngineering majors. Interested transfer students must apply no later than at the end of their 3rd quarter at UC San Diego, as the time to graduation would be delayed since the majority of departmental courses are offered only once per year. Transfer students who wish to be considered must meet the following minimum requirements:

Screening Course Requirements

Please note: If you have not completed all of the lower division requirements listed below, please contact our Undergraduate Advisors for more information about the major and how long it will take you to graduate:

*Freshmen applicants have until the end of the third quarter and continuing student applicants have until the end of the sixth quarter at UC San Diego to complete the requirements listed. We will not consider transfer student applicants who exceed 3 quarters at UC San Diego.

Questions? If you are a current UC San Diego student and have additional questions, contact an advisor through the Virtual Advising Center (VAC). If you are not a UC San Diego student, you can reach an advisor at ne-ugradinfo@eng.ucsd.edu.

Read this article:

Admission to the Chemical Engineering and NanoEngineering ...

Cryonics: Putting Death on Ice – Visual Capitalist

There is a potent thread winding its way through generations of human culture. From Ancient Egyptian rituals to Kurzweils Singularity, many paths have sprung up leading to the same elusive destination: immortality.

Today, the concept is as popular as its ever been, and technological advances are giving people hope that immortality, or at very least radical life extension, may be within reach. Is modern technology advanced enough to give people a second chance through cryonics?

Todays infographic, courtesy of Futurism, tackles our growing fascination with putting death on ice.

Robert C. W. Ettingers seminal work, The Prospect Of Immortality, detailed many of the scientific, moral, and economic implications of cryogenically freezing humans for later reanimation. It was after that book was published in 1962 that the idea of freezing ones body after death began to take hold.

One of the most pressing questions is, even if were able to revive a person who has been cryogenically preserved, will the persons memories and personality remain intact? Ettinger posits that long-term memory is stored in the brain as a long-lasting structural modification. Basically, those memories will remain, even if the brains power is turned off.

Source

There are three main steps in the cryogenic process:

1) Immediately after a patient dies, the body is cooled with ice packs and transported to the freezing location.

2) Next, blood is drained from the patients body and replaced with a cryoprotectant (basically the same antifreeze solution used to transport organs destined for transplant).

3) Finally, once the body arrives at the cryonic preservation facility, the body is cooled to -196C (-320.8F) over the course of two weeks. Bodies are generally stored upside-down in a tank of liquid nitrogen.

At prices ranging from about $30,000 to $200,000, cryopreservation may sound like an option reserved for the wealthy, but many people fund the procedure by naming a cryonics company as the primary benefactor of their life insurance policy. Meanwhile, in the event of a death that doesnt allow for preservation of the body, the money goes to secondary beneficiaries.

Even if we do eventually find a way to reanimate frozen humans, another important consideration is how those people would take care of themselves financially. Thats where a cryonics or personal revival trust comes into play. A twist on a traditional dynastic trust, this arrangement ensures that there are funds to cover costs of the cryopreservation, as well as ensure the grantor would have assets when theyre unthawed. Of course, there are risks involved beyond the slim possibility of reanimation. The legal code in hundreds of years could be vastly different than today.

If you created a trust for specific purposes in 1711, it is unlikely it would function in the same way today.

Kris Knaplund, Law Professor, Pepperdine University

At last count, there are already 346 people in the deep freeze, with thousands more on the waiting list. As technology improves, those numbers are sure to continue rising.

Time will tell whether cryonically preserved people are able to cheat death. In the meantime? The cryonics industry is alive and well.

Interested in more infographics on future technology?Help us make the first Visual Capitalist book a reality on Kickstarter.

Read this article:

Cryonics: Putting Death on Ice - Visual Capitalist

Micro and Nano Flows for Engineering: Home

The micro & nano flows group is a research partnership between the Universities of Warwick and Edinburgh, and Daresbury Laboratory. We investigate gas and liquid flows at the micro and nano scale (where conventional analysis and classical fluid dynamics cannot be applied) using a range of simulation techniques: molecular dynamics, extended hydrodynamics, stochastic modelling, and hybrid multiscaling. Our aim is to predict and understand these flows by developing methods that combine modelling accuracy with computational efficiency.

Targeted applications all depend on the behaviour of interfaces that divide phases, and include: radical cancer treatments that exploit nano-bubble cavitation; the cooling of high-power electronics through evaporative nano-menisci; nanowire membranes for separating oil and water, e.g. for oil spills; and smart nano-structured surfaces for drag reduction and anti-fouling, with applications to low-emissions aerospace, automotive and marine transport.

Our work is supportedby a number of funding sources (see below), including a 5-year EPSRC Programme Grant (2016-2020). This Programme aims to underpin future UK innovation in nano-structured and smart interfaces by delivering a simulation-for-design capability for nano-engineered flow technologies, as well as a better scientific understanding of the critical interfacial fluid dynamics.

We will produce software that a) resolves interfaces down to the molecular scale, and b) spans the scales relevant to the engineering application. As accurate molecular/particle methods are computationally unfeasible at engineering scales, and efficient but conventional fluids models do not capture the important molecular physics, this is a formidable multiscale problem in both time and space. The software we develop will have embedded intelligence that decides dynamically on the correct simulation tools needed at each interface location, for every phase combination, and matches these tools to appropriate computational platforms for maximum efficiency.

This work is strongly supported by nine external partners (see below).

Read more:

Micro and Nano Flows for Engineering: Home

Objectivism and libertarianism – Wikipedia

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States. Many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism.[1] However, the views of Rand and her philosophy among prominent libertarians are mixed and many Objectivists are hostile to libertarians in general.[2]

Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[3] but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom." Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[4] They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand, Rand believed that government can in principle be funded through voluntary means.[5]

Jennifer Burns in her biography Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, notes how Rand's position that "Native Americans were savages", and that as a result "European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights", was one of the views that "particularly outraged libertarians."[6] Burns also notes how Rand's position that "Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism", was also a controversial position amongst libertarians, who at the time were a large portion of Rand's fan base.[6]

Libertarians and Objectivists often disagree about matters of foreign policy. Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" extended to the Middle East peace process in the 1970s.[6][7] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads."[7] Consequently, Rand contended Arab resentment for Israel was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."[7]

Most scholars of the libertarian Cato Institute have opposed military intervention against Iran,[8] while the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute has supported forceful intervention in Iran.[9][10]

The United States Libertarian Party's first candidate for President of the United States, John Hospers, credited Rand as a major force in shaping his own political beliefs.[11] David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, described Rand's work as "squarely within the libertarian tradition" and that some libertarians are put off by "the starkness of her presentation and by her cult following."[12] Milton Friedman described Rand as "an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good."[13] One Rand biographer quoted Murray Rothbard as saying that he was "in agreement basically with all [Rand's] philosophy," and saying that it was Rand who had "convinced him of the theory of natural rights..."[14] Rothbard would later become a particularly harsh critic of Rand, writing in The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult that:

The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.[15]

Some Objectivists have argued that Objectivism is not limited to Rand's own positions on philosophical issues and are willing to work with and identify with the libertarian movement. This stance is most clearly identified with David Kelley (who separated from the Ayn Rand Institute because of disagreements over the relationship between Objectivists and libertarians), Chris Sciabarra, Barbara Branden (Nathaniel Branden's former wife), and others. Kelley's Atlas Society has focused on building a closer relationship between "open Objectivists" and the libertarian movement.[citation needed]

Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism.[16] Rand regarded Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system. Libertarianism, in contrast, is a political philosophy which confines its attention to matters of public policy. For example, Objectivism argues positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, whereas libertarianism does not address such questions. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.[17]

Rand said of libertarians that:

They're not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers.... Most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandledi.e., the teeth pulled out of themwith no credit given."[16]

In a 1981 interview, Rand described libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose."[16]

Responding to a question about the Libertarian Party in 1976, Rand said:

The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact oppositewith religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can findand call themselves libertarians and run for office."[18]

In 2011, Yaron Brook, then-Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, spoke at the Foundation for Economic Education.[19] He was a keynote speaker at FreedomFest 2012[20] and appeared on ReasonTV on July 26, 2012.[21]

Ayn Rand Institute board member John Allison spoke at the Cato Club 200 Retreat in September 2012,[22] contributed "The Real Causes of the Financial Crisis" to Cato's Letter,[23] and spoke at Cato's Monetary Conference in November, 2011.[24]

On June 25, 2012, the Cato Institute announced that John Allison would become its next president.[25] In Cato's public announcement, Allison was described as a "revered libertarian." In communication to Cato employees, he wrote, "I believe almost all the name calling between libertarians and objectivists is irrational. I have come to appreciate that all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists."[26]

On October 15, 2012, Brook explained the changes to The American Conservative:

I dont think theres been a significant change in terms of our attitude towards libertarians. Two things have happened. Weve grown, and weve gotten to a size where we dont just do educational programs, we do a lot more outreach and a lot more policy and working with other organizations. I also believe the libertarian movement has changed. Its become less influenced by Rothbard, less influenced by the anarchist, crazy for lack of a better word, wing of libertarianism. As a consequence, because were bigger and doing more things and because libertarianism has become more reasonable, we are doing more work with them than we have in the past. But I dont think ideologically anything of substance has changed at the Institute.[27]

Read the rest here:

Objectivism and libertarianism - Wikipedia

Libertarianism Is Not The Answer Return Of Kings

Recently I listened to a podcast in which Cassie Jaye, the director of The Red Pill, interviewed Stefan Molyneax about identity politics. Stefans answers to most questions were libertarianism is the answer. If we just had less government our problems would be solved.

He doesnt usually sound that dumb.

Then I came across an article saying that libertarians had the most masculine psychological profile. Could that really be? No. The parameters for judging masculinity versus femininity in the survey the article cites is based on empathy. Liberals showed the most empathy (think bleeding-heart liberals). Libertarians showed the least.

This pillar of manhood could have been your president

This is a poor parameter for judging manhood. A lack of empathy is a caricature of masculinity. Its a dark-triad traitthat loose, damaged women find attractive but is not common to most men. When betas pretend to be alphas without guidance they try to appear cold and calculating. But men are not this way.

Men certainly try to use logic when making decisions but we are not cold, calculating psychopaths. We have people for whom we care: sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, wives and friends and usually an ethnic group. We are masculine because we care about those people. We are strong because our strength is needed to support them. We are brave because our courage is needed to protect them. We work because our work is needed to feed and shelter them.

So no, libertarians are not the most masculine ideologues, they are just the least empathetic. In fact, here are some things that expose the weakness in libertarian ideology.

The most laughable part of the libertarian agenda states in essence; if only the government would get out of the economy the market would be free and therefore more competitive.

As I detailed here, for over a century America did have a free-market. Government regulations were largely non-existent. As a result trusts and oligopolies (both of which act as monopolies) took over the economy. Eventually the federal government tried to impose some regulations to stop these monopolistic organizations from controlling the market and suppressing competition but the damage was already done.

Corporations dont want competition. Thats the sad truth of the free market

Now the economy is controlled in large part by these huge organizations. Not only do they control the market, they control the politicians who could influence the market. Thats how banks can become too big to fail. We have only our governments initial laissez-faire attitude towards the economic market to thank for this.

The ironic part of the libertarian ideology is that they dont want the authoritarian government to control our actions but theyre perfectly fine with private organizations controlling our actions. Lets say, just for arguments sake, that a certain group of people disproportionately controlled the media and used it to influence our children, college students, and the gullible. Thats fine under libertarian ideology. Thats just the free market at work.

Libertarian economics only replaces one authority figure with another.

The reason libertarians are not on the left-right spectrum is because they share an anything-goes attitude toward cultural issues with leftists. Think of the issues most men on this site consider degenerate: parents raising their children as transgender, female hypergamy, the glorification of pornography, etc. The libertarian solution to all these problems is less government intervention.

Who then if not a central authority we appoint to protect children will stop parents from mutilating their childrens genitals to gain street cred among their radical leftist friends?Who prevents pornography from being advertised to children?

The sexual market place isnt regulated at all by society. Do you like where it is heading?

In the past we solved these problems by giving the government authority to solve them. Perhaps we could solve these problems ourselves if the government would allow us to, but this is backwards thinking. We already had the ability to solve all problems on our own. Eventually we created organizations (like the police or a governing body) to address certain issues so that we could move on with our lives.

Back to that Stefan Molyneax-Cassie Jaye conversation. In it they discuss abortion. One minute, Stefan discuss personal liberty. In the next he discusses why abortion is bad for society. In a libertarian, limited-government utopia there is nothing stopping doctors from performing third-trimester abortions for a price. Thats just free-market supply and demand economics at work.

The only part that bothers libertarians is when their tax dollars are used

No man is an island. If men work hard they will surely have some good times but they will also fall on hard times. When they fall on hard times how are other men going to view him? Are they going to be cold and calculating like libertarians? Or will show empathy and get him back on his feet so that he can get back to contributing in some way? Men are social animals. Those that support each other the best out compete others. Lone wolfs dont survive in nature for precisely this reason.

How many alpha males have no friends?

Everyone thinks that when things are going well for them it will always be that way. Nobody wants to imagine that they could be the one in need of help one day, but it happens all the time. Men were hit harder than anyone in the 2008 economic crash (thanks again, unregulated market). Ill bet a majority of men who lost their jobs then were self-reliant in the true sense; they didnt expect others to work for them. But libertarians would have us believe that anyone who used government programs to get back on their feet until the economy improved are not self-reliant.

We created social welfare programs so that men and families could get back to contributing to society.

What about all the libertarians who have been divorce-raped and cucked over the last 40 years? Are they happy that regulations were rolled back in the form of no-fault divorce?

We only have a government because so many complex problems have emerged in societies that it is helpful to have an organization that addresses those issues. Libertarians sound smart by saying we should limit government, but that doesnt solve any of the problems a government is supposed to solve.

Its everything libertarians want

Libertarians sound smart by saying phrases like personal liberty but in the end they bring nothing to the table.

For Jareds writing on Masculinity and literature check out his site Legends of Men.

Read More: The Free Market Is A Myth

Read more here:

Libertarianism Is Not The Answer Return Of Kings