Daily Archives: October 22, 2019

Japans rugby dream finally ended on Sunday. The Brave Blossoms lost to South Africa in the quarterfinals of the 2019 Rugby World Cup. I take my hat off to the team. Were really proud of what we have achieved, said Japans head coach Jamie Joseph, and so is everybody else in Japan.

Compared to baseball or soccer, rugby has never been a popular sport in Japan. For the past month since the World Cup opened on Sept. 20, however, millions of Japanese sports fans have converted to rugby. Although overpowered by South Africa, Japan performed well with its high-intensity running style of rugby.

Having said that, while watching this past Sundays historic match live on TV, I was contemplating something different. When a commentator said that Japans battle for the world cup was over, I thought no, the battle didnt end. No matter how well the Japan team had fought, it lost the battle. Isnt that the reality?

In a recent Washington Post column, U.S. Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell said, As neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more talk of endless wars. But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars are won or lost.

The Senate majority leader from Kentucky eloquently criticized U.S. President Donald Trumps abrupt decision to pull out of Syria to end the endless war. I interpreted this as saying that ending the war in Syria should not be an objective because you are losing, not winning, the war by trying to end it. Isnt that the reality as well?

A similar rhetoric is still dominant in Tokyo. On Aug. 15 every year, Japan the government, people and media alike commemorates the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. We dont say we lost the war. We behave as if our longest war in Asia and the Pacific had ended spontaneously in 1945.

Since then, the Japanese have forgotten what a war really means. Similarly, a growing number of Americans now indulge themselves in such an illusion. Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security laments this in his latest essay for Foreign Affairs: The Nonintervention Delusion What War Is Good For.

Pacifists in Tokyo always say, Peace loving nations do not go to war. Yes, sometimes they do especially when they must. War is merely a means to physically achieve a nations objective. If an illegal attack on other nations is taking place to change the status quo, a war of self-defense is justified under the United Nations Charter.

Now back to the war in Syria, which the U.S. is losing by ending it. In his column, McConnell presented three principal lessons about combating the complex threat. The lessons are the threat is real and cannot be wished away, there is no substitute for American leadership and we are not in this fight alone.

Unfortunately, the Republican senator wrote, the administrations recent steps in Syria do not reflect these crucial lessons. He may be right, but he needs some connotations for his argument. Here are some additional thoughts to add to his important essay:

First, McConnell said, the threat is real and cannot be wished away. Yes, the threat is real, of course. But we should also keep in mind that threats are often consequences of the past. In the case of the Islamic State or other extremists, they are part of popular reactions to legitimate U.S. support for illegitimate and unpopular presidents or rulers in the region.

Second, McConnell stated, there is no substitute for American leadership. Yes, there is, whether Americans like it or not. There are people, unfortunately, who are willing to submit to dictatorial governance in the Middle East and elsewhere. Those who have no experience in democracy and freedom do not appreciate their true values.

Finally, he argued that we are not in this fight alone. Not at all. But the U.S. would have to be alone if the Trump administration behaved as if America first meant America can do without its friends and allies. You cannot take their commitment and support for granted if you ignore them.

This means that the U.S. must face the troubles in the Middle East that Washington has been partly responsible for. Authoritarian leaders can easily be a substitute for the U.S. leadership. And finally, Americans may have to fight alone if Washington continues to make light of its traditional allies and friends.

Having said that, McConnell is wise and brave in criticizing the incumbent Republican president. He said We will see those troubles anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners and retreat from these conflicts before they are won. Americas wars will be endless only if America refuses to win them.

In order to avoid such endless wars, the U.S. must do two things. First, do something with the Trump administration. In his capacity as Senate majority leader, Americas friends and allies sincerely hope that McConnell will immediately multiply his efforts to make the Republican Party the Grand Old Party once again.

Second, in the medium to long term, as Andrew Krepinevich, a respected member of Americas strategic studies community puts it, the U.S. must be ready for the new forms of warfare. In his testimony last month before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, he listed the following three forms:

Algorithmic warfare by artificial intelligence systems, hyper war conducted at unprecedented speeds with advanced cyber or directed energy or hypersonic weaponry and precision biological warfare with advanced genetic engineering techniques.

Is the U.S. ready to do this? Krepinevich says no. If thats the case, how can Tokyo fight and win a defensive war against the status quo challengers? The U.S. and its allies have no time to waste. If we cant restore our alliance, we must work to refine it together maybe with a new administration in Washington.

Kuni Miyake is president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies.

Read the original:
Ending a war isn't the same as winning it - The Japan Times

Ridley Scott'sBlade Runnerwas a game changer in the world of science-fiction. In 1982, the same year that kid-friendly films likeE.T.were released conveying the adventures of a cuddly extra-terrestrial,Scott's vision of the near-future was introducing thought-provoking questions about the advancement of artificial intelligence, humankind's desire to play God, andwhat constituted being "human" with the rise of genetic engineering.

RELATED: 10 Hidden Details Everyone Missed In The Original Blade Runner

Set in 2019 Los Angeles after the degradation of Earth from a nuclear war, resources are scarce and anyone wealthy enough to do so ventures off-world. Off-world planets are colonized by replicants, synthetic beings created for the purpose of slave labor and dangerous activities unfit for humans. After a replicant revolt, they're forbidden from returning to Earth, but a few escape in a shuttle intent on making a better life for themselves. Deckard is the "Blade Runner" sent to "retire" them, along the way discovering more about his own humanity as he hunts those considered "more human than human." Here are five things that are scientifically accurate about the film andfive that make no sense.

Click the button below to start this article in quick view

InBlade Runner,Roy Batty pays a visit to the scientist behind the replicant's synthetic eyes. This man deals in eyes, but the rest of replicant's organs are synthetic as well. Today, the technology and science exists to generate organs in a lab that gives hope to those on lists for organ transplants.

Referred to as "bioartificial organ manufacturing technologies," organ substitutes (or artificial organs) will soon be made from cells designed to adapt to the tissue around them and become part and parcel with the individual who needs them. Stem cell research has been instrumental in 3D-printing bio-organs today, such as the thyroid gland.

Blade Runnertakes place in 2019, and the world has been made into an over-crowded, gritty, dystopian environment. In Philip K Dick's book Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?, this is due to the "World War Terminus," a nuclear war that left the world almost uninhabitable. Ifyou're wealthy, you move off-world.

RELATED:Blade Runner: 10 Things That Make No Sense

The film never exactly explains why there was a nuclear war, or who started it. As it stands with the state of nuclear weaponry in the world,90% of which is owned by the United States and Russia, both countries are aware that a nuclear holocaust would make the world uninhabitable due to ensuing firestorms, nuclear winters, and radioactive fallout. Ergo, how would all of this advanced technology from the Tyrell Corp even exist?

While we're nowhere near able to make a replicant as advanced as Roy Batty and those seen in the film, the fields of robotics has made significant strides in recent years. Sophia, the social robot programmed with hundreds of different algorithms and 50 facial expressions does a good job of "replicating" a human's appearance enough to interact with her comfortably.

Of course, we as a society have to be ready for such advancements. Even with artificial organ transplants, at what point is a human still a human? What will rights and civil liberties look like as we make advancements in the technology of artificial intelligence to the point that, as the Tyrell Corp says, there are individuals among us that "look more human than human?"

After the nuclear war that devastated the planet, humans had two choices: either scramble for resources on their home planet, or look to outer space for other livable conditions on a new planet. Thanks to the Tyrell Corp and its replicants, other planets can be colonized with minimal danger to humans, allowing them to live off world.

How far away are they from Earth? How far can humans get in this near future? The film takes place in 2019, and we have only just been able to land a chemical-rocket without ditching it out to see on its de-burn into our atmosphere. And is there a lottery to get off-world or is it simply a matter of being able to afford the space travel?

Because of the possibility of replicants going rogue, Tyrell Corp put in a limited lifespan (four years) to act as a sort of "kill switch." Some replicants had displayed erratic behavior around that time, particularly where emotional overload was concerned. Their actions could be dangerous to humans since they were so much stronger and faster, so it also served to make humans more comfortable with the replicant presence.

RELATED:10 Things From Blade Runner That Haven't Aged Well

Today, genetic engineers that have been working with T-cell therapy have already considered this. Since they work with manipulating T-cells outside the body that are then put into a human, there is a chance they'll eventually go rogue or reject their new environment. They could become cancerous and start an attack on the human body.

Roy Batty, a Nexus-6 replicant designed to be a perfect soldier for Earth's military, has a poetic monologue towards the end of the film. He explains to Deckard that he's seen things he can't possibly imagine, like"attack ships off the shoulder of Orion"and something about "glittering C-beams".

This is fantastic for world-building purposes and painting a vivid picture of the sort of interstellar battles Roy Batty has been in during his short four-year life span, but it doesn't explainhow as a society, after anuclear holocaust,we would have the technology at all to build space ships (not chemical-rockets) capable of engaging in skirmishes with...aliens? What exactly were they fighting out there in the off-world colonies?

InBlade Runner,the fictional Voight-Kampff test is used to identify if an individual is a replicant or a human. It's designed to trigger emotions in the subject, which replicants wouldn't be able to have. Through a series of questions and images, it monitors the subject's physiological response, such as reaction time and pupillary movement.

Neuroscientists today use a test that's very similar. A database called the International Affective Picture System contains emotionally disturbing pictures and some neutral ones, and is used to measure a person's emotional response by their reactions. These days it can also be coupled with brain scans, something that wasn't around when Philip K. Dick wrote the novel on whichBlade Runneris based.

Unlike the android Ash of Ridley Scott'sAlien, replicants like Roy Batty are more biological in nature. When you cut them open, you won't see wires, motors, and metal, but soft, genetically-engineered tissue. That being said, there's no mention of what "powers" a replicant.

RELATED: 10 Best Sci-Fi Movies About Artificial Intelligence, Ranked

They appear human, but don't require "sleep" or "food" or "social contact" to exist. They are efficient slave laborers, soldiers, and pleasure bots precisely because they're more effective at their tasks than humans ,who would require time away from their work. Even our most advanced robots today can't handlecertain physical environments, never mind be nimble, store power, and move autonomously for days on end.

One of the biggest ways a replicant differs from a human is their memories. As they were never "born" and had no childhood, but emerge as fully-formed adult humans in appearance when they're constructed, they have to have memories implanted. This is a way for them to have an "anchor" on their emotions, which would override their systems otherwise.

Today, cognition researchers use memory implantation as a technique in relation to cognitive psychology. They make subjects believe a memory happened to them that never actually did. These implanted memories prove how easy it is to distort a human's memory of a past event, casting doubt over the repressed therapy techniques of digging for memories that may not be valid. At that point, would a human and a replicant be so different if they both believed their memories to be true?

The robot-doomsday scenario is a mainstay in the sci-fi genre. In films likeTerminatorandI, Robot,the artificially intelligent beings turn on their human creators and threaten to wipe out humankind. It always boils down to the robot/AI/replicant either becoming "self aware" and wanting to preserve itself over humans who wish to destroy it, or deciding humans should be destroyed because they're inefficient/a danger to themselves (think Ultron inAvengers).

However, the crucial issue with the scenario is that while AI is still programmed by humans, AI doesn't think like humans. Humans can learn from very few examples of failure, but AI must replicate scenarios over and over to learn patterns not to repeat. In this way, they are far from developing consciousness. We should be more afraid of how humans would use AI, than how it would use itself.

NEXT:IO: IO: 5Things That Are Scientifically Accurate (& 5 Things That Make No Sense)

Tags:blade runner

Originally posted here:
Blade Runner: 5 Things That Are Scientifically Accurate (And 5 That Make No Sense) - Screen Rant

Heres what we know: Its 2026, and Buck Bokai is at the plate. Whether its his first at-bat, his third, or his sixth doesnt matter he has hit safely in 56 games in a row. Its 2026, and with every at-bat, Buck Bokai might break a Major League record that has stood since 1941. The pitcher hurls the ball at the plate, what kind of pitch lost to history Bokai swings, and makes contact. The sound of wood on leather rings out, sharp and sweet, but its a ground ball. Bokai runs. Fielder Eddie Newsom tries to make a play, but the ball just squeaks out under his glove. Bokai is safe. 57 games. A new record. A legend for all time.

Heres what we know: Its 2042, sixteen years later, and Buck Bokai is at the plate. He isnt such a young man anymore. Baseball isnt such a young sport, either. Invented in 1839, the game became the national pastime of America, and loved and played around the world. It survived corruption, scandal, steroids, and two world wars, but the world is turning sour again and it wont survive a third. This is the final World Series. There are 300 people in the stands. The pitcher hurls his ball at the plate. Bokai swings, makes contact. The sound of wood on leather rings out, louder than it should, and its a home run. He rounds the bases, touches home, and thats it for baseball. So long, folks.

Buck Bokai is one of Star Treks odder tragic figures. A once-in-a-lifetime talent who peaked at the decline of his craft, hes remembered solely, so far as we know, by an android playing a holodeck recreation of 20th century San Francisco, the commanding officer of a space station perched tenuously at the mouth of the galaxys only stable wormhole, and that officers son. That hes remembered at all is a miracle given the fate of the sport he played, and the fate of the world some years after he clubbed his last homer. Khan Noonien Singh, after all, was an obscure name in the database of the original starship Enterprises computers, and he was once the undisputed ruler of over a quarter of Earth. Were it not for the long memories of the sports few 24th century devotees, Bokais life, his accomplishments, would have fallen to dust.

Though the episode we see him in, Deep Space Nines If Wishes Were Horses, is more infamous than good, its a gift for anybody with an interest in the fabric of Star Treks vision of humanitys future. The Bokai who breaks DiMaggios hit streak is a nameless figure, a point of data recited by Data on The Next Generation because hes learned the facts of 20th and 21st century life to better fit into his captains Dixon Hill holonovel. The Bokai that appears in Deep Space Nine is a fully realized man, one whose exploits inspire Benjamin Sisko, one of the Federations greatest heroes. He provides context for stories that take place in Earths distant past. He stands as a hero at the intersection of skill and chance. He is, by virtue of his existence, one of the few models were given for what becomes of human sport as we stretch out from earth and take our place among the stars.

By subscribing to the Star Trek newsletter, which may include personalized offers from our advertising partners, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data collection and usage practices outlined in our Privacy Policy.

Heres what we know: Captain Jonathan Archer enjoys water polo. Lieutenant Commander Worf brutally learns the differences between human and Klingon physiology when he accidentally kills a classmate during a game of soccer. Captain Jean Luc-Picard loves to fence. Chief Miles OBrien cant help but kayak, even if it means tearing his rotator cuff. Doctor Julian Bashir, as a consequence of his genetic engineering, is too skilled to lose at darts. Doctor Phlox, a Denobulan serving on a human ship, hits shots effortlessly without truly grasping the concept of basketball. As humanity betters itself and encounters new races, its sports become obsolete. Springball, parrises squares, tsunkatse these are the games of the future.

It makes sense. One of the quintessential assertions Star Trek makes about Humanity is that we, as a species, are driven to seek out, introduce ourselves to, and live among other species. We grow attached to the games those species play first as a means of finding a foothold in their culture, then because it presents the unending challenge of mastery. The same is not true of the species we meet. In 2375 the Vulcan Logicians visit Deep Space Nine and destroy Benjamin Siskos Niners 10-1. The Niners one run is framed as a moral victory, but whats a moral victory to a Vulcan? What is baseball to a Vulcan?

StarTrek.com

A nostalgist would say that baseball is a living connection to Americas past, though I suspect Abner Doubleday wouldnt recognize the game as its played today as the one he invented in a pre-Civil War America. Its a global game, but not to the extent that Star Trek envisions. The Major Leagues have yet to become the Planetary League, and the Toronto Blue Jays are still the only foreign team eligible to play in the World Series. There are no teams in London, but it seems unlikely that the game is destined for an ignoble end in our time. 2019 is Buck Bokais rookie season for the Crenshaw Monarchs, and if the story of his career is that his genius is as obvious as it is underappreciated, the same cannot be said for generational talents like Mike Trout or Vladimir Guerrero Jr. Even the worst teams in memory, like my beloved 2003 Detroit Tigers, drew more than 300 fans to the ballpark. As long as there is time to pass, theres baseball to be played.

Heres what we know: Its 2063, and humanity has no time left to pass. Zefram Cochrane takes his seat in the cockpit of Earths first warp-capable ship, the Phoenix, and his flight catches the attention of a Vulcan ship nearby. Its been 20 years since Buck Bokai hit his last home run and, at least professionally, there are no home runs in his, or our, future. Buck Bokai is 65 years old. The game of baseball is 224 years old. Most games arent meant to last forever. The legacies of great men are often forgotten. Would Buck Bokai be Benjamin Siskos favorite ballplayer had he struck out, the count 3-2, his legacy that he merely tied with Joltin Joe? Would he be Siskos favorite ballplayer without the tinge of tragedy and finality that came with his last swing of the bat?

Baseball, like many sports, is a medium through which humans tell stories about themselves. In 2063 we learn that there is more to the universe than humanity, a vast number of races with whom we wish to communicate. Try explaining the rules of baseball to someone who doesnt like baseball. Now try explaining the rules of baseball to an alien. Whats more interesting to an interplanetary visitor: the man who broke the warp barrier, or the intricacies of the infield fly rule? Buck Bokai was a great baseball player, but his role in human history is to haunt a corner of it, a story written in a dead language and passed from one hobbyist to the next. Its not that hes the last boy of summer. Its just that summer eventually comes to mean something else.

Colette Arrand (she/her) is a transsexual poet from Athens, Georgia. She is the author of THE FUTURE IS HERE AND EVERYTHING MUST BE DESTROYED (Split Lip Press, 2019) and HOLD ME GORILLA MONSOON (OPO Books & Objects, 2017). She can be found on Twitter @colettearrand

More:
Buck Bokai: The Last Boy of Summer - Star Trek

Vol. 256's Editorial Board is largely in favor of the First-Year Shared Intellectual Experience and Exploration design team's proposal for revamping the frosh academic experience, but cautions that success relies on good execution. (Stanford News)

A thousand students shuffle to Frost Amphitheater in the cold for another lecture required by Stanfords new mandatory core. The lecture is boring. People scroll discreetly on their phones. They complain about being forced to take a class they dislike when hundreds of classes interest them more. This is the risk Stanford is taking with its ambitious plan to redesign the first-year academic experience.

But those same thousand students could also be brought together by the Core, meeting after class to debate a point of contention, sharing ideas over dinner as friends and applying their experiences to later challenges as alumni.

Out of our belief in the latter vision, we support the Long-Range Planning efforts to redesign and centralize Stanfords first-year experience. The plans promise to revitalize liberal education at Stanford if delivered upon is compelling. However, there are key concerns the University must address in its implementation of the plan, should the Faculty Senate approve it, ranging from explanations of syllabi to a greater focus on pedagogy.

In the last decade, Stanford has been embroiled in a conversation about the undergraduate curriculums fidelity to the Universitys stated goals. In 2012, Stanford abolished the then first-year requirement, Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM), in favor of the current Thinking Matters Program. Though the goal was to encourage exploration, the First-Year Shared Intellectual Experience and Exploration Design team concedes that the gambit failed. First-year students overwhelmingly use their increased flexibility to fulfill pre-major requirements, primarily in large STEM classes, according to the report. This is the crux of the design committees concern: that Stanford has lost sight of the intellectual exploration and humanistic focus a first-year liberal arts experience demands.

What then does recommitting to a liberal arts education look like, according to the proposal? PWR 1 will remain a first-year requirement, though Thinking Matters is on the chopping block. In its place will come a three-quarter mandatory Stanford Core sequence, in which all first-year students apart from those in SLE and ITALIC will be enrolled. The Core will cover a different theme every quarter: Liberal Education in the fall, Citizenship in the 21st Century in the winter and Global Perspectives in the spring. These three focus areas are designed to center upon the self, society and the world, respectively.

The fall quarter Liberal Education course will be a lecture series designed for 1,000 students, delving into issues ranging from the self versus community to free speech. In the winter, the Core turns its attention to topics like ethics and citizenship, utilitarianism, genetic engineering and Stanfords Fundamental Standard in weekly seminars and larger plenary sessions. Spring quarters Global Perspectives requirement is the most flexible, fulfilled by an array of classes including but not limited to HISTORY 1C: History in Global Perspective and EARTHSYS 106: World Food Economy.

We concur with some justifications the report presents in favor of the Core. We agree that standardizing the freshman year intellectual experience would unify students and build a stronger academic community. Having something in common with every other frosh can foster intellectual discussion outside the classroom that doesnt always crop up organically. Though the proposal does not mandate a residential requirement, the committee hopes that residential programming will supplement each of the three quarters to cement the Core as a shared first-year learning experience.

For students not in SLE or ITALIC, the center of gravity of the first-year academic experience largely lies in STEM pre-major requirements and large introductory classes. Over 71% of students take CS106A or CS106B in their first year. STEM enrollment grows even larger when including Math, Physics and Chemistry classes.

Early exposure to the liberal arts offers students still deciding between STEM and humanities fields the space to try the latter without falling behind. As the report points out, all-around pressure to decide and start fulfilling a major right away prevents exploration, especially for prospective premeds and STEM students. A major should reflect a path of interest, not an obligation. The Core wont necessarily change that path for everyone, but it might for some.

All of these potential benefits of the proposed Core depend, however, on how well the program is executed. First, besides proffering a lengthy philosophical defense of the liberal education model, the current proposal neither explains why particular texts and authors have been included nor describes why they are believed to dialogue effectively with each other. There are a great number of candidate texts that may be included in a class that investigates themes of the self, society, and world. The Core should be commended for recognizing the diversity of influences on contemporary thought, but its task now must be to justify these selections and to animate dialogue between them in a coherent fashion.

In this vein, the Core staff should not shy away from the inevitable criticisms that will be levied against the Cores implementation. Students, as citizens of the Stanford community, have not only a right but an imperative to engage in ongoing conversation on what the ideal form of a universal requirement should be. While it may be easy to label such responses as reactionary, we believe that discourse on the course itself may well turn out to be one of the most productive conversations generated by the first-year core. That conversation should be embraced, not dismissed as intellectually immature.

More importantly, teaching quality will determine the new Cores success. Engaging lecturers transform mundane topics into fascinating stories, while dry lecturers twist compelling content into forgettable narratives. The report expounds on its hopes for a shared intellectual community that will serve as a wellspring for conversation. But we found its lack of focus on pedagogy concerning. Ensuring cohesion between different lecturers and assuring individual lecturer quality is critical. The committee discusses incentives for faculty who teach in the new core, such as a $5,000 salary supplement. But these incentives dont differentiate between better teachers and worse ones: attracting faculty isnt the same as attracting the best faculty.

Students are commonly advised to take the professor, not the class. For two of the three quarters in the core sequence, they lack that choice. We think the promise of liberal education justifies this constriction of agency. We also think it means the institution has an obligation to deliver on that promise.

Contact the Editorial Board at opinions at stanford.edu.

We're a student-run organization committed to providing hands-on experience in journalism, digital media and business for the next generation of reporters.Your support makes a difference in helping give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to develop important professional skills and conduct meaningful reporting. All contributions are tax-deductible.

Continue reading here:
Will Stanford live up to its vision for a first-year shared intellectual experience? - The Stanford Daily