My two best girls

Jess' girl

in top form

My webpage, goose!

http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~dfmurphy/

Math requirement-Computing, Python, and Robots.

Check out my sound sample-you're hearing a moog, bass, and a flute.

After reading both articles I think I agree more with Joy, in that we should proceed with great caution towards a near future where humans will co-exist with robots. I am more inclined to be hopeful about such a (near) future where Kurzweil says within roughly 2(!) years computers will cease to exist in lieu of technology integrated onto our very clothing, creating this semi-virtual experiential existence, and in 20 some odd years nanorobots will be in our very own fibers. The latter still escapes me and I didn't quite grasp exactly what that meant and the extreme implication of such a reality. I have to be hopeful because they speak of the technology of the future as inevitable and not as once was merely fiction. What I did read of Kurzweil's Accelerating Intelligence took me quite a back. I guess I just never knew how soon scientists were developing these technologies.
When Joy spoke of confronting societies problems with new, helpful technology, one problem at a time, similarly to the turn of the century inventions of the Industrial Revolution, I understood how this seemed much less daunting than coping with possible inventions that would conflict with human existence. And that which are looming on our very horizon. What is different about the technological revolutions that took place a century plus ago to that which is happening now is that it seemed much more beneficial for the greater good. I don't think the ability to rely completely upon a robotic being is like returning to Eden, without a care in the world. An existence of leisure? I don't think so. Not for me anyway. I think humans should develop a cultivation of art, literature, study, and creation to be happy. Kurzweil seems like an overzealous, yet well-intentioned obsessed person.

Net Neutrality

The fundamental issue underlying the net neutrality debate is rights. Content providers are concerned with their traffic being treated equally and network owners debate the right to choose what traffic can travel over their network - should network owners be allowed to give preferential treatment to certain content providers over others? etc. Lastly, the rights of the user come into question. Privatization of the internet would create monopolies. The user would have little choice in certain decisions, as with small web sites, who would not be able to gain traction without the subsidization of their cause.
What net neutrality does is stops network carriers from choosing favorites, playing sides, etc. and deciding that the service quality a content provider gets depends on the business arrangement it makes with the ISP.
The ACLU and Google are in favor of net neutrality.
A result of a repeal against net neutrality would be fewer and fewer companies having more control over what consumers see and do on the internet. If the consumer does not like the services provided by their ISP, they have little choice but to take it or leave it. The ACLU believes that if ISP's are allowed to control the internet, everyones speech is at risk. That regardless of whether the ISP disagrees with the speech or finds that some speech is not as profitable as others, the end result is that free speech on the internet will be virtually nonexistent.
Google could potentially see loss of revenue because of the potential growth of corporate relaionships between network owners and content providers. For example, AT&T, a network owner, owns Yahoo!, a content provider. AT&T could make Yahoo!'s search engine respond much quicker than Google's, if net neutrality is repealed. Their concern is over the potential of concentration of power in the internet.
Libertarians are against net neutrality because it enforces government legislation. They see such as interference - unnecessary gov't intervention. Even though the internet has always been regulated by net neutrality and only just repealed this past year, the group consider the introduction of legislation to ensure net neutrality as infringement on their rights to freely choose in a competitive market. (Ass backwards.) handsoff.org is an organization that opposes net neutrality as well. One of their reasons is that this would tax the populace. Large companies would most likely not invest in creating new and better internet infrastructure if they did not see the profits of such in return, so in effect, it would be the consumers who would pay. However, this logic is the same that stymies the universal healthcare issue.
In my opinion, to date, the government regulation of the internet has not been overbearing, so I do not think it would become so, but do think that legislation is the right way to ensure net neutrality. Also, I believe that because of net neutrality, and the assurance of competition, that it is impossible to "stifle innovation" with the limitless options. Without real competition there would be no real incentive to innovate.

Mashups

http://www.81nassau.com/apnews/
A simple mashup that plots stories from AP national news on a google map.
Each stories location is converted to a longitude/latitude position.
Currently, only the U.S./National news stories are plotted. Viable news source.

http://dailymashup.com/
This site combines popular items from Flickr, Del.icio.us, Yahoo, and furl, the last of which I am unfamiliar with. Like the AP site, it is informative, as well as diverse in its reported stories, accessing information from various sources from several websites.

http://www.immo-sat.com/
I am planning on living in France within the next two years. I am always looking at apartment searches in Paris as well landmarks and google earth'ing cemetaries, like Pere-Lachaise in my down (down) time. I like this site for the reason that it shows me apartment searches near places of interest, i.e. Beaux des-Arts academie. An option allows me to view photographs of said searches. French data is shown on a google map.

File Sharing

- Downloading a song you don't own from a major label artist.

Downloading and sharing are arguably the same action. If a friend or relative owns an album by a major label artist, and wishes to the share the album with me, I'll most likely borrow the album and burn a copy for myself, as would anyone else. If a friend or relative makes me a mixed-tape or CD, I'll of course accept the music. Downloading a song online via a sharing-site is no different in my eyes. This falls alongside the same philosophy and/or context as giving a book or dvd away for free. Online sharing is a way for others to present music for the public, especially since major label artists don't necessarily need my help.


- Downloading a song you don't own from a struggling independent artist.

I only buy records by lesser known, more independent artists, based strictly on principle. The cash that I use to purchase an independent artist's record, goes directly to them on most occasions. My contribution is counted, and appreciated.


- Downloading another copy of a song you already own.

I'm not sure that I'd need to download a second copy in any case, when if I already own a copy on any format it basically serves the same purpose. Today's technology allows me to digitize vinyl records and cassettes, enabling all of my music to be transfered into mp3s. The concept of downloading a second copy of any track doesn't make much sense for those who know these finer points.


- Shoplifting a CD from a store.

No point. I can just download it.


- Downloading a song to "try it out" - if you like it enough, you'll buy the CD.

I know people who subscribe to this philosophy in theory, but I think they're basically inconsistent, or lying. If you download the song, you own the song, why stop there? There are other ways to listen to the tracks on an album without downloading the full track, with so many online stores allowing you to sample the product.

- Copying a CD from a friend.

This is the same as sharing, in every aspect. If I download a song online, I'm going through the same process. I often borrow CDs from friends, upload the material as mp3s and voila!


- Making music you own publicly available on the Internet, such as through KazAa or Limewire.

If I'm inclined to share my music, its strictly on the basis of spreading the word on certain artists that I love. In today's market/climate, it's important to make your favorite work as accessible as possible.