Double-double-double talk

An AP story on the NYT web site opens with this: Four suspected U.S. missiles slammed into a house in northwestern Pakistan on Sunday, killing six people in an area near the Afghan border teeming with local and foreign militants, intelligence officials said. That sentence is a mess for several reasons.

The following sentence:

The strike, which was carried out by at least one unmanned aircraft, was part of the Obama administration’s rising campaign to use drones to target militants who regularly stage cross-border attacks against foreign troops in Afghanistan.

If that is so certain — and I believe it — why does the author feel compelled to says “suspected U.S. missiles” in the previous statement?

Kurzweil and decentralized media

I’ve been reading this interview with Ray Kurzweil, a futurist/technologist/scientist who’ve been aware of for a while and whose ideas I am interested in. I lack the depth to fully endorse or innovate or thoroughly critique them, but I think I can take on little bits. In this case, an important tangent where I think he hopes things will work themselves out… and things may work out, but will effort by others. Sometimes his optimism for technological progress should considered in the context of political reality (not political correctness).

An example:

There‘s a lot of talk about existential risks. I worry that painful episodes are even more likely. You know, 60 million people were killed in WWII. That was certainly exacerbated by the powerful destructive tools that we had then. I‘m fairly optimistic that we will make it through. I‘m less optimistic that we can avoid painful episodes. I do think decentralized communication actually helps reduce violence in the world. It may not seem that way because you just turn on CNN and you‘ve got lots of violence right in your living room. But that kind of visibility actually helps us to solve problems.

Continue reading