For my master thesis in Public Policy and Regional Planning at Rutgers University in 2000, I defined in fine detail an ethical vision I had in 1998 that convinced me to pursue that Master in that school: the technical, political and conceptual business plan for a LINEAR CITY (1.0), i.e. a large-scale intermodal urban corridor RE-development, heavily centered on public transport and light electric vehicles, to make cities social, human and ecologically sound. I even had full 3D animations done by myself with amazing detail:
WELCOME TO LINEAR CITY 2.0
Fifteen years later – given all the advances in self-driving vehicles, and the fact that Linearcity that it will still take many years before they are authorized on the streets, and decades before they reach majority of cars – my Linearity concept could be amended by substituting all feeder systems to the main subway/train – which are in version 1.0 a mix of mixed-grade bus and automated guided buses (i.e. with driver!) – with pure self-driving small buses, but on a mix of separate-grade and mixed-grade. In some case, separate-grade may just be a preferential line well-marked on the asphalt, and sidewalk pedestrian warning, without physical separation.
Richard Hawking, the great physicist, sees in the future of humanity like no one else. He sees our greatest risks related to the future of self-improving AI machines:
(1) Human exinction, if AI machines can be controlled at all. He said “Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all”.
(2) Huge wealth [and power] gaps, if AI machine owners will allow a fair distribution once these will take on all human labor. He said “If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.”
Oggi si è dimesso Marino da sindaoc del Comune di Roma.
Nel 1992 con Tangentopoli, l’economia si fermò per 1-2 anni e quasi nessuno andò in galera. Nuovi partiti si formarono che per la quasi totalità continuarono come prima o peggio.
Oggi con Marino succede qualcosa di simile, ma senza nemmeno gli onori della cronaca, con media schierati a batteria su presunti pasti a scrocco del sindaco, invece di parlare dell’assalto strutturale ed ininterrotto per centinaia di milioni di euro alle casse del Comune.
Se ne deve concludere che chiunque provi anche solo a non compromettersi e prestarsi all’ “illegalità diffusa di alto livello orchestrata dalla politica”, nei limiti delle competenze di un amministratore, verrà accusato di “non fare”, pressato attraverso vari ostruzionismi finalizzato al peggioramento dei servizi, e manovre di stampa per far perdere consenso politico.
Si è provato ad eleggere magistrati con grande consenso politico come De Magistris, ma non c’è stato quasi niente da fare; come ha provato a fare qualcosa gli bloccavano i trasporti e la monnezza e lo isolavano con i media.
Si è provato con il professore indipendente dall’America, Marino, ma siccome non si partecipa a quello che a Napoli chiamo “o Sistema”, stesso trattamento. Dicono “non lega con i Romani”, perché tutti i media locali dicono che è un ladro nullafacente ed è semplicemente una persona seria.
L’unico modo di uscirne sarà quando un sindaco verrà eletto con il mandato chiaro e centrale – supportato da un partito che con credibilità rispetto alla sua storia – di ripulire il malaffare di strutturale e in grande scala, e NON le ricevutine dei pranzi. Solo allora i media si allineeranno a spiegare ai romani che se i servizi non funzionano e le casse piangono è per il malaffare e non per chi cerca di contrastarlo. Non so se ci sia già in Italia un partito o una forza politica così …
I Dare You To Watch This Entire Video: http://youtu.be/Edx9D2yaOGs
At the University of Texas at Austin, Gosling and one of his graduate students, Gabriella Harari, have been examining why people decide to leave Facebook. They have found three broad themes: people see Facebook as pointless and unnecessary, they see it as a problematic distraction, and they are worried about privacy.
Seems to me they are right on all 3 point! Time to get off it!
“Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realise they were the big things.”
We’re bombarded with false and misleading images of happiness: advertisers tell us it comes from buying their products; celebrities and the media pretend it comes with beauty or fame; and politicians claim that nothing matters more than growing the economy.
Everywhere we look the story is the same: buy and achieve these things and then you’ll be happy. But remember, you’ll then need to keep getting more in order to stay happy and keep up with your peers – and if they start to get ahead then just keep consuming! On and on we go in a mindless and seemingly endless cycle.
A YouGov poll commissioned by Action for Happiness revealed that the majority of British people (87%) would choose happiness for their society rather than money (chosen by only 8%). These findings were largely consistent across all UK regions, classes and age groups.
When asked to choose the three most important factors for personal happiness, ‘relationships with my partner/family’ came out on top (80%) with ‘my health’ in second place (71%) and ‘money’ third (42%). ‘My appearance’ and ‘my possessions’ were the least selected factors (both 4%).
The survey also revealed the three factors respondents felt were most likely to improve overall happiness in the UK. ‘More equality between rich and poor’ was the most selected answer (45%), ‘improved health services’ the second (39%) and ‘less crime’ the third (37%). ‘Improved school standards’ and ‘improved transport and infrastructure’ were the least selected options (both 16%).