Category Archives: Post Human

Pussy Riot's Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova Photo by Getty Images

Pussy Riot members Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova have announced plans to form a human rights organization. In their first legitimate press conference since being released from prison on December 23, the two activists revealed that they're forming a group called "Zona Prava" (translation: "Justice Zone") that will protect prisoners' rights in their native country of Russia.

"We feel a huge responsibility for people who are in prisons," Tolokonnikova said at the Moscow conference on Friday, as Billboard reports. She and Alyokhina said they hope to work on the project with another recently freed political prisoner, former oil (etc.) tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was released from jail last week after serving 10 years.

"We won't ask anyone for financial assistance," Tolokonnikova told the press, clarifying that they won't accept money from Khodorkovsky and want to collaborate with him "on an ideological level." The group will reportedly be crowd-funded and feature a board that will oversee the financing.

As for other future ventures, the punk protesters said they don't intend to capitalize on the Pussy Riot name or play any upcoming shows. "We are not Pussy Riot right now," Tolokonnikova explained, with Alyokhina adding, "We can promote our cause without playing any shows... And we will never play any shows for money."

In the short term, any arts-related action the two women take will be linked to their latest cause. The pair, who were subjected to harsh conditions during their nearly two years in custody, said they are plotting an arts program for inmates because current circumstances in Russian prisons require a "cultural revolution."

When asked about the possibility of entering politics, Tolokonnikova said, "I wouldn't rule out political plans, but in the near future we will be focused on human rights activities."

Regarding Russian president Vladimir Putin, who recently said he feels "pity" for Pussy Riot, Tolokonnikova said, "We still feel the same about him." She added (via the Associated Press), "We still want to do what we said in our last performance for which we spent two years in prison: drive him away."

Pussy Riot's release under Russian amnesty law has been criticized as a "PR stunt" on Putin's part, in advance of February's Winter Olympics, which are set to take place in the Russian city of Sochi.

"Whether one likes it or not," Tolokonnikova said (via Reuters), "Going to the Olympics in Russia is an acceptance of the internal political situation in Russia, an acceptance of the course taken by a person who is interested in the Olympics above all else: Vladimir Putin."

Read more:
Pussy Riot Plan to Start Human Rights Group, Still Want Putin Gone

NEW YORK (AP) -- Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling. Add a dash of ALL CAPS. Top it off with a violent threat. And there you have it: A recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.

Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.

The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.

What websites don't want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN.com article about the Affordable Care Act.

"If it were up to me, you progressive libs destroying this country would be hanging from the gallows for treason. People are awakening though. If I were you, I'd be very afraid," wrote someone using the name "JBlaze."

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet's most juvenile and grammatically incorrect comments. The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log into Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google's unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.

One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube in May that General Mills shut down comments on it altogether.

"Starting this week, when you're watching a video on YouTube, you'll see comments sorted by people you care about first," wrote YouTube product manager Nundu Janakiram and principal engineer Yonatan Zunger in a blog post announcing the changes. "If you post videos on your channel, you also have more tools to moderate welcome and unwelcome conversations. This way, YouTube comments will become conversations that matter to you."

Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. Two decades ago, The New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer, one paw on the keyboard. The caption read: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions. At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions. It gives trolls and bullies license to pick arguments, threaten and abuse.

But anonymity has been eroding in recent years. On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you've listened to, your job history, who your friends are and even the brand of soap you prefer.

Continue reading here:
Bye bye, bile? Websites try to nix nasty comments

NEW YORK Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling. Add a dash of ALL CAPS. Top it off with a violent threat. And there you have it: A recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.

Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.

The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.

What websites don't want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN.com article about the Affordable Care Act.

"If it were up to me, you progressive libs destroying this country would be hanging from the gallows for treason. People are awakening though. If I were you, I'd be very afraid," wrote someone using the name "JBlaze."

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet's most juvenile and grammatically incorrect comments. The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log into Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google's unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.

One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube in May that General Mills shut down comments on it altogether.

"Starting this week, when you're watching a video on YouTube, you'll see comments sorted by people you care about first," wrote YouTube product manager Nundu Janakiram and principal engineer Yonatan Zunger in a blog post announcing the changes. "If you post videos on your channel, you also have more tools to moderate welcome and unwelcome conversations. This way, YouTube comments will become conversations that matter to you."

Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. Two decades ago, The New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer, one paw on the keyboard. The caption read: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions. At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions. It gives trolls and bullies license to pick arguments, threaten and abuse.

But anonymity has been eroding in recent years. On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you've listened to, your job history, who your friends are and even the brand of soap you prefer.

View original post here:
Bye bye,Internet trolls

Somalia: UN Expert Urges Government to Finalize Human Rights Roadmap

New York, Dec 26 2013 - An independent United Nations expert today urged the Somali Government to finalize and carry out a human rights roadmap endorsed by the cabinet in August.

Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia Shamsul Bari said in a news release that the roadmap defines the Governments responsibilities and sets goals to be achieved in a short period of time.

Finalizing it would demonstrate a sincere commitment by Government to rebuild the foundation and structures of human rights in Somalia, he stated.

Mr. Bari called on the countrys new Prime Minister, Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed, and the international community to seize the opportunity to build a new Somalia where the rule of law and the respect of human rights for all Somalis would be the norm.

The roadmap, an initiative proposed by Mr. Bari to the Somali authorities, is based on key human rights themes, each containing its own action plan to be implemented by ministries, and sets out a post-transition strategy running until 2015.

Stressing that the roadmap offers a unique opportunity for the advancement of human rights in Somalia, Mr. Bari advised the Government to consult with regional administrations and civil society organizations throughout the country to finalize it.

Independent experts, or special rapporteurs, are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news

ENDS

Read more:
Somalia: Government Urges to Finalize Human Rights Roadmap

UN expert urges Somalias Government to finalise and implement human rights roadmap

GENEVA (26 December 2013) The United Nations Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia, Shamsul Bari, today urged the Somali Federal Government to finalise and implement a human rights roadmap endorsed by the cabinet in August.

The Human Rights Roadmap defines the Governments responsibilities and sets goals to be achieved in a short period of time, Mr. Bari said. Finalising it would demonstrate a sincere commitment by Government to rebuild the foundation and structures of human rights in Somalia.

Mr. Bari's call comes after the Somali Parliament last week confirmed Abdiweli Sheikh Ahmed, who was nominated by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, as the new prime minister.

I call on the new Head of Government and the international community to seize the opportunity to build a new Somalia where, among other things, the rule of law and the respect of human rights for all Somalis would be the norm, the Independent Expert said.

The roadmap, an initiative proposed by Mr. Bari to the Somali authorities, is based on key human rights themes, each containing its own action plan to be implemented by ministries, and sets out a post-transition strategy running until 2015.

The Human Rights Roadmap offers a unique opportunity for the advancement of human rights in Somalia, the Independent Expert said. However, unless there is wide and active involvement by all concerned, it will be difficult to implement it.

I strongly advise the Federal Government to consult with regional administrations and civil society organisations throughout Somalia on finalising the roadmap, he reiterated.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Original post:
Somalia urged to implement human rights roadmap

Dorian is assigned to Kennex as his partner however Dorian is different. He is a decommissioned model that the police force no longer use because they were known to be sporadic and out of control. This is mainly attributed to the fact that they were programmed to have feelings unlike the newer models being used now. Kennex resists bonding with Dorian initially however he soon learns that Dorian and him are a lot alike.

Kennex starts going to a black market doctor who specializes in memory recollection. He can't remember much about the day his team was ambushed and the persons responsible have yet to be captured. During one of his sessions, he vaguely remembers that his ex-girlfriend (who disappeared when he came out of his coma) was at the location where the ambush took place and was working with the people responsible.

The series focuses on individual missions that Kennex and Dorian are assigned to work. Each week, they get a new case and work together to find out who, what, when, where and why. There is quite a bit of comical banter between the two as their relationship as partners and friends, continues to evolve. Kennex also has no current love live however the show is clearly pushing him and a female detective, Detective Stahl, in the same direction down the path of love.

The show is executive produced by J.J. Abrams who also produced Lost, Fringe, and Revolution. Almost Human can be seen on Mondays on Fox as well as Fox on Demand and Fox.com.

See the article here:
Almost Human

NEW YORK -- Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling. Add a dash of ALL CAPS. Top it off with a violent threat. And there you have it: A recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.

Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google (GOOG) and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.

The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.

What websites don't want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN.com article about the Affordable Care Act.

"If it were up to me, you progressive libs destroying this country would be hanging from the gallows for treason. People are awakening though. If I were you, I'd be very afraid," wrote someone using the name "JBlaze."

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet's most juvenile and grammatically incorrect comments. The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log into Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google's unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.

One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube in May that General Mills shut down comments on it altogether.

"Starting this week, when you're watching a video on YouTube, you'll see comments sorted by people you care about first," wrote YouTube product manager Nundu Janakiram and principal engineer Yonatan Zunger in a blog post announcing the changes. "If you post videos on your channel, you also have more tools to moderate welcome and unwelcome conversations. This way, YouTube comments will become conversations that matter to you."

Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. Two decades ago, The New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer, one paw on the keyboard. The caption read: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions. At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions. It gives trolls and bullies license to pick arguments, threaten and abuse.

But anonymity has been eroding in recent years. On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you've listened to, your job history, who your friends are and even the brand of soap you prefer.

More here:
Trolls' toll leads to new rules for online comments

A high-level Chinese regime official spoke out against the human flesh search engine last week, saying it was harmful, immoral, and illegal, and threatened netizens who launch searches.

The human flesh search engine, as it is called in China, is a crowd-sourced Internet investigation native to China. Netizens share information about a targeted individual and quickly build up a profile of who that person is and what he or she has done.

This activity is sometimes characterized as unrestrained, vigilante cyber justice.

In some cases, it is, and the results have been unfortunate. But in other cases, when official corruption prevents or short circuits genuine justice, the exposure of the crime and the criminal on the Internet seems the only recourse to justice available to Chinese netizens.

Yang Hengjun, a Chinese analyst and blogger, explained in an article in Red Flag Manuscript, a journal published by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee: It is true that the human flesh search engine is only seen in China. However, this is because there is no supervision over political power in China.

Our civilians dont have any standard way to seek justice, which is available in Western countries. There you have the judicial system, freedom of speech, and freedom of demonstration/protest. In China we dont have these rights so the only choice is to expose bad officials online.

The official CCP perspective is different.

Using the recent suicide of a Guangdong high school girl who was accused of theft and whose personal information was made public by crusading netizens, CCP official Liu Zhengrong called the human flesh search engine lawless, a network of violence.

In an interview with state media, he connected protecting the legitimate interests of Chinese citizens with safeguarding public security, emphasizing the rights of Chinese individuals.

Liu, who is deputy chief of the State Council Information Offices Internet Affairs Bureau, said that those launching searches that lead to harm will be prosecuted according to law.

Follow this link:
‘Human Flesh Search Engine’ Targeted by Chinese Regime

Humans have always imagined states of existence different from the ones that they experience in their everyday lives. In fact, the pervasive feeling of dissatisfaction with our physical constraints could be seen to be the main motivating factor for religious as well as scientific thought. From ancient mythologies to modern popular culture, humans have created myriad images of transformations of the body and mind into forms that allow them to interact with the world differently.

Why do humans search for perfection? This is by no means an easy question to answer: in fact it directs us to the numerous definitions that have been given to the question what makes us human? Dostoyevsky, after spending some time in a Siberian prison, came to the conclusion that the human is the creature that can adapt to anything (Dostoyevsky 1985). This is a significant definition because it highlights the human propensity to change in response to external circumstances with both positive consequences (it helps us to survive), and negative ones (it induces us to blindly accept injustice). The harsh situation in which this definition was created also points to a major incentive that humans have for adapting: to avoid suffering the suffering that comes from disease, isolation, poverty, oppression and prejudice.

We could therefore say that one reason that humans search for perfection, and for what the spiritually inclined would call transcendence, is because they are not only aware of suffering (arguably most animals are), but also, and more importantly, because they critically reflect on their suffering, and can recognize and reflect on the suffering of others. Deliberately changing what we are means, in many ways, letting go of what makes us suffer.

Transhumanism (or Human Plus, H+) is a social and philosophical movement that explores the uses of technology for the positive transformation of human capacities, and the social, political and ethical implications that such a transformation would carry. Its ideological uniqueness lies in an almost existentialist interpretation of science: while acknowledging the value of the scientific method based on the principles of precision, objectivity and falsifiability it foregrounds its relevance for social justice, self-determination and personal fulfilment, in other words, for improving the human condition. In transhumanism, therefore, science is owned differently than in humanism, where it was a symbol of human intellect, ingenuity and a key to the truth. The transhumanist perspective, generally, begins with the question of human experience and then takes an activist approach, looking to science to find how it can alleviate suffering and thereby improve this experience.

See original here:
Becoming More Than Human: Technology and the Post-Human ...

Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution is a 2002 book by Francis Fukuyama. In it, he discusses the potential threat to liberal democracy that use of new and emerging biotechnologies for transhumanist ends poses.

From the back cover of the paperback edition:

A decade after his now-famous pronouncement of "the end of history", Francis Fukuyama argues that as a result of biomedical advances, we are facing the possibility of a future in which our humanity itself will be altered beyond recognition. Fukuyama sketches a brief history of man's changing understanding of human nature: from Plato and Aristotle's belief that humans had "natural ends" to the ideals of utopians and dictators of the modern age who sought to remake mankind for ideological ends. Fukuyama argues that the ability to manipulate the DNA of all of one person's descendants will have profound, and potentially terrible, consequences for our political order, even if undertaken with the best of intentions.

Publication history

Read more from the original source:
Our Posthuman Future - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia