Blog Archive

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Backchannel - We Are All Kasparov: When Deep Blue beat the world chess champion 20 years ago, we learned a huge lesson. Just not the one we thought. By Editor and Writer Steven Levy

We Are All Kasparov

When Deep Blue beat the world chess champion 20 years ago, we learned a huge lesson. Just not the one we thought.

(Stan Honda / Getty Images)
The room where it happened was decked out like a faux study—a place where a couple of friends might engage in a friendly game of chess. But the people at the chessboard were professionals, and only one was paid to play chess. One was IBM computer scientist Murray Campbell, whose job it was to move pieces at the instructions of a computer he helped program. He sat with an air of detachment mixed with anticipation, like a passenger on public transit not sure where the bus will stop. The other was world champion chess player Garry Kasparov, whose concentration was intense enough to start a fire in a rainforest. His head hovered over the chessboard as if trying to identify which piece was threatening to betray him. His ankles shook. He was clearly under epic stress. Meanwhile, his putative opponent —a supercomputer housed elsewhere on the 35th floor of this midtown skyscraper — not only did not suffer stress, but did not even know what stress was.
Follow Backchannel: FacebookTwitter
I was in that room, for a few minutes at least, taking a turn at occupying one of its eight seats. It was February 1997, and I was covering the Kasparov-Deep Blue match—the historic contest where IBM’s computer would beat the world champion—for Newsweek. In my own tribe’s form of jousting, I had campaigned for the cover, despite the editor’s declaration that “we will never run a cover about chess.” I successfully argued that this was not about a game of chess, but rather about a much more epic contest between human and artificial intelligence. What clinched it was the cover line I suggested: “The Brain’s Last Stand.” It also helped that no celebrity died that week. So it was that Kasparov’s X-ray eyes and ultra-confident visage graced the newsstands of America, at a time when people actually paused at the newsstands to see what the weeklies put on their covers. And that “Brain’s Last Stand” line would come to be be invoked to this day. Even Kasparov, in a TED Talk last month, cited it twice.
I stand behind that provocation. Even though chess isn’t the toughest thing that computers will tackle for centuries, it stood as a handy symbol for human intelligence. No matter what human-like feat computers perform in the future, the Deep Blue match demands an indelible dot on all timelines of AI progress.
But that’s not the only reason why that six-game match in the Equitable Center is still so important. Two decades later, it’s clear that the significance of that outcome rests as much on how Kasparov was defeated. Though brute force computation and clever algorithms had created the winning positions against him, the champion was shattered by a well-planned psychological attack against him, executed by an IBM effort that leveraged its silicon advantages with human cunning. By the final session of the six-game match — one which began with the two opponents tied in points — Kasparov was a haunted ghost of himself. “I knew I didn’t have the energy for a complex flight,” he writes in his recent book, Deep Thinking, explaining why, early in the game, he made a risky move that effectively ended his chances for winning. The machine had gotten inside the human’s head.
And therein lies a parable.
Nine weeks or so before the match, I had lunch with Kasparov and C.J. Tan, the IBM scientist who managed the Deep Blue team. Both of those men maintained a veneer of cordiality that occasionally slipped to reveal the high stakes for each. Looking over the transcript 20 years later, a few things jump out at me. One was the confidence of each man. Tan had earlier remarked to a reporter that IBM was “not conducting a scientific experiment anymore,” and now he amended that to say, “It’s part of the experiment to how far the computer will go, and we’re doing everything we can to win.” Kasparov was annoyed that the prospect of an IBM victory was even mentioned. “I don’t think it’s an appropriate thing to discuss the situation if I lose,” said Kasparov. “I never lost in my life.”
The other interesting point was our discussion about the psychological aspects of the game. “I hope it will be as small as possible,” said Kasparov.
Today, those aspects seem to loom larger than the technological achievement of Deep Blue. It turns out that Tan’s remark about IBM doing everything it could to win included waging psychological warfare against its human opponent.
One tool was the element of surprise. Going into the match, Kasparov was frustrated that IBM had not shared printouts of Deep Blue’s practice games. He felt at a disadvantage because in a contest with any human, he would have a long history of match performance and would be able to tailor a strategy against that person’s tendencies and weaknesses. The best he could do against Deep Blue was to study the chess minds who helped IBM program its system—but the only grandmaster on staff was the American player Joel Benjamin, who was not top-ranked, and to Kasparov, not even worth researching. “I have better things to do in my life” than study Benjamin’s games, Kasparov told me. But he did suspect that IBM was secretly working with more experienced grandmasters. I asked Tan directly at our lunch if this was so, and the IBM-er replied, “No. Only Benjamin.”
But at the match, IBM revealed that formidable grandmaster Miguel Illescas was on its team, as well as two other grandmasters who were working in consulting roles. (In his book, Kasparov says he had known only that Illescas had played training matches against Deep Blue.) Kasparov had no way to prepare, and he was thrown off balance.
That was far from the only trick that IBM would use. Here’s a small example Kasparov cites in his book. During a match, human players sometimes will play games with the timing of a move. For instance, they might have a firm plan in mind, and if it’s going their way, instead of making the next move in the cascade right away they might let some time tick off the clock, to feign uncertainty. IBM actually programmed in the equivalent. In a 2009 interview with a chess publication, Illescas revealed that sometimes when Deep Blue instantly knew its next move, it would wait minutes before acting. When a chess computer stalls like this, it typically signals that the machine is having difficulty, or even has crashed. When Kasparov made his best move, the machine would play immediately, trying to give Kasparov the impression he had fallen into a trap. “This has a psychological impact as the machine becomes unpredictable, which was our main goal,” said Illescas.
The turning point of the match came in Game Two. Kasparov had won the first game and was feeling pretty good. In the second, the match was close and hard fought. But on the 36th move, the computer did something that shook Kasparov to his bones. In a situation where virtually every top-level chess program would have attacked Kasparov’s exposed queen, Deep Blue made a much subtler and ultimately more effective move that shattered Kasparov’s image of what a computer was capable of doing. It seemed to Kasparov — and frankly, to a lot of observers as well — that Deep Blue had suddenly stopped playing like a computer (by resisting the catnip of the queen attack) and instead adopted a strategy that only the wisest human master might attempt. By underplaying Deep Blue’s capabilities to Kasparov, IBM had tricked the human into underestimating it. A few days later, he described it this way: “Suddenly [Deep Blue] played like a god for one moment.” From that moment Kasparov had no idea what — or who — he was playing against. In what he described as “a fatalistic depression,” he played on, and wound up resigning the game.
After Game Two, Kasparov was not only agitated by his loss but also suspicious at how the computer had made a move that was so…un-computer like. “It made me question everything,” he now writes. Getting the printouts that explained what the computer did — and proving that there was no human intervention — became an obsession for him. Before Game Five, in fact, he implied that he would not show up to play unless IBM submitted printouts, at least to a neutral party who could check that everything was kosher. IBM gave a small piece to a third party, but never shared the complete file.
Kasparov was not the same player after Game Two. He fought to draws in the next three games, but in addition to the added mental pressures of dealing with what he clearly believed was his opponent’s skullduggery, he was physically wearing down. Though both sides were tied going into the final match, Kasparov approached it with dread. Asked in the press conference after Game Five about a comment Illescas made that he was now afraid of Deep Blue, Kasparov said, “I’m not afraid to admit I’m afraid!” Quite a difference from his pre-match confidence.
Indeed, Game Six was a debacle. From where we journalists were sitting, Kasparov seemed disengaged from the start. Afterwards, he claimed that he “wasn’t in the mood of playing at all.” On his seventh move, on what should have been a routine opening-game move, he made a mistake so egregiously awful that there were cries of disbelief in the auditorium where spectators were gathered. It was almost like he was throwing the game. He played in a desultory fashion for a few moves, and then resigned in obvious disgust. In a chaotic post-game press conference, Kasparov alternated between rage and depression.
The master had been mastered.
After the match, I pushed very hard for a one-on-one with Kasparov. We met in a ballroom of the Plaza hotel, where his team had been staying. The space was empty except for a few generic dining chairs, the kind used at banquets. We sat knee-to-knee — like chess players, but of course no board separated us. Kasparov immediately repeated a demand he had made in the press conference: that IBM agree to a rematch, under more favorable conditions.
And of course, he railed about not seeing those full printouts. “There is no information,” he complained. “I’m not interested in segments! I’m interested in the whole printout! It’s their obligation!”
But even at that stage, he was clear why he had lost. “I never got over Game Two,” he said to me. “It was sitting in my mind.” And then he summed it up: “It was a single individual fighting one of the largest corporations in the world.”
Indeed, IBM’s stock jumped up after the match. The company never agreed to Kasparov’s demand for a rematch.
Today, Kasparov is no longer competing for chess titles. He is a political activist squaring off against a more formidable opponent than even IBM : Vladimir Putin. His new book is a departure into a chapter of his life that defines him more than he’d like. He now talks about how the future of chess lies in collaborations between human and machine players. In his recent TED Talk, he didn’t revert to his complaints about IBM in the Deep Blue match.
In his book, however, he can’t help but revisit it — the printouts, the tricks, the misdirection, the grandmasters. He does say that he no longer believes IBM cheated its way to victory. But then he trots out a detailed scenario, rooted in that same Illescas interview, in which IBM might have made changes on the eve of the final game that specifically targeted the move he made that ultimately undid him. He implies, vaguely, that IBM planted Russian-speaking security guards in his private space, which might explain that last-minute shift. Not that they cheated. But still.
I dwell on these suspicions, even ones that may border on paranoia, for a reason. Amazingly, when the Deep Blue match occurred, AI was in its “winter” peri0d. Now it is flowering. We hear of amazing machine learning accomplishments on a daily basis. But in 2017, we view them differently. We view them as inevitabilities.
The prime example is last year’s contest, during which DeepMind’s AlphaGo program thumped an 18-time world champion in a series of five games. Go is a much more challenging feat for a computer than chess. Yet AlphaGo did not need to resort to any of the tactics that IBM used to distract, deceive, and ultimately destroy Kasparov. The human champion, Lee Sedol, ended with respect for his opponent and awe for how far computer science had come. But though the match deservedly received attention, it was nowhere near as mythic as the Deep Blue match was. The ground has shifted. Given enough time, money, and machine learning, there’s no cognitive obstacle that machines will not surmount.
When I covered Kasparov-Deep Blue match, I thought the drama came from a battle between computer and human. But it was really a story of people, with brutal capitalist impulse, teaming up with AI to destroy the confidence and dignity of the greatest champion the world had seen. That leads me to believe it’s not Skynet that should worry us about AI, but rather the homo sapiens who build, implement, and employ those systems.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m still on board with the scientists who believe that advances in AI will make life better for all of us. Ultimately, using the power of computation for cognition is a great and historic human enterprise. But may I add a codicil to that declaration?
Always check the printouts.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Friday, May 19, 2017

Two-Eyed Danny of Wisconsin

That's what they call me. Because I have two eyes and I live in Wisconsin. But I can see better than anybody. I see things others don't see. I notice what others might overlook. I pay attention to things. And I like it when things have more than one use, you know, to save the planet and stuff. Like batteries. I recharge every battery I use even though they say not to because they heat up and explode, but I don't let that stop me. No, I have a battery recharger and by God I'm going to use it! Sure they heat up and explode sometimes because they aren't rechargeable batteries, but at least they don't ALL explode. Some of them get recharged. I don't believe in worrying myself about it.
I like to do things in batches. I will save up things to do and places to go for when I actually go somewhere, like the store. While I am on the way to the store, or when I am coming back home, I shut off the motor whenever I'm not using it. This not only saves on gas it also saves wear and tear on the car. I have over 181,000 miles on my Chevy Silverado and I expect another 181,000 miles on it before I die. Maybe more. Maybe less.
There's another thing. When I die I made plans to be ground up and spread on my garden. My friend Freddie has a wood chipper, a pretty good big one, and I told Freddie if I die before him to just feed my body into the chipper over the garden and spread me around so it isn't all in one big bloody pile, you know? I says, 'Feed me in head first, Freddie, to make sure I'm really dead!' I figure why bury me or burn me up when I can make things grow? So I made Freddie swear if I end up in a box in the ground to dig me up and put me through the chipper. I promised to do the same for Freddie if he died before me. Since Freddie got that big chipper we have recycled several of our family and friends, but don't tell anybody because Freddie and I heard it was illegal. We always get the biggest tomatoes around every year and everything else grows really good. Of course, we have to keep the animals out. I just shoot them and feed them through the chipper. There have been some complaints about the smell down wind once and awhile, so Freddie and I get some lime and spread it around for the first few weeks to keep it down.
Like the song says it's The Circle of Life. I don't want to break that circle. Another word for circle is cycle, they sound alike, and I figure it's like a four cycle engine. You know, you got the intake stroke, the compression stroke, ignition stroke and exhaust strokes. If one of those don't happen at the right time the engine backfires or loses power and maybe even quits altogether. My piston's on the downstroke and when it comes up again I will be blown out like exhaust into the atmosphere. No sense pretending that I'm firing on all eight cylinders. I'm not going to live forever and neither is Freddie. We just haven't worked out who will shut the chipper down once the last of us gets fed through. Thanks.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Hello YouTubers - Cyanide

Light Child Project - Heartened Minds [psychedelic conscious bass]

the artists in this mix (a-z order):
✦ @birdsofparadise ✦ @dirtwire ✦ @globular ✦ @hedflux ✦
✦ @henriq-aka-zen-baboon ✦ @kalyascintilla ✦ @mantismash ✦ @master-minded
✦ @ottsonic ✦ @Sixis ✦ @soulacybin ✦ @supersillyus ✦ @symbolico ✦
✦ @the-flying-mars ✦

Download for free on The Artist Union :

Johnny Blue - Moonlight Years [ambient/psybient/downtempo/psychedelic]

1. Kuba - I Stayed At Home
2. Anne Garner & Chillage People - Beauty
3. Birds of Paradise - Wingspan (Kaya Project Remix)
4. Zen Baboon - Weeedz
5. Mystic Crock - Daydreamer
6. Ajnia - Klee & Color
7. Unknown Reality - Calm Down
8. Kaya Project - Slide (Ambient Mix)
9. E-Mantra - Lonely Sorrow
10. H.U.V.A. Network - Moon Town
11. E-Mantra - Ecouri
12. Unknown Reality - Water - Part II
13. Cosmic Replicant - Clear Mind
14. Kliment - Travels To The Infinite
15. Entheogenic - Body Light (Sophia Mix)
16. Globular - To The Other Side Of Fractal Phase Space
17. Supersillyus - Collide-O-Scope (Icaro Remix)
18. Desert Dwellers - Crossing The Desert (Kalya Scintilla RMX)
19. Pitch Black - Soliton
20. Whitebear - Primal Stomp (Somatoast RMX)
21. Kalya Scintilla - Rises In The East
22. Shantam - Potion 369
23. Brujo's Bowl - Realization Dub
24. Bluetech - Light Years From Home

The New Law - Deconstructed Funk

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Lunar Sol - "Fallen" (Official Music Video)

"I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime"

By Chris Hedges / Noam Chomsky is America’s greatest intellectual. His massive body of work, which includes nearly 100 books, has for decades deflated and exposed the lies of the power elite and the myths they perpetrate. Chomsky has done this despite being blacklisted by the commercial media, turned into a pariah by the academy and, by his own admission, being a pedantic and at times slightly boring speaker. He combines moral autonomy with rigorous scholarship, a remarkable grasp of detail and a searing intellect. He curtly dismisses our two-party system as a mirage orchestrated by the corporate state, excoriates the liberal intelligentsia for being fops and courtiers and describes the drivel of the commercial media as a form of “brainwashing.” And as our nation’s most prescient critic of unregulated capitalism, globalization and the poison of empire, he enters his (8x+)year warning us that we have little time left to save our anemic democracy.

“It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,” Chomsky told me when I called him at his office in Cambridge, Mass. “The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.”

“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? There it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”

“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”

“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”

Chomsky has, more than any other American intellectual, charted the downward spiral of the American political and economic system, in works such as “On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures,” “Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture,” “A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West,” “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky,” “Manufacturing Consent” and “Letters From Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda.” He reminds us that genuine intellectual inquiry is always subversive. It challenges cultural and political assumptions. It critiques structures. It is relentlessly self-critical. It implodes the self-indulgent myths and stereotypes we use to elevate ourselves and ignore our complicity in acts of violence and oppression. And it makes the powerful, as well as their liberal apologists, deeply uncomfortable.

Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite in the press, the universities and the political system who serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war. He exposes their moral and intellectual posturing as a fraud. And this is why Chomsky is hated, and perhaps feared, more among liberal elites than among the right wing he also excoriates. When Christopher Hitchens decided to become a windup doll for the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, one of the first things he did was write a vicious article attacking Chomsky. Hitchens, unlike most of those he served, knew which intellectual in America mattered. [Editor’s note: To see some of the articles in the 2001 exchanges between Hitchens and Chomsky, click here, here, here and here.]

“I don’t bother writing about Fox News,” Chomsky said. “It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, ‘Look how courageous I am.’ But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”
Chomsky, because he steps outside of every group and eschews all ideologies, has been crucial to American discourse for decades, from his work on the Vietnam War to his criticisms of the Obama administration. He stubbornly maintains his position as an iconoclast, one who distrusts power in any form.

“Most intellectuals have a self-understanding of themselves as the conscience of humanity,” said the Middle East scholar Norman Finkelstein. “They revel in and admire someone like Vaclav Havel. Chomsky is contemptuous of Havel. Chomsky embraces the Julien Benda view of the world. There are two sets of principles. They are the principles of power and privilege and the principles of truth and justice. If you pursue truth and justice it will always mean a diminution of power and privilege. If you pursue power and privilege it will always be at the expense of truth and justice. Benda says that the credo of any true intellectual has to be, as Christ said, ‘my kingdom is not of this world.’ Chomsky exposes the pretenses of those who claim to be the bearers of truth and justice. He shows that in fact these intellectuals are the bearers of power and privilege and all the evil that attends it.”

“Some of Chomsky’s books will consist of things like analyzing the misrepresentations of the Arias plan in Central America, and he will devote 200 pages to it,” Finkelstein said. “And two years later, who will have heard of Oscar Arias? It causes you to wonder would Chomsky have been wiser to write things on a grander scale, things with a more enduring quality so that you read them forty or sixty years later. This is what Russell did in books like ‘Marriage and Morals.’ Can you even read any longer what Chomsky wrote on Vietnam and Central America? The answer has to often be no. This tells you something about him. He is not writing for ego. If he were writing for ego he would have written in a grand style that would have buttressed his legacy. He is writing because he wants to effect political change. He cares about the lives of people and there the details count. He is trying to refute the daily lies spewed out by the establishment media. He could have devoted his time to writing philosophical treatises that would have endured like Kant or Russell. But he invested in the tiny details which make a difference to win a political battle.”

“I try to encourage people to think for themselves, to question standard assumptions,” Chomsky said when asked about his goals. “Don’t take assumptions for granted. Begin by taking a skeptical attitude toward anything that is conventional wisdom. Make it justify itself. It usually can’t. Be willing to ask questions about what is taken for granted. Try to think things through for yourself. There is plenty of information. You have got to learn how to judge, evaluate and compare it with other things. You have to take some things on trust or you can’t survive. But if there is something significant and important don’t take it on trust. As soon as you read anything that is anonymous you should immediately distrust it. If you read in the newspapers that Iran is defying the international community, ask who is the international community? India is opposed to sanctions. China is opposed to sanctions. Brazil is opposed to sanctions. The Non-Aligned Movement is vigorously opposed to sanctions and has been for years. Who is the international community? It is Washington and anyone who happens to agree with it. You can figure that out, but you have to do work. It is the same on issue after issue.”

Chomsky’s courage to speak on behalf of those, such as the Palestinians, whose suffering is often minimized or ignored in mass culture, holds up the possibility of the moral life. And, perhaps even more than his scholarship, his example of intellectual and moral independence sustains all who defy the cant of the crowd to speak the truth.

“I cannot tell you how many people, myself included, and this is not hyperbole, whose lives were changed by him,” said Finkelstein, who has been driven out of several university posts for his intellectual courage and independence. “Were it not for Chomsky I would have long ago succumbed. I was beaten and battered in my professional life. It was only the knowledge that one of the greatest minds in human history has faith in me that compensates for this constant, relentless and vicious battering. There are many people who are considered nonentities, the so-called little people of this world, who suddenly get an e-mail from Noam Chomsky. It breathes new life into you. Chomsky has stirred many, many people to realize a level of their potential that would forever be lost.”

'We are MEN. Not victims. Remember that.'

'We are MEN. Not victims. Remember that. This beautiful, messed up world needs every one of us here to do our job. As boyfriends, husbands, fathers, brothers, laborers, managers, artistes and entrepreneurs. I repeat: WE ARE MEN !!! Let's act that way and reclaim our power, but do it responsibly, calmly and with heart. No matter how low and defeated you may feel right now, please be assured that as long as you follow your heart and stand up to yourself, you will be able to look into the mirror and appreciate the Man you see looking back at you. It may take time. It WILL take hard work. Mostly on yourself. But if you can read this you have a good chance for not just complete recovery and survival, but truly holistic health, prosperity and the the concurrent sense of joi de vivre (joy in life).'

'I will not give advice that I have not followed dozens of times myself. Yes, it hurts. Sometimes the pain is the only thing that reminds us that we are alive. You have not lost your soul, only lost touch with it. The kids will figure out who the MAN is and forgive you. The money, you can always make more.'

'There are literally millions of sweet stable ladies who are begging for the attention of a real MAN. And once you have regained your sense of self and taken back some of your personal power, you can be a real MAN and forgive the poor little crazy girl and finally LET HER GO and make space in your life for some, something, someone, better. As you heal and improve yourself with a good diet, vigorous exercise, adequate sleep, company of good old friends, vocation and recreation, you will find that the toxic and/or
unnecessary people in your life will remove themselves with very little intervention or effort.'

'Be patient. With your self. And with others. You will learn that True Love, as exhibited by a MAN, is not a bunch of mushy emotions, but an attitude that directs the way we act toward others. With compassion, forgiveness, fairness, consistancy, and yes sometimes firmness and a distinct delineation of our boundaries. A real MAN's true love will always be reciprocated with devotion, connection, and when appropriate, obedience (compliance). And mostly, a pervading sense that, as long as we are doing what we are supposed to do, the Universe will always meet our needs.'

Next chapter: Taking responsibility for making them crazy. Name withheld for obvious reasons, but you know where to find me.To: 

Welcome Viewers From United States, Portugal, France, Romania, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Brazil, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Russia, Netherlands, Ireland, Mexico, Malaysia, Poland...Thank You

Welcome Viewers From United States, Portugal, France, Romania, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Brazil, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Russia, Netherlands, Ireland, Mexico, Malaysia, Poland  and where ever you are...Thank You for coming

By Browsers and Operating Systems:


26189 (49%)
14233 (26%)
6574 (12%)
Internet Explorer
5397 (10%)
467 (<1 font="">
139 (<1 font="">
129 (<1 font="">
37 (<1 font="">
Mobile Safari
32 (<1 font="">
27 (<1 font="">

Pageviews by Operating Systems

28599 (52%)
18500 (33%)
5186 (9%)
901 (1%)
451 (<1 font="">
260 (<1 font="">
216 (<1 font="">
215 (<1 font="">
Other Unix
132 (<1 font="">
Windows NT 6.1

Lance's Dark Mood Party Mix Vol 60 (Trip Hop / Downtempo / Electronica /...

1. Anthane - Wandering Souls
2. Groove Cereal - CTFO - 3:20
3. Skinshape - Left With A Gun - 7:13
4. Kognitif - Rock Lock - 11:22
5. AlTarba - Grey Town - 16:26
6. Ogi feel the Beat - Don't Be Scared(ft. Sanna Hartfield) - 19:48
7. Rodes United(ft. Michael Lener) - Exarcheia Square(Instrumental) - 22:35
8. SomehowArt - Political Confusion - 25:57
9. Potlatch - Starseeker - 30:46
10. Q Funktion - Nobody - 36:07
11. Spectateur - Their Dreams - 38:58
12. Mononome - Embrace - 42:57
13. Poldoore - Waiting For The World - 46:32
14. Stiko - Dive into Mud - 51:27
15. Bonobo - Scuba - 55:17
16. Sonic Treat - Chemical Glitch - 59:31
17. Jahcoozi - Barefoot Dub - 1:03:51
18. Orange Blossom - Habibi - 1:07:50

Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this mix, please check out my previous mix (Vol. 59) here:

UPDATE: The next mix (Vol.61) is now completed and posted. It can be found here:

10 Most Enduring Used Cars of All Time

  • 1.) Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera or Buick Century GM A Bodies 1984 to 1996 (NOT X Bodies)

  • 2.) Geo Prizm, Toyota Corolla, (with GM engines) Nova and Pontiac Vibe 1989 to 2002 and Tesla

  • 3.) Subaru wagons (Fuji Heavy Industries) All 1990 to Present

  • 4.) Volvo (rear wheel drive) All to 1996

  • 5.) Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Marquis or Chevrolet Caprice 1992 to 2007

  • 6.) Fiat 500 (European) or Citroen 2CV 1957 to 1975 and 2011

  • 7.) Mercedes 300 D Diesel or 300 TD 1975 to 1985

  • 8.) Honda Accord or Civic 1976 to Present

  • 9.) BMW 3 Series (E30) 1982 to 1990

  • 10.) Jeep Cherokee (except Grand Cherokee) 1987 to 2001 or Toyota 4Runner (original) Trucks

EQUITY LAW: Nihil tam conveniens est naturali aequitati quam unumquodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est. Nothing is so agreeable to natural equity as that a thing should be dissolved by the same means by which it was bound.


In its broadest sense, equity is fairness. As a legal system, it is a body of law that addresses concerns that fall outside the jurisdiction of Common Law. Equity is also used to describe the money value of property in excess of claims, liens, or mortgages on the property.
Equity in U.S. law can be traced to England, where it began as a response to the rigid procedures of England's law courts. Through the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the judges in England's courts developed the common law, a system of accepting and deciding cases based on principles of law shaped and developed in preceding cases. Pleading became quite intricate, and only certain causes of action qualified for legal redress. Aggrieved citizens found that otherwise valid complaints were being dismissed for failure to comply with pleading technicalities. If a complaint was not dismissed, relief was often denied based on little more than the lack of a controlling statute or precedent.
Frustrated plaintiffs turned to the king, who referred these extraordinary requests for relief to a royal court called the Chancery. The Chancery was headed by a chancellor who possessed the power to settle disputes and order relief according to his conscience. The decisions of a chancellor were made without regard for the common law, and they became the basis for the law of equity.
Equity and the common law represented opposing values in the English legal system. The common law was the creation of a judiciary independent from the Crown. Common-law courts believed in the strict interpretation of statutes and precedential cases. Whereas the common law provided results based on years of judicial wisdom, equity produced results based on the whim of the king's chancellor. Commonlaw judges considered equity Arbitrary and a royal encroachment on the power of an independent judiciary. Renowned seventeenth-century judge John Selden called equity "a roguish thing" and noted that results in equity cases might well depend on the size of a chancellor's foot.
Despite this kind of opposition, equity assumed a permanent place in the English legal system. The powers of the Chancery became more defined; equity cases came to be understood as only claims for which monetary relief was inadequate. By the end of the seventeenth century, the chancellor's opinions became consistent enough to be compiled in a law reporter.
Because of its association with the king, equity was viewed with suspicion in the American colonies. Nonetheless, colonial legislatures understood the wisdom of allowing judges to fashion remedies in cases that were not covered by settled common law or statutes. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the providence of equity by writing in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, that the "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity." All states eventually allowed for the judicial exercise of equity, and many states created Special Courts of equity, which maintained procedures distinct from those of courts of law.
In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established one system for processing both law and equity cases. Soon after, most states abolished the procedural distinctions between law and equity cases. In federal courts and most state courts, all civil cases now proceed in the same fashion, regardless of whether they involve legal or equitable redress.
The most important remaining distinction between law and equity is the right to a jury trial in a civil case. Where the plaintiff seeks a remedy of money damages, the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial, provided the amount sought exceeds an amount specified by statute. Where the plaintiff seeks a remedy that is something other than money, the plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial. Instead, the case is decided by one judge. If a plaintiff asks for both equitable and monetary relief, a jury will be allowed to decide the claims that ask for monetary relief, and a judge will decide the equity claims. Judges are guided by precedent in equity cases, but in the spirit of equity, they have discretion and can rule contrary to apparent precedent.
Delaware and Mississippi are among the few jurisdictions that still separate law and equity cases. In Delaware, equity cases are heard in a separate court of equity called the Court of Chancery. The court consists of one chancellor and four vice chancellors, all of whom are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. The court hears cases involving internal corporate disputes, as well as guardianship and trust management cases.
In any court, equity or otherwise, a case or issue may be referred to as equitable. This generally means that the relief requested by the plaintiff is not a money award. Whether to grant equitable relief is left to the discretion of the judge. By contrast, other civil actions theoretically entitle a plaintiff to a prescribed remedy (usually money damages) from either a judge or a jury if, based on the evidence, the defendant is unable to defeat the plaintiff's case.

Equitable Relief

Equitable relief comes in many forms. It may be a Restraining Order or an Injunction, which are court orders directing a party to do or not do something. An accounting may be requested by a plaintiff who seeks to know how his or her money is being handled. A trust or Constructive Trust can be ordered by a judge to place the care and management of property with one person for the benefit of another. A partition is an order dividing property held between two or more persons. Declaratory relief is granted when a judge declares the rights of certain parties. The effect of a Declaratory Judgment is to set future obligations between the parties.
Under the remedy of Specific Performance, a judge may order one party to perform a specific act. This type of relief is often used to resolve contractual disputes involving unique property. For example, the purchaser of a house may not wish to obtain money damages if the seller breaks a contract for sale of the house. This may be so because a house is considered unique and thus the damage is irreparable—that is, it cannot be fully redressed by mere money damages. If the court agrees that money damages would be inadequate redress for the buyer, the judge may order a completion of the sale to the buyer, instead of money damages, for the seller's breach of contract.Equitable contract remedies offer a judge an array of choices. Rescission discharges all parties to a contract from the obligations of the contract. The remedy of rescission restores the parties to the positions they held before the formation of the contract. Restitution is an order directing one party to give back something she or he should not be allowed to keep. These two remedies may be sought together. For example, if a buyer purchases an antique piano on credit and later discovers it is a fake, the buyer may sue for rescission and restitution. Under such a dual remedy, the buyer would return the piano to the seller, and the seller would return any payments made by the buyer.
Reformation is an equitable way to remedy a contractual mistake. Suppose, for example, that a buyer agrees to order 5,000 units of a product but mistakenly signs a contract ordering the shipment of 50,000 units. If the seller refuses to provide fewer than 50,000 units and demands payment for 50,000, the buyer may sue the seller for reformation of the contract. In such a case, the court may change the terms of the contract to reflect the amount of product actually agreed upon.
Equitable relief has long been considered an extraordinary remedy, an exception to the general rule of money damages. Modern courts still invoke the rule that equitable relief is available only where money damages are inappropriate; in practice, however, courts rarely insist on monetary relief when equitable relief is requested by a plaintiff.

Equitable Defenses

The doctrine of clean hands holds that the plaintiff in an equity claim should be innocent of any wrongdoing or risk dismissal of the case. Laches proposes that a plaintiff should not "sleep on his or her rights"—that is, if the plaintiff knows of the defendant's harmful actions but delays in bringing suit, and the delay works against the rights of the defendant, the plaintiff risks dismissal of the case. Under modern law, such defenses are available in any civil case. They are nevertheless considered equitable because they invoke notions of fairness; are not provided in statutes; and are decided only by a judge, not by a jury.

Other Equitable Doctrines

Many of the equitable doctrines listed here are codified in statutes. This does not make the issues they concern "legal" as opposed to "equitable." Such issues, whether codified by statute or not, are left to the discretion of a judge, who makes a decision based on principles of fairness.
Equitable Adoption Equitable Adoption is the adoption of a child that has not been formally completed but that the law treats as final for some purposes. Generally, a child cannot be adopted without the fulfillment of certain procedures. However, it is sometimes fair and in the best interests of the child to imply that an adoption has taken place. If an adult has performed parental duties and has intended to adopt the child but has failed to fulfill formal adoption procedures, a court may order that for some purposes, the child should be considered part of the adult's family. The most common purpose of an equitable adoption is to give a child the right to inherit from the estate of an equitably adoptive parent.
Equitable Conversion Equitable conversion completes a land sale when the death of a seller occurs between the signing of the sale agreement and the date of the actual sale. In such a case, a judge will convert the title to the purchaser. This is in fulfillment of the time-honored Maxim that "Equity looks upon that as done which ought to have been done."
Equitable Distribution Equitable distribution can describe a fair allotment of anything. In the law, equitable distribution is a Term of Art that describes a method used to divide the property of a Husband and Wife upon Divorce. Under this method, the needs and contributions of each spouse are considered when property is divided between them. This differs from the process used under the Community Property method, where all marital property is simply divided in half.

Equitable Estoppel Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a person is prevented, or estopped, from claiming a legal right, out of fairness to the opposing party. For example, suppose that a person willfully withholds information in order to avoid defending a lawsuit. If the withheld information causes the lawsuit to be brought later than the Statute of Limitations requires, the person may be estopped from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense.
Equitable Lien A lien is an interest in property given to a creditor to secure the satisfaction of a debt. An equitable lien may arise from a written contract if the contract shows an intention to charge a party's property with a debt or obligation. An equitable lien may also be declared by a judge in order to fairly secure the rights of a party to a contract.
Equitable Recoupment Equitable recoupment prevents a plaintiff from collecting the full amount of a debt if she or he is holding something that belongs to the defendant debtor. It is usually invoked only as a defense to mitigate the amount a defendant owes to a plaintiff. For example, if a taxpayer has failed to claim a tax refund within the time period prescribed by the statute of limitations, the taxpayer may regain, or recoup, the amount of the refund in defending against a future tax claim brought by the government.
Equitable Servitude An equitable servitude is a restriction on the use of land or a building that can be continually enforced. When a land buyer is aware of an agreement that restricts the use of the land, the buyer may be held to the terms of the restriction, regardless of whether it was written in the deed.
Equity in Property Equity in property is the value of real estate above all liens or claims against it. It is used to describe partial ownership. For example, suppose the fair market value of a home is $80,000. If the homeowner has a mortgage and owes $50,000 on the mortgage, the equity amount is $30,000. The recognition of equity in property allows a property owner to borrow against a portion of the property value, even though the owner cannot claim complete and final ownership.
Equity of Redemption Equity of redemption is the right of a homeowner with a mortgage (a mortgagor) to reclaim the property after it has been forfeited. Redemption can be accomplished by paying the entire amount of the debt, interest, and court costs of the foreclosing lender. With equity of redemption, a mortgagor has a specified period of time after default and before fore-closure, in which to reclaim the property.
Equity Financing When a corporation raises capital by selling stock, the financing is called equity financing because the corporation is offering stockholders a partial interest in its ownership. By contrast, debt financing raises capital by issuing bonds or borrowing money, neither of which conveys an ownership in the corporation. An equity security is an equitable ownership interest in a corporation, such as that accompanying common and preferred shares of stock.

Further readings

Chancery Court: Mississippi. Available online at <> (accessed September 15, 2003).
Court of Chancery: State of Delaware. Available online at <> (accessed September 15, 2003).
Laycock, Douglas. 1993. "The Triumph of Equity." SUM Law and Contemporary Problems 56 (summer): 53.


Discretion in Decision Making.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.


n. 1) a venerable group of rights and procedures to provide fairness, unhampered by the narrow strictures of the old common law or other technical requirements of the law. In essence courts do the fair thing by court orders such as correction of property lines, taking possession of assets, imposing a lien, dividing assets, or injunctive relief (ordering a person to do something) to prevent irreparable damage. The rules of equity arose in England when the strict limitations of common law would not solve all problems, so the King set up courts of chancery (equity) to provide remedies through the royal power. Most eastern states had courts of equity or chancery separate from courts of law, and others had parallel systems of law and equity with different procedural rules. Now most states combine law and equity and treat both under "one cause of action." 2) the net value of real property, determined by subtracting the amount of unpaid debts secured by (against) the property from the appraised value of the property. (See: equitable, chancery, enjoin, injunction, writ)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.


(Justice), noun aequitas, aequum, chancery, evenhandedness, fair-mindedness, fair treatment, fairness, honesty, ideal justice, impartial justice, iustitia, justice, jussice as distinguished from conformity to enactments or statutes, justice ascertained by natural reason, justice under the law, justness, natural right, quality of being equal and fair, reasonableness, recourse to the principles of natural justice, redress, remedial justice, right dealing, righteousness, rightfulness, spirit of the law, unwritten law, uprightness
Associated concepts: balance of equities, chancery, equiiable right, equity action, equity jurisdiction, existing equiiies, suit in equity
Foreign phrases: Nihil tam conveniens est naturali aequitati quam unumquodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est. Nothing is so agreeable to natural equity as that a thing should be dissolved by the same means by which it was bound. Lex aequitate gaudet; appetit perfectum; est norma recti. The law delights in equity; it grasps at perfection; it is a rule of right. In fictione juris semper aequitas existit. In a fiction of law, equity is always present. Equitas sequitur legem. Equity follows the law. Lex respicit aequiiatem. The law regards equity. Ratio in jure aequitas inteera. Reason in law is impartial equity. Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus rectum vel justitian. We will sell to none, we will deny to none, we will delay to none, either equity or justice. Judex ante oculos aequitatem semmer habere debet. A judge ought always to have equity before his eyes. Aequitas supervacua odit. Equity abhors superfluous things. Aequitas uxoribus, liberis, creditoribus maxime favet. Equity favors wives and children, creditors most of all. Aequitas est quasi aequalitas. Equity is as it were equality. Aequum et bonum est lex legum. That which is equitable and right is the law of laws. In omnibus quidem, maxime tamen injure, aequitas spectanda sit. In all matters, but especially in law, equity should be regarded. Prima pars aequitatis aequalitas. The prime element of equity is equality. Nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audien dus est. No one should be permitted to testify as a witness to his own baseness or wickedness. Nemo ex suo delicto meeiorem suam conditionem facere potest. No one can improve his condition by his own misdeed. Jure naturae aeeuum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem. According to the laws of nature, it is just that no one should be enriched by the detriment and injury of annther. Nihil iniquius quam aequitatem nimis intendere. Nothing is more unjust than to extend equity too far. Judex aequitatem semper spectare debet. A judge ought always to regard equity. Bonus judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert. Good judges decide according to what is just and right, and prefer equity to strict law. Si aliquid ex solemnibus deficiat, cum aequitas poscit, subveniendum est. If anything is deficient in formal requisites, where equity requires it, it should be supplied. Aequitas nunquam contravenit legis. Equity never counteracts the laws. Aequitas non facit jus, sed juri auxiliatur. Equity does not make law, but assists law. Aequitas ignorantiae opitulatur, oscitantiae non item. Equity assists ignorance, but not carelessness. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The laws aid the vigilant and not those who slumber. Aequitas agit in personam. Equity acts upon the person. Jure natuuae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et innuria fieri locupletiorem. By natural law it is not just that any one should be enriched by the detriment or injury of another. Hoc quidem perquam durum est, sed ita lex scripta est. This indeed is exceedingly hard, but such is the written law. Nemo debet aliena jactura locupletari. No one ought to gain by another's loss. Frustra legis auxilium quaerit qui in legem committit. He vainly seeks the aid of the law who transgresses the law. Commodum ex injuria sua non habere debet. No person ought to derive any advantage by his own wrong. Nemo ex proprio dolo conseeuitur actionem. No one acquires a right of action from his own fraud.


(Share of ownership), noun allotment, claim, division, interest, investment, part, right, stake, vested interest
See also: candor, disinterest, estate, fairness, interest, justice, objectivity, possessions, probity, property, propriety, rectitude, right, stake, title
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.


1 fairness or balance.
2 a system of law, developed by the Court of Chancery in parallel with the common law, designed to complement it, providing remedies for situations that were unavailable at law, thereby adding a dimension of flexibility and justice that was sometimes lacking because of the common law's rigidity.
3 a right in respect of property that does not amount to an equitable interest but that can be asserted against those who have notice of it. In the hierarchy of interests in property in English law, at the top come legal estates or interests. These are rights that are good against all other persons, whether or not those other persons have notice of them; next are equitable interests, which are good against all persons except a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value without notice; then come equities, which are rights that are good against persons other than bona fide purchasers of legal or equitable estates for value without notice.
4 that part of a company's capital that is owned by shareholders.
5 the net value of assets after taking into account any liabilities secured on them.
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
EQUITY. In the early history of the law, the sense affixed to this word was exceedingly vague and uncertain. This was owing, in part, to the fact, that the chancellors of those days were either statesmen or ecclesiastics, perhaps not very scrupulous in the exercise of power. It was then asserted that equity was bounded by no certain limits or rules, and that it was alone controlled by conscience and natural justice. 3 Bl. Com. 43-3, 440, 441.
     2. In a moral sense, that is called equity which is founded, ex oequo et bono, in natural justice, in honesty, and in right. In an enlarged. legal view, "equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. In this, equity is made synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule." 3 Bl. Com. 429. This equity is justly said to be a supplement to the laws; but it must be directed by science. The Roman law will furnish him with sure guides, and safe rules. In that code will be found, fully developed, the first principles and the most important consequences of natural right. "From the moment when principles of decision came to be acted upon in chancery," says Mr. Justice Story, "the Roman law furnished abundant materials to erect a superstructure, at once solid, convenient and lofty, adapted to human wants, and enriched by the aid of human wisdom, experience and learning." Com. on Eq. Jur. Sec. 23 Digest, 54.
     3. But equity has a more restrained and qualified meaning. The remedies for the redress of wrongs, and for the enforcement of rights, are distinguished into two classes, first, those which are administered in courts of common law; and, secondly, those which are administered in courts of equity. Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the former courts, are called legal rights and legal injuries. Rights which are recognized and protected, and wrongs which are redressed by the latter courts only, are called equitable rights and equitable injuries The former are said to be rights and wrongs at common law, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies at common law; the latter are said to be rights and wrongs in equity, and the remedies, therefore, are remedies in equity. Equity jurisprudence may, therefore, properly be said to be that portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administered by a court of equity, as contradistinguished from that remedial justice, which is exclusively administered by a court of law. Story, Eq. Sec. 25. Vide Chancery, and the authorities there cited; and 3 Chit. Bl. Com. 425 n. 1. Dane's Ab. h.t.; Ayl. Pand. 37; Fonbl. Eq. b. 1, c. 1; Wooddes. Lect. 114 Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.

EQUITY, COURT OF. A court of equity is one which administers justice, where there are no legal rights, or legal rights, but courts of law do not afford a complete, remedy, and where the complainant has also an equitable right. Vide Chancery.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.