The Inductive Design Exploration Method is a tool for finding robust solutions to multi-level design problems with input parameters at each level of interest. Each level, \(k\), has \(m\) objective functions, resulting in a \(m\)-dimensional space of feasible solutions. Starting at the top level, \(k=l\), three steps are completed to find the feasible region at the level directly below, \(k-1\):
The determined feasible input parameter configurations of the \(k-1\) level are subsequently used as the new acceptable output range to find the \(k-2\) level design feasible inputs.
The output range \(\bar{y}\) is represented by \(\langle f_1(\bar{x}),f_2(\bar{x}),\ldots,f_m(\bar{x})\rangle\), where \(m\) is the number of output functions. Each output function \(f_i\) has an associated range of uncertainty as a result of the projection process, which can be bounded to incorporate that uncertainty using a set of functions \(f_{i,lower} (x) \leq f_i (x) \leq f_{i,upper} (x)\). This results in the construction of an \(m \times 3\) matrix \(\mathbf{Z}\), where component \(z_{ij}\) is the \(j^{th}\) bounding function of the \(i^{th}\) output dimension.
Using these output ranges and bounding functions, a total assumed variability for the \(i^{th}\) dimension can be found, \(\Delta y_i\) from:
where \(b_i\) is the boundary point being searched for on \(b_i \in S\) where \(S\) is the \((m-1)\)-dimensional boundary of feasible space \(\Omega\). pyDEM finds \(b_i\) along the path \(\langle \bar{y}, max(S_i) \rangle\) using a binary search, to minimize the distance required to reach the boundary.
A value of \(HD_{EMI} < 1\) indicates the output range of the potential solution falls outside the feasible range and is not a robust solution.
Checks that the entire bounds of the output region lie within the feasible region of input uncertainty.
Varies a single output parameter at a time, similar to \(HD_{EMI}\).


Susan Granger's review of 'THE PRINCESS DIARIES" (Disney)
The real significance of this formulaic, mildly amusing story about an awkward teen who is horrified to discover that she's really royalty is its success at the box-office. It opened as the second-biggest live-action G-rated film, topped only by "101 Dalmatians" - meaning there's definitely an audience that's hungry for family entertainment, given the right packaging. And there's no better "packager" than Garry Marshall ("Pretty Woman") who skews the comedy to appeal to young girls, adding a spoonful of Julie Andrews ("Mary Poppins") for their mothers.
In this contemporary fairy-tale, nerdy, klutzy, frizzy-haired Mia Thermopolis (Anne Hathaway) is about to celebrate her 16th birthday when her free-spirited, single artist mother (Caroline Goodall) casually mentions that her grandmother is coming to San Francisco to meet her for tea. That's odd because Mia's never met her late father nor his mother, Queen Clarisse Renaldi (Julie Andrews) of Genovia, a tiny, mythical principality between France and Spain. And when shy, wide-eyed Mia's told she'll inherit the throne, she's torn between curiosity and terror. Guided by Andrews and aide-de-camp (Hector Elizondo), Mia's lessons in prim, proper Princess behavior generate smiles and a few chuckles but her transformation from ugly duckling into swan comes as no surprise. Heather Matazarro scores as Mia's social-activist pal, but it's venerable Julie Andrews who commands attention, particularly in a sequence in which she cleverly "knights" a policeman and the conductor of the trolley-car into which Mia has accidentally crashed her Mustang. Despite Gina Wendkos's lame, predictable script, on the Granger Movie Gauge of 1 to 10, "The Princess Diaries" is a refreshing if schmaltzy, silly 6 - and a sequel is already planned.
========== X-RAMR-ID: 29152 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 243348 X-RT-TitleID: 1109228 X-RT-SourceID: 742 X-RT-AuthorID: 1274 X-RT-RatingText: 6
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


Cody was actively working with and tirelessly supporting all Web Developer students throughout the whole 2018-2019 academic year, and would like to share with the community some of the greatest web developer frontend and fullstack projects as part of the students' portfolios.


Created by Emily Porta for Shift Health
Two day conf in Cleveland, Ohio for product managers, founders, designers, developers - anyone interested in making and selling tech products.
One track: build, launch, scale
Probably ~150-200 people in attendance, mostly product managers and founders
Take in more data and build products based on client needs/wants both known and unknown to them
"Habit forming products"
You want to make products that form use habits in customers to:
Habits can be manufactured - but it's hard. We need to have a good idea of customer needs they can't articulate. Look to consumer psych for answers.
An experience designed to connect a users problem to a solution with enough frequency to cause habit.
Focusing too much on personas can make you miss why your users are trying to solve a problem.
Temptations to deal with scaling support:
One that you follow no matter your size, where the support team is constantly in conversation with the product team.
Support can give high quality, meaningful data to the product team so they can 1. Make decisions (Product Manager) and 2. Understand the importance of what they're building (team).
From support teams you get unsolicited feedback, which is good because: it’s workflow driven, from an open conversation, and hits at blind spots you didn’t know you had
UX and support data should both be used, the data complementing each other.
Support team should be solving the customer’s problem while also solving the company’s problem.
This can be tricky. Avoid frequency bias: thinking whatever's just come up is the most important thing - try not to react too quickly.
Instead, look at data incoming over time: have a reporting tool where everything comes in, and tag them.
Unaware (of feature) and Confused (UI not clear, not sure about a feature) should be looked at frequently to see how you can improve your communication.
Feature requests represent the customer voice - the PM can use these, balanced with product vision, to make product improvements.
blog.intercom.ioBuild/Measure/Learn is hard to do when you don't measure or learn: enter analytics.
Analytics allows you to adjust your product fit faster in response to real feedback.
"A good metric is behaviour-changing"
Collect event data:
Visualize data:
To avoid these, involve more than one person in data-gathering, and be disciplined about how you capture your data.
Has a mentor who always knew what to put in the product, while everyone else was feature-creeping based on customer feedback without a vision.
A methodology inbetween the solution and the job (or the what and the why)
Products are services - customers are trying to solve something in their life by using your product.
"More peanuts or less?"
"Melting point of chocolate?"
"Single or two pack?"
 No one buys a chocolate bar because they literally need two chocolate items in one package, or they need something with "some" peanuts but not too many.
The two aren't in competition: Snickers is thought of as "energizing" and solving hunger. Milky way is soft, endulgent - you eat it when you need comfort.
Once you understand the job (solve hunger, gain energy, feel better emotionally) making the product becomes obvious.
The Timeline is the process a customer goes through to get to buying and its result.
The Forces are what acts on a customer whenever thye're buying something.
Ask your clients what they were experiencing when they decided to go with your product, and do it soon after they made the choice.
The four forces acting on a consumer whenever they're buying a new product. Two promote choice, two block change:
When the top two are greater than the bottom two, people will make a decision to buy.
Do interviews with people who have purchased your product and people who've fired it.
Ask them to tell you the STORY of how they made the decision to buy or not buy. Do not talk about the product itself.
Find the energy in what they're saying - when they're energy spikes, go after that information.
Moar data
Uservoice surveyed 300 Product Managers on how they do things.
Product management today: how do we decide what the right product roadmap is? We get in a room and make it up.
Who has the most influence over product roadmaps? PM's, C-levels, and then everyone else.
It's pretty slow. But gradually we're using customer data to make more decisions. Customers have a lower and lower tolerance for bad digital experiences, and executives know this. PMs get pressure from them to change.
But how do we get the customer feedback to learn why what is happening is happening?
Result: "some customers are talking about billing a lot."
Online services - feedback out in the open (like uservoice - surprise!)
Indirect, through sales and support - support is an excellent source of feedback, they have a huge interest in improving the product.
But tagging/categorization, or just conversations randomly occuring aren't good enough.
Now that you have contextualized user feedback, what do you do with it?
We can start integrating it with other data: revenue, spend, longevity of customer, happiness, etc.
Result: "500 customers have asked for this, they represent 15% of revenue they’re 10 of my top 100 accounts, etc. etc. etc."
With this feedback, you can start to make decisions like:
"This quarter we’re going to do 60% slam dunk stuff, 10% totally innovative, 30% inbetween, etc."
Because you know who the customers are, what the most important and numerous ones care about, and where the potential growth is.
Experiment Driven Development: Wix did over 700 experiments on their users just in August 2015
Having two versions of the same thing you want to test out, and see which one works better. A is the existing version, B is the new change.
Collect this data, then compare the two options, once you reach statistical significance you stop the experiment and scrap what doesn’t work
WixPETRI - manages their AB testing: github.com/wix/petri
When you start an AB test, start with 10% of the users, measure how they react to this new feature
Then slowly start to increase the percentage if numbers look good for the B
This can take a long time to reach statistical significance.
Product Management has a long way to come.
Most are either founders/co-founders, or more senior people from other areas who moved over.
PMs who focus on collecting, analyzing customer data and responding by building products with that data in mind are very valuable.


Home
Portfolio
About
Contact
Home Page
Portfolio Page
about Page
contact Page
blog Page
article Page


IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE --------
PRESENT :
The Hon'ble Chief Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar And The Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose W.P. No. 106 of 2007 People United for Better Living in Calcutta Versus East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority For the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Mukherjee Mr. R. Bachawat Mr. Dhruba Ghosh Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee Mr. Tarun Aich.
For the K.M.C. : Mr. Anindya Mitra Mr. Alok Ghosh Mr. Achintya Banerjee For the East Kolkata Management Authority : Mr. Bimal Chatterjee Ms. Ila Chatterjee. For the Pollution Control Board : Mr. Kallol Bose. Heard on : 2.5.07; 11.5.07; 15.6.07; 18.9.07; 27.9.07; 4.10.07;
11.1.08; 18.1.08; 1.2.08; 13.2.08; 22.2.08; 7.3.08; 4.4.08; 5.5.08; 12.6.08; 13.6.08; 4.7.08; 18.7.08;
14.8.08; 22.8.08 and 29.8.08.
Judgment on: 24.12.08 PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the People United for Better Living in Calcutta (PUBLIC), is a voluntary non- profit, non-political citizen action group founded in 1990.
It is stated in the petition that the mission of PUBLIC is to improve the environment of Calcutta and promote sustainable urban living by working with Government Agencies, corporate citizens, other NGOs and stakeholders in a consultative and implementational capacity. The focus areas of PUBLIC are airs, noise pollution, land use planning including protection of open spaces and conservation of heritage buildings.
At the instance of the writ petitioners, the legal protection of the East Kolkata Wetlands (hereinafter referred to as EKW) were protected through Public Interest Litigation filed by petitioner No. 1. The said EKW has now been declared as the international protected site by the Indian Government under the RAMSAR Convention. The petitioner has filed this application to ensure protection of EKW.
It is submitted that respondent No. 8, Union of India is financing a project for Construction of a Water Treatment Plant within the said area through the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (hereinafter referred to as JNNURM) of the Ministry of Urban Development. It is also stated that the EKW was originally protected by the order passed by this Court by an Order dated 24th September, 1992 which is reported in 1993 (97) CWN 142, where the Court held that an obligation has cast on the Government of West Bengal not to change the nature and the character of the land of the said area demarcated by the Court in the said judgment. Subsequently, the West Bengal Government came out with an Ordinance No. VII to protect the EKW and finally with the East Kolkata Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was promulgated in place of the above mentioned Ordinance and the said Act came into operation to provide for conservation and management of the East Kolkata Wetlands and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
According to the petitioners, a project for construction of a Water Treatment Plant is being undertaken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC) over an area of nearly 100 acres in the Mouza Bonchtala, Dag No. 615-630, 633 (part), 634-636, 647 (part), 638-641, 642 (part), 643, 645, 648 (part), 649 (part), 650, 652 (part), 653 (part), 654 (part), 656, 658 (part), 673, 739, 745-757, 758 (part), 759-767, 763 (part), 768 and 770 (part) within the fringes of the boundary area of the EKW.
The petitioner also learnt that a huge Water Treatment Plant for producing 30 MGD of treated water within the said area of EKW has been undertaken by the KMC. The petitioner had been co-opted as the member of a standing committee under the said Act and petitioner No. 2 was nominated to represent petitioner No. 1 in the said Standing Committee.
It is submitted that the construction of the said Water Treatment Plant would result in release of large amount of effluence, at the time of construction, in to a very large water body creating great amount of pollution and as such the said Construction is not possible without the permission of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board.
It is further submitted that without following the provisions of Section 9 of the said Act and in violation of Section 10 of the said Act, the Authorities are proceeding in the matter. It is submitted that the Wetlands Management Authority under the said Act was empowered to grant sanction for change of character or mode of use of land. Such change can be only made for improvement and upkeepment of the local environment and its surroundings.
It is pointed out that the entire action of granting of sanction by the Management authority in respect of the said Water Treatment Plant is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and to render the provisions of the said Act nugatory.
It is further pointed out that such sanction has been granted by the Authority in violation of Section 18 of the said Act. The said Water Treatment Plant would also necessitate pipelines from the Water Treatment Plants to the different points along the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass from Garia to Ultadanga to cater the treated water from the said Water Treatment Plant to the said areas.
It is further pointed out that the said Water Treatment Plant would also require roads for ingress and egress from the said site as well as for additional covered area to house, a filter house, a chemical house, a control room, a godown and open construction for clarifloculator and a covered reservoir. The petitioner also states that the said Water Treatment Plant would also require a pump house to pump the treated water and staff housing for maintenance and operation of the said Water Treatment Plant. In these circumstances, it is submitted that such action would destroy the fragile eco-system at the said wetlands area.
Further point of submission is that effluence in the shape of sludge containing alum would be produced from the said Water Treatment Plant as a result of treatment of water for which provisions for disposal has to be made. The petitioner apprehends that the said sludge may be dumped either in the EKW or in a nearby water body or river channel further destroying the said fragile ecosystem.
It is further submitted that the Water Treatment Plant would destroy the EKW besides being in violation of the international obligations undertaken by the Government of India under the RAMSAR convention and rules framed thereunder, the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24th September, 1992 and the said Act of 2006.
It is further submitted that the attempt of the Government is to circumvent the spirit of the Act by using public necessity as a guise to achieve the said purpose. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the respondents are in violation of the international obligations undertaken by the Government of India. It is further submitted that the said actions are in violation of the Inland Fisheries Act and therefore, the same has to be stopped.
Mr. Soumendra Narayan Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the KMC did not obtain permission for the construction of the Water Treatment Plant from the Pollution Control Board.
He drew our attention to Section 3 of the said Act and submitted that the authority has been constituted under the said Act of 1996. The functions and the powers of the said authority have also been stated specifically under Section 4 of the said Act.
According to him, no project can come through without the Management Plan and according to him, no Management Plan has yet been finally prepared. Thereafter, applications made before the said authority and the authority granted the permission on that very day without application of mind. In this respect, he also drew our attention to the Environmental Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as EMP) Reports submitted by the KMC respectively.
Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the KMC relying on the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India on 27th January, 1994 which was modified subsequently on 4th May, 1994, 10th April, 1997, 27th January, 2000 and 13th December, 2000 respectively submitted that the EIA or EMP report which was required in respect of the Projects has been specifically set out in Schedule I of the Notification issued under Clause A of Rule 5(3)(a) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986. In the said Schedule, the Water Treatment Plant is not included. Therefore, he submitted that for the purpose of construction of Water Treatment Plant the EIA or EMP reports are not required to be prepared by the KMC.
He submitted that the said project of (Water Treatment Plant) was duly submitted by the KMC before the management authority for approval and the said authority after deliberations made in the meeting, granted the approval by an order dated 14th February, 2007 subject to compliance of the six conditions mentioned therein.
He further submitted that in compliance of those conditions a supplementary EIA report was submitted before the said authority on July 4, 2008. Upon receipt of the said supplementary EIA Report the management authority on 15th July held a meeting and thereafter granted approval to the KMC.
Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the said report was prepared in consultation with the experts in the said field. He also submitted that the said area of 20 acres has been chosen on the very fringe of the wetlands area. The area chosen for the said Water Treatment Plant constitutes 0.00065% of the wetlands area and is located at the extreme end of the Western fringe of the wetlands area and is abutting a major road, E.M.Bypass. The said Water Treatment Plant is located on Dag numbers which are indicated in the supplementary EIA and EMP report and those Dag numbers are mentioned under Table 3 of the said Act of 2006 in Mouza Bonchtala and has been classified as productive framing area and not as water body or water body oriented area. According to him, the location of the Water Treatment Plant would not be on water body or even substantially on water body oriented area. The location will be on solid land which was previously used by KMC as a garbage dumping site and is a part of Dhapa.
He further pointed out that such construction of Water Treatment Plant is not likely to affect the final Management Plan as may be made by the authorities. The Management authority has already issued an outline for conservation and management of the EKW area. The said outline would show that the installation of Water Treatment Plant on the productive farming area will not interfere with the final Management Plan and the said project of (Water Treatment Plant) has been undertaken and is to be funded by the Government of India in 35%, Government of West Bengal in 35% and the rest in 30% by KMC under JNNURM. The said Project has been sanctioned under JNNURM by the Government of India. The sanction contains strict time limit and according to him, if the project is not completed within the said time limit, the amount so granted has to be refunded.
Mr. Mukherjee pointed out that the extension can be obtained under the said Scheme (JNNURM), if a major portion of the work could be undertaken. It is also true that final Management Plan should be prepared by EKW management authority but that would not be affected if the said Water Treatment Plant is constructed at the said area. The said Authority has already approved the said water treatment plant after being satisfied with the project. The installation of water treatment plant in this fringe area of the wetlands would not interfere with the final Management Plan at all. The said authority granted such approval after considering the pros and cons of the project.
He further submitted that the measure has already been taken for disposal of sludge emanating from the water treatment plant. The sludge is to be deposited in the sludge drying bed and upon being dried up the same would be sold in the form of solid cakes which are utilised for brick manufacturing and also for sanitary land filling. Similar system for disposal of sludge is being practiced at Palta and Garden Reach Water Treatment Plants. Selling of such sludge is also a source of revenue of KMC.
He further pointed out that the potable water conforming Central Public Health Environmental Engineering Organisation Standard will be produced under this project. This aspect has been considered by JNNURM authority and thereafter the fund has been allotted and sanctioned.
He submitted that this kind of facilities is in accordance with the principle of RAMSAR Convention and Section 10(5) of the said Act of 2006. The site proposed is on terrestrial area and there is no question of any fauna and flora within the site. The Water Treatment Plant will provide potable water to the various wards within the area of KMC covering Calcutta City as well as Calcutta wetlands area.
He further submitted that this Water Treatment Plant shall improve the local environment and would provide arsenic free water to the local inhabitants and also to a large number of residents of this part of Kolkata. The water would also be supplied to the arsenic prone area for the betterment of public health. More than 10 lakhs residents of the said area will be benefited by the said Water Treatment Plant.
He further pointed out that there will be no residence within the said water treatment area and no arrangement has been made for staff quarters within the said plant area since the work will be done only eight hours on each day. According to him, no underground water or surface water is involved in this plant, the water will come from the river Ganges through underground pipes running from Bagbazar Mayer Ghat to this Project Water Treatment Plant.
According to his further submission, no waste water will be disposed of or go outside the area of Water Treatment Plant, the waste will be recycled, if there is any residual alum in more than permissible limit that will also be detected through scada system and will be neutralised. He further added that alum and chlorine are normal ingredients for purifying water.
His further point of submission is that the steps have been taken to improve the living conditions of the residents, who are residing within the 14 wards of the KMC area and the KMC is bound to discharge its statutory obligation.
Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that the Act of 2006 is a complete code and 20 acres of land owned by KMC is not within the purview of Land Reforms Act, 1955 and according to him, the said Act does not apply within the limit of KMC. Section 4(c) of the said Act has no application in view of Section 1 of the Land Reforms Act, 1955.
According to him, this project has been undertaken only to supply free contaminated and arsenic free water to the inhabitants of the said area.
Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the East Kolkata Management Authority submitted that before approval of the Project, the application was filed which was discussed by the said Management Authority in the meeting and after discussion, the approval was granted. The said fact would be evident from the minutes of the meeting held by the said Authority.
According to him, the Committee was sure that no water body would be filled up by the KMC for this Project and the matter was discussed at length in the Meeting of the Committee and on number of occasions, the matter was discussed in the meeting time to time held by the said Authority and thereafter, the procedure for clearance of Project and Scheme followed all the terms which should have been followed by the Authority.
It is further submitted by him that the said Authority duly considered the EIA and EMP reports which were submitted by the KMC and in view of the said EIA and EMP reports comments were made with regard to the said Project by the said authority. Accordingly, the said proposal of KMC for construction of 30 MGD water treatment plant adjacent to Dhapa dumping ground, Mouza Bonchtala was approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction should be done in most eco friendly manner. Construction material should be carefully chosen so that they do not cause any environmental concern and blend perfectly with the surroundings.
2. Before filling up any water body an equivalent water body may be created.
3. Construction of shed should be kept minimum and that too should be restricted for the operational purpose only.
4. Chemicals and other inventory are to be stored outside EKW area.
5. The front side of E. M. Bypass and the Basanti Road is to be covered with greeneries.
6. The project may be executed under strict monitoring of EKWMA, at the designing and implementation stages."
The said Authority by their letter dated 14th February, 2007, duly informed the KMC about the said conditions.
He further submitted that all steps have been taken by the authority and the authority after considering the facts and circumstances of this case came to such conclusion. He also pointed out that the said supplementary EIA and EMP reports submitted by the KMC would show that the same has been prepared as per requirement of law and the same has been taken care of all probable situation and thereby in granting such approval, the authority proceeded with their satisfaction.
Mr. Mitra further pointed out that the authority was constituted after taking into account the authority of the West Bengal Pollution Control Board and the Chairman of the said Board is a member of the EKW Management Authority. Therefore, he submitted that the Pollution Control Board duly represented in the said authority. Therefore, whether consent is required by the Pollution Control Board is immaterial since the permission was granted by the authority.
During the pendency of this application the KMC handed over the Environment Impact Assessment Report and subsequent thereto a further supplementary Environment Impact Assessment Report was filed before the Court. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners filed an application in the said writ petition on 21st August, 2008 and submitted that the said Reports were prepared by the KMC without consulting and/or obtaining permission from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board. It is further submitted that the said Report cannot be called as an Environment Impact Assessment or the Management Plan. The said Report so filed as EIA or EMP Report before the Court suffers from lacuna. It is also pointed out before us that the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority (hereinafter referred to as the said EKWMA) under Section 4(f) of the said Act of 2006 is to prepare action Plans conforming to the resolutions and recommendations made from time to time under the RAMSAR Convention and to update the land use of the said EKW.
According to the petitioner, no Management Plan has yet been prepared or finalised. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no development should be permitted within the said area.
It is further submitted that the development work is not permissible at all within the said area. The Management Plan is still in the draft stage. The draft stage is not in accordance with the RAMSAR principles. The petitioner further approached three different persons, according to the petitioners, they are well- versed in environmental matters. According to their opinion, the proposed Project is erroneously and unjustifiedly selected the said site.
It is further submitted that the said two Reports do not comply with the Guidelines of the Government of West Bengal for Environment Impact Assessment and the Project should be kept in abeyance until the Management Plan is finalised.
Further point of submission is that the Court should appoint an independent Organisation or a Government recognised Local Organisation for the purpose of examining the proposed plan for the said Water Treatment Plant, the Environment Impact Assessment and the Environment Management Plan submitted by the respondents for ascertaining whether this provides for sufficient safeguards are otherwise accepted.
On the contrary, it is submitted that all the required norms have been followed in respect of the water treatment plan proposed to be constructed at Mouza Bonchtala and all the requirements under the Rules were considered at the primary stage, and the supplementary EIA or EMP Report was only advised at the actual execution stage of the Project. The Management Authority requested the KMC to provide the said EIA or EMP Reports for the purpose of effecting the Water Treatment Plant at the said area so that the additional precaution, if any, is required by the Management Authority, could be done.
The said EIA or EMP Reports submitted by the KMC would show that the same has been prepared as per requirement of law and the same has been taken care of all probable situation including adverse impact and beneficial situation such as air, water, soil, noise, social conditions etc. It is further submitted that the said Authority gave approval to the KMC to proceed with the said Project after satisfying themselves that the said Project would not adversely affect wetlands' environment. The said EIA report is not a statutory requirement for Water Treatment Plant under the Order or Notification issued from time to time by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. Therefore, there is no reason to direct that the said Plan should have been prepared in consultation with or with the permission of West Bengal Pollution Board or any other independent Body.
It is further pointed out that there is no question of change in land use if the said Water Treatment Plant is constructed at the said area. There is no chance of changing the eco-system or there will be any violation of the Court's order if the said proposed Project is constructed at the said area.
Hence, it is submitted that the proposed site was chosen by the KMC to have minimal impact on the wetlands environment and at the same time cater to the needs of the local populace who face adverse impact of arsenic poisoning on their health. The said site is located on the fringes of the wetlands and not located on any water body but on solid land previously used for the disposal of garbage by the KMC.
In regard to the Management Plan for the EKW, the Court held that the Director of the W.I.S.A. submitted his draft report of the Management Plan for the said EKW at the meeting of EKWMA held on 15.7.08 when all the members of the EKWMA were present including Petitioner No. 2. The EKW system and the key issues relating to the area and the resource pool available in the area were duly described before the management authority. The background hydrology of the EKW system being the allied system of Adigana, Bidyadhari, Noal, Seenti etc. was described, and the necessity for connecting these with the present EKW system to get regular freshwater discharge into the said EKW, was stressed.
It is further pointed out that after considering the importance of the said Plant, members decided to give their feed back in writing to the EKWMA. The EKWMA will summarize these inputs and will convey the same to WISEA for integration in the final version of the Management Plan.
It is further pointed out that the area of EKW are not uniform in nature of the land use and there are a number of categories of land, and not every area of the EKW contain the kind of bio-diversity as portrayed in the opinions presented by the petitioner.
The said EIA or EMP Reports have been approved by the said Management Authority and no cogent reason has been shown by the petitioners to reconsider the same. Hence, it is submitted that the Court shall permit the KMC to go ahead with the said Project.
The further point of submission is that the impact of two hazardous chemicals - chlorine and alum have been duly considered with regard to the said Project. All steps have been taken as it would be evident from the said Plan for disposal of the products which would come out of the said Water Treatment process. It is submitted that there will be a significant benefit to the local environment and also to the local population through this Water Treatment Plant.
However, it appears that the Report has been filed by the Pollution Control Board where it has been submitted that no application has yet been filed by the KMC for granting consent to establish the said Water Treatment Plant, but the Learned Senior Counsel for the KMC pointed out that the Chairman and Member-Secretary of the Board are acting as the members of the Management Authority and they duly signed the permission granted by the said management authority. Therefore, that cannot be a ground to reject the project.
Further, it has been stated on behalf of the KMC that the part of Kolkata City and its surroundings, wetland area are now subjected to threat of serious contamination of arsenic in the ground water. It is imperative that the ground water dependence is replaced and substituted by treated surface water supply for which the 30 MGD water treatment project of Dhapa came into consideration.
It appears that the Project requires 20 acres of land of regular shape and size. Mouza Bonchtala is the only place where the KMC could locate 20 acres of structure free land of its own with regular shape and size. In no other place, KMC does have encumbrances free, bulk 20 acres of land in this way. Therefore, the said fact also to be considered when the said land is easily available to KMC without any hassle and for the development purpose.
The essence of the Project is that surface water will come from the river Hooghly by sub surface pipelines to the proposed project site at Bonchtala where the untreated raw surface water will be treated for distribution in the EKW area and other areas within the KMC area. It is submitted that after considering all the aspects of the matter, the Project was approved by the EKWMA.
It is also pointed out that a resolution was taken in the Meeting of the EKWMA and it would be evident that excepting petitioner No. 2 everybody agreed and duly accepted the decision taken in the said Meeting. The conditions and instructions as recorded in the said resolution has also been accepted by the KMC in order to go ahead to implement the Project without any further delay. The said Authority has already approved the Project to be implemented, since, there is no infirmity and illegality in the decision making process, the implementation of the Project should not be stopped on a flimsy ground.
In these circumstances, it is submitted that the whole object and purpose of the petitioners are to cause delay to the said Project of public interest on trifling causes and reasons. Furthermore, the said Project is dependent on the finance which has been sanctioned under the JNNURM. The total Project cost has already been approved by the JNNURM under the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Therefore, at this stage, for the interest of public of the said area at the behest of the petitioner, carrying on of the Project should not be stopped.
We have heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the parties at a length. The following decisions were cited at the Bar:
In the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 715 (M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Paragraph 10 of the said judgment that in the decision reported in (1987) 4 SCC 463 [M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India] the Court held as follows:
"The financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant while requiring them to establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effects on the public. Life, public health and ecology have priority over unemployment and loss of revenue problem."
The "Precautionary Principle" has been accepted as a part of the law of the land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The "Precautionary Principle" makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation. We have no hesitation in holding that in order to protect the two lakes from environmental degradation it is necessary to limit the construction activity in the close vicinity of the lakes."
In the decision reported in (2001) 2 SCC 62 (A.P. Pollution Control Board II vs. M.V. Nayudu) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the paragraph 44 of the said judgment as follows:
"coming to the provisions of the Water Act, 1974, it is clear that in view of Sub-sections 2(e), 2(k) read with Sections 17 and 18 of the Water Act, the fundamental objective of the statute is to provide clean drinking water to the citizens. Having laid down the policy prohibiting location of any industries within 10 km under GO No. 111 dated 8.3.1996, the State Could not have granted exemption to the 7th respondent Industry, nor to any other industry, from any part of the main GO No. 111 dated 8.3.1996. Section 19 permitted the State to restrict the application of the Water Act, 1974 to a particular area, if need be, but it did not enable the State to grant exemption to a particular industry within the area prohibited for location of polluting industries. Exercise of such a power in favour of a particular industry must be treated as arbitrary and contrary to public interest and in violation of the right to clean water under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
It appears to us that the object of the said Act of 2006 deemed to have came into force on 16th November, 2005 to provide for conservation and management of EKW and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The said Act has been enacted as regulator of water regime, source for underground water recharging, mechanism for waste water treatment, air quality purifier and store of water for fire-fighting and have great ecological significance for human life.
It is also evident from the said Act that the EKW have a very important role to play ecologically and socio-economically. The said Act is further for conservation and management of the EKW and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
Under the said Act the EKW Authority was constituted under Section 3 of the said Act. Under Section 3 of Sub-section 3 of the said Act, the Authority shall have a body corporate with the name specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and may, by the aforesaid name, sue or be sued. Therefore, under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the said Act, the Authority has been empowered to acquire, hold and further to dispose of the property.
The functions and powers of EKW Authority is specifically stated in Section 4 of the said Act which is reproduced hereunder:
"Section 4 :-
a) to demarcate the boundaries of the East Kolkata Wetlands on the field as shown in the map in Schedule II;
b) to take measures or make an order to stop, undo and prevent any unauthorized development project in, or unauthorised use of, or unauthorised act on, the East Kolkata Wetlands;
c) to make an order directing demolition or alteration of any hoarding, frame, post, kiosk, structure, neon-signed or sky-sign, erected or exhibited illegally for the purpose of advertisement on any land within the East Kolkata Wetlands;
d) to make an order to prevent, prohibit or restrict any mining, quarrying, blasting, or other operation of like nature, for the purpose of protecting or conserving the East Kolkata Wetlands;
e) to take measures to abate pollution in the East Kolkata Wetlands and conserve the flora, fauna and biodiversity in general;
f) to prepare action plans conforming to the resolutions taken and recommendations made, from time to time, under the Ramsar Convention and to update the land use maps of the East Kolkata Wetlands;
g) to implement and monitor the activities specified in the action plans;
h) to promote research and disseminate findings of such research among the stakeholders;
i) to raise awareness about the utility of the wetlands in general and the East Kolkata Wetlands in particular;
j) to promote basic conservation principles like sewage fed pisciculture and eco-tourism in the East Kolkata Wetlands;
k) to enforce land use control in the substantially water body oriented areas and other areas in the East Kolkata Wetlands;
l) to detect changes of ecological character and in land use in the East Kolkata Wetlands;
m) to establish network with other Ramsar Sites in India;
n) to conduct inquiry or scientific study for any purpose of this Act;
o) to constitute expert committee for any purpose of this Act;
p) to enter any land or premises, including to collect samples of air, water, soil and other biological resources, for any purpose of this Act;
q) to call for relevant records and documents and information from any Department, organisation or local body for any purpose of this Act;
r) to do such act, or pass such order, which may be necessary and expedient for the purpose of conservation and management of the East Kolkata Wetlands.
(2) The Authority shall, before making an order under Clause (b) or Clause
(c) or Clause (d) of Sub-section 1, give the person affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
Section 9 of the said Act deals with Maintenance and preservation of land in East Kolkata Wetlands which is reproduced hereunder:
"Section 9 - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every person holding any land in the East Kolkata Wetlands shall maintain and preserve such land in a manner that its area is not diminished, or its character is not changed, or it is not converted for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was settled or previously held, except with the previous sanction of the Authority under Section 10."
After perusing the said Act and the said Sections, it appears that the said Authority has a right to grant permission for change of character or mode of use of land in question and such permission to be granted after examining the case and after receiving the order from the Collector and the Authority has a right for granting sanction for change of character or mode of use of the land in question in accordance with the procedure for granting of such sanction.
It appears to us that the said water treatment plant as proposed to be constructed at the said extreme end of the western fringe of the wetlands area and is abutting a major road, Eastern Metropolitan Bypass.
It further appears to us that as it has been submitted by Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, the Learned Senior Advocate who drew our attention to Table three of the said Mouza Bonchtala and submitted that the Water Treatment Plant would not be on water body or even on water body oriented area, the location will be on the solid land which was previously used by the KMC as a garbage dumping site.
It further appears that the installation of Water Treatment Plant on the productive farming area will not interfere with the final management plan and that the project of Water Treatment Plant has been undertaken and is to be funded by the Government of India, Government of West Bengal and the rest by the KMC under a project sanctioned under JNNURM by the Government of India. It further appears that the said sanction contain strict time limit and if the project is not completed within the time limit, the amount so granted for, to be refunded.
It further appears to us that if the said Water Treatment Plant is allowed to be functioned/constructed at the said area a large section of population within the eastern part of Kolkata as well as at EKW areas would be benefitted. It is admitted that at the said area the people are suffering by using the contaminated water with arsenic causing health hazards to the people residing at the said area at large. It further appears to us if this Project is allowed to be constructed this would certainly be a help to the residents of the said area and that would help also KMC to cater arsenic free water to the said large area. The standard of the potable Water would conform the standard of the Central Public Health Environment Engineering Organisation Standard. Such supply would remove health hazards and would enable the large population at the said area to have the arsenic free potable water at the said area which would be also taken into account for the purpose of sanctioning the project by JNNURM.
Mr. Mukherjee also dealt with the disposal of the large emanating from the said water treatment plant and we are satisfied with the submissions made by him and the system for disposal of such sludge as already been practiced at Palta and Garden Reach Water Treatment Plants respectively by the KMC. Therefore, we do not have hesitation to accept his contention. The proposal of KMC for construction of the said plant as it appears was approved after discussion with certain conditions which have been imposed by the said Authority.
In our opinion, the point which has been urged before us that the permission which was granted by the said Authority to the KMC without considering the fact that KMC did not obtain a permission from the West Bengal Pollution Control Board has no merit since the Chairman and the Member- Secretary of the Pollution Control Board are party to the permission granted by the EKWMA.
The EIA Report is not a statutory requirement for water treatment plant project under the Order and Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, from time to time. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not necessary that the plant should be prepared in consultation with or with the permission of West Bengal Pollution Control Board or any other independent body.
Hence, in our considered opinion, the EKW Act of 2006 has been constituted the Management Authority and the said Authority has been constituted in accordance with the said Act. After proper deliberations the said authority has granted the permission to the KMC that too with certain conditions. We have also perused the said conditions and in our considered opinion, if the said conditions are strictly imposed, the basic features of the Act can not be jeopardized.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the functions and powers of the Management Authority has been specifically stated in the said Act that when the Water Treatment Plant is to be constructed at the said area that should be under the control of the said Authority and in our opinion, the said Authority has enough power to control the environment situation at the said area.
In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2893 (Mrs. Susetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts have not laid down a law that alienation of the property held as a public trust is necessarily prohibited. What was emphasized was a higher degree of judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of sustainable development although is not an empty slogan. It is required to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the Court.
The Court further held in paragraph 21 of the said judgment that relying on the decision reported in (2006) 3 SCC 434 [Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group] that referring to a large number of decisions, it was stated that whereas need to protect the environment is a priority. It is also necessary to promote development stating:
"... the harmonization of the two needs has led to the concept of sustainable development, so much so that it has become the most significant and focal point of environmental legislation and judicial decisions relating to the same. Sustainable development, simply put, is a process in which development can be sustained over generations. Brundtland Report defines 'sustainable development' as development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Making the concept of sustainable development operational for public policies raises important challenges that involve complex synergies and trade offs."
The Court further held in paragraph 22 of the said judgment as follows:
"Treating the principle of sustainable development as a fundamental concept of Indian Law, it was opined that the development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome feature but while emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the necessity for development must be struck. Whereas it is not possible to ignore intergenerational interest, it is also not possible to ignore the dire need which the society urgently requires."
In the decision reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 [Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 123 and 124 respectively of the said judgment held as follows:
"123 - It appears to us that the precautionary principle and the corresponding burden of proof on the person who wants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of polluting or other project or industry where the extent of damage likely to be inflicted is not known. When there is a state of uncertainty due to lack of data or material about the extent of damage or pollution likely to be caused then, in order to maintain the ecology balance, the burden of proof that the said balance will be maintained must necessarily be on the industry or the unit which is likely to cause pollution. On the other hand, where the effect on ecology or environment of setting up of an industry is known, what has to be seen is that if the environment is likely to suffer, then what mitigative steps can be taken to offset the same. Merely because there will be a change is no reason to presume that there will be an ecological disaster. It is when the effect of the project is known that the principle of sustainable development would come into play which will ensure that mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance. Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
124 - In the present case we are not concerned with the polluting industry which is being established.  The dam is neither a nuclear establishment nor a polluting industry. The construction of a dam undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but it will not be correct to presume that the construction of a large dam like the Sardar Sarovar will result in an ecological disaster. India has an experience of over 40 years in the construction of dams. The experience does not show that construction of a large dam is not cost-effective or leads to ecological or environmental degradation. On the contrary, there has been ecological upgradation with the construction of large dams. What is the impact on environment with the construction of a dam is well known in India and, therefore, the decision of A.P. Pollution Control Board has not application in the present case."
The legal position relating to exercise of jurisdiction by the courts for preventing environmental degradation and thereby, seeking to protect fundamental rights of the citizens, is now well settled. The primary efforts of the court while dealing with environmental related issues, is to ensure that the enforcement agencies, whether it be the State or any other authority, take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws. The court act as the guardian of the people's fundamental rights. (see Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India (1996) 3 Supreme 741).
Furthermore, the courts have repeatedly felt that the needs of environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of a developing country. The development of industry is essential for the economy of the country, but at the same time, the environment and the ecosystems have to be protected. It has been held that it was necessary to strike balance between the necessity to preserve the environment on the one hand and the pressing need for the industrialization of a backward state. (see Rajiv Ranjan Singh vs. State of Bihar in AIR 1992 Pat 86). It was neither feasible nor practicable to have a negative approach to the development process of the country or of the society, since in a developing economy technological advancement ought not to be decried at all, though, however, the same does not mean without any consideration for the environment. There must be a proper balance between development and environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other. The society must prosper but not at the cost of the environment and in the similar vein the environment must be protected but not at the cost of the development and proper environment and administrative actions ought to proceed in accordance therewith. It is necessary to recognize the danger in order to strike a balance between the quality of life to be preserved and the economic development to be encouraged. (see Cheetri Pradushan Mukti Sangarsh Samity vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in AIR 1990 SC 2060). However, the pollution created because of development must commensurate with the carrying capacity of our ecosystems. (see M. C. Mehta (supra). The Courts have explained further by saying that the needle of the balance is the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution. The right to life comprehends, inter alia, right to environment, right to health care and the right to adequate heath delivery system. However, the court will attempt to balance relevant consideration. (see Sachchidanad Pandey vs. State of West Bengal in AIR 1987 SC 1109).
It is further held that one of the principles underlying environmental law is that of sustainable development. Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the need of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their needs and this principle requires such development to take place, which is ecologically sustainable. The two essential features of sustainable development are the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. (see M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2002) 3 SCJ 11). These principles are part of environmental laws of India.
It is further held that mere violation of the law in not observing the norms would result in degradation of environment would not be correct. (see Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 6 SCC 402). The basic question was whether any construction should be allowed to be raised in and around a lake in a city.
It is true that in respect of the public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government, the Court would not become an approval Committee. If a considered policy decision has been taken which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide and further it is not in the interest of the public at large, in those cases the function of the Court is not to sit in appeal over such a policy decision.
In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan (supra), it has been held by the Court that for any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court must refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner files a public interest litigation alleging that such a decision must not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the Project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible.
After considering the pros and cons of the said Project and the points urged before us, we hold that the said Project, if implemented, can save a part of the Kolkata city and its surroundings and also the local population from the serious threat of contamination of arsenic in the ground water, and the dependence on the ground water would be replaced and substituted by the treated surface water supply for which the Project has been undertaken.
In these circumstances, we are not in a position to stop the construction of the said plant for the interest of public at large of the said area and accordingly, we direct the said Authority to proceed with the construction of 30 MGD water treatment plant adjacent to Dhapa dumping ground in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Management Authority in their letter dated 14th February, 2007. But we make it clear that without obtaining permission from the competent authority no water body should be filled up by the KMC.
We further direct the Management Authority to keep a close watch on this Project so that there cannot be any violation of any provisions of the said Act in any manner whatsoever. The said authority is further directed to monitor the work of the said Project and to submit monthly reports month by month until the completion of the Project.
Although we have directed the Management Authority to keep a close watch over the work of the Project, we think it would be proper for us to appoint an independent Monitoring Committee who will monitor the work of the said Project until it becomes operative. The said Monitoring Committee also has to file by-monthly reports from time to time before this Court.
However, we like to monitor the following issues for controlling and maintaining the ecological balance at the said area by setting up the said Committee who shall monitor the construction of the said Project at the said area.
Mr. Sabyasachi Sengupta, Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal University of Technology, Dr. N. R. Banerjee, Vice- Chancellor, Bengal Engineering & Science University and Dr. Joydeep Mukherjee, Head of the Department, Environment, Jadavpur University are hereby appointed as the Members of the said Monitoring Committee who will monitor the work of the said Project. The Monitoring Committee would monitor the Project and would see that the following conditions are followed in carrying out the said Project;
a) the construction should be done in most eco-friendly manner and further the materials should be used for such purpose should not cause any environmental hazards in the said locale and
b) no general permission can be granted for filling up any waterbody; however if it is absolutely necessary for the proper function of the Water Treatment Plant to fill up any waterbody, the same shall not be undertaken without express permission of the Monitoring Committee and any other competent authority. In case such permission is granted, it shall be obligatory for the KMC to create an equivalent water body. The front side of the E. M. By-pass and Basanti Road should be covered with greeneries, and the Project should be under strict monitoring of the Management Authority at each and every stages.
The Monitoring Committee shall continue to monitor the said Project until it is in operation. The by-monthly report should be filed by this Monitoring Committee in respect of the said Project before this Court from time to time. All costs, charges and expenses of the said Monitoring Committee should be borne by the KMC.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the applications are disposed of. I agree.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, C. J.) (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.)


We are a team of software engineers put together by Lambda Shool's Build Week program. In one week we worked together to build this fully responsive web app.


Attention to: CEO/PRESIDENT From: Sam KOROMA Tel: 27 733 624 034 Fax: 27 115 076 062 Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Johannesburg/SOUTH AFRICA Dear Sir, May this reach you in peace of mind and good health. It will be pertinent to first make myself known to you, my name is Mr. Sam Koroma. I am the first son of Chief Omoh Koroma, the former Chairman of Sierra Leone Mining Corporation. Unfortunately, my father was brutally murdered in 1999 by the RUF rebels led by Mr. Forde Sankoh "the monster" who due to his selfish interest destroyed a nation and devastated the land because of the diamonds. This is a story that has to be imagined than to express because of the ugly memory and cost. Since the demise of my father, we the entire family has been grieving and honestly, very hard for us to trust people especially here in Africa. I had only confided in few close friends as we were in need of securing the wealth of my father. It was within these meditation that I got your contact through a reliable source. Honestly I have not reveal this to anyone. Based on this, I decided to write you first because this is my family last hope of living comfortably as we do when my father was alive. Before my father passed away, he had already acquired a vast estate and a considerable wealth in Sierra Leone. In our neighboring country, my father deposited two boxes containing cash of thirty-three Million Dollars (US$33,000,000.00) in a security company. When he deposited this boxes, my father purposely registered it as a precious item in order not to attract the attention of the security company officers, and also for safety reasons until he is ready to use it for investments. Unfortunately, as an adage says, Man propose but God disposes my father could not live to achieve all his dreams. In his declaration, he use my name as the next of kin. As the war broke out, we shifted to Johannesburg, South Africa for the safety of our dear lives. Right now, I am writing you from Johannesburg, looking for a way to remove the money out of the security company with a reliable person overseas for a proper investment. We cannot establish any businesses here in Africa due to instability of Government in most countries. Base on this, I am seriously soliciting on your kind assistance to aid me on how to invest this money with you in your good country. When my beloved country was in war, I was still a student and I had a little or no knowledge about business, this is one of the reason I need your help most. Please this is a family affair and because of my family name, it should be strictly between you and myself, and for safety! of my mother and my younger ones. Have this in your mind, this business is 100% risk free. My family have agreed to give you (15%) of the total amount if you are ready to assist us in this transaction. Your soonest reply will be much appreciated. Kind regards, Sam Koroma , for the family.


New Design Processes for Knowledge Exchange Tools for the New IDEAS Project
Authors
Laura MORRIS, Leon CRUICKSHANK
Year
Notes
Provided as part of Facemooc course reading materials.
Tags
Relevance
Quotations
Boundary Objects
Concepts
Field of Study
Methodology
References
Status
Unread


List of all feature counting functions
count_functions
Named list of all ferature counting functions
n_words
Number of words.
n_uq_words
Number of unique words.
n_charS
Number of characters. Not counting urls, hashtags, mentions or white spaces.
n_uq_charS
Number of unique characters. Not counting urls, hashtags, mentions or white spaces.
n_digits
Number of digits.
n_hashtags
Number of hashtags, word preceded by a '#'.
n_uq_hashtags
Number of unique hashtags, word preceded by a '#'.
n_mentions
Number of mentions, word preceded by a '@'.
n_uq_mentions
Number of unique mentions, word preceded by a '@'.
n_commas
Number of commas.
n_periods
Number of periods.
n_exclaims
Number of exclamation points.
n_extraspaces
Number of times more then 1 consecutive space have been used.
n_caps
Number of upper case characters.
n_lowers
Number of lower case characters.
n_urls
Number of urls.
n_uq_urls
Number of unique urls.
n_nonasciis
Number of non ascii characters.
n_puncts
Number of punctuations characters, not including exclamation points, periods and commas.
politeness
Summed sentiment value calculated using politeness_dict.
first_person
Number of "first person" words.
first_personp
Number of "first person plural" words.
second_person
Number of "second person" words.
second_personp
Number of "second person plural" words.
third_person
Number of "third person" words.
to_be
Number of "to be" words.
prepositions
Number of preposition words.
In this function we refer to "first person", "first person plural" and so on. This list describes what words are contained in each group.


{% extends 'bootstrap/base.html' %} {% import "bootstrap/wtf.html" as wtf %} {% block content %} {% include "header.html" %} Incomes Manage budget incomes on this page


Karisma Kapoor, Amrita Arora and Malaika Arora party together
by Kajol MathurTime and again we have said that the Kapoor and Arora sisters are our favourite women in Bollywood. The lovely ladies have been tight for years now and it’s only amazing to see their friendship grow so strong. Having yet another fun night in the city we spotted Karisma Kapoor, Amrita Arora and Malaika Arora sans Kareena Kapoor Khan in the city last.
Looking their usual best, the trio was seen exiting a popular eatery and posing for our shutterbugs present there. While Karisma opted for a shimmer gold top which she paired with a black blazer, matching pants and heels, Amrita kept it casual yet chic in a black crop top and printed pants with boots. Malaika, on the other hand, went for comfort as she was seen in all-black athleisure which she rounded off with a pair of white sneakers.
Enjoy all their photos below.


| Package | Description |
|---|---|
| radirius.merc.graphics | |
| radirius.merc.gui | |
| radirius.merc.particles |
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
Rectangle |
Camera.getBounds()
Returns an in-game rectangle that represents where the camera lies.
|
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
void |
Graphics.drawRect(Rectangle... rectangle)
Draws a rectangle.
|
void |
VAOGraphics.drawRect(Rectangle... rectangle) |
void |
Graphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
float sx1,
float sy1,
float sx2,
float sy2,
Rectangle region)
Draws a portion of a texture to the Rectangle region.
|
void |
Batcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
float sx1,
float sy1,
float sx2,
float sy2,
Rectangle region)
Draws a portion of a texture to the Rectangle region.
|
void |
VAOBatcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
float sx1,
float sy1,
float sx2,
float sy2,
Rectangle region) |
void |
VAOGraphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
float sx1,
float sy1,
float sx2,
float sy2,
Rectangle region) |
void |
Graphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle region)
Draws a Texture texture to the Rectangle region.
|
void |
Batcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle region)
Draws a Texture texture to the Rectangle region.
|
void |
VAOBatcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle region) |
void |
VAOGraphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle region) |
void |
Graphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle sourceregion,
Rectangle region)
Draws the portion sourceregion of a texture to the Rectangle region
|
void |
Batcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle sourceregion,
Rectangle region)
Draws the portion sourceregion of a texture to the Rectangle region
|
void |
VAOBatcher.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle sourceregion,
Rectangle region) |
void |
VAOGraphics.drawTexture(Texture texture,
Rectangle sourceregion,
Rectangle region) |
void |
Animation.render(Rectangle bounds,
Graphics g) |
void |
Graphics.traceRect(Rectangle... rectangle)
Traces a rectangle.
|
void |
VAOGraphics.traceRect(Rectangle... rectangle) |
| Modifier and Type | Field and Description |
|---|---|
protected Rectangle |
Window.barbounds |
Rectangle |
Component.bounds |
protected Rectangle |
Panel.textbounds |
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
static boolean |
Component.isClicked(Rectangle bounds) |
static boolean |
Component.isHovered(Rectangle bounds) |
| Constructor and Description |
|---|
ImageButton(Rectangle bounds) |
ImageButton(Rectangle bounds,
Texture idle,
Texture hover,
Texture clicked) |
Panel(Rectangle bounds) |
Panel(Rectangle bounds,
float padding) |
Panel(Rectangle bounds,
float padding,
Texture body,
Texture border) |
Panel(Rectangle bounds,
Texture body,
Texture border) |
TextBox(String txt,
Rectangle bounds) |
TextBox(String txt,
Rectangle bounds,
float margin) |
TextBox(String txt,
Rectangle bounds,
float margin,
Color textcolor) |
TextBox(String txt,
Rectangle bounds,
float margin,
Texture backgroundtex,
Font textfont,
Color textcolor) |
Window(String name,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds) |
Window(String name,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding) |
Window(String name,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding,
Texture body,
Texture border,
Texture bar,
ImageButton exit) |
Window(String name,
Font namefont,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds) |
Window(String name,
Font namefont,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding) |
Window(String name,
Font namefont,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding,
Texture body,
Texture border,
float barheight,
Texture bar,
ImageButton exit) |
Window(String name,
Font namefont,
Color namecol,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding,
Texture body,
Texture border,
Texture bar,
ImageButton exit) |
Window(String name,
Rectangle bounds) |
Window(String name,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding) |
Window(String name,
Rectangle bounds,
float padding,
Texture body,
Texture border,
Texture bar,
ImageButton exit) |
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
Rectangle |
ParticleEmitter.getEmitterBounds() |
| Constructor and Description |
|---|
ParticleEmitter(Rectangle emitter,
ParticleEmitter.ParticleSetup pesetup) |
Copyright © 2014 Radirius. All Rights Reserved.


Reach to us
Address: 24/1A, Chandi Ghosh Rd, Ashok Nagar, Tollygunge, Kolkata
Zip Code:700040
Country:INDIA
Telephone:+91<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:+919856748790
Country:INDIA
Telephone:+91<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:+919856748790


Undo/Can't Undo command (Edit menu)
<< Your application's user interface for Undo may differ from the one described below. Modify this help text accordingly. >>
Use this command to reverse the last editing action, if possible. The name of the command changes, depending on what the last action was. The Undo command changes to Can't Undo on the menu if you cannot reverse your last action.


Buttons, colours, data, icons, images, videos and typography
Accordion, alerts, carousel, news, promos and more


This page shows the historical attendance rates of the committees in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces in {{ year }} as well as the change in attendance since {{ year - 1 }}. The attendance rate is automatically updated as committees meet and attendance is recorded. In the first few weeks of a new year, when no committees have met yet, this page will show data of the previous year.
You can click on a committee name to get more information; historical attendance rates as well as membership details can be found in the right sidebar of every committee page. It's also possible to download the raw data to do your own calculations and analysis.
For MP and Minister attendance rates we'd like to refer you to People's Assembly.
For more information about this attendance data please see our Attendance Methodology.
Download historical data| Committee | Attendance | Since {{ year - 1}} | {% for item in attendance_na %}|
|---|---|---|---|
| #{{ loop.index }} | {{ item.committee }} |
|
| Committee | Attendance | Since {{ year - 1 }} | {% for item in attendance_ncop %}|
|---|---|---|---|
| #{{ loop.index }} | {{ item.committee }} |
|
{% if item.avg_attendance == item.change %}
N/A
{% else %}
{% endif %}
|


This is Bugsy. Bugsy likes to collect shiny things. Help bugsy collect as many shiny things as possible in 30 seconds. Use your arrow keys to guide bugsy. Watch out for the children playing nearby though. Each time you get trampled, you lose 2 items.
| score |
|---|
| time |


Database ConnectionIn this section of the tutorial, we will discuss the steps to connect the python application to the database. There are the following steps to connect a python application to our database.
Creating the connectionTo create a connection between the MySQL database and the python application, the connect() method of mysql.connector module is used. Pass the database details like HostName, username, and the database password in the method call. The method returns the connection object. The syntax to use the connect() is given below. Consider the following example. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7fb142edd780> Here, we must notice that we can specify the database name in the connect() method if we want to connect to a specific database. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7ff64aa3d7b8> |
Database ConnectionIn this section of the tutorial, we will discuss the steps to connect the python application to the database. There are the following steps to connect a python application to our database.
Creating the connectionTo create a connection between the MySQL database and the python application, the connect() method of mysql.connector module is used. Pass the database details like HostName, username, and the database password in the method call. The method returns the connection object. The syntax to use the connect() is given below. Consider the following example. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7fb142edd780> Here, we must notice that we can specify the database name in the connect() method if we want to connect to a specific database. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7ff64aa3d7b8> |
Database ConnectionIn this section of the tutorial, we will discuss the steps to connect the python application to the database. There are the following steps to connect a python application to our database.
Creating the connectionTo create a connection between the MySQL database and the python application, the connect() method of mysql.connector module is used. Pass the database details like HostName, username, and the database password in the method call. The method returns the connection object. The syntax to use the connect() is given below. Consider the following example. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7fb142edd780> Here, we must notice that we can specify the database name in the connect() method if we want to connect to a specific database. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7ff64aa3d7b8> |
Database ConnectionIn this section of the tutorial, we will discuss the steps to connect the python application to the database. There are the following steps to connect a python application to our database.
Creating the connectionTo create a connection between the MySQL database and the python application, the connect() method of mysql.connector module is used. Pass the database details like HostName, username, and the database password in the method call. The method returns the connection object. The syntax to use the connect() is given below. Consider the following example. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7fb142edd780> Here, we must notice that we can specify the database name in the connect() method if we want to connect to a specific database. ExampleOutput: <mysql.connector.connection.MySQLConnection object at 0x7ff64aa3d7b8> |


 Many cognitive scientists will say yes: the computer metaphor has so deeply rooted in people’s understanding about brains, that it has become a default way of thinking. We’re familiar with the saying “recall my memory”, “process the information” and more, without thinking much about them. It can be hard to image this metaphor only has a history of less than a century. Before computers came into being, in ancient, medieval and modern times, the brain was compared to catapults, mills, and telegraphs: all the most advanced machines at certain historical periods (Searle, 1984).
So the computer metaphor is not the only metaphor: it’s just the metaphor of our age. It has indeed been the dominating paradigm for several decades, only recently started to be questioned seriously by people. Theories that challenges it include the embodied mind hypothesis, the dynamical system theory, etc. However, it is not clear if any of them can take over the place.
The other side of the coin is an opposite question: should we make computers by simulating the human mind? This has been a long-lasting debate in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Nowadays, most researchers in AI are not very interested in how the mind works, and the mainstream approaches to AI do not intentionally simulate humans’ cognitive processes; similarities, if exist, are on an abstract level. However, there are still some heretics that insist on building “real” AI by making it work like the human minds do.
Neither cogsci or AI is my main field, and I can’t say I’m very knowledgable on their theories. But I’m interested in the history and interplay between these thoughts, because I always like to learn how an idea comes into being as much as the idea itself. So when I took a very cool course with Professor Colin Allen, I wrote a review paper on this topic. This post is a summary about some interesting questions that I read and wrote about. Most of it comes from the paper, but I rearranged the structure and “toned down” it a little to make it more suitable for a blog post.
Additionally, I’m not attempting to propose an answer for any of those questions. I probably have indicated my position in some places, but they are only personal preference, rather than serious arguments.
How does the theory of computation influence the theory of mind?
In a word, the influence is fundamental, especially at the beginning. The theory of computation started in 1930s by pioneers such as Alan Turing and Alonzo Church. The most iconic event was the invention of the Turing machine, an abstract machine that can carry out general computation by manipulating symbols. Soon after, psychologists started to think about whether the Turing machine can work as a model of the human mind. This idea developed into the computational theory of mind, which played a central role when cognitive science rose as an interdisciplinary area, making itself the “default” paradigm for the following fifty years.
The computational paradigm has several important school of thoughts, depending on what “computation” is taken to be. In some senses, it was only used as a high-level metaphor for how the brain functioned, while in others, the brain was thought to be literally carrying out computation.
The latter approach was accepted by Hilary Putnam (Putnam 1961) and introduced into the philosophy of mind, constructing the widely accepted theory: machine functionalism.
About one decade later, Jerry Fodor introduced another main thread of the computational theory, the representational theory of mind (Fodor 1975, 1981). According to him, the brain as a Turing-style machine operates on mental symbols, which represents both basic and complex concepts about the world.
How does psychology and neuroscience influence AI ?
There may have been some influence, but much less than the opposite case, and exist on a more abstract level. A few direct influences can be noted, mainly with the artificial neural network models: when creating the Perceptron, Frank Rosenbratt, a psychologist, was inspired by real neurons (Rosenblatt, 1957). The closely associated Back Propagation algorithm, without which artificial neural networks would not work well, was also loosely inspired by Freud’s psychological theories (Werbos 1974).
Are there more interactions between the two fields?
It is interesting that the two fields seem to have experienced paradigm shifts at similar times. As the computational theory of mind becomes “the only game in town”, the symbolic approach to AI was also at the best of its days, before going into the first AI winter in mid-1970s. Leading researchers at CMU, MIT, and other institutes believed that symbolic is the ultimate approach to AI, claiming that it will completely solve the problem of creating AI in 20 years (Minsky 1967).
They even go further to argue that symbol manipulation is at the root of all intelligence, and when combined with proper physical components, “any physical symbol system of sufficient size can be organized further to exhibit general intelligence” (Newell and Simon, 1976). As we know, the task was soon proved to be much more difficult than they optimistically thought, and by 1980s symbolic AI was no longer the prevailing paradigm.
It may also be not a coincidence that connectionism, challenger of the classical computational theory in influence, also rose at this point. In this case, however, the psychologists didn’t directly borrow ideas from computational theorists. Rather, the paradigm found its way into both disciplines, fueled by neuroscience and computer science together (Medler, 1998). Connectionism is a major diverging from the symbolic approach: connected units (more specifically, neurons) operate under certain rules, and what were traditionally thought to be stored as symbols — memory, concepts, propositions — are claimed to be contained in these connections.
Generally speaking, the two fields shared important ideas and experienced significant changes at approximately the same time. Additionally, many great scientists in one area also had substantial contributions to the other, for example, Alan Turing and Herbert Simon. These all imply that they are deeply intertwined in some ways.
Are human intelligence and artificial intelligence fundamentally the same?
To consider this question, we have to start with a definition for intelligence. A common definition is that an intelligent being should be able to perceive and react to the environment, which is what human and many animals are capable of; but according to this, plants such as sun flowers will also have intelligence. Stricter definitions involve the ability to think and reason, but when it comes to machines, these abilities are hard to identify. Can we say that a machine learning program is thinking and reasoning when it makes classifications?
This is exactly the question Turing asked more than 60 years ago (Turing 1950), and he got around it by proposing a “polite convention”: if a machine acts as intelligently as a human, then it is as intelligent as a human. The well-known Turing test is based on this premise. However, although it has been popular as both a thought experiment and a real experiment, we should be aware that the original question had been modified in a behaviorist-style way. A machine acting as if it is thinking does not necessarily imply that it is thinking, as indicated by the problem of other minds.
As Turing pointed out, to face the question directly requires us to go into the definition of thinking. If as the classical computational theory of mind suggests, thinking is the manipulation of symbols, then it seems reasonable to consider a computer to be thinking. The latter may be what the symbolic AI supporters have in mind: when Newell and Simon described their model of physical symbol systems, they did not limit it to either computers or human, because “the symbolic behavior of man arises because he has the characteristics of a physical symbol system” (Newell and Simon, 1975), and computer and human thinking are, in their roots, the same thing. If instead as connectionists say, thinking is the result of activities of connected neurons, then it’s likely not going to be found in the computers we currently have.
This suggests us to turn once more to the long-lasting debate between classical computational theory of mind and connectionism. However, many have also suggested that the two paradigms are not mutually exclusive. A neural network can be implemented in a computer that does symbolic manipulation; oppositely, Turing-style computation can also be achieved using a neural network (Rescorla, 2015).
Regarding physical implementations, although currently we don’t have computers made of silicon neurons, in the future they may come into being. Reversely, it has been attempted to simulate the whole human brain in a supercomputer, mapping over a hundred billion neurons and their connections. Although the project has not been successful (Dvorsky 2014), it implies the possibility of completely “transplanting” a brain to a computer. In that case, is the simulated brain or the computer thinking? If the boundary between brains and machines gets obscure, perhaps the title of this section will become an unnecessary question.
Is it necessary to simulate the human minds to create AI?
This question partly depends on a premise — do we know how the human mind works in the first place? Depending on the answer to these two questions, various positions may be taken. Some symbolic AI supporters would say “yes” to both: for example, Newell and Simon intentionally mimicked human’s problem solving behavior, found through psychological experiments (Daniel 1993), to create their algorithms. Some others did not think it was necessary to simulate human behavior, and created algorithms for AI that might or might not behave as some humans would have. Most statistical approaches to AI are thought to be different from human thinking. However, artificial neural network models are often considered an analogy to human’s learning process.
It may be worthwhile to go deeper into this example. A type of neural networks excelling at computer vision tasks is the convolutional neural network model. Intuitively, a convolution of two matrices is a way of “blending” them. In convolutional neural networks, it is applied to draw a representation from every local region of the image, therefore reducing the number of parameters to train. When the features are passed down hidden layers, this process is repeated. The primary purpose of applying this algorithm is to optimize the model. However, when used in computer vision tasks, it appears to work similarly to how the human visual cortex processes images: after sufficient training, a layer will often be found to specialize in identifying the outline of objects, a second layer will specialize in processing colors, etc. In a 2014 paper, Cox and Dean suggested a rough mapping between layers in a convolutional neural network and regions in a visual cortex (Cox and Dean, 2014).
In this example, artificial intelligence works like the human brain to a certain degree (although major differences still exist, for example, the brain doesn’t have a back propagation mechanism). However, there was no intentional simulation when the model was created. Inspiration from the brain, although may have existed, is superficial. Similarly, most neural network models are not directly simulating human’s cognitive processes.
But these models perform well, being able to recognize cats in pictures (Le, 2013), find semantic similarities, and play Go as well as humans do. With such success, it seems natural that most AI researchers nowadays do not care much about how human mind works. However, there are still people who insist that the only way to create “full” AI is by replicating human mind in a machine.
Will AIs have minds?
Despite the recent success of deep learning with neural network models, some people, for example Douglas Hofstadter, still insists that this is fundamentally wrong, because a machine like IBM’s Watson “is finding text without having a clue as to what the text means. In that sense, there’s no intelligence there.” (Herkewitz, 2014).
This easily reminds us of Searle’s Chinese room case (If you’d like to read about his argument, see here. The thought experiment was used to refute the strong AI hypothesis, that a properly programmed computer handling inputs and outputs as a human does has the same mind as the human does. In Searle’s argument, a computer that matches Chinese output with English input according to a set of rules cannot be said to understand Chinese (Searle 1980). He further concluded that no physical symbol system could ever be said to have a mind. There has not been a full consensus on this argument, but many consider it to be sound.
Searle’s attack being directed to the symbolic AI approach, we may wonder if it’s the case with neural network models, which are famous for being “black boxes” that don’t let people understand what is happening between their layers. Will a complicated neural network have a mind? An interesting reply to Searle’s argument is the emergence hypothesis. In a complex system, the properties of a system as a whole are not the same as adding up the properties of the parts (Simon, 1962). Some suggest that if an artificial intelligence is complex enough, a mind may emerge spontaneously by interaction between its parts. This is a popular imagination in contemporary culture: AIs in many cyberpunk fictions gain consciousness in this way. But in this way, the hard problem of consciousness is still not solved. Just as with ourselves, we observe the existence of consciousness, but don’t know how it rises from a lot of neurons (or a lot of circuits).
Furthermore, the relation between mind and general intelligence is also unsolved. Considered to be the “ultimate goal” of AI, general intelligence is usually defined as the ability of performing a wide range of intelligent actions: learning, reasoning, working towards a goal, and more — in a word, things that a normal human adult can do. Naturally, the question is often asked: does a being must have a mind to have general intelligence, or is mind not relevant to having general intelligence at all?
If we take the first option, the current mainstream approach to AI will be fundamentally wrong. However, in the brief historical review above, it can be observed that unless development of technology becomes stilled, there will be little motivation for researchers to push for paradigm shifts. When symbolic AI and expert systems are making significant advances, few people considered them to be wrong approaches (although we should acknowledge that at that time, the computational power was also not sufficient to support other approaches such as neural networks). With the current success of deep learning models, it may be reasonable to infer a similar situation: unless at a certain point the advance of such models hit a dead end, it will be unlikely for people to switch to a different approach.
The second option, naturally, is favored by most current researchers. Why is it necessary to have a mind in order to display general intelligence? It seems not hard to put a Chinese room, a German room, a Russian room,… together to create a general machine translator that doesn’t understand any of these languages, which is essentially Google Translate. Similarly, it may be possible that by putting the specific artificial intelligences together, the AI built will display general intelligence without anything like mind or intentionality.
This invites us to go back to Turing’s hypothesis from a slightly different view. If an AI displays general intelligence as a human does, how do we know if it has a mind or not? In the famous thought experiment of philosophical zombies, it is claimed impossible to tell if anyone other than oneself has a mind, or is a complicated automata that behaves just like it has a mind: take the example of pain, it can be programmed to wince when approaching fire as if it feels pain, while it actually has no feelings of pain. If we are unable to tell whether another person has a mind, are we able to judge whether an AI has a mind?
If we take this claim, the boundary between humans and computers is again obscured: a human can now be considered as a computer that successfully passed the Turing test. Moreover, being able to behave like a human will have nothing to do with having a mind. It seems yet another support for the claim that having a mind is not relevant to displaying general intelligence.
However, most people are likely not comfortable to be skeptical enough to accept a world walked by zombies. If in the future a computer exhibiting perfect general intelligence is created, we may be not able to tell if it has a mind at all. But this will surely jeopardize the belief held by many, as expressed in the movie Ghost in the Shell: that what distinguishes a human from a machine is the awareness of a self – a “ghost”, a mind, a soul.
Reference
Cox, D. D., & Dean, T. (2014). Neural networks and neuroscience-inspired computer vision. Current Biology, 24(18), R921-R929.
“Dartmouth workshop”. (2017, April 23). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop
Dvorsky, G. (2014, July 10). “Europe’s $1.6 Billion Human Brain Project Is On The Verge Of Collapse”. Retrieved from http://io9.gizmodo.com/europes-1-6-billion-human-brain-project-is-on-the-verg-1602991993
Epstein, R. (2016, May). “The empty brain”. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
Fodor, J., 1975, The Language of Thought, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Fodor, J., 1981, Representations, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Herkewitz, W. (2014, February). “Why Watson and Siri Are Not Real AI”. Retrieved from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a3278/why-watson-and-siri-are-not-real-ai-16477207/
Le, Q. V. (2013, May). Building high-level features using large scale unsupervised learning. In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 8595-8598). IEEE.
McCulloch, W. and W. Pitts, 1943, “A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity”, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 7: 115–133.
Medler, D. A. (1998). A brief history of connectionism. Neural Computing Surveys, 1, 18-72.
Minsky, Marvin (1967). Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0-13-165449-7. Quoted in Crevier, Daniel (1993), AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence, New York, NY: BasicBooks, ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer Science as Empirical Enquiry: Symbols and Search, 19 COMM. ASS’N FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY, 113.
Putnam, Hilary. 1961. “Brains and Behavior”, originally read as part of the program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Section L (History and Philosophy of Science), December 27, 1961. Reprinted in Block (1980).
Rescorla, M. (2015, Oct 16). “The Computational Theory of Mind”. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
Rosenblatt, F. The perceptron, a perceiving and recognizing automaton Project Para. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1957.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(03), 417-424.
Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Harvard University Press.
Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American philosophical society, 106(6), 467-482.
Simon, H. A. (1965). The Shape of Automation for Men and Management. New York: Harper & Row.
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433-460.
Cervier, D. (1993). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence.
Werbos, P. (1974). Beyond Regression: New Tools for Prediction and Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.


This is the home page.
For more information click 'about'
For point to list of convertors click 'search'
about
Your can convert a number to a number of another unit:
mile↔km or inch↔cm or °F ↔°C
Your can search convertor by click 'search'
make your way to another unit:
Enter number in one of the fields, then press the "calculate" button
Enter number in one of the fields,
then press the "calculate" button
converter