%feed  
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/17/astronomers-capture-a-nova-a-brilliant-moment-in-the-life-cycle-of-a-star-hibernation  
Astronomers capture a nova - a brilliant moment in the life cycle of a star  

Images reveal a classical nova: a key instant in a cycle of events than can last thousands to millions of years

Astronomers have monitored a nova a sudden eruption of brightness in an anonymous star 23,000 light years away, and used their observations to add weight to a theory of heavenly happenings.

The nova, a white dwarf in a star system known only as V1213 Cen, in the southern sky in the direction of the constellation Centaurus, would have been visible only to observers with binoculars. It suddenly shone brightly and then dimmed in May 2009.

Continue reading...  
astronomy  

%feed  
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/28761856110/  
NASA's BARREL Mission in Sweden  

NASA Goddard Photo and Video posted a photo:

Prior to launch, the BARREL team works on the payload from the launch pad at Esrange Space Center near Kiruna, Sweden.

The BARREL team is at Esrange Space Center launching a series of six scientific payloads on miniature scientific balloons. The NASA-funded BARREL which stands for Balloon Array for Radiation-belt Relativistic Electron Losses primarily measures X-rays in Earth's atmosphere near the North and South Poles. These X-rays are produced by electrons raining down into the atmosphere from two giant swaths of radiation that surround Earth, called the Van Allen belts. Learning about the radiation near Earth helps us to better protect our satellites.

Several of the BARREL balloons also carry instruments built by undergraduate students to measure the total electron content of Earth's ionosphere, as well as the low-frequency electromagnetic waves that help to scatter electrons into Earth's atmosphere. Though about 90 feet in diameter, the BARREL balloons are much smaller than standard football stadium-sized scientific balloons.

This is the fourth campaign for the BARREL mission. BARREL is led by Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The undergraduate student instrument team is led by the University of Houston and funded by the Undergraduate Student Instrument Project out of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. For more information on NASA's scientific balloon program, visit: www.nasa.gov/scientificballoons.

Image credit: NASA/Dartmouth/Robyn Millan

NASA image use policy.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA's mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA's accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency's mission.

Follow us on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

Find us on Instagram

 
astronomy  

%feed  
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/nybooks/~3/VdtgHCvKJVs/  
Fear of Rattlesnake Island  
The state of Massachusetts has proposed to introduce a small colony of Timber Rattlesnakes to an island in the Quabbin Reservoir, to the vehement outrage of many local residents. “If we only conserve the cute and the cuddly,” said Lou Perrotti, who is supervising the breeding of Timber Rattlesnakes, “we're going to have forests full of butterflies and bunny rabbits, and they're going to be very nonfunctioning ecosystems that would eventually collapse.”  
culture  

%feed  
http://99u.com/videos/54253/yuko-shimizu-money-or-control-pick-one/  
Yuko Shimizu: Money or Control Pick One.  

As creatives, we're often put to the test of making tough decisions and sacrifices for our work. However, according to Yuko Shimizu, our biggest decision needs to happen at the beginning of our career asking ourselves: “What kind of artist do [we] want to be?” and having a clear picture of what that looks like.

In this talk, Shimizu distills insights from her own personal story of being fired just days before her 99U appearance, gives advice on learning to say no, her thoughts on personal work, and tying it all back to the reality that while we might not win every job or shine on every project, sometimes we can recommend someone who will.

Yuko Shimizu is an award-winning Japanese illustrator based in New York. Her work has appeared on the pages of the New York Times, TIME, and Newsweek, on the covers of DC Comics, Penguin, Abrams and Random House books, on the Gap and Nike T-shirts, and on Pepsi cans.

Her monograph Living with Yuko Shimizu will be published this spring. A Wild Swan, her collaboration with Pulitzer-winning author Michael Cunningham, came out in 2015. She was chosen as Newsweek Japan's “100 Japanese People World Respects” in 2009.

@yukoart

 
culture  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjeff-schweitzer%2Fskeptical-about-climate-d_b_11595100.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Skeptical About Climate Deniers  
Few concepts are more poorly understood or more abused than skepticism. The best example of this abuse is to attribute the moniker of "climate change skeptic" to those who ignore the overwhelming data concerning global warming.

The shortest definition of skepticism is "an attitude of doubting the truth about a claim or statement." Something a bit more meaningful would be "suspending judgment and applying systematic reservation about a claim or statement."

So why can't we rightfully call a denier a skeptic since he doubts or has reservations about the truth about climate change claims, which would at first glance meet the definition of skepticism? We shall see.

Michael Shermer, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, has rightfully noted that "skepticism is not a position, it is a process." It is the application of critical thinking to evaluate the validity of an assertion. Saying that "I am a skeptic" has little meaning because that is a stance; more meaningful is a statement like, "I am open to accepting a claim if presented with sufficiently convincing evidence."

What we are talking about here, even though everybody uses the term skepticism, is actually "ordinary incredulity." We are not including here what is technically "philosophical doubt" -- a more formal version of skepticism, an intellectual exercise to deny the validity of an entire class of claims by positing that certain knowledge is not attainable even in theory. Yeah, I know, that is a little opaque. But we really do need to understand the distinction between ordinary incredulity and philosophical skepticism before we can nail down why deniers are not in fact skeptics. The best way I've come across is a review of the Truman Show and the Matrix as put forth in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Truman is placed, without his knowledge, in a contrived environment so that his "life" can be broadcast on television. Truman comes across clues that something is wrong. In The Matrix, where everything is running as programmed by the machines, there is no possible way for the "people" in the matrix to determine that the world as experienced is only a "dream world" and not the real world (the world of causes and effects). The Truman Show is a depiction of a case of ordinary incredulity because there is some evidence that is, in principle, available to Truman for determining what's really the case; whereas The Matrix depicts a situation similar to that imagined by a typical philosophical skeptic in which it is not possible for the Matrix-bound characters to obtain evidence for determining that things are not as they seem (whenever the virtual reality is perfectly created). Put another way, the philosophical skeptic challenges our ordinary assumption that there is evidence available that can help us to discriminate between the real world and some counterfeit world that appears in all ways to be identical to the real world.

So from that we conclude that ordinary incredulity (what people typically call skepticism) arises when in principle doubt can be removed by discovering the truth of some claim or statement.

And here is precisely why climate change deniers do not have the high privilege of being called skeptics. No amount of data, no convincing evidence, and no degree of proof would ever convince a denier that climate change is real. Even in principle a denier's doubt cannot be removed because a denier is relying on faith rather than evidence to support his position. If doubt cannot be removed with new knowledge or advances in understanding, then that is not skepticism - it is just a form of religion.

Cynicism Is Not Skepticism

Offering a skeptical perspective is not cynical; in fact quite the opposite is true. Cynics doubt and mistrust not on the weight of evidence or lack thereof but on suspicions of underlying motivation. Cynicism can lead to the rejection of a claim but not to new discoveries, unlike skepticism which can lead to both.

Provisional disbelief is often mistaken as cynicism; the two are not equivalent. It is perfectly reasonable to start out unconvinced that humans are causing our climate to change. But that shifts to cynicism and faith-based opposition with the inability to modify that position in the presence of overwhelming evidence. What matters, independent of one's starting hypothesis, is the willingness to draw conclusions when a claim is confirmed "to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement."

Skepticism is fully embedded in the scientific method: the application of systematic observation, reproducible measurements, and experimentation in order to gain new knowledge about and a deeper understanding of our physical and biological world. The entire reason for applying systematic observation is that we are open to but remain skeptical of any claim's validity until observation, reproducible measurements and experimental confirm or reject the claim.

Climate change denial is a form of cynicism and as such is the antithesis of skepticism; it is the closed-minded pre-determined rejection of any and all data that might validate the claim that our climate is changing, and the blind credulous acceptance of any unsubstantiated assertions that support the denial. Here is the bottom line difference between a denier and someone currently convinced the climate is changing: if presented with convincing contrary evidence that demonstrates the earth's climate is not warming, or is changing by natural cyclical variation alone, one who temporarily accepted that the earth is warming because of human activity would modify his conclusion based on this new knowledge. In contrast, no mountain of data demonstrating that humans are causing a changing climate would cause a denier to modify his conclusion. Skepticism demands an open mind and allows for and encourages the advancement of knowledge by seeking explanations of phenomena anchored in the natural world; faith-based denial is immune to modification.

A denier may come back and say that in fact those who claim the climate is changing are the ones with closed minds since they openly reject what deniers believe. But no, that is false equivalency; deniers could indeed make headway if they could present convincing data but the inverse is not true.

Open Mind, Gullibility and Conviction

We must not confuse an open mind with gullibility. A mind open to change in the face of convincing data is not equivalent to credulous acceptance of a claim absent of evidence. Nor can we confuse an open mind with lack of conviction. Climate change experts are secure in their conclusions based on overwhelming evidence across multiple disciplines, confirmed independently by thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries. They have no less an open mind because they are firm in their conclusion. With overwhelming evidence in hand the threshold for modifying one's temporary acceptance becomes ever higher. The threshold for change is elevated on the basis of accumulating evidence, not faith. We can confidently conclude, without being accused of being closed minded, that atoms are a building block of nature, that DNA contains the genetic code, and that the earth orbits the sun. Being highly confident about these statements is justified by incredibly precise measurements, reproducible observations and extraordinarily refined experimentation performed by tens thousands of scientists over decades or centuries. Yes it would be possible to overturn these conclusions with sufficiently convincing contrary data, but given the history leading to our understanding of these aspects of the natural world, that is not likely to happen. That does not make us closed-minded; it makes us firm in our convictions but open to being convinced otherwise by overwhelming data. Climate change deniers in contrast can never be otherwise convinced.

Deep Irony

Climate change deniers bring to the debate a deep irony and terrible hypocrisy that add another disturbing element beyond the important difference between cynicism and skepticism. We know that deniers demand more proof that the climate is warming even in the face of a growing body of accumulating evidence. We know too that while they demand such proof no quantity of date would ever be sufficient because the denial is not based in skepticism but in cynicism and faith. And yet. And yet this same demand for proof is conspicuously and gloriously absent when the question turns to patently false claims about fat-burning foods or a host of bogus promises relating to diet and nutrition, or the link between autism and vaccines, or the economic viability of nuclear power, or clean coal, or alien landings, or the Bermuda Triangle, or virtually anything that is not climate change. Only with climate change is such proof demanded; meaning we have the circumstance in which deniers reject a conclusion for which we have overwhelming evidence but accept wild claims for which there is none. Some significant number of Republicans, even if not a majority as sometimes reported, believes that Obama is a Muslim; where is the demand for proof? Such is the dangerous brew of faith stirred with cynicism in the absence of reasonable credulity.

There are no climate change skeptics; only faith-based climate change cynics.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
science  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/255016397629298433/  
Device_Montage_1  

Device_Montage_1

 
pin-art  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/255016397629298334/  
MyHome home automati  

MyHome home automation system on iPad and Android tablet

 
pin-art  

%feed  
http://movieposteroftheday.tumblr.com/post/149130129742  
Polish poster for LOVE STORY (Arthur Hiller, USA, 1970)Designer:...  

Polish poster for LOVE STORY (Arthur Hiller, USA, 1970)

Designer: Jakub Erol

Poster source: Heritage Auctions

R.I.P. Arthur Hiller (1923-2016)

 
culture  

%feed  
http://insider.si.edu/2016/08/venus-like-exoplanet-might-oxygen-atmosphere-not-life/  
Venus-like Exoplanet Might Have Oxygen Atmosphere, But Not Life  

The post Venus-like Exoplanet Might Have Oxygen Atmosphere, But Not Life appeared first on Smithsonian Insider.

 
culture  

%feed  
http://insider.si.edu/2016/08/birds-really-matter-2/  
Why Birds Really Matter  

Catherine McKenna, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, talks about the importance of bird conservation and why birds really matter.

Step outside your house in the morning and one of the first things you will hear or see is a bird. They are such a ubiquitous part of our lives that most of the time we don't even notice them. Yet the truth is that their numbers are declining. According to the State of North America's Bird Report 2016, more than one-third of North American bird species are at risk of extinction without significant conservation action.

The issue of conservations is not, in fact, for the birds. This week the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center is hosting the largest-ever North American Ornithological Conference, which brings together thousands of ornithological professionals to address the question of bird conservation.

Birds are indicators of environmental health. They are the canary in the coalmine (pun intended) that let us know when something is not right in our ecosystem.

In the following clips, avid birder President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, and 9 year-old bird enthusiast Keith Gagnon, talk about the importance of bird conservation and why birds really matter.

The post Why Birds Really Matter appeared first on Smithsonian Insider.

 
culture  

%feed  
http://movieposteroftheday.tumblr.com/post/149107290347  
Soviet poster for AT WAR AS AT WAR (Viktor Tregubovich, USSR,...  

Soviet poster for AT WAR AS AT WAR (Viktor Tregubovich, USSR, 1969)

Designer: Ostrovski

Poster source: Posteritati

 
culture  

%feed  
http://borrachas.tumblr.com/post/149137932319  
IT'S ALMOST THERE  

Hey!!

hum… today i posted the 356 gif… it's been almost a year, and the 365th gif is almost here…

Still not sure if i should keep going after reaching this goal… its been the whole thing, a year of gifs…

 
gifs  

%feed  
http://borrachas.tumblr.com/post/149137838954  
356  

356

 
gifs  

%feed  
https://dribbble.com/shots/2907222-Eighty-three-Logo-animation-gif  
Eighty three - Logo animation [gif]  
 
gifs  

%feed  
http://borrachas.tumblr.com/post/149088820829  
355  

355

 
gifs  

%feed  
http://www.notimpossiblenow.com/the-latest/virtual-reality  
How Virtual Reality Is Used to Explore Empathy at Stanford, With Reflections from VHIL Director Jeremy Bailenson  
By Julia TraversVirtual Reality (VR) may bring to mind advanced gaming possibilities and simulated, entertaining, sensory experiences. The team at Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab (VHIL) is using VR in an innovative way: to teach and explore human empathy. They create immersive ...

Continue reading

 
technology  

%feed  
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160817101528.htm  
How we escaped the Big Bang: New theory on moving through time  
A physicist is challenging the conventional view of space and time to show how the world advances through time. In her new research, she argues that T violation, or a violation of time reversal (T) symmetry, is forcing the universe and us in it, into the future.  
astronomy  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Falbert-einstein-college-of-medicine%2Fbridging-a-gap-between-sc_b_11535268.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dscience%26ir%3DScience&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Bridging a Gap between Scientists and the Public  
By Travis J. Bernardo, Ph.D.

What do the following stories have in common?

• 
  
• According to the Centers for Disease Control, endemic measles was  eradicated from the U.S. in the year 2000, the result of decades of vaccination efforts. But the last few years have seen a dramatic spike in the number of nationwide measles outbreaks, attributed in part to rising public fears over vaccination use.
• 
  

• 
  
• The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation together receive just under $40 billion in funding annually, less than 1 percent of a federal budget dominated by transfer payment programs, health insurance spending and military expenditures. Yet medical research projects, often  misunderstood as wasteful spending, are routinely placed under the  political microscope as a prime target for cuts.
• 
  

• 
  
• Precise genome editing using the CRISPR/Cas9 system offers the potential to revolutionize scientific research and medicine. The prospect of directly modifying the human genome certainly has ethical implications, which are being openly debated by scientists. But any future groundbreaking therapeutics based on genome editing face strong headwinds due to substantial public opposition.
• 
  

If the answer isn't clear to you, let me suggest the following: they highlight a significant perception gap between scientists and the public when it comes to important medical advances. Indeed, on a whole host of policy issues, the public simply sees things differently from the way scientists do.


An Obligation and an Opportunity
What is the appropriate response to this gap in perception? For those of us steeped in science and medicine, it's easy to forget that not everyone has the rich knowledge of subject matter and rigorous critical thinking skills ingrained in us by our training.

And perhaps it's just as easy to keep our noses to the grindstone, move our own research forward and survey the public mood with a sense of detachment.

But it is our responsibility to explain to the public why our work is valuable and deserves support. We are the ones who understand the depth and complexity of modern science. We have the ability to translate that information to nonscientists. And while it may sound like a burdensome obligation, it's really an opportunity, not only for personal growth but for securing the future of scientific progress. After all, it is the public and its elected representatives who ultimately determine the fate of funding for basic medical research.

What Can You Do?
Fortunately, there are many opportunities for scientists to engage the public and bridge the perception gap. Here are just a few ideas.


Blog your heart out. Is there a scientific issue near to your heart that doesn't receive enough attention? If you want to add your two cents to the national conversation, start a blog. With many free platforms to choose from, getting going is easy. While your audience will start out small, with a little persistence you may find your message catching on. You can also offer articles to established blogs that have a preexisting readership. For instance, I was invited to write this post by the editors of The Doctor's Tablet after they saw an earlier post I wrote for the ASCB Compass blog.

Edit a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is one of the most frequented sites on the Web. It is openly editable, relying on contributors to maintain quality. Many pages on scientific topics, however, still lack sourcing or do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, which may lead to incomplete or erroneous content. Given its reputation as the "first place to go" for many laypeople seeking scientific knowledge, consider editing pages  in your area of expertise. This small, but significant, contribution can help eliminate the spread of misinformation online.

Practice communicating in a low-stakes environment. Communicating science effectively often means talking in public. If you have a shy streak or feel your public-speaking skills need honing, practice in a risk-free setting. Einstein, for instance, hosts a local Toastmasters chapter where members deliver impromptu speeches and receive constructive feedback from peers.

Poster presentations and conference talks are also good opportunities to practice, and will train you to communicate science to different target audiences. Even consider giving an elevator pitch about your research to family members and friends who aren't scientists.

Advocate for science. If you're comfortable in public forums, consider becoming a science advocate. Here, you'll have the chance to communicate directly with holders of the public purse strings. Advocacy includes a range of activities, such as writing to your local representatives, starting a social media campaign or participating in a Congressional Visits Day, during which you will speak directly to members of Congress or their staffers.

Recently an Einstein Science Policy Group has been formed to promote advocacy efforts on campus. You may want to look at starting such a group at your institution. Examples across the country can be found at the website of the National Science Policy Group, and a beginner's guide to getting started locally was recently published in Molecular Biology of the Cell.

Consider a career in communication. For graduate students and postdocs, finding a job that aligns with your interests and values is an important goal. If you're truly passionate about communicating about science, you might consider making a career out of it. Science communication is a diverse field, encompassing journalism, educational animation and everything in between.

There are many opportunities out there for scientists to bridge the divide with the public. It is up to us to step up and lay the planks.

Dr. Bernardo is a postdoctoral research fellow in the laboratory of Arthur I. Skoultchi, Ph.D., in the cell biology department at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is also an associate member of the Einstein BETTR-IRACDA program. Dr. Bernardo writes online about issues related to science policy, education, and communication.

***

This post was originally featured on The Doctor's Tablet, the blog of Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
science  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnews%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26fd%3DR%26ct2%3Dus%26usg%3DAFQjCNEVqyUT0WJVqEf93eTkoSBuxv6LEQ%26clid%3Dc3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331%26ei%3D3SG2V_DRHva-zAaFxZoI%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketoracle.co.uk%2FArticle56256.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Gold Stocks Cognitive Dissonance & Denial - The Market Oracle  

The Market Oracle

Gold Stocks Cognitive Dissonance & Denial The Market Oracle Obviously if your NOT in denial, you know this cannot end well, no matter how much the so-called "Monetary Authorities" keep queering up the money supply, digitally, or thru debt issuance or otherwise. The question popped up " Is there an edict that ...

 
cogdis  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fredirect.viglink.com%2F%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ffeeds.mashable.com%252F%7Er%252FMashable%252F%7E3%252FmWncDq0O0GM%252F%26key%3Dddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
r0B0t: Trump could become Mr. Brexit  

Early Thursday morning, Republican candidate for president Donald Trump wrote a cryptic tweet. 

It read, "They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT!"

Almost immediately, the title began trending on Twitter and jokes flooded social media, each more confused than the last. But, there is a method to this that's one example of Twitter madness.

Trump is most definitely referring to the United Kingdom's June vote to leave the European Union, and most probably how the results surprised many because polls leading up to the referendum indicated the opposite result.

Clearly, unless he really has gotten into Mr. Robot, Trump sees himself in the same position as the UK residents who wanted to keep their country out of international economic affairs. Read more...

More about 2016 Election, Brexit, Mr. Brexit, Donald Trump, and World  
robots  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fredirect.viglink.com%2F%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.google.com%252Fnews%252Furl%253Fsa%253Dt%2526fd%253DR%2526ct2%253Dus%2526usg%253DAFQjCNEMUTkPvUsCP5o-A11QETwpf5CmRQ%2526clid%253Dc3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331%2526ei%253DKBC2V_CfBYW8zAbNp7mIBA%2526url%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.engadget.com%252F2016%252F08%252F18%252Frobots-of-war-ai-and-the-future-of-combat%252F%26key%3Dddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
r0B0t: The robots of war: AI and the future of combat - Engadget  

The robots of war: AI and the future of combat Engadget The 1983 film WarGames portrayed a young hacker tapping into NORAD's artificial-intelligence-driven nuclear weapons' system. When the hit movie was screened for President Reagan, it prompted the commander in chief to ask if it were possible for the ...

 
robots  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fredirect.viglink.com%2F%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fnews.google.com%252Fnews%252Furl%253Fsa%253Dt%2526fd%253DR%2526ct2%253Dus%2526usg%253DAFQjCNGQkDvx7of_rbs0BZvXFBril1gWrQ%2526clid%253Dc3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331%2526cid%253D52779184759370%2526ei%253DKBC2V_CfBYW8zAbNp7mIBA%2526url%253Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mirror.co.uk%252Fnews%252Fworld-news%252Fsex-doll-makers-putting-finishing-8657027%26key%3Dddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
r0B0t: Sex doll makers "putting finishing touches" to artificial intelligence app so they can love you back - Mirror.co.uk  

Mirror.co.uk

Sex doll makers "putting finishing touches" to artificial intelligence app so they can love you back Mirror.co.uk Matt McMullen, CEO of RealDoll, revealed the next step in making the high-end sex toys will be to give them AI to replicate humans more closely than ever. "We are building an AI system which can either be connected to a robotic doll OR experienced in a ... and more »

 
robots  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattletimes.com%2Fnation-world%2Fphotos-of-the-day-aug-18-2016%2F%3Futm_source%3DRSS%26utm_medium%3DReferral%26utm_campaign%3DRSS_photos-of-the-day&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Photos of the Day: Aug. 18, 2016  

Explore the news of the day with these images from around the world.  
images  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fekrubmj%2F28453424603%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Sunset from London Bridge  

ekrubmj posted a photo:

 
images  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjoel-reynolds%2Fwhales-win-yet-again-on-s_b_11575282.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Whales Win Yet Again on Sonar: Why Do the Navy and NMFS Refuse to Get It Right?  
On social issues, the military has often seemed the last to know. Ending racial discrimination took decades. Outlawing discrimination based on sexual preference took just as long. This year, the role of women in combat is finally being recognized. In every case, the military's rationale for resisting change has been that military readiness would inevitably be compromised.

But significant progress has been made in recent years on all of these issues without adverse impact on our preparedness. By contrast, progress has been frustratingly elusive in persuading the U.S. Navy to care about the health of our oceans. After over two decades of adverse federal court orders - and over five decades since the "Save the Whales" movement focused widespread public attention on the plight of these magnificent animals - the Navy continues to resist the common sense proposition that needless infliction of harm to whales and other marine life in training with extraordinarily loud, high intensity sonar and heavy explosives is neither reasonable nor legal.

But as two recent court decisions make clear - issued in different cases by different courts -- the Navy's intransigence is based on more than its concern for national security. In fact, much of the blame lies with the government regulatory agency whose mandate it is to protect our oceans. It lies with the failure of the National Marine Fisheries Service to do its job.



For over 40 years, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Fisheries Service has been entrusted by Congress with lead responsibility for the protection of whales and other marine mammals from harassment, injury, and death. By law, the agency carries out this responsibility through permitting authority over a host of federal agency activities - including those of the U.S. Navy -- that may result in "take" of marine mammals. Among other requirements, Fisheries must deny a requested permit - even to the U.S. Navy - if the consequences of the proposed activity have not been reduced to "the least practicable adverse impact."

This statutory requirement is explicit. Court decisions interpreting it are unequivocal. And yet the Fisheries Service continues to violate it.

Just last month, for example, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cited this requirement in holding that Fisheries had illegally issued a permit to the Navy for global deployment of its high-intensity long-range low frequency active sonar system - a submarine detection technology capable of ensonifying vast expanses of the world's oceans with dangerous levels of sound. Twice found to have acted illegally in issuing similar permits in 2002 and 2007, the Fisheries Service nevertheless permitted the system again in 2012, this time ignoring safeguards recommended by its own scientists despite, in the court's words, the resulting "systematic underprotection of marine mammals." The agency gave "mere lip service" to the legal standard and made "a policy choice not to protect areas . . . composing most of the world's oceans," leaving "a meaningful proportion of the world's marine mammal habitat underprotected."



How did the Fisheries Service respond? Just this week, in astonishing disregard of the court of appeals' decision, the agency issued the Navy a Letter of Authorization to continue operating under the illegally-issued permit -- as if the court's adverse decision and the agency's own responsibility to protect marine mammals are irrelevant in the face of the Navy's request to continue business as usual.

Last year, in even harsher terms, the federal court in Hawaii rejected the issuance of a permit for Navy testing and training with deadly mid-range sonar in the marine mammal-rich coastal waters of Hawaii and southern California. Once again citing the "least practicable adverse impact" standard, Judge Susan Oki Mollway criticized the Fisheries Service for merely "parrot[ing] what the Navy says" and failing to "articulate a rational basis" for accepting it, "treat[ing] the standard as if it requires no effort at all." For the Navy's part, rubber-stamped by the Fisheries Service, Judge Mollway found a "total failure to clearly consider important information" and "flaws so fundamental that the [environmental planning] document needs to be totally rewritten." The court concluded that "the Navy's categorical and sweeping statements, which allow for no compromise at all as to space, time, species, or condition, do not constitute the 'hard look' required" by federal law.

In neither case was national security at risk, contrary to the Navy's claim. In fact, the court of appeals explicitly recognized that "the mitigation measures the MMPA requires do not infringe on the Navy's capacity to defend the United States during wartime or heightened threats to national security."

The essential failing in both cases -- and indeed in virtually every case in which NRDC has challenged the Navy's training with high intensity sonar and heavy explosives over the past two decades - has been the refusal of the Fisheries Service to regulate. Rather than exercising the oversight required by law, the Service has chosen in effect to join the Navy's team, acquiescing in the omission of common sense safeguards recommended even by its own scientific experts. However understandable this capitulation might be in the face of the Navy's unique political and fiscal influence, it is precisely this kind of "regulatory capture" that has undermined the integrity of our environmental laws and the recovery of whales and other depleted marine species.



This needs to change. Last June, at the urging of NRDC and others, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration - the parent agency of the Fisheries Service - released for public comment an "Ocean Noise Strategy" intended to expand and strengthen federal management of man-made noise sources in the oceans, including military sonar. An important step, the efficacy of this plan will depend on implementation and funding, neither of which has thus far been addressed by the agency.

But it will also depend on whether, in permitting significant noise-generating activities of the Navy and others, the Fisheries Service is prepared to step up to its regulatory responsibility under the Marine Mammal Protection Act - not as a "captured" member of the permit applicant's team but as a strong and honest enforcer of federal protections. Serial litigation over decades - however successful it may be in targeting the agency's failures on an individual permit - is ultimately an imperfect and unsustainable approach to protecting the long-term health of our oceans.

Unfortunately, although we depend on the Fisheries Service to get it right, its latest authorization to the Navy just this week, in the wake of the latest rebuke by the federal courts, is a telling indication that it won't.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia