SEATTLE — The road woes continue to pile up for the A’s.Oakland lost on the road for the 11th time in its last 12 games as the Seattle Mariners held on for a 4-3 win over the A’s to sweep a two-game series.The Athletics fell to 5-15 on the road this season and have seven more games ahead on their current road trip.A’s face rough roadA team that was known for squeezing out victories out on the road a season ago, the A’s have struggled to find success away from home this season. Oakland went …
(Visited 16 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 What on earth does a science journal have to do with abortion or gay marriage? Some editors and reporters are actively pushing for social revolution.In “A Pope for Today,” Nature‘s editors hoped that newly-instated Pope Francis would push social causes near and dear to their own Darwin-worshiping leftist hearts. The editors spoke of “the backwards unscientific belief in creationism of many US evangelicals and lawmakers” (undoubtedly including any Darwin doubters in that category), hoping Pope Francis would not be one of those.Moreover, recent popes have substantially increased efforts to engage in dialogue with scientists on a host of issues, from embryonic stem-cell research and genetically modified crops to in vitro fertilization, abortion and euthanasia — and in the future will no doubt increasingly do so on advances in neuroscience and genetics, including prenatal screening. Scientists who have taken part in such discussions tell of thought-provoking and constructive debates, with the Church being open to ideas and often changing doctrines as a result. A damaging exception is its long-held opposition to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, and it can only be hoped that Pope Francis will have a more enlightened approach.It is hard to imagine any legitimate philosophy of science that would insert “science” into abortion, euthanasia, or prenatal screening. Such positions presuppose a backdrop of support for eugenics. Embryonic stem cell research cannot evade serious ethical questions, and the editors know it. Why did Nature classify all these things with Darwinism as “enlightened” while “creationism” is called “backward”? (see loaded words). If Nature were being truly scientific, it would seek balance on such hot topics or avoid them altogether as political matters for the domain of ethicists and theologians.At Live Science, Stephanie Pappas is on a crusade to promote gay marriage. One of her pieces, “How Straight People Paved the Way for Gay Marriage,” tried to blame straight people for the apparent rise in support (depending on polls used) for homosexual “marriage”. An even more egregious advocacy piece she wrote for Live Science is called “5 Scientific Reasons Gay Parents Are Awesome.” There, Pappas tried to promote the idea that homosexuals are better parents than traditional moms and dads. In these articles, Pappas put no fingers in the dikes to distinguish her preferences from those who would use the same arguments to support polygamy and other social experiments. By rubberstamping her advocacy pieces, Live Science has endorsed her crusade.Without controversy, Pappas has the right to advocate her own views; she could, for instance, start a personal blog. What is troubling is that she attached the honorable name of “science” to her far-left social agenda, pushing a view repudiated by Catholics, evangelicals, Jews, and many non-religious heterosexuals. Never in the history of the world has a civilization promoted homosexual pairing to be a form of “marriage” on par with mother, father and children. Never have societies tried to redefine marriage to include other social experiments. Yet some “scientific” organizations like Nature and Live Science presume to create new social orders based on their self-proclaimed “enlightened” views – views informed by Darwinism and characteristic of other far-left organizations.Attention! We must view secular science as a special-interest group, NOT a movement that seeks the truth about the natural world. What! Promoting euthanasia in the name of science? Homosexual “marriage” in the name of science? Abortion in the name of science? Wake up, people! We are back to the early 20th century, when progressives who loved Darwin promoted eugenics. Many unspeakable horrors followed. Don’t think our age will not escape the consequences of this kind of thinking.You will notice that Nature and Live Science act like blind elitists. They are all for “religious” people changing their doctrines. They have no conscience telling them they need to change their own doctrines. Secular science is just as “religious” as anyone; it has an origin story, a purpose story, ideals, and visions. It uses divination and dreams. Its shamans hold sway over their subjects, using all the tools of propaganda.When secular science organizations stick to observable, repeatable facts about the natural world, that’s fine; when they promote leftist causes, they need to be opposed with the same vigor as one would fight political revolutionaries, because that’s what they are.
12 May 2011 South Africa has joined the United Nations’ Decade of Action for Road Safety campaign, launched worldwide on Wednesday, with Transport Minister Sbu Ndebele saying the country would use the campaign to ensure that road safety became everyone’s business. The campaign, supported by governments, international agencies, civil society organisations and private companies from more than 100 countries, aims to save at least 5-million lives on roads around the world over the next 10 years. Speaking in Pretoria at the South Africa launch of the campaign, Ndebele said the government would work with various stakeholders to ensure that the message was spread everywhere – from mosques, temples, churches, schools and businesses – to ensure that everyone was on board in creating safer roads for South Africans. Ndebele said his department had already embarked on large-scale mobilisation of communities through Community Road Safety Councils. Council members include traditional leaders, religious leaders, the private sector, schools, government departments as well as civil society. These councils should always be inclusive, he said. “Road Safety is not what you do to a community; road safety is what you do with a community. Therefore, community-driven road safety through Community Road Safety Councils must become the primary driving force of this Decade of Action in South Africa.” Ndebele said the government wanted to empower communities to become self-liberating through Road Safety Councils. “Every road safety issue in a community, whether a faulty robot or a pothole in Boksburg, Soweto or Nongoma, must be the business of the Road Safety Council. Members of the community must know their Road Safety Council, which should be their first point of call regarding any road safety matter.” Ndebele said the government’s response to road deaths in the country included safety education taught at schools, plans to ensure the speeding up of the issuing of driving licences, and a planned driving school summit that would ensure that schools were better empowered to produce trained drivers. Ndebele said the government’s road safety plan, introduced last October, to stop and check one-million vehicles every month, had seen about 34 000 unroadworthy vehicles being impounded in the past six months. About 3.5-million fines had been issued for various traffic offences, 13 877 drunk drivers arrested, and almost 9-million vehicles stopped at roadblocks. “As of May 2011, no less than 10 000 drivers will be screened every month for drinking and driving.” Other plans include the national roll-out of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences (Aarto) Act and the points demerit system. A draft amendment of the Aarto regulations was published for comment in the Government Gazette on 15 April. Source: BuaNews
Related Posts Tags:#AI#artificial intelligence#Bots#Internet of Things#IoT#lawyers Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Small Business Cybersecurity Threats and How to… Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… Robot lawyers have been getting so much attention lately that AI-and-law thought leaders believe we have reached peak hype. Journalists have responded by toning down their headlines to better manage expectations. For example, last month the New York Times ran an article titled, “A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won’t Replace Lawyers, Yet,” and the ABA Journal gently warned, “The robot lawyers are coming (to help, not to take your jobs).”The Times article explains that automation generally happens task by task. So, even if AI can scan documents and predict which ones will be relevant to a legal case, other tasks such as actually advising a client or appearing in court cannot currently be performed by computers.But for readers who are not well-versed in the law, these articles fail to answer some more foundational questions: What is legal research, anyway? And, if a computer can do the research, why would I still need a human lawyer?To answer those questions, let’s look at a specific technology as an example. The company Casetext recently unveiled a tool called CARA to help lawyers do legal research. CARA stands for Case Analysis Research Assistant (it also means friend in Irish). This rollout coincides with Casetext’s announcement that it has secured $12 million in Series B funding, which will be used in part to further develop their AI capabilities.How does CARA work? The user uploads a legal brief to Casetext’s website; CARA scans the brief and instantly returns a list of relevant cases that the brief failed to cite. I tested it out with a brief I wrote a few years ago when I was still practicing law. CARA’s speed and accuracy are truly astounding. It would have taken me hours of research to come up with the list of cases that CARA generated instantaneously.But for those who have not experienced the drudgery of legal research firsthand, it’s hard to understand what this all means. Readers may be wondering, What is a “relevant case” and why is it so important to make sure you didn’t miss one?See also: Bosch and NVIDIA create a supercomputer for self-driving AITo appreciate the impact of tools like CARA, it’s important to have an understanding of how our legal system works. (Even if this was covered in a civics class at some point, most of us could use a refresher.) When a dispute ends up in court, the judge writes a decision resolving the case. Courts publish these decisions and they are collectively referred to as “case law.”Our legal system is based on the principle of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning that cases should be decided consistently so that similar situations will yield similar results. Accordingly, when a dispute ends up in court, the lawyers and judge involved in the case look to older case law to see if the issue has been decided before. If it has, the older case will act as a precedent and the judge will follow its reasoning in deciding the current dispute.Or, one of the lawyers may argue that the current situation is different enough from the older case to justify a different result. Even if there is a statute or regulation that seems to directly address the subject matter of a dispute, there may still be case law interpreting the language of the statute or regulation—filling in gaps or explaining how that rule applies to specific situation. In other words, no matter what type of dispute you have, it’s important to search all of the case law to see what judges have said about similar disputes in the past.Enormous potential time savingsBefore computers, cases were published in volumes organized chronologically. Lawyers would use the index to find cases relevant to their current dispute. This took time—lots of time. Even with the advent of computer databases such as Lexis Nexis and Westlaw, researching case law was still laborious because you had to try a lot of different word combinations to make sure you weren’t missing a case where a judge used slightly different terminology. Or your search term might be very common and you’d have to read through a lot of cases to find the ones that were most similar to your dispute.CARA makes this process exponentially faster; she “reads” your brief so she understands the context of your dispute, and then she instantly searches a database of millions of cases and tells you which ones are relevant to your dispute—but she’ll omit the cases you cited in the brief, since you clearly know about those already.As amazing as CARA is, however, the truth is that doing the case-law research is only part of the battle. If you’re involved in a court dispute, someone still needs to write the brief and show up in court to summarize the brief orally for the judge (among other tasks). There are companies out there, such as ROSS Intelligence, that are testing AI-assisted brief writing, but we’re still a ways off from robots showing up in court and talking to the judge.In sum, lawyers perform a variety of complicated tasks. Computers can already do some of these tasks much better than humans—but not all of the tasks. Until that happens—or until we make lawyers’ jobs less complicated (perhaps an even more challenging task given the power of inertia)—we will still need human lawyers to wield these impressive AI-powered tools.This article is part of our bots landscape series. You can download a high resolution version of the landscape featuring 197 companies here. Alexandra Devendra Follow the Puck
(PhysOrg.com) — NASA engineers have designed an extremely quiet one-person electrically powered aircraft that can hover like a helicopter and fly like a plane. The “Puffin” launches from an upright position with the tail split into four legs that serve as stable landing/take-off gear. Explore further The 3.7-meter-long craft has two wings with a combined wingspan of 4.1 meters. Each wing is has a 2.3 meter wide propeller. Flaps on the wings direct the air from the rotors upward while the aircraft is on the ground, and then direct it downwards allowing the Puffin to rise, and then hover as it leans over to begin its flight with the craft (and pilot) horizontal.The aircraft was designed by NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, in collaboration with the National Institute of Aerospace, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and M-DOT Aerospace. It is designed to be manufactured from carbon fiber composites and would weigh only around 135 kg, plus 45 kg of rechargeable lithium phosphate batteries.The Puffin’s electric motors produce virtually no emissions, and can lift its payload of one person with only 60 horsepower. The motors are up to 95% efficient, while internal combustion engines the same size would only rate at around 20% efficient, and electric motors are up to 20 times more reliable than piston engines because they have fewer moving parts. Citation: Puffin: the one-person electric aircraft (w/ Video) (2010, January 22) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-01-puffin-one-person-electric-aircraft-video.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. The electric motors are also super-quiet, producing only 50 decibels at 150 meters, which makes the Puffin about 10 times less noisy than even low-noise helicopters. This may mean that if the Puffin is used for personal travel or courier services, an airport may not be needed at all, and the Puffin could land and take off from a private residence without annoying neighbors. The motors are not only quiet, they generate less heat than internal combustion engines, and the combination could make the craft ideal for military applications such as covert spying operations. The cruising speed of the Puffin is expected to be 240 kph, with spurts of 480 kph possible. The engine does not require air, which means its flight capabilities are not limited by thin air, and it could fly as high as 9,150 meters. With a full charge, the batteries could keep the plane aloft for only 80 kilometers at cruising speed, but as new batteries are developed this is likely to increase substantially, perhaps to over 300 kilometers by 2017. Flight Tests Confirm New Technologies Can Help Quiet The Skies Safety features in the Puffin include a motor design that allows parts of either motor to fail with no reduction in power to the propellers. It is also designed to be able to take a hard, forceful landing with most of the load taken by the landing gear, instead of the pilot as it is in other single person aircraft designs.The device was dubbed the Puffin because the bird of that name resembles the craft in looking awkward, and in seeming to have wings too small to fly. It’s also a solitary bird, and its habit of hiding its droppings makes it environmentally friendly, like the craft.The design of the Puffin was unveiled on January 20 by NASA aerospace engineer Mark Moore, at a meeting of the American Helicopter Society in San Francisco. A one-third scale demonstration model is expected to be finished by March this year, after which time they will concentrate on the transition between cruise flight and hovering.Moore said they are already planning future generations of the Puffin, in which there would be enough redundancy that if one propeller was completely out of action the aircraft could still fly safely, and there would be no single point of failure. © 2010 PhysOrg.com