Nebraska farmers to learn about agricultural technology The Olympian Nebraska farmers, ranchers and other agricultural professionals will gather in Kearney to learn about changing technology and how to prepare for tough economic times. The Nebraska Farm Bureau, University of Nebraska and KRVN Rural Radio Network will ... |
See the original post here:
Nebraska farmers to learn about agricultural technology - The Olympian
The technologies needed to meet the Paris Agreement's climate goals are not developing quickly enough, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.
Nearly every country in the world has committed to take action under the Paris Agreement to slow global warming. But only 3 out of 26 technology categories tracked by the IEA are on pace to help do that, the agency concluded in this year's Energy Technology Perspectives report.
The IEA, which advises countries on energy strategy, has a fairly straightforward if not easy solution: implement policies that will encourage investment in these technologies and work across borders to develop them.
"Many technology areas suffer from a lack of policy support, and this impedes their scaled-up deployment," IEA said. "Energy efficiency, bioenergy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) are notable examples of where significant potential for technology progress remains, but strong policy signals will be required to trigger the appropriate investments."
The IEA assessment on Tuesday came just days after President Donald Trump announced he would pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement. Trump has already moved to roll back many Obama-era initiatives aimed at mitigating planet-warming emissions, claiming they will hold back economic growth and job creation.
The technology categories that are on track to deliver results electric vehicles, solar and onshore wind power, and energy storage have all benefited from government support and clear policies, IEA notes.
But all 26 technology categories need to be developed and deployed in tandem in the coming years in order to ensure energy supply is affordable, secure and sustainable, according to IEA.
On the supply side, IEA said governments need to develop policies that encourage the spread of offshore wind power, nuclear energy and natural gas, while discouraging the continued use of the most inefficient coal-fired technology. It also says technology to capture carbon from power plants and other industrial facilities so-called carbon capture and storage needs support in order to encourage large-scale projects.
The agency also urges policies that would help speed along technology that decreases energy demand from industrial facilities, buildings and the transportation sector. Those include policies that cap the amount of carbon companies are allowed to emit. These systems are already used in the European Union and are being developed in China, Mexico and Canada.
Here is the original post:
For many people, craft is wooden chairs and pottery, all lovingly constructed by hand. A 3D-printed plastic object? Not so much.
The work of Australian designer Berto Pandolfo, shown in a new exhibition at Kensington Contemporary in Sydney, upends that rule. His sidetables demonstrate that digital fabrication techniques like 3D printing offer new possibilities for design practitioners with a craft ethos.
By using new technology to enrich rather than substitute traditional techniques, he is part of a movement that the writer Lucy Johnston has termed the digital handmade designers that use emerging digital techniques to create desirable objects.
Craft is a contested term, especially in an era where machines have taken the place of work previously done by hand. Broadly, its an approach guided by tradition, sensitivity to materials and manual techniques. Pandolfos show explores the place of 3D printing within such a practice. The result is objects that feel distinctive rather than mass manufactured, despite their online origins.
3D printing, more accurately referred to as additive manufacturing, creates objects by depositing material layer-by-layer. For furniture design in particular this is a radical shift away from traditional methods of material subtracting (think of carving) as well as forming and joining. Referred to as the third industrial revolution by technology writers such as Paul Markillie, additive manufacturing was first used as a tool to construct prototypes directly from computer-generated models.
Some 3D printing techniques are favoured by industrial designers on a mass scale. Selective laser sintering and direct metal laser sintering, for example, are two relatively expensive processes that have proven particularly useful in the biomedical and aerospace industries.
Processes such as fused deposition modelling, on the other hand, are more affordable and more accessible to designers working on one-off objects like Pandolfo. Desktop 3D printers such as CraftUniques CraftBot PLUS cost a little over US$1,000.
An animated video of the fused deposition modeling process.
For his exhibition, entitled MND, Pandolfo has produced a series of side tables, using fused deposition modelling to create the legs. Inspired by river stones, the legs contrast with the smooth finish of the body of the table, made by hand from kauri pine. Typically rough textures are associated with wood. In this instance, however, the wood is smooth and uniform, and the plastic is rough and irregular.
The 3D printing process typically produces a rough, lumpy or striped surface finish, which is often sanded down. Pandolfo decided not to, giving the side tables the markings of imperfection often associated with handmade objects.
He also chose the river stone form rather than a side tables conventional turned wooden legs, in order to exploit the capacity of additive manufacturing for creating forms of subtle irregularity. Rather than being regarded as incidental or antagonistic to the finished product, the surface imperfections typical of the fused deposition modeling process have been used as an opportunity.
Pandolfos work fits within the digital handmade movement because he has taken the technological limitations of 3D printing as a creative opportunity.
In fact, the marriage of 3D printing and craft represents a return to a pre-industrial values where creative intelligence and skill in making went together.
As Johnston suggests in her book, the industrial revolution resulted in a diminished role for the craftsman. Skill and imagination were removed from mass manufacture as machines and the factory line dominated the production process. The creativity once associated with handmade objects and craft became more exclusively associated with the fine arts.
Pandolfos deliberate exploration of new materials, technology and form demonstrate a blending of these supposedly contrasting virtues.
The broader value of this work is in demonstrating how technological hardware, such as 3D printing, need not be relegated to mass industry. Designers and handcrafters can also claim it, ensuring new meaning can emerge from our machines.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Science and Technology News on The Conversation
Read next: Why VPNs are less likely to sell you out than ISPs
Go here to see the original:
The 'digital handmade': how 3D printing became a new craft technology - TNW
While big automakers are rushing to launch self-driving cars as early as 2021, the industrys major players are moving slowly when it comes to widespread deployment of a less expensive crash prevention technology that regulators say could prevent thousands of deaths and injuries every year.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd said Thursday it will make automatic braking systems standard on an estimated 1 million 2018-model cars and light trucks sold in the United States, including high-volume models such as the Rogue and Rogue Sport compact sport utility vehicles, the Altima sedan, Murano and Pathfinder SUVs, LEAF electric car, Maxima sedan and Sentra small car.
Nissan sold about 1.6 million vehicles in the United States last year.
And rival Toyota Motor Corp. has said it will make so-called automatic emergency braking standard on nearly all its U.S. models by the end of this year.
Overall, however, most automakers are not rushing to make automatic brake systems part of the base cost of mainstream vehicles sold in the competitive U.S. market. The industry has come under pressure from regulators, lawmakers and safety advocates to adopt the technology, which can slow or stop a vehicle even if the driver fails to act.
So far, only about 17 percent of models tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety offered standard collision-avoiding braking . Many of the models with standard collision-avoiding brake systems are luxury vehicles made by European or Japanese manufacturers.
The systems require more sensors and software than conventional brakes, and automakers have said they need time to engineer the systems into vehicles as part of more comprehensive makeovers.
Last year, 20 automakers reached a voluntary agreement with U.S. auto safety regulators to make collision-avoiding braking systems standard equipment by 2022.
Safety advocates have petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to begin a regulatory process to require the technologies, but the agency has said the voluntary agreement will result in faster deployment than a formal rule-making process. NHTSA says the technology could eliminate one-fifth of crashes.
Do the math. Thats 5 million crashes every year 20 percent reduction means 1 million less. Those are big numbers, Mark Rosekind, the NHTSAs then-administrator, said last year.
But customers would likely experience the benefits of the technology infrequently. The technology to enable a car to drive itself is far more costly, but industry executives foresee autonomous vehicles driving revenue-generating transportation services that could be attractive to investors.
General Motors Co. offers automatic braking as optional equipment on about two-thirds of its models. The company did not say on Thursday how many vehicles have the technology as standard equipment. GM has not made public its plans for making the technology standard across its lineup.
Any time you have a voluntary agreement you have a spectrum of implementation, Jeff Boyer, GMs vice president for safety, told Reuters earlier this week. Asked when GM would roll out standard automatic braking, Boyer said, lets just say we honor the voluntary commitment.
Ford Motor Co. has a plan to standardize over time, the company said in a statement Thursday. Currently, automatic braking systems are optional on several 2017 Ford and Lincoln models, and will be offered on certain 2018 models including the best-selling F-150 pickup truck.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV offers automatic braking as optional equipment in seven model lines, using cameras and radar to detect hazards ahead. The company has said it will meet the 2022 target for making the systems standard.
As 2018 models roll out during the second half of this year, more vehicles will offer automatic braking, said Dean McConnell, an executive with Continental AGs North American business. Continentals automatic braking technology systems will be on certain Nissan models.
We see it accelerating, he said. It varies. There are some (automakers) that are being aggressive and others that are waiting.
Nissan did not disclose how much prices for vehicles would rise to offset the cost of being equipped with standard automatic emergency braking . The 2018 models will be launched later this year. Currently, Nissan, like most carmakers, offers automatic braking as part of a bundle of optional safety and technology features.
A 2017 Nissan Sentra compact sedan has a starting price of $17,875. To buy the car equipped with automatic braking requires spending another $6,820 for a Sentra SR with a premium technology package.
German auto technology suppliers Continental and Robert Bosch GmbH will supply the systems, Nissan said.
Link:
Let's talk about a scourge of modern times. There is so much stuff to watch, read, listen to, buy, eat or learn about.The world is available at our fingertips at any moment. It feels glorious but also horribly, paralyzingly overwhelming.
Should I wade into Spotify's sea of every song ever recorded or give up and listen to my downloaded copy of Adele's "Hello" for the 47,000th time? Psychologist Barry Schwartz called this the "paradox of choice" in his 2004 book of the same name. Like many ideas that come out of TED Talks, it istoo simplisticto say more choices are counterproductive, but I think we've all experienced the feeling.
Naturally, technology companies have some ideas about how to help people discover things and select among the flood of options -- and make money in the process. And even they are recognizing the limits of technology in helping people stayinformed and entertained.
Computerized recommendations were among the original big ideas of the internet age. Google web search is essentially the use of computers to siftthrough the morass of web links to surface the most compelling options. Netflix, Amazon andSpotifysuggest entertainment or products based on what you have shown interest in before, or what its computer models conclude will fit your taste.
Favorite Pastimes
Television dominates how people spend their leisure hours, but the average daily time spent on the internet is surging globally
Source: Zenith
It turns out computers are incredibly effective at guiding us. About 80 percent of the music videos people watch on YouTube are the result of computerized suggestions, the chief financial officer of Google parent company Alphabetsaidat the recent Code conference. (When I finish watching the "Hello" video on YouTube, it automatically starts playing Adele's weepy "Someone Like You.")
Of course there is a downside to the power of the algorithms. Sometimes computers are dumb.I don't know why Amazon keeps nudging me to buy glass cleaner. And picking things based on your tastes means you may never break out of your comfort zone andlisten to a song that you couldn't imagine you would like. The same is true with computer-aided social network feedslike Facebook. If your friends are like you, their suggestions for what to read or how to understand world events may keep you in a "filter bubble" of your own making.
Now, even tech companies that preach the gospel of the algorithm are trying ahuman touch. If you're deciding between two outfits to wear, you can now send a photo of yourself to Amazon, and "fashion specialists" will tell youwhich one looks best. Snapchat's "Discover" section is essentially a modernized version of a newspaper front page. Apple has a selection of "Editors' Choice" apps, and it trumpets Apple Music song recommendations made by people in addition to machines. Facebook has said a priority for this year isoffering people information they don't know they wereinterested in.
Computers Rule
Netflix with its computerized entertainment recommendations has quadrupled its web video subscribers since 2011
Source: Bloomberg
As algorithmsguide more of our lives, I increasingly find myself reverting back to old-fashioned methods of sifting through choices. When I was shopping for air conditioners last year, I leaned on Consumer Reports and other professional recommendations. I read traditional book reviews and ask friends what books they've enjoyed recently. Thanks for the suggestions, computers. But I'll let the mere mortals have a turn now.
A version of this column originally appeared in Bloomberg's Fully Charged technology newsletter. You cansign up here.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story: Shira Ovide in New York at sovide@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.net
Read the rest here:
TechCrunch | Spektral raises $2.8 million for development of AI-powered green screen technology TechCrunch The augmented reality acquisition space is hot Facebook, Snap, Apple and others are throwing money at teams and technologies that promise to increase user engagement. Spektral, a Danish startup, is the latest venture-backed visual effects company ... |
Read more:
Spektral raises $2.8 million for development of AI-powered green screen technology - TechCrunch
At an event about how technology is shaping the future of money, it seems counterintuitive to talk about a future where technology has mostly done away with the need for money to live.
But thats the future Peter Diamandis envisions.
At Singularity Universitys Exponential Finance Summit in New York this week, Diamandis talked about the broad and specific trends he believes are leading to a demonetized world.
Its no secret that technology is threatening to take away jobs. For all the talk about robots working alongside humans rather than replacing them altogether, automations higher efficiency, lower costs, and increasing capability mean eventually workers will be removed from the equation in many jobs.
No one wants to be replaced by a machine, but theres a silver lining.
The counterbalance to technological unemployment, Diamandis said, is the demonetization of livingin other words, pretty much everything we need and do in our day-to-day lives is becoming radically cheaper, if not free, and technologys making it happen.
The most obvious and tangible example of this phenomenon is, of course, the smartphone. 20 years ago, we had a bunch of different things that each performed a single function: a camera took pictures, a flashlight lit up the dark, a TV was for watching shows, a VCR played movies, a boom box played music, and so on and so forth.
Now we have all that and more in the palm of our hands. More significantly, though, we got most of it for far less than in the past. If, Diamandis said, you add up the cost of all that hardware 20 years ago, youre looking at thousands of dollarsnow reduced to a few hundred. Similarly, the average smartphone being microfinanced for $50 in developing nations holds millions of dollars worth of software.
Demonetization is the fourth of Diamandis six Ds of technological disruption, happening after digitization but before democratization. Taking money out of the equation for a given product or service is a key part of making that product or service available to everyone.
Below are just a few of the examples Diamandis gave of demonetization he sees across various industries.
If you dont have a smartphone or computer, you cant have your data collectedand companies want your data. They want it so badly theyll soon be giving smartphones away, specifically in the areas of the world where the vast majority of would-be consumers arent online yet.
We used to drive to Blockbuster and pay a few dollars to rent one movie. Now we can pay a low flat rate and watch as many movies and shows as we want each month. Or we can watch stuff for free; YouTube streams millions of hours of free video per day.
The poorest countries in the world are the sunniest countries in the world, and solar power is becoming cheaper than coal. That means ultra-cheap electricity in developing nations.
When you own a car you have to pay for fuel, parking, insurance, tolls, and maintenancenot to mention buying the car itself. On-demand ride apps like Lyft and Uber are changing the way people get around and making it cheaper for them to do so. Why pay all that money for your own car when theres a service to get you from point A to point B at a fraction of the cost? Electric autonomous cars will disrupt transportation even more.
Self-driving cars will change the housing market by enabling people to commute from farther away more easily. Housing itself will get cheaper thanks to large-scale 3D printing.
The XPRIZE foundation recently launched its Global Learning XPRIZE. Participants are tasked with creating a software package that can take a group of illiterate kids to full literacy in 18 months. This sort of software will bring high-quality education to areas that currently lack itand it will be delivered in kids native language, in a context that fits their culture, at little to no cost to them.
Of all the industries listed, healthcare is the one most urgently in need of demonetization in the US. Its happening through AI-fueled diagnosis and personalization of care. Deep learning algorithms can now identify skin cancer as accurately as dermatologists can. IBMs Watson was able to diagnose a rare form of leukemia that no physician could diagnose by analyzing data from 20 million other diagnoses. The Tricorder XPRIZE yielded a system that can diagnose 12 different diseases and capture real-time vital signs using a smartphone and some add-ons. Genome sequencing will transition healthcare from being reactive to proactive, keeping people from getting sick in the first place.
I view the world as rapidly demonetizing, Diamandis said near the conclusion of his talk.
A world where lifes necessities are all cheap or free will be very different from the world we live in today. What will motivate people to work or be productive if they dont need money for the basics? What kinds of new innovations will spring up from people for who these resources used to be cost-prohibitive? How will social constructs built around wealth and class shift.
These are all questions well need to contemplate as technology continues to demonetize our lives. As the old saying goes, the best things in life are free, and if Diamandis vision becomes reality, well have to figure out which of the free things in life are best.
Image Credit: Pond5
The rest is here:
Technology Will Erase JobsBut Also Make Everything Cheap or Free - Singularity Hub
The Jerusalem Post | Israeli company showcases drone interception technology The Jerusalem Post (photo credit:ORAD). With weaponized drones bringing a whole new assortment of security threats, several companies at the Israel Defense Exhibition in Tel Aviv this week, showcased the latest technology in neutralization and interception of the devices. |
See original here:
Israeli company showcases drone interception technology - The Jerusalem Post
NEW YORK According to an unpublished kitchen table survey, conducted before last Novembers presidential election in the United States, approximately 95% of the predominantly Hispanic members of one of Americas largest domestic unions preferred the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton to her Republican opponent Donald Trump. Yet less than 3% of that unions members actually planned to vote. The reason came down to economics.
For most of the people surveyed, the costs of voting including lost wages from time off work, transport to the polling station, and the need to secure proper identification (such as a drivers license or passport) were simply too large. This reflects a broader trend in the US, with poor Americans often unable to participate fully in their countrys democracy.
According to the US Census Bureau, fewer than half of eligible adults with family incomes of less than $20,000 per year voted in the 2012 presidential election, whereas voter participation among households with incomes of more than $75,000 was 77%. In the 2014 midterm election, the think tank Demos reports, 68.5% of people in households earning less than $30,000 per year didnt vote.
This is a serious problem. But the proposals most often put forward to address it have serious drawbacks.
The proposed solutions typically focus on digital technology, which many claim would boost voter participation, by lowering the costs of voting. For example, mobile apps have been touted as a means to boost voter turnout: people could vote at their convenience, whether in the break-room at work or from the comfort of their own home.
The idea certainly sounds appealing. In Estonia, which is widely considered to be a leader in the use of voting technology, almost one-quarter of all votes in the 2011 parliamentary election were cast online.
Yet the actual impact of such technology on voter participation remains dubious. Although the rate of online voting in Estonia increased by nearly 20% between the 2007 and 2011 elections there, overall voter turnout increased by fewer than two percentage points (from 61.9% to 63.5%). This suggests that online voting may simply encourage regular voters to change how they cast their ballots, rather than encouraging additional voters to participate.
But voting technology may not just be ineffective; it could actually be damaging. Such technology doesnt reduce costs only for voters; it also reduces costs for the state, making it easier than ever to conduct elections. The risk is that lower costs would encourage more frequent elections and referenda, thereby undermining the efficiency of government.
At a time of lackluster global economic growth and deteriorating living standards for many, efficient government could not be more important. According to the US Millennium Challenge Corporation, more efficient government helps to reduce poverty, improve education and health care, slow environmental degradation, and combat corruption.
A key feature of an efficient government is long-term thinking. Policymakers must work toward the policy goals that got them elected. But they must also be given enough political room to adjust to new developments, even if it means altering policy timelines.
Amid constant elections and referenda, that isnt really an option. Instead, policymakers face strong pressure to deliver short-term, voter-pleasing results or get punished at the polls. The likely result is a shortsighted agenda prone to sudden politically motivated reversals. Beyond hurting political credibility and market confidence, such volatility could create friction between elected politicians and civil-service technocrats, damaging a relationship that is critical to efficient, forward-looking, and fact-based decision-making.
Proponents of referenda hold them up as the epitome of democracy, giving ordinary citizens a direct say over specific policy decisions. But, in a representative democracy, referenda undermine the relationship between the voters and their political leaders, who have been entrusted to make policy on citizens behalf.
Ominously, referenda are already becoming an increasingly common and consequential feature of policymaking in the Western world. The United Kingdom has held just three referenda in its entire history; but two have been carried out just in the last six years (plus another in Scotland). Franois Fillon, a candidate for the French presidency, promised two referenda if he won the recent election and suggested that France needs as many as five.
Elections, too, are becoming more frequent. The average tenure of a G20 political leader has fallen to a record low of 3.7 years, compared to six years in 1946 a shift that, no doubt, is contributing to a rise in short-term thinking by governments.
It is not yet clear whether voting technology actually does spur greater voter participation. What is clear is that, if it is adopted widely, it could exacerbate trends that are undermining public policy, including governments ability to boost economic growth and improve social outcomes.
Reducing barriers to democratic participation for the poorest citizens is a worthy goal. But what good will achieving it do if those citizens interests are harmed as a result?
Follow this link:
The technological side of road racing is on the fast track. Many runners and walkers want data and the more, the better
Joaquin Lara
The AJC Peachtree Road Race has changed a lot over the past 10 years, both in look and in execution. In fact, it wasnt until 2009 that every single participant of the worlds largest 10K was electronically chip-timed. This year, Atlanta Track Club is offering a 5K split time for each participant in addition to the finish time, and friends and family can receive updates on their runners progress in multiple ways.
The Club provided a 5K split as a test during the 2016 AJC Peachtree Road Race, and will offer this information officially this year. Each participant will be able to sign up for their race updates to be sent out automatically via Facebook and Twitter, and friends and family members will be able to sign up for social media or text message updates as well.
Were proud to be able to offer tracking options for the AJC Peachtree Road Race, says Paula Beebe, manager of registration and timing for Atlanta Track Club. There is a lot of excitement around running the largest road race in the country, and we want our participants to be able to easily share their performances with their friends and family.
Links to register for Facebook, Twitter and text message updates will be available in upcoming participant emails and in the participant instructions for the event.
Technology Timeline
2009: First year every participant is electronically timed
2010: First year start waves are assigned by verified performance; official race number transfer system implemented
2011: Registration switches to an online lottery application
2016: 5K split time test performed
2017: 5K split times officially offered for participants
Read the rest here:
AJC Peachtree Road Race technology through the years - Atlanta Journal Constitution
Washington Times | National science competition winners agree technology is taking over Washington Times Stuyvesant chemistry teacher Gabriel Ting, the group's coach, did not say whether he agreed that technology is taking over much of society, but advocated for STEM education. Even if students do not pursue employment in the sciences, any job requires at ... |
Read this article:
National science competition winners agree technology is taking over - Washington Times
Cybercriminals: 'They are everywhere and we don't know who they are'
Cyberwar and the Future of Cybersecurity
Today's security threats have expanded in scope and seriousness. There can now be millions -- or even billions -- of dollars at risk when information security isn't handled properly.
Let me pose a question: Is it a bad thing to give the average person a hand grenade with the pin pulled? I think most of us would respond to that question with an emphatic "Yes!"
No one would think it's a good idea to allow anyone without extensive military or professional training to access an explosive -- especially one that is live and has no safety device in use. Bad things would happen and people would probably lose their lives. At the very least, there would be damage to property. No matter what, this scenario would be a very bad thing and should never happen.
Now let me change that question a bit: Is it a bad thing for every person with a network connection to have access to extremely powerful nation-state-level cyber weapons? Hopefully you would respond similarly and say "Yes!"
Just as the hand grenade juggling is a problem, so is the proliferation of nation-state-level exploits. These malicious tools and frameworks have spread across the world and are presenting a very complicated problem that must be solved.
Unfortunately, the existing solution only amounts to a variety of vendors slinging solutions and tools that, without good strategy, cannot effectively combat the myriad of cyber artillery shells being weaponized against every system that touches the web. The bad guys have now officially proven that they can "outdev" the defensive technologies in place in many instances, and they've shown the likelihood that many installed legacy technologies are wide open to these weaponized attacks (anti-virus be darned) across the planet.
Just as there would be a problem with untrained persons walking around with live explosives, we have a problem with possibly explosive outcomes on the horizon. The reality is that NSA-level attack tools and government-"issued" weaponized exploits have leaked online, and within months, the bad guys had reconfigured them for their purposes, attacking more than 100 countries and many multinational companies.
In a few noted and publicized instances, the malicious actors using these tools and frameworks literally reconfigured code blocks and exploit samples overnight to ensure their effectiveness.
How fast can a defensive tool vendor move to fight that threat? Do you think your anti-virus tool vendor will move faster than a cybercriminal organization that has no bureaucracy and no motive other than profit?
An international cyber-criminal organization using nation-state-level exploits is a very bad thing. We should acknowledge the power that these players have and take the necessary precautions to protect ourselves in today's cyberworld, which shows no signs of slowing down in the near future.
Cybersecurity in an IoT and Mobile World
The technology world has spent so much of the past two decades focused on innovation that security has often been an afterthought. Learn how and why it is finally changing.
I know from working in classified environments for most of my life that there's a reason we tried to keep Pandora's Box shut and that these exploits are extremely powerful. In a massively interconnected world, it's a very bad day when folks (evil or altruistic) on the net have access to what basically equates to tactical cyber nukes -- ask anyone still dealing with the fallout last month.
It will take a long time and a lot of work for the anti-virus vendors and endpoint protection folks to address the follow-on issues that are sure to come (more exploits are coming, of that I am sure). The time for technical preparation has passed, and in many cases, has already proven ineffective. It is far too late to beat the bad guys at their own game and keep trying to "out-tech" them. They move faster and are leveraging more powerful tools that do one thing and one thing only: Find vulnerable systems and exploit the heck out of them.
Strategy and optimality of defensive ecosystems should now be at the front of our minds, not fighting a battle by tossing technology at the enemy and hoping we have the bigger bag of ammo on our side.
Technology can't save your network from these attacks on its own. The strategy you implement and how you use that entrenched secure ecosystem is where the difference will be made.
To learn more about why it's crucial to prioritize cybersecurity in the enterprise, listen to Forrester's latest podcast where security expert Jeff Pollard shares what to learn from the WannaCry cyberattack.
See the article here:
Prepare for increasing 'nation-state' cyberattacks with strategy, not technology - ZDNet
Investors greeted ShotSpotter with a warm reception on Wednesday, on its first day as a public company. After pricing the IPO at $11, the stock closed at $13.86, or up about 26 percent.
ShotSpotter notifies police departments about gun violence by using sensors that ignore ambient noise. Their sophisticated technology alerts authorities within 45 seconds of the trigger being pulled.
Its currently used in about 90 cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco. ShotSpotter estimates that about 80 percent of gun violence goes unreported, and they are in the process of convincing municipalities worldwide that their technology will reduce fatalities.
According to CEO Ralph Clark, its not just about catching assailants, but they hope to deter crime also. Nopolice responseleads to normalization of gun violence, he claims.
ShotSpotter makes money by charging local governments on an annual subscription basis. According to their IPO filing, they had just $15.5 million in revenue last year and $11.8 million the year before. Losses increased from $6.2 million to $6.9 million in that time frame.
That is likely why the IPO was so small, raising just over $30 million. They will be using some of the proceeds to pay down debt.
But they are optimistic they will expand to more cities, because clearly gun violence is a fairly big problem in the U.S. and globally, said Clark. We want to continue to invest in customer success, he said.
The largest stakeholders are Lauder Partners, Motorola Solutions and Claremont Creek Ventures. The Mountain View, Calif.-based company previously raised at least $67 million in funding.
Read the original post:
Gunshot detection technology ShotSpotter soars 26% in public debut - TechCrunch
Dive Brief:
President Trump's decision to abandon the Paris accordand largely, the global conversation on climate changehas created a domestic climate leadership vacuum that industry, states and local governments have rushed to fill. And on the global stage, China may be stepping into that role as it develops growing amounts of renewables.
All that set the stage for this week's meeting between Brown and Xi, and a green technology agreement that could be the beginning of a broader partnership.
"California is the leading economic state in America and we are also the pioneering state on clean technology, cap and trade, electric vehicles and batteries, but we can't do it alone,"Brown said during his meeting with the Chinese President, according to his office. "I have proposed that California will cut its greenhouse gases 40 percent below 1990 levels and that we'll have 50 percent of our electricity from renewables. To keep that goal, we need a very close partnership with China - with your businesses, with your provinces, with your universities."
The technology agreement expands cooperation on the advancement of "low-carbon, renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies"specifically, zero-emission vehicles, energy storage, grid modernization and low-carbon urban development.
"Under the agreement, California and China will also deepen their partnership and coordination on greenhouse gas emission and air pollution reduction programs, including emissions trading systems and carbon capture," the statement said.
While California's sixth largest economy may expand the state's reach, all total a dozen states and Puerto Rico have formed the U.S. Climate Allianceand committed to achieving the goals of the Paris accord. The states, including California, New York and Washington, will reduce emissions 26% or 28%from 2005 levelswhile meeting or exceeding the targets of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.
Signed by 195 nations at the end of 2015, the Paris accord aimed to limit global warming to 2C this century. President Trumpsaid the agreementis a "bad deal for Americans" that "disadvantages the United States. The country's commitments would have translated into an 80% economywide decarbonization for the U.S. by 2050.
Excerpt from:
California, China strike collaboration on clean energy technology - Utility Dive
The technology sector is on fire. Potentially blazing out of control as a matter of fact. For the ride higher is being driven largely by momentum at this point. Where and when it stops, nobody knows. But we have entered territory across the sector where the risks to the downside are accumulating at a compounding rate the further the current run continues to the upside.
Blazing Hot
The run higher in technology stocks over the past year has been remarkable. After languishing in a sideways trading pattern for the better part of two years since the end of 2014, technology stocks finally broke out to the upside in early July 2016.
The catalyst for the breakout? This, of course, was the immediate aftermath of the surprise 'Brexit' vote, which raises an initial eyebrow. I am not yet clear how the departure of the United Kingdom (NYSEARCA:EWU) from the European Union (BATS:EZU) is a boon for the prospects of the technology companies found in the S&P 500 Index (NYSEARCA:SPY), but what I do know is that central banker support stood at the ready to calm financial markets in the wake of the vote announcement. And soothe tech investor fears they appeared to achieve!
Tech stocks trended sideways following the July 2016 channel break until the end of the year. Then suddenly, the sector completely caught fire and has been riding a growing wave of upside momentum ever since.
Fundamental Support, But To A Point
At first glance, it appears that the upside in technology stocks is enjoying fundamental support. And to a certain degree, this is true.
Consider the path of the Technology Select Sector SPDR (NYSEARCA:XLK) over the past six years since the summer of 2011. Why the summer of 2011? Because it was at this point during the post crisis period where U.S. stocks (NYSEARCA:DIA) and the rest of the world (NASDAQ:ACWX) including developed international (NYSEARCA:EFA) and emerging market (NYSEARCA:EEM) parted ways with U.S. stocks (NASDAQ:QQQ) continuing to rise to the moon as stocks across the rest of the world effectively have gone nowhere ever since.
Unlike some other market sectors, the rise in technology share prices has been supported by an increase in underlying earnings growth. During periods when earnings growth was accelerating, so too were technology stock prices. And during periods when earnings growth either stalled or showed signs of fading, the advance in technology stocks ground to a halt. Thus, the contention can be made that technology stocks are behaving consistently with the fundamental patterns implied by underlying earnings growth.
This is certainly constructive. But the one problem with this assessment over the past six years is the following. While technology stocks are advancing in correlation with rising earnings, the price that investors are paying for technology stocks is rising at a much faster rate than the underlying earnings. Put more simply, investors have been consistently paying increasingly more for each dollar of earnings growth that the sector is generating. This is reflected in the second chart below where the XLK and underlying sector earnings are placed on the same scale.
This can also be reflected in the following chart, which shows the daily rolling trailing 12-month price-to-earnings ratio on the XLK from July 1, 2011 to the present.
Whereas technology stocks were once priced at an attractive 13x to 15x trailing earnings back in 2011 and were still pricing in the expensive but still somewhat reasonable 17x to 20x range as recently as a year ago, they are now trading in the 25x times trailing earnings range.
Putting this in a different perspective, technology stocks are now offering an earnings yield of roughly 4%. Given the cyclical nature of the industry, this is not a lot of "yield" to receive even in today's persistently low interest rate environment.
Of course, technology stocks can overcome this premium status through an acceleration of underlying growth beyond its already robust +20% pace over the past year. Such a feat is not out of the question, but it is a tall order given the fact that technology is still a highly cyclical sector whose annual earnings growth rate has fluctuated between -10% and +20% at any given point in time over the past six years and is currently running at the very top end of this range coming out of the most recently completed quarter in 2017 Q1. In short, it's possible, but not likely.
Momentous Momentum
This is where the momentum trade comes into play for the technology sector. Over the past six years, the tech sector has evolved initially from an "intrinsic value" theme to more recently a "growth at a reasonable price" to lately a "growth at any price" pursuit.
It has been widely noted how stock market breadth has narrowed in 2017. For example, the percentage of NYSE stocks trading above their 50-day moving average has fallen from a peak of 84% at the start of the year to roughly half of stocks in recent months.
In addition, economic growth forecasts have steadily faded since the start of the year from the enthusiastic growth expectations that initially sparked the markets at the end of last year.
Yet despite this narrowing market leadership and fading economic growth prospects, the S&P 500 Index is still up strongly in 2017. The primary driver of these gains has been the strength of the technology sector. And part of the driving force behind this move has been the sentiment that excess liquidity is looking for a home and that technology is the one sector where investors can still buy growth while also gaining a degree of downside protection. Put more simply, investors have been parking money in tech lately regardless of the price driven by notion that they can continue growing regardless of the economy. Hence the still accelerating upside momentum despite the already impressive run.
This has been a great trade for those that have ridden the upside to this point. My premium service on Seeking Alpha, for one, went long technology stocks via the XLK back in mid-December 2016 as a hedge against a cyclical acceleration in economic growth. But through the end of February after an already impressive run to the upside that pushed the relative strength index to readings above 80, which was an overbought level that had been rarely reached in its two decade history, the decision was made to take profits. Thus, I have been merely a spectator to the sector's latest leg to the upside that began in late April and continues to date, which serves as another important reminder of the powerful upside momentum that remains in today's stock market.
Maintaining Momentum
The challenge for the technology sector going forward is its ability to maintain its recently remarkable upside momentum. One of the primary risks associated with the momentum trade is that it is not necessarily built on fundamentals or even technical for that matter. Instead, it is built primarily on enthusiasm and the willingness of the next buyer to pay more for the right to own shares of the company than the previous buyer. And this all works beautifully for a time until it does not. And the longer the forces of momentum take hold and the longer they run, the more painful the subsequent downside adjustment can end up being.
Such is the primary risk facing the technology sector at this stage of its recent run. The sector itself is expensive and becoming increasingly expensive with each passing trading day. And this is something that is true not only of the sector itself but many of the underlying individual stock names in the XLK.
Consider the following trailing 12-month price-to-earnings ratios for the following notable companies make up roughly 40% of the entire XLK.
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL)
2011 P/E Ratio: 12.0x
Current P/E Ratio: 18.0x
Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)
2011 P/E Ratio: 21.8x
Current P/E Ratio: 33.7x
Facebook (NASDAQ:FB)
Current P/E Ratio: 38.9x
Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)
2011 P/E Ratio: 14.7x
Current P/E Ratio: 31.9x
Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)
2011 P/E Ratio: 9.7x
Current P/E Ratio: 15.6x
Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO)
2011 P/E Ratio: 12.7x
Current P/E Ratio: 16.0x
Does value still exist in the technology sector? Perhaps among selected individual names. But at least in so far as the above list is concerned, it would require an acceleration of already robust earnings growth as of late to create this value. And in an environment where the pace of economic growth is fading and the U.S. Federal Reserve is raising interest rates, this is becoming an increasingly tall order.
The Bottom Line
The technology sector has enjoyed a tremendous run to the upside in recent months. But it no longer represents a good buying opportunity for investors with a more conservative to moderate risk tolerance, for the downside risks now outweigh the expected returns at this stage of the rally. In short, the reasonable upside opportunity set in the sector has played itself out long ago now.
Does this mean that the sector is done advancing to the upside? Not by any means, for once a momentum trade takes hold it can run indefinitely and well beyond what might be implied by fundamentals. But the sector is now running increasingly ahead on price of an already heady pace beyond its underlying earnings, thus the associated downside risks with such technology holdings are rising accordingly with each successive gain in price. Thus, selective profit taking in tech holdings may also be a prudent approach depending on your investment strategy and how your technology stock holdings fits into your broader asset allocation.
Is the technology sector then an attractive shorting opportunity? It will be at some point, but not until the upside momentum has been broken. This will be worth watching for in the days and weeks ahead. But if the current market environment has taught investors anything, any future short allocations are better implemented as part of a pair trade to hedge against a broader market that remains determined to advance to the upside no matter what is taking place in the underlying economy.
So while the tech sector that is filled with glamorous, headline grabbing stocks continues to run to the upside, equity investors with a value or "growth at a reasonable price" orientation are better served to look elsewhere at this stage of the rally.
Disclosure: This article is for information purposes only. There are risks involved with investing including loss of principal. Gerring Capital Partners makes no explicit or implicit guarantee with respect to performance or the outcome of any investment or projections made. There is no guarantee that the goals of the strategies discussed by Gerring Capital Partners will be met.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: I am long selected individual stocks as part of a broadly diversified asset allocation strategy.
Originally posted here:
Financial Times | Smile to enter: China embraces facial-recognition technology Financial Times China's technology giants are rushing to embrace the commercial use of facial-recognition technology, attempting to leapfrog western rivals that have taken a more cautious approach for fear of alarming privacy-conscious consumers. While privacy ... |
Excerpt from:
Smile to enter: China embraces facial-recognition technology - Financial Times
As the worlds second fastest-growing major economy and third largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, India is at a crossroads.
Intent on raising its standard of living and extending reliable access to electricity to the nearly 19 percent of its citizens who lack it, India is expected to more than double its energy consumption by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency.At the same time, the nation has pledged to make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions intensity (the ratio of carbon dioxideemissions producedto gross domesting product) as specified in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate. Achieving these seemingly conflicting goals will require energy technologies and policies that are both economically viable and efficient at cutting emissions.
That's whyArun Singh, a masters degree student in the Institute for Data, Systems and Societys Technology and Policy Program (TPP), decided to help India's decision makers weigh their options. Singh, who is also a fellow of the Tata Center for Technology and Design and a research assistant in the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, has analyzed climate policy options for India by building and applying a model of the Indian economy with detailed representation of the electricity sector.
Developed with his advisors, MIT Sloan School of Management Assistant ProfessorValerie Karplusand MIT Joint Program Principal Research ScientistNiven Winchester, the model enables researchers to gauge the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of different technology and policy choices designed to transition India to a low-carbon energy system. Singh used the model to assess the economic, energy, and emissions impacts of implementing Indias Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement which aims to reduce carbon dioxideemissions intensity by 33 to 35 percent from 2005 levelsand increase non-fossil based electric power to about 40 percent of installed capacity by 2030.
Singh determined that compared to a reference scenario of no policy constraints, an economy-wide emissions intensity reduction policy (simulated as a carbon price) would cost at least 43 times less per ton of carbon dioxidethan a mandated expansion of non-fossil-based electric power capacity. He also found that an economy-wide emissions-intensity reduction policy would also reduce carbon dioxideemissions in all sectors of the economy, whereas a non-fossil mandate in the electric power sector would lead to increased emissions beyond that sector.
These findings appear in Singhs masters thesis, Clean Development Pathways for India: Evaluating Feasibility and Modeling Impact of Policy Options, which was awarded the honor of being the TPP's best masters thesis for 2017.
Aruns thesis stands out because it goes beyond modeling policy options for meeting Indias climate goals to evaluating their feasibility in practice, based on an on-the-ground understanding of Indias institutions, stakeholders and technology, Karplus says. This combination has produced results that are likely to be both relevant and actionable for policymakers in India.
Singhs paper may also have broader application.
The thesis extends a single-country modeling framework that can be used to analyze the impacts of policies consistent with the Paris Agreement in other countries, Winchester says.
Singhs model projects that achieving Indias NDC emissions intensity target with a so-called purecarbon pricing policy (in which no additional targets are set to expand non-fossil electric power capacity) would require a price of $17.40 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. Becausethis is a higher carbon price than whats been implemented in most developed countries, Singh acknowledges the political intractability of such a policy. If a carbon pricing policy were combined with enforcement of non-fossil electric power capacity targets, the carbon price would go down to $2.06, but consumers would face higher commodity prices resulting from more expensive utilities. However, declining wind and solar costs in the future could lead to lower utility prices, making a hybrid carbon pricing/electric power capacity expansion policy a viable option to meet Indias electric power demand and climate goals.
Singh shared preliminary findings from his research on clean energy development pathways for India last November as a panelist for a side event of COP22, the 2016 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Marrakech, Morocco. He was the only graduate student among nine speakers on the panel, which explored strategies to implement the Paris Agreement.
With this modeling endeavor, we aim to provide policymakers in India with a tool that they can use to assess the impacts of proposed climate policies, says Singh, who will receive a master of science degree in technology and policy at Commencement this week.
Upon graduation, Singh plans to continue working with Karplus and Winchester on expanding the models capabilities and developing collaborations with policymaking bodies in India.
Continued here:
Forbes | The Race For The Best Job Placement Technology Forbes Hundreds of internet firms are now competing to develop the best internet job placement system for job seekers. They are offering technologies that can tailor job leads for the individual job seeker and customize resume writing and interview prep, ... |
More:
Image credit: Aaron Yoo/Flickr
On Saturday NSA contractor Reality Leigh Winner, who leaked classified documents to The Intercept, was arrested. The leaked intelligence report from the NSA detailed Russian cyberattacks allegedly directed at election officials and electronic voting equipment company VR Systems.
The Justice Departments arrest warrant request stated the classified information printed was tracked to Winner, one of six who printed out the report, and the only one who had e-mail contact with The Intercept. The printed report scanned and published by the publication contained tracking information used to identify and arrest Winner.
The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. WINNER was one of these six individuals. A further audit of the six individuals desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.
Security researcher Robert Graham showed how the NSA tracked Winner down using only the scanned report. Turns out, nearly every printer is actually a sneaky fuck that will out you, thanks to a little trick called printer steganography.
Like regular steganography, which is the practice of hiding data (think invisible ink or a watermark on a photo) inside another piece of data, printer steganography uses dots or lines printed throughout the document that correspond to a certain pattern. Its an invisible watermark that contains metadata like the date and time of printing and the printer used.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, these steganography dots appear on color laser printers and color laser photocopiers, and are usually unavailable on pages printed in black an white or on color inkjet printers. The ones on Winners printed page were from a Xerox DocuColor printer, and show the page was printed on May 9, 2017 at 6:20am. The EFF has a DocuColor tracking dot decoder so you can verify its data yourself.
Its safe to assume the NSA just took a look at the timestamp hidden on the scanned report and found out who was printing what and when. Most new printers have this watermarking functionality preinstalled. You cant exactly stop your printer from lacing your document with tracking information, and theres no foolproof way to confound it or anyone attempting to read it if they know how to decipher the pattern.
See the rest here:
NSA Leaker Outed Thanks to Modern Printer Technology - Lifehacker
Forbes | 10 Intellectual Property Strategies For Technology Startups Forbes By Richard Harroch and Neel Chatterjee. Intellectual property issues often are among the most important considerations that a technology startup will encounter. A startup will face numerous issues involving developing a product, hiring qualified ... |
Read the original post:
10 Intellectual Property Strategies For Technology Startups - Forbes