Frigid waters to return to some area beaches – WOODTV.com

Posted on by

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) Most of this summer has been marked by relatively balmy water temperatures for our shores of Lake Michigan, but northerly winds are expected to induce a sharp dive at some area beaches.

Already, Grand Haven, Holland, Little Sable Point and Mears are reporting very cold waters at their beaches.

A persistent wind out of the north has pushed the less dense warm water away from shore over the last few days.

When this happens, cold water will well up from the depths of Lake Michigan and fill in the gaps.

Sharply cold temperatures can lead to shock or hypothermia if a swimmer falls in and cant get quickly back out.

8/3/2020 12:55 PM : Cold water temps at Lake Michigan are expected over the next few days. The northerly flow will actually pull water away from the shore which causes upwelling along the coast. That will drop beach water temperatures dangerously cold. #miwx #wmiwx #GreatLakes pic.twitter.com/JPhSTA37xe

It can take several days for water temperatures to rebound back to the seasonal average after an upwelling event. Often times, a southerly or southwesterly wind can help push warm water back towards the beaches it previously left.

In addition to the cold water, there is a Beach Hazard Statement in effect until Tuesday afternoon for large waves and strong currents.

The overall temperature of Lake Michigan is still running warmer than average, so the much colder water is just a feature for some of our area beaches instead of a lake-wide event.

The forecast calls for much warmer weather to return again next week.

Read this article:

Frigid waters to return to some area beaches - WOODTV.com

Shark sightings in Wellfleet and Truro temporarily close beaches – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

Two beaches closed after sharks were spotted off the coast of Wellfleet and Truro Friday afternoon, less than a day after a slew of shark sightings prompted several beaches to close across Cape Cod.

A great white shark was spotted in the waters by Newcomb Hollow Beach shortly after 12:30 p.m., according to Sharktivity, the Atlantic White Shark Conservancys app that tracks shark sightings. The beach reopened for swimming around 1:30 p.m.

Shark sightings just seems to be the new normal, there hasnt been much hype about it, said Will Sullivan, Wellfleets harbormaster, in a phone interview on Tuesday. People havent been too anxious about it, theyre more accustomed to it and know theyre not alone.

Shortly after 2 p.m., another shark was spotted traveling north near Head of the Meadow Beach, town officials said in a statement. The beach closed at 2:10 p.m. and will remain closed until 3:10 p.m.

Thirty-one shark sightings were reported since Wednesday, according to Sharktivity. All but one, which was seen off the coast of Hampton, N.H., were reported near the Cape.

Multiple shark sightings were reported at Head of the Meadow Beach and Coast Guard Beach in Truro, resulting in a brief closure of the beaches shortly before noon. Nauset Beach in Orleans and Lecount Hollow Beach in Wellfleet also closed briefly.

Travis Andersen of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Matt Berg can be reached at matthew.berg@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mattberg33.

See more here:

Shark sightings in Wellfleet and Truro temporarily close beaches - The Boston Globe

A postcard from the pandemic: no day at the beach – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

But Kara Hartnett, 58, who with her husband, David, 61, own the Mainsail Motel and Cottages has never seen anything like the summer of 2020.

No one has.

We cant open all our rooms, she told me in their lobby the other day. We dont have the housekeeping staff. So I cant run at 100 percent. Were running at about 70 percent occupancy right now.

Her husband, sitting next to her, nodded and then added: We roll with the punches. I mean in my previous life, I was a new car dealer. So Ive seen it all.

But nothing quite like this. Nothing like a pandemic that has rearranged American life and transformed this slice of vacationland splendor into something more sober. Nobody is using the word carefree to describe this August.

And happy hour? Along the boardwalk, theyll settle for a few happy minutes.

I dont like it. I cant wait until its over, said Paul Gaunt, a 56-year-old caricature artist who has been at work in Hampton Beach for 29 of his 35 years. But freaked out? No. Im too busy taking one day at a time to be too freaked out.

One day at a time this summer has a cadence all its own.

At the penny arcade, machines still beep amid swirling lights, but the place is empty. A sign out front warns would-be customers to stay away if they have had a temperature of 100.4 or higher.

Rows of Skee-Ball machines stands empty, nobody scoring big and collecting yellow tickets to redeem for a stuffed Dalmatian. The photo machine is empty, nobody making goofy faces in photos that otherwise would have yellowed with age inside well-worn wallets.

Rows of salt-water taffy are on display, if you can recognize the flavors through large sheets of heavy protective plastic.

We did lose a lot of business preseason and were probably going to lose a lot of business postseason,' said Chuck Rage, a Hampton selectman who has owned the Pelham Resort motel since 1984.

We have a lot of regulars, he said. We have an older clientele so a lot of those people are a little nervous. For their own reasons, they have taken their deposits and put them toward next year.

But as August still stretches out ahead on the summertime calendar, next year seems so far in the distance.

And the reality of this summer is what confronts people like David and Kara Hartnett every morning, noon, and night at the Mainsail Motel.

What does that look like? It looks like this:

Thats for sure. Never like this again.

A lot of people around here would like to chisel those words into the beachs boardwalk:

People like the young man behind a pizza places counter who had no customers at noontime the other day. Instead, he shook his head and tapped his knuckles to the beat of Duran Durans Hungry Like the Wolf.

Dark in the city, night is a wire. Steam in the subway, earth is afire.

People like the guy manning a game of chance that dares customers to land two balls into a basket to win a prize.

Hows business? I asked. He looked at me the way you might look at a lost-and-rude pedestrian, a blend of pity and disgust. Its all right, he said with a look that conveyed something else: Get lost, pal.

Tom McGuirk, the 48-year-old proprietor of McGuirks Ocean View Hotel Restaurant and Pub, said this pandemic summer has meant revamping operations so dramatically that it was like starting anew. He had to buy new tables and chairs that now sit on the street.

We basically had like a few weeks to create a new restaurant, he told me. You dont usually start from the ground up in a restaurant and decide that youre going to do it in four weeks. All the tables. The chairs I had to buy. The menus I had to design. I needed menus that were disposable and other menus that were sanitize-able.

Is he staring at the ceiling at night?

God, no, he said. Weve been here 30 years. Were pretty well capitalized. So its not the end of our world. If we had bought this last year and we had to pay big mortgages, well, that could be the end of somebodys world. So I have to appreciate all the good things that we have.

Thats precisely the attitude that Kara and David Hartnett are maintaining down the street at the Mainsail Motel and Cottages, where theyve got 19 cottage units and 38 motel rooms. And each other.

Its a cloud youre living under every day, David said. We have masks. I bought a backpack with an anti-COVID spray in it.

Every Saturday, in preparation for new guests, doorknobs, railings, appliances, air conditioners, and remote controls get cleaned.

Its all part of the new routine during this fear-and-loathing summer of COVID on the beach.

God willing and science willing well hopefully have a vaccine by the spring of next year, David Hartnett said. And then itll all go back to being the way it was.

Thats a wish and a prayer that is being silently recited all along this breathtaking stretch of New Hampshires slender coastline.

Thomas Farragher is a Globe columnist. He can reached at thomas.farragher@globe.com.

More here:

A postcard from the pandemic: no day at the beach - The Boston Globe

VeChain And Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels Showcase The Joint Blockchain Enabled Food Supply Chain Solution on IOTE 2020 – PRNewswire

Posted on by

VeChain, together with Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels,showcased various advanced "Blockchain + IoT" solutions in front of enterprise attendees around the globe.

The Challenge Of Food Industry In COVID19 Era

Behavioral changes that have arisen due to COVID19 have brought higher demand for safe and traceable food on ecommerce platforms and raised public awareness of health and safety in general. According to an IBM study, 71% of consumers are willing to pay an additional average premium of 37% for companies offering full transparency and traceability. While the food supply chain is one of the most complex and fragmented supply chains, 70% of firms have "visibility gaps" between the initial supplier and internal clients' systems.

Under such conditions, end-to-end visibility within the supply chain should be a top priority for businesses seeking to build trust with consumers, where blockchain and IoT will make a major impact. According to a recent report by Cointelegrah Consulting, "Blockchain + IoT" solutions could save more than $100 billion for the global food industry annually.

Blockchain is expected to support 10% of the total food industry products tracked globally by 2023.. Real-time traceability could be achieved with the combination of data from IoT devices and blockchain technology.

Avery Dennison + VeChain Showcasing ToolChain Enabled Solution

Guided by the vision to solve real business needs, VeChain has developed the capability to provide business-oriented technology for enterprises of any size or scale. Through built-in food traceability templates and customizable tools, the one-stop data BaaS platform VeChain ToolChainTM can be implemented almost immediately into existing supply chains of all types of food manufacturers, suppliers and retailers.

Products that include fresh produce, dairy products, vegetables, imported food and more can be tracked using the VeChainThor public blockchain with minimal technical development and implementation efforts.

As one of the largest global packaging solution providers, Avery Dennison pioneers in IoT solutions that connect the real products with digital identities.

By integrating Avery Dennison's smart label products and solutions with VeChain ToolChainTM, the advanced Blockchain + IoT combination can effectively enable the food company to realize transparent end-to-end digital lifecycle management for products. This in turn makes the food supply chain smarter allowing for more valuable connections to be cultivated and increased trust between consumers and brands.

Moving Forward With Value-Driven Digitalization Using Blockchain

The silver lining to the new normal in the COVID19 world is that it brings new opportunities and demand for more transparent and efficient solutions, accelerating the need for digitalization. Disruptive technology like blockchain and IoT will be the most critical "accelerator" for the food industry.

VeChain, together with Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels will be committed to collaborating with partners to provide full value chain digital solutions from assessment, consulting, integration and implementation to optimization services, helping food enterprises of different development stages and sizes to easily commence their digital transformation.

About VeChain

As a leading enterprise friendly public blockchain platform, VeChain began in 2015 and aims to connect blockchain technology to the real world by providing enterprises with blockchain solutions suitable for their business needs and to build a trust-free and distributed business ecosystem platform for business value. With VeChain ToolChain, a one-stop data BaaS platform, VeChain will continue to promote the large-scale application of blockchain technology, help enterprise clients in digitalization transformation, and eventually realize the long-term vision of enabling the real economy.

VeChain is the pioneer of real-world business applications, with international operations in Singapore, Luxembourg, Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, Paris, America, Italy and San Francisco. With strong independent development capabilities, and the professional compliance guidance of our strategic partners, PwC (one of the world's top four accounting firms) and DNV GL (a leading global assessment and certification society), VeChain has established partnerships with many leading enterprises in various industries, including Walmart China, Bayer China, BMW, BYD Auto, PICC, H&M, ENN, Shanghai Gas, LVMH, D.I.G, ASI etc.

For more information, please follow Twitter @vechainofficial or visit the official website http://www.vechain.com

About Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels

Avery Dennison is a global materials science company specializing in the design and manufacture of a wide variety of labeling and functional materials. The company's products, which are used in nearly every major industry, include pressure-sensitive materials for labels and graphic applications; tapes and other bonding solutions for industrial, medical, and retail applications; tags, labels and embellishments for apparel; and radio frequency identification (RFID) solutions serving retail apparel and other markets. Headquartered in Glendale, California, the company employs more than 30,000 employees in over 50 countries. Reported sales in 2019 were $7.1 billion.

As the world's largest UHF RFID partner, Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels brings advanced efficiency, reliability, and accuracy to our customers' global supply chains with our industry-leading solutions and technologies. When businesses choose to work with us, they get a partner with deep understanding of what it takes to make each and every RFID application successful, and access to experienced engineering and technical resources; advanced research and testing capabilities; and most importantly, our field-proven inlay products.

More information: rfid.averydennison.com

SOURCE VeChain

https://www.vechain.com

Originally posted here:

VeChain And Avery Dennison Intelligent Labels Showcase The Joint Blockchain Enabled Food Supply Chain Solution on IOTE 2020 - PRNewswire

Online Gambling Comparison: The United Kingdom vs New Jersey – Blog – The Island Now

Posted on by

Online gambling regulations can be a bit of minefield, particularly when it comes to understanding how they vary between different jurisdictions.

The United Kingdom has the most established regulatory framework in the world and is often used by other countries as the most effective template to follow.

While the UKs gambling regulations are pretty much set in stone, many other regions are still working towards a fully-formed structure.

That is certainly the case where the United States is concerned, with their online gambling sector suffering from a lack of consistency across the different regions.

While the likes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and others have embraced the relaxation of the laws pertaining to online gambling, many other states are still arguing about the finer details.

Read on as we take a closer look at the latest state-of-play for online gambling in the UK and New Jersey with a view to comparing how they differ.

Gambling Act Central to UK Framework

The gambling industry in the UK is regulated by the Gambling Act 2005, which sets out the legal framework for the entire sector.

This includes remote gambling such as sportsbooks and online slot games, land-based gaming machines, football pools and scratch cards.

The UK National Lottery, non-commercial gaming and betting, charitable gaming and prize gaming at travelling fairs are also covered by the act.

All gambling activity falls under the control of the UK Gambling Commission, which audits gaming companies operating in the jurisdiction and can issue hefty fines for non-compliance.

Offshore Taxation for UK Firms

Further regulations were introduced in the UK during 2014, with the Gambling (Licensing & Advertising) Bill introduced to address taxation issues.

This bill imposed a Point-of-Consumption Tax (POCT), which targeted UK gambling firms that located elsewhere to avoid paying higher taxes.

This included Gibraltar, Malta and the Isle of Man and was set at 15 percent to ensure that any company accepting UK gamblers were appropriately taxed.

The new regulations also had an impact on online sports betting taxes, which were raised from 6.75% to 15% under the same law.

Games of Chance Targeted for Higher Tax

The UK implemented an even higher rate of POCT in October 2019, with games of chance subjected to a rate of 21%.

Casino games such as slots, blackjack, poker, roulette and others were impacted by the tax, which is applied to the profits made by any casino site operating in the UK.

Players can expect to be impacted by this, with operators offering lower odds and Return to Player (RTP) rates in order to make up the shortfall.

Some firms have already decided to pull out of the UK market due to this decision, although the majority are unlikely to follow suit.

New Jersey Jumps on Gambling Bandwagon

New Jersey has been quick to cash-in on the online gambling boom and is now established as one of the biggest markets in the United States.

Online casinos were approved by the New Jersey Legislature back in February 2013 for an initial trial period of 10 years.

This was introduced with the proviso that players must be least 21 years old and need to be located within the state limits of New Jersey.

The state subsequently took advantage of the Supreme Courts decision in 2018 to allow online and in-person sports betting within its jurisdiction.

NJ Generates Impressive Growth

New Jerseys Department of Law & Public Safety: Division of Gaming Enforcement oversees the gambling industry in New Jersey.

Their 2019 reports show that the changes in the regulatory landscape have helped to generate huge annual revenues for operators in the state.

Total gaming revenue was $3.469 billion for 2019 compared to $2.903bn in the prior period, an increase of 19.5%, with much of that growth coming from online sites.

Tax rates range from eight to 15% across the different gambling sectors, while additional taxes are applied to casinos offering sports wagering services.

Online Gambling in the UK & NJ The Final Word

There are many similarities between the online gambling industries in the UK and New Jersey, with strong regulation perhaps being the most notable.

While each jurisdiction is at a different point in their journey within the sector, both are reaping the rewards from having a clearly defined legal framework to operate in.

The UK gambling scene remains an excellent example for other countries to follow and New Jersey is well on its way to achieving the same status in the US.

Read the rest here:

Online Gambling Comparison: The United Kingdom vs New Jersey - Blog - The Island Now

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

Posted on by

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism isnot an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too oftendefined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as a belief that there is no God. Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as there is no God betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read there are no gods.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, thennot collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many interfaith groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Some groups will use words like Agnostic, Humanist, Secular, Bright, Freethinker, or any number of other terms to self identify. Those words are perfectly fine as a self-identifier, but we strongly advocate using the word that people understand: Atheist. Dont use those other terms to disguise your atheism or to shy away from a word that some think has a negative connotation. We should be using the terminology that is most accurate and that answers the question that is actually being asked. We should use the term that binds all of us together.

If you call yourself a humanist, a freethinker, a bright, or even a cultural Catholic and lack belief in a god, you are an atheist. Dont shy away from the term. Embrace it.

Agnostic isnt just a weaker version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

In recent surveys, the Pew Research Center has grouped atheists, agnostics, and the unaffiliated into one category. The so-called Nones are the fastest growing religious demographic in the United States. Pewseparates out atheists from agnostics and the non-religious, but that is primarily a function of self-identification. Only about 5% of people call themselves atheists, but if you ask about belief in gods, 11% say they do not believe in gods. Those people are atheists, whether they choose to use the word or not.

A recent survey fromUniversity of Kentucky psychologists Will Gervais and Maxine Najle found that as many as 26% of Americans may be atheists. This study was designed to overcome the stigma associated with atheism and the potential for closeted atheists to abstain from outing themselves even when speaking anonymously to pollsters. The full study is awaiting publication inSocial Psychological and Personality Sciencejournal but a pre-print version is available here.

Even more people say that their definition of god is simply a unifying force between all people. Or that they arent sure what they believe.If you lack an active belief in gods, you are an atheist.

Being an atheist doesnt mean youre sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced.

Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesnt mean youre not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and dont believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting.

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation.

We have more than 170 affiliates and local partners nationwide. If you are looking for a community, we strongly recommend reaching out to an affiliate in your area.

Continue reading here:

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to …

Posted on by

Atheism as rejection of religious beliefs

A central, common core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the affirmation of the reality of one, and only one, God. Adherents of these faiths believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing and who has absolute sovereignty over all his creation; this includes, of course, human beingswho are not only utterly dependent on this creative power but also sinful and who, or so the faithful must believe, can only make adequate sense of their lives by accepting, without question, Gods ordinances for them. The varieties of atheism are numerous, but all atheists reject such a set of beliefs.

Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in spiritual beings, and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief.

It is necessary, however, if a tolerably adequate understanding of atheism is to be achieved, to give a reading to rejection of religious belief and to come to realize how the characterization of atheism as the denial of God or the gods is inadequate.

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways. First, not all theologians who regard themselves as defenders of the Christian faith or of Judaism or Islam regard themselves as defenders of theism. The influential 20th-century Protestant theologian Paul Tillich, for example, regards the God of theism as an idol and refuses to construe God as a being, even a supreme being, among beings or as an infinite being above finite beings. God, for him, is being-itself, the ground of being and meaning. The particulars of Tillichs view are in certain ways idiosyncratic, as well as being obscure and problematic, but they have been influential; and his rejection of theism, while retaining a belief in God, is not eccentric in contemporary theology, though it may very well affront the plain believer.

Second, and more important, it is not the case that all theists seek to demonstrate or even in any way rationally to establish the existence of God. Many theists regard such a demonstration as impossible, and fideistic believers (e.g., Johann Hamann and Sren Kierkegaard) regard such a demonstration, even if it were possible, as undesirable, for in their view it would undermine faith. If it could be proved, or known for certain, that God exists, people would not be in a position to accept him as their sovereign Lord humbly on faith with all the risks that entails. There are theologians who have argued that for genuine faith to be possible God must necessarily be a hidden God, the mysterious ultimate reality, whose existence and authority must be accepted simply on faith. This fideistic view has not, of course, gone without challenge from inside the major faiths, but it is of sufficient importance to make the above characterization of atheism inadequate.

Finally, and most important, not all denials of God are denials of his existence. Believers sometimes deny God while not being at all in a state of doubt that God exists. They either willfully reject what they take to be his authority by not acting in accordance with what they take to be his will, or else they simply live their lives as if God did not exist. In this important way they deny him. Such deniers are not atheists (unless we wish, misleadingly, to call them practical atheists). They are not even agnostics. They do not question that God exists; they deny him in other ways. An atheist denies the existence of God. As it is frequently said, atheists believe that it is false that God exists, or that Gods existence is a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability.

Yet it remains the case that such a characterization of atheism is inadequate in other ways. For one it is too narrow. There are atheists who believe that the very concept of God, at least in developed and less anthropomorphic forms of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, is so incoherent that certain central religious claims, such as God is my creator to whom everything is owed, are not genuine truth-claims; i.e., the claims could not be either true or false. Believers hold that such religious propositions are true, some atheists believe that they are false, and there are agnostics who cannot make up their minds whether to believe that they are true or false. (Agnostics think that the propositions are one or the other but believe that it is not possible to determine which.) But all three are mistaken, some atheists argue, for such putative truth-claims are not sufficiently intelligible to be genuine truth-claims that are either true or false. In reality there is nothing in them to be believed or disbelieved, though there is for the believer the powerful and humanly comforting illusion that there is. Such an atheism, it should be added, rooted for some conceptions of God in considerations about intelligibility and what it makes sense to say, has been strongly resisted by some pragmatists and logical empiricists.

While the above considerations about atheism and intelligibility show the second characterization of atheism to be too narrow, it is also the case that this characterization is in a way too broad. For there are fideistic believers, who quite unequivocally believe that when looked at objectively the proposition that God exists has a very low probability weight. They believe in God not because it is probable that he existsthey think it more probable that he does notbut because belief is thought by them to be necessary to make sense of human life. The second characterization of atheism does not distinguish a fideistic believer (a Blaise Pascal or a Soren Kierkegaard) or an agnostic (a T.H. Huxley or a Sir Leslie Stephen) from an atheist such as Baron dHolbach. All believe that there is a God and God protects humankind, however emotionally important they may be, are speculative hypotheses of an extremely low order of probability. But this, since it does not distinguish believers from nonbelievers and does not distinguish agnostics from atheists, cannot be an adequate characterization of atheism.

It may be retorted that to avoid apriorism and dogmatic atheism the existence of God should be regarded as a hypothesis. There are no ontological (purely a priori) proofs or disproofs of Gods existence. It is not reasonable to rule in advance that it makes no sense to say that God exists. What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. If atheism is justified, the atheist will have shown that in fact there is no adequate evidence for the belief that God exists, but it should not be part of his task to try to show that there could not be any evidence for the existence of God. If the atheist could somehow survive the death of his present body (assuming that such talk makes sense) and come, much to his surprise, to stand in the presence of God, his answer should be, Oh! Lord, you didnt give me enough evidence! He would have been mistaken, and realize that he had been mistaken, in his judgment that God did not exist. Still, he would not have been unjustified, in the light of the evidence available to him during his earthly life, in believing as he did. Not having any such postmortem experiences of the presence of God (assuming that he could have them), what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. Knowing with certainty is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.

An atheist who argues in this manner may also make a distinctive burden-of-proof argument. Given that God (if there is one) is by definition a very recherch realitya reality that must be (for there to be such a reality) transcendent to the worldthe burden of proof is not on the atheist to give grounds for believing that there is no reality of that order. Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to give some evidence for Gods existencei.e., that there is such a reality. Given what God must be, if there is a God, the theist needs to present the evidence, for such a very strange reality. He needs to show that there is more in the world than is disclosed by common experience. The empirical method, and the empirical method alone, such an atheist asserts, affords a reliable method for establishing what is in fact the case. To the claim of the theist that there are in addition to varieties of empirical facts spiritual facts or transcendent facts, such as it being the case that there is a supernatural, self-existent, eternal power, the atheist can assert that such facts have not been shown.

It will, however, be argued by such atheists, against what they take to be dogmatic aprioristic atheists, that the atheist should be a fallibilist and remain open-minded about what the future may bring. There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist.

Continue reading here:

atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to ...

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster

Posted on by

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

These example sentences are selected automatically from various online news sources to reflect current usage of the word 'atheism.' Views expressed in the examples do not represent the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback.

1546, in the meaning defined at sense 2

Middle French athisme, from athe atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Cite this Entry

Atheism. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism. Accessed 10 Aug. 2020.

Comments on atheism

What made you want to look up atheism? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).

Read this article:

Atheism | Definition of Atheism by Merriam-Webster

Atheism is incompatible with the scientific method, according to this Templeton Prize-winning physicist – Explica

Posted on by

Marcelo gleiser has become the first Latin American to win the Templeton Prize, which is awarded for contribution to the affirmation of the spiritual dimension of life.

In an interview about the award, this Dartmouth College physics professor argued that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.

Literally, Gleiser argued this way:

I believe that atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It is a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in unbelief. I dont believe, although I have no evidence for or against, I just dont believe. Point. It is a statement. But in science we dont really make statements. We say, Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or in favor of that. And then an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence of God or any kind of god (Which god in the first place? The Maori gods, or the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim god? Which god is that?). On the other hand, an agnostic would not recognize any right to make a final statement about something he does not know.

Gleiser reminds us that we are on an island of knowledge in the middle of an ocean of the unknown. As knowledge advances, we become more aware of what we do not know.

Given all the times scientists have said something was already safe and later found out it was not, it could well turn out that the statement there is no God could end up being similar to saying, No balloon or plane will be able to fly into the future a century ago. Similarly, the skepticism of the claim X does not exist is also important in science since X could one day appear.

Gleiser is right. But it does because it is defining skepticism and, by extension, atheism in a very restricted way.. Surely there are atheists and skeptics who reason that way, but atheism is also defined as I dont think about this hypothesis because it doesnt give me anything to solve the problems I face. That is to say, that one is an atheist with respect to God as he does not believe either that he lives on a television set and is continuously being deceived, or that he lives in a dream, or that a magician has bewitched him and he does not know anything about the real world, or that even everything that appears in the cinema is true but the government hides it.

To be agnostic would be to affirm that everything is possible. And that is obvious. Everything is possible. But admitting that everything is possible is not the same as introducing all the possibilities (each and every one of them, to infinity) when reflecting on how the world works. Simply, trying to climb the mountain of knowledge step by step, proposing humble hypotheses that we can progressively test. To propose the hypothesis of God is simply to set ourselves at the top, at the highest level of knowledge possible, and to propose a total explanation of everything. So, is there a greater show of daring and ineffectiveness than proposing a hypothesis that explains everything?

Or put another way: atheists are also agnostics: of course they do not know with absolute certainty that God does not exist, as they do not know anything absolutely. What atheism proposes is that it is a too vague and daring hypothesis, as well as impractical, wondering if God exists, if there are four thousand parallel dimensions, or if we are actually in an alien circus entertaining the masses without being aware of it.

All of this is possible, but do we waste time deciding it? No. First, many other hypotheses much more plausible and, above all, affordable for our narrow space of knowledge must be falsified.

Bertrand Russell He explained it very well with his famous kettle. While it remains true that humility can be a good thing, that we do not know what we do not know, and that it is impossible to prove the negative claim that God does not exist, Bertrand Russell reminds us that we can be rational in saying that we do not believe in something of which we cannot disprove the existence:

I must call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I dont think the existence of the Christian God is more likely than the existence of the gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another example: no one can prove that there is no porcelain kettle rotating in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars, but no one believes that this is likely enough to be taken into account in practice. I believe that the Christian God is equally unlikely.

What Russell is saying is that just because a point that is made without evidence cannot be disproved does not mean that it is unreasonable to think that it is not true. Furthermore, Russell places the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim (God / the kettle exists) and not on the person who questions that claim.

The astronomer Carl sagan He made a similar argument about the existence of a dragon in his garage in his book The World and Its Demons:

Suppose I seriously make such a claim to you. You will surely want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been countless dragon stories throughout the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! Show me, you say. I take you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle, but no dragon. Where is the dragon? You ask. Oh, shes here, I reply, waving vaguely. I forgot to mention that she is an invisible dragon. You propose to spread flour on the garage floor to capture the dragons tracks. Good idea, I say, but this dragon floats in the air. Next, you will use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. Good idea, but invisible fire has no heat either. You will spray paint the dragon and make it visible. Good idea, but its a disembodied dragon and the paint doesnt stick. And so. I counter every physical test you come up with with a special explanation why it wont work.

What is the difference between a floating, disembodied, invisible fire-breathing dragon with no heat and no dragon? If there is no way to refute my argument, no conceivable experiment counting against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? The inability to invalidate a hypothesis is not at all the same as proving it as true. Claims that cannot be proven, claims immune to refutation are truly useless, whatever their value in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder.

Sagan, as Russell, holds that the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. Since there is no evidence of the dragon, it is unscientific to say that one does not believe the dragon is there.

Is it going too far to say that God does not exist? That depends on where you want to place the burden of proof and how much evidence (or lack thereof) is needed to make such a claim. Given that we are talking about God (the most mind-blowing supernatural thing we have on record), maybe we should ask for millions and millions of proofs and quintals of evidence at the very least. More than anything else weve been able to discover in all of human history. Or put another way: even laureate physicists should study a little more epistemology.

Corollary proposed in the following video: do not believe in anything that is not proven, and propose hypotheses that can be falsified (God is not one of them because we do not even know what it is, it is only a human word to refer to the unknowable):

Here is the original post:

Atheism is incompatible with the scientific method, according to this Templeton Prize-winning physicist - Explica

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Who Made the Talmud More Accessible, Dies at 83 – The New York Times

Posted on by

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a towering scholar of the bedrock Jewish texts who spent four and a half decades writing a 45-volume translation of the Babylonian Talmud and made it accessible to hundreds of thousands of readers, died on Friday in Jerusalem. He was 83.

Shaarei Zedek Medical Center confirmed his death. A publicist for the Steinsaltz Center for Jewish Knowledge said he had had acute pneumonia.

For centuries, the study of Talmud in 2,711 double-sided pages, the record of rabbinical debates on the laws and ethics of Judaism heard in the academies of Babylonia (modern-day Iraq) between A.D. 200 and 500 was confined mostly to yeshivas. There, students, young and old, hunched over dog-eared volumes of Talmud, sometimes without teachers, would teach one another the meanings of what they were reading, largely in Aramaic, and argue the implications.

Rabbi Steinsaltzs achievement was to take the Talmud out of this relatively exclusive sphere and, with a Hebrew translation, allow ordinary Jews, taking the Long Island Rail Road to work or gathering in a cafe in Tel Aviv, to study those texts on their own. The Hebrew edition has been translated by publishers into English, French, Russian and Spanish.

Rabbi Steinsaltz, a rumpled, bespectacled figure with an unruly white beard, completed the entire Talmud in 2010, often working 16 hours a day.

He brought the Talmud into the 20th century, said Samuel Heilman, distinguished professor of sociology at Queens College specializing in Orthodox Judaism.

Rabbi Steinsaltz embarked on his lifes great work in 1965, when he was 27. His translation encompassed the ancient commentaries along the margins in the Talmud, written by revered figures like the medieval scholar Rashi.

He also provided his own commentaries on the often labyrinthine text, added biographies of the various rabbinical commentators and offered explanations of Talmudic concepts. His work, he said, was intended to accommodate even beginners with the lowest level of knowledge.

My idea was that Im trying to substitute a book for a living teacher, he said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times.

President Reuven Rivlin of Israel called Rabbi Steinsaltz a modern-day Rashi and a man of great spiritual courage, deep knowledge and profound thought who brought the Talmud to Am Yisrael the Jewish people in clear and accessible Hebrew and English.

Random House, its American publisher, translated and published 22 English volumes then stopped. Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. has since 2009 been publishing the Steinsaltz English translations and completed the entire 45-volume set.

The Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud was not the first English translation. Soncino Press, a venerable British firm, completed a 30-volume translation in 1952, but it did not have the line-by-line commentary that can sustain self-study.

In 2005, Art Scroll/Mesorah Publications of Brooklyn brought out a 73-volume edition that has become the most popular version for many Orthodox Jews, and for tens of thousands of others who participate in Daf Yomi, the seven-and-a-half-year challenge to complete a study of the entire Talmud by analyzing a page a day.

Rabbi Steinsaltz was a disciple of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, and his Chabad-Lubavitch school of Judaism, which embraces nonobservant Jews and proselytizes among them. That sometimes put Rabbi Steinsaltz at odds with more hard-line Orthodox rabbis, including prominent ones, who treated him as a heretic and told their followers to spurn his works.

Rabbi Steinsaltz, a prolific and wide-ranging writer and a sharp observer of humanity, wrote more than 60 books on philosophy, mysticism, theology and even zoology. His study of kabbalah, The Thirteen Petalled Rose, is considered a classic and has been translated into eight languages.

He also translated the Jerusalem Talmud, the less comprehensive and less studied record of legal debates by rabbis in Jerusalem between A.D. 350 and 400 A.D.

Invited to impart some spiritual guidance to the staff of a magazine, The Jerusalem Report, in the early 1990s, Rabbi Steinsaltz gave lessons on lashon hara, the Jewish injunction against speaking evil. He taught that while most parts of the human body had their limits arms could carry only so much weight, legs could run only so fast the tongue could do infinite harm and therefore was set in a cagelike jaw as a reminder to guard it.

Surprisingly, he was raised in a secular household and was drawn to observant Judaism only as a teenager, when he studied with a Lubavitch rabbi.

By nature I am a skeptical person, he said in an interview with The Times a decade ago, and people with a lot of skepticism start to question atheism.

Rabbi Steinsaltz who adopted the additional surname Even-Israel (Rock of Israel) at Rabbi Schneersons urging that he take a Hebrew name was born on July 11, 1937, in Jerusalem in what was then the British mandate of Palestine. His parents, Avraham and Leah (Krokovitz) Steinsaltz, were active in a socialist group, and his father went to Spain in 1936 to help defend the leftist Republican government against Nationalist rebels led by Gen. Francisco Franco.

He attended Hebrew University, where he studied chemistry, mathematics and physics, while also undergoing rabbinical studies at a yeshiva in the Israeli city of Lod. At age 24 he became a school principal; he went on to found several experimental schools.

He lived most of his life with his family in Jerusalem. He is survived by his wife, Sarah; his sons Menachem and Amechaye; a daughter, Esther Sheleg; and 18 grandchildren.

In 1965, Rabbi Steinsaltz founded the Israel Institute for Talmudic Publications and began his monumental work of interpreting the Talmud for the masses. Since he was running schools at the time, he called the Talmud translation his hobby, but it became his crowning achievement. He told the Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in 2009 that he hadnt fully considered the immensity of the work that would be required.

Sometimes when a person knows too much, it causes him to do nothing, he said. It seems its better sometimes for a man, as for humanity, not to know too much about the difficulties and believe more in the possibilities.

More:

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Who Made the Talmud More Accessible, Dies at 83 - The New York Times

Say Goodbye to IITs, IIMs Et Al? NEP 2020 Will Convert Indias Top Institutions Into JNU Copies – Swarajya

Posted on by

If the vision outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 for higher education institutions is realised, it will not only spell disaster for the country but will be Prime Minister Narendra Modis worst legacy. (I am not using these words lightly but with full responsibility.)

This is sad because in the last five years, Modi government has taken numerous steps to improve higher education such as providing unprecedented levels of academic and financial autonomy to Indian Institutes of Management, graded autonomy to institutions of higher learning based on their performance, freeing top 20 institutions 10 public and 10 private the so-called Institutions of Eminence from excess regulatory load, launching Massive Open Online Courses (MOCCs) under SWAYAM initiative where teachers of top institutions provide free courses, opening seven new IIMs, six new IITs, establishing a agency to give financial support to institutions, setting up a new regulatory council, the National Testing Agency and so on.

The government is also trying to achieve some level of internationalisation of its university spaces - by attracting foreign teachers and foreign students. The Study in India programme launched in 2018, for instance, envisions to increase foreign student strength in India to over two lakh by 2023 from present 40,000.

But if NEP 2020 is implemented, all this good work wont matter.

Most dangerous idea

The NEP states that, By 2040, all higher education institutions (HEIs) shall aim to become multidisciplinaryinstitutions and shall aim to have larger student enrolments preferably in thousands, for optimal use of infrastructure and resources, and for the creation of vibrant multidisciplinary communities. This - transforming all higher education institutions into large multidisciplinary universities - is the highest recommendation of the NEP.

Even engineering institutions, such as IITs, will move towards more holistic and multidisciplinary education with more arts and humanities, the NEP states.

NEP justifies this approach in two ways:

First, it eludes to ancient Indian universities such as Takshashila, Nalanda et al which were multidisciplinary institutions in nature. This notion of a knowledge of manyarts or what in modern times is often called the liberal arts (i.e., a liberal notion of the arts) must be brought back to Indian education, as it is exactly the kind of education that will be required for the 21st century, the NEP reasons.

Second, NEP says that as per assessments of educational approaches in undergraduate education, mixing arts and humanities with Science, Technology, Engineering, Management (STEP) courses leads to positive learning outcomes, including increased creativity and innovation, critical thinking and higher-order thinking capacities, problem-solving abilities, teamwork, communication skills, more in-depth learning and mastery of curricula across fields, increases in social and moral awareness, etc., besides general engagement and enjoyment of learning, research.

Nalanda and Takshashila were not successful because they were multidisciplinary in nature. Moreover, touting liberal arts part education as something that is required in the 21st century is a liberal opinion, not a fact.

And it is bizarre to think that learning (say) sociology along with (say) coding will improve learning outcomes, critical thinking and accrue to the students other assorted great benefits the NEP has listed out. This reasoning is so poor that it doesnt merit discussion but contempt.

In fact, injection of liberal arts into anything and everay thing, which seems to be the overarching focus of NEP 2020, will not lead to establishment of even a single Nalanda but will certainly help create thousands of JNUs throughout the country.

After independence, the Indian State took a different approach of setting up higher education institutions than the western world. It established institutions focussing on different areas: IITs are for engineering, IIMs for management, IISc for Sciences, NLUs for Law, Jawaharlal Nehru University focussing on liberal arts and so on.

These were supposed to be institutes for specific purposes rather than universities which mean everything for everyone. In hindsight, this has proved to be a boon for the country, especially in 2020 when we are witnessing some of the finest education institutions in the West fall victim to alt-left politics, activism and values thanks to the liberal arts education chicken finally coming home to roost.

We are seeing the same in India - in places like JNU, Jadavpur university, Jamia Milia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University, etc. But the reason why we are facing only scores of alt-left mutinies and not thousands is precisely because of our unique higher education setup which has kept STEM institutions (the places of excellence) segregated from liberal arts ones thereby providing the much-needed inoculation against bad ideas.

Now, NEP wants India to ape the West and inject arts and humanities in IITs, IIMs, IIScs, etc. We will end up with little JNUs in these top-quality institutes known for their academic excellence.

Of course, it is no ones case that IITs, IIMs et al shouldnt come up with courses which blend their specialism with some social sciences. For example, IIIT-Delhi started a B.Tech course in 2017 which would be a blend of Computer Science and Social Sciences. The idea is to producesocial scientists who can understand and use computational technologies.

This is a unique, rational and better approach for Indian institutes like IITs, IIMs to take based on the institutions needs rather than the one size fits all approach advocated by the NEP.

Second worst idea

On top of making every HEI a multidisciplinary one, the NEP envisions that all HEIs will gradually move towards full autonomy - academic and administrative. Additionally, the autonomy of public institutions will be backed by adequate public financial support and stability. Now, imagine a thousand JNUs, scores of them funded by public monies, enjoying unprecedented autonomy in selecting faculties, students, management, courses and curriculum, etc.

Giving autonomy to IITs, IIMs, IISc, etc is great because more freedom leads to more excellence as there are no political agendas to push through funding certain areas and the research is chiefly driven by market needs and aspirations of brilliant minds studying there. But autonomy in liberal arts hijacked by one ideology (which is inevitable) is a recipe for disaster.

The narratives and politics will drive the research and not the other way round. For those who question the inevitability of left controlling all higher education institutions should only look at the United States where conservatives dont lack resources or the numbers but have never been able to enjoy any kind of influence in the universities. The situation of the so-called right in India (or whatever other name Dharmic side wants to use) is many times worse.

Another bad idea

Just as the NEP talks about opening schools in areas with high populations of SCs/STs/minorities, it has similar plans for higher education as well. Such ghettoisation will lead to creation of caste/religion based institutions and will be detrimental to national unity and integrity. But unlike the schools, the NEP doesnt mention that there should be focus on hiring faculties from certain communities. This is a relief.

However, it directs that all governments and HEIs will have to

a) Provide more financial assistance and scholarships to socio-economically disadvantaged students

b) Make admissions processes more inclusive

c) Make curriculum more inclusive

It is yet to be seen how the term inclusive is defined but prima facie this opens a can of worms. The NEP is handing over a big Social Justice tool in the hands of the government which can be wielded in a very harmful manner. It is one thing for the government to directs public funded institutions to do something but entirely different to direct private ones to implement its agenda. It also doesnt gel well with its vision of autonomy for these institutions.

Is there anything positive for higher education in NEP?

Of course, there is.

NEP bats for giving institutions and faculty autonomy to innovate on matters of curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment within a broad framework of higher education qualifications. This is great idea in principle.

Mainstreaming of vocational training and education into credible higher education institutions is a much needed move. Providing vocational courses through HEIs is a smart move that will not only greatly improve the quality of skilling courses but also encourage more people to take them up. Also, HEIs are in much better position to forge partnerships with industry and design relevant courses based on skills which are in demand in the market.

Breaking up of 3/4 year duration degrees into 1/2 year certificate/diploma courses is also a great improvement. Students will be able to exit from 3-4 year duration bachelors degree courses after one or two years, with a diploma or certificate in a domain, with an option to continue and finish their degree later. Students couldnt have asked for a better arrangement in this age of lifelong learning. Since academic credits will be digitally scores under Academic Bank of Credits, students will be able to collect these from different HEIs as well. This combined with vocational courses in HEIs are the top two best recommendations in the NEP.

Setting up of National Research Foundation is a welcome move though its effectiveness is in questions given that the implementation will be in hands of just another government department.

Regulatory environment may see an improvement as the NEP promises to give importance to self disclosure over inspector raj and also intends to make it easier for HEIs to set shop.

However, the damage potential of the bad idea of converting every HEI into a multidisciplinary institution cant be underestimated. Good ideas such as vocational training, institutional autonomy or flexibility of curriculum wont matter much if liberal arts education get a foothold in every institution.

There is not much to be gained from vocational course if you are brainwashed enough to believe that internship is child labour (as the JNU Student Union President recently called it).

If someone has put a time bomb in the basement of the house, it doesnt matter if you are hanging nice paintings on the first floor.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take a really hard look and reverse his governments stance before it is too late. Otherwise, three decades down the line, people will remember the destruction of Indias premier education institutions via this NEP as his worst legacy.

The rest is here:

Say Goodbye to IITs, IIMs Et Al? NEP 2020 Will Convert Indias Top Institutions Into JNU Copies - Swarajya

ALCC Program Awards Computing Time on ALCF’s Theta Supercomputer to 24 projects – HPCwire

Posted on by

Aug. 6, 2020 The U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC) has awarded 24 projects a total of 5.74 million node hours at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF) to pursue challenging, high-risk, high-payoff simulations.

Each year, the ASCR program, which manages some of the worlds most powerful supercomputing facilities, selects ALCC projects in areas that aim to further DOE mission science and broaden the community of researchers capable of using leadership computing resources.

TheALCC programallocates computational resources at ASCRs supercomputing facilities to research scientists in industry, academia, and national laboratories. In addition to the ALCF, ASCRs supercomputing facilities include the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The ALCF, OLCF, and NERSC are DOE Office of Science User Facilities.

The 24 projects awarded time on the ALCFs Theta supercomputer are listed below. Some projects received additional computing time at OLCF and/or NERSC (see the full list of awardshere). The one-year awards began on July 1.

About The Argonne Leadership Computing Facility

The Argonne Leadership Computing Facilityprovides supercomputing capabilities to the scientific and engineering community to advance fundamental discovery and understanding in a broad range of disciplines. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energys (DOEs) Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, theALCFis one of twoDOELeadership Computing Facilities in the nation dedicated to open science.

About the Argonne National Laboratory

Argonne National Laboratoryseeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nations first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance Americas scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed byUChicago Argonne, LLCfor theU.S. Department of Energys Office of Science.

About The U.S. Department of Energys Office of Science

The U.S. Department of Energys Office of Scienceis the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visithttps://energy.gov/science

Source: Nils Heinonen, Argonne Leadership Computing Facility

See the rest here:

ALCC Program Awards Computing Time on ALCF's Theta Supercomputer to 24 projects - HPCwire

From WarGames to Terms of Service: How the Supreme Courts Review of Computer Fraud Abuse Act Will Impact Your Trade Secrets – JD Supra

Posted on by

Introduction

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is the embodiment of Congresss first attempt to draft laws criminalizing computer hacking. It is rumored that the Act was influenced by the 1983 movie WarGames[1], in which a teenager unintentionally starts a countdown to World War III when he hacks into a military supercomputer.

The law as originally drafted was aimed at hackers who use computers to gain unauthorized access to government computers. But Congress has amended it numerous times over the years, drastically expanding it to cover unauthorized access of any computer used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, as well as a variety of other illicit computer activities such as committing fraud using a computer, trafficking in passwords, and damaging computer systems such as through a virus.

The CFAA also provides a private right of action allowing compensation and injunctive relief for anyone harmed by a violation of the law. It has proved very useful in civil and criminal cases of trade secret misappropriation where the trade secret information was obtained by accessing a computer without authorization or exceed[ing] authorized access. It is this language that provides the statute with so much flexibility to be used in trade secret cases; and which the Supreme Court has decided to take a closer look at in its next term.

Opponents have long argued that the without authorization or exceeds authorized access language is so unreasonably broad that it criminalizes everyday, insignificant online acts such as passwordsharing and violations of websites Terms of Service. Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, has called it the worst law in technology.[2] While it is true that CFAA violations have been, at times, over-aggressively charged, the Supreme Courts decision could drastically curtail how the CFAA can be used to curb trade secret misappropriation.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

As computer technology has proliferated and become more powerful over the years, Congress has expanded the CFAAboth in terms of its scope and its penaltiesnumerous times since its enactment. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which included the first federal computer crime statute, later codified at 18 U.S.C. 1030, even before the more recognizable form of the modern Internet, i.e., the World Wide Web, was invented.[3] This original bill was in response to a growing problem in counterfeit credit cards and unauthorized use of account numbers or access codes to banking system accounts. H.R. Rep. No. 98-894, at 4 (1984). Congress recognized that the main issue underlying counterfeit credit cards was the potential for fraudulent use of ever-expanding and rapidly-changing computer technology. Id. The purpose of the statute was to deter the activities of so-called hackers who were accessing both private and public computer systems. Id. at 10. In fact, the original bill characterized the 1983 science fiction film WarGames[4] as a realistic representation of the automatic dialing and access capabilities of the personal computer. Id.

Two years later, Congress significantly expanded the computer crime statute, and it became known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Congress has further amended the statute over the years to expand the scope of proscribed violations and to provide a civil cause of action for private parties to obtain compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and/or other equitable relief. For example, in the most recent expansion of the CFAA, in 2008, Congress (1) broadened the definition of protected computers to include those used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States, which includes servers and other devices connected to the Internet; (2) criminalized threats to steal data on a victims computer, publicly disclose stolen data, or not repair damage already caused to the computer; (3) added conspiracy as an offense; and (4) allowed for civil and criminal forfeiture of real or personal property used in or derived from CFAA violations.

The CFAA covers a broad range of unlawful computer access and, in relevant part, provides: [w]hoever . . . intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer, commits a federal crime and may face civil liability. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2), (c), (g). The phrase without authorization is not defined in the statute, but the phrase exceeds authorized access, is defined as: to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter. Id. 1030(e)(6).

A computer can be any electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. Id. 1030(e)(1). Courts across the country have interpreted computer extremely broadly to include cell phones, Internet-connected devices, cell towers, and stations that transmit wireless signals. E.g., United States v. Kramer, 631 F.3d 900, 902-03 (8th Cir. 2011) (basic cellular phone without Internet connection); United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508, 513 (2d Cir. 2015) (restricted databases); United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449, 457-58 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (Internet website); United States v. Mitra, 405 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 2005) (computer-based radio system); United States v. Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024, 1050 (9th Cir. 2016) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting) (This means that nearly all desktops, laptops, servers, smart-phones, as well as any iPad, Kindle, Nook, X-box, Blu-Ray player or any other Internet-enabled device, including even some thermostats qualify as protected. (some internal quotations omitted)). A protected computer is any computer that is used in or affect[s] interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States. 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)(B). Again, courts have construed this term very broadly to include any computer connected to the Internet. E.g., United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 859 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); United States v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2007).

Violations of the CFAA can result in both criminal and civil liability. A criminal conviction under the exceeds authorized access provision is typically a fine or a misdemeanor for a first offense, but can be a felony punishable by fines and imprisonment of up to five years in certain situations, such as where the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain and the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(A), (B). The CFAA also authorizes civil suits for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief by parties who show, among other things, that a violation of the statute caused them to suffer[ ] damage or loss under certain circumstances. Id. 1030(g).

Using the CFAA in Trade Secret Cases

A CFAA claim can be a nice complement to a trade secret misappropriation claim if the act of misappropriation included taking information from a computer system. One key advantage that the CFAA adds to a trade secret misappropriation case is that it is not subject to some of the more restrictive requirements of federal and state trade secret laws. To assert a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836, et seq., the claimant must (among other things): (1)specifically identify the trade secret that was misappropriated; (2) prove that the claimant took reasonable measures to keep the information secret; and (3) prove that the information derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable. See 18 U.S.C. 1839(3).

These requirements can present traps for the unwary, and potential defenses for a defendant. For example, a defendant accused of trade secret misappropriation will often put the plaintiff through its paces to specifically identify the trade secrets that were allegedly misappropriated because failure to do so to the courts satisfaction can lead to an early dismissal. E.g., S & P Fin. Advisors v. Kreeyaa LLC, No. 16-CV-03103-SK, 2016 WL 11020958, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) (dismissing for failure to state a claim for violation of the DTSA where plaintiff failed to sufficiently state what information defendants allegedly misappropriated and how that information constitutes a trade secret).

Similarly, whether the information was protected by reasonable measures can become a litigation within the litigation. To establish this requirement, the plaintiff typically must spell-out all of its security measures, supply evidence of the same, and provide one or more witnesses to testify to the extent and effectiveness of the security measures. Failure to adequately establish reasonable measure has been the downfall of many trade secret claims. E.g., Govt Employees Ins. Co. v. Nealey, 262 F. Supp. 3d 153, 167-172 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (dismissing plaintiffs DTSA claim for failure to state a claim when it included much of the same information it claimed to be a trade secret in a publicly filed affidavit).

Lastly, the requirement to establish that the information derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable can also be a significant point of contention. Establishing this prong often requires the use of a damages expert and the costly expert discovery that goes along with that. And as with the other requirements of a DTSA claim, failure to establish it adequately can doom the claim. E.g., ATS Grp., LLC v. Legacy Tank & Indus. Servs. LLC, 407 F. Supp. 3d 1186, 1200 (W.D. Okla. 2019) (finding plaintiff failed to state a claim that the information designated as trade secrets derived independent value from remaining confidential when the complaint only recited language from DTSA without alleging, for example, that the secrecy of the information provided it with a competitive advantage).

The elements of a CFAA claim in a civil actiongenerally, intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization or exceeding authorization and causing at least $5,000 in losses[5]are, in comparison, less burdensome to establish and less perilous for the claimant. Access is typically established through computer logs or forensic analysis. The level of authorization the defendant had is usually easily established from company records and/or a managers testimony, and the requisite damages of $5,000 is so low that it is easily met in the vast majority of cases. Lastly, the element of intent can be the most contentious, but as with any intent requirement, it can be established through circumstantial evidence. E.g. Fidlar Techs. v. LPS Real Estate Data Sols., Inc., 810 F.3d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir. 2016) (Because direct evidence of intent is often unavailable, intent to defraud [under the CFAA] may be established by circumstantial evidence and by inferences drawn from examining the scheme itself which demonstrate that the scheme was reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Often, the mere fact that the defendant bypassed controls and security messages on the computer is sufficient to establish intent. E.g. Tyan, Inc. v. Garcia, No. CV-15-05443-MWF (JPRx), 2017 WL 1658811, at *14, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66805 at *40-41 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2017) (finding defendant had intent to defraud when he accessed files with a username and password he was not authorized to use).

The Controversy Surrounding the CFAA

Over the years, opponents of the CFAA have argued that it is so unreasonably broad that it effectively criminalizes everyday computer behavior:

Every day, millions of ordinary citizens across the country use computers for work and for personal matters. United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 862-63 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Accessing information on those computers is virtually always subject to conditions imposed by employers policies, websites terms of service, and other third-party restrictions. If, as some circuits hold, the CFAA effectively incorporates all of these limitations, then any trivial breach of such a conditionfrom checking sports scores at work to inflating ones height on a dating websiteis a federal crime.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, at 2.

The most infamous example of overcharging the CFAA is the tragic case of Aaron Swartz. Swartzan open-Internet activistconnected a computer to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) network in a wiring closet and downloaded 4.8 million academic journal articles from the subscription database, JSTOR, which he planned to release for free to the public. Federal prosecutors charged him with multiple counts of wire fraud and violations of the CFAA, sufficient to carry a maximum penalty of $1 million in fines and 35 years in prison. United States v. Swartz, No. 11-1-260-NMG, Dkt. No. 2 (D. Mass, July 14, 2011); see also id. at Dkt. No. 53. The prosecutors offered Swartz a plea bargain under which he would serve six months in prison, and Swartz countered the plea offer. But the prosecutors rejected the counteroffer and, two days later, Swartz hanged himself in his Brooklyn apartment.[6]

In 2014, partly in response to public pressure from the Swartz case and in an attempt to provide some certainty to its prosecution of CFAA offenses, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum outlining its charging policy for CFAA violations. Under the new policy, the DOJ explained:

When prosecuting an exceed-authorized-access violation, the attorney for the government must be prepared to prove that the defendant knowingly violated restriction on his authority to obtain or alter information stored on a computer, and not merely that the defendant subsequently misused information or services that he was authorized to obtain from the computer at the time he obtained it.

Department of Justices Intake and Charging Policy for Computer Crime Matters (Charging Policy), Memorandum from U.S. Atty Gen. to U.S. Attys and Asst. Atty Gens. for the Crim. and Natl Sec. Divs. at 4 (Sept. 11, 2014) (available at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips/file/904941/download). Perhaps unsurprisingly, opponents of the law were not sufficiently comforted by prosecutorial promises to not overcharge CFAA claims.

The Supreme Court Is Expected to Clarify What Actions Constitute Violations of the CFAA Uniformly Across the Country

Nathan Van Buren was a police sergeant in Cumming, Georgia. As a law enforcement officer, Van Buren was authorized to access the Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) database, which contains license plate and vehicle registration information, for law-enforcement purposes. An acquaintance, Andrew Albo, gave Van Buren $6,000 to run a search of the GCIC to determine whether a dancer at a local strip club was an undercover police officer. Van Buren complied and was arrested by the FBI the next day. It turned out, Albo was cooperating with the FBI and his request to Van Buren was a ruse invented by the FBI to see if Van Buren would bite.

Following a trial, Van Buren was convicted under the CFAA and sentenced to eighteen months in prison. On appeal, he argued that accessing information that he had authorization to access cannot exceed[] authorized access as meant by statute, even if he did so for an improper or impermissible purpose. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, siding with the government that United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) was controlling. In Rodriguez, the Eleventh Circuit had held that a person with access to a computer for business reasons exceed[s] his authorized access when he obtain[s] . . . information for a nonbusiness reason. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d at 1263.

In denying Van Burens appeal, the Eleventh Circuit noted the split that the Supreme Court has now decided to resolve. As with the Eleventh Circuit, the First, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have all held that a person operates without authorization or exceeds authorized access when they access information they otherwise are authorized to access, but for an unauthorized purpose. See EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 582-83 (1st Cir. 2001) (defendant exceeded authorized access by collecting proprietary information and know-how to aid a competitor); United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263, 272 (5th Cir. 2010) (exceed[ing] authorized access includes exceeding the purposes for which access is authorized.); Intl Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 (7th Cir. 2006) (CFAA violated when defendant accessed data on his work computer for a purpose that his employer prohibited). Those who favor the broader interpretation argue that an expansive interpretation of the statute is more consistent with congressional intent of stopping bad actors from computerfacilitated crime as computers continue to proliferate, especially in light of the consistent amendments that Congress has enacted to broaden the application of the CFAA. See Guest-Tek Interactive Entmt, Inc. v. Pullen, 665 F. Supp. 2d 42, 45 (D. Mass. 2009) (a narrow reading of the CFAA ignores the consistent amendments that Congress has enacted to broaden its application . . . in the past two decades by the enactment of a private cause of action and a more liberal judicial interpretation of the statutory provisions.).

Numerous trial courts have applied these circuits more expansive interpretation in civil cases against alleged trade secret misappropriators. For example, in Merritt Hawkins & Assocs., LLC v. Gresham, 79 F. Supp. 3d 625 (N.D. Tex. 2015), the court relied on the Fifth Circuits controlling case, United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010), to deny summary judgment to a defendant who was accused of exceeding his authorization when he deleted hundreds of files on the companys computer before terminating his employment. In finding disputed issues of fact, the trial court specifically noted that the Fifth Circuit agree[d] with the First Circuit that the concept of exceeds authorized access may include exceeding the purposes for which access is authorized. Merritt Hawkins, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 634. Likewise, in Guest-Tek Interactive Entmt, , the court noted both interpretations and opted for the broader one in view of guidance from the First Circuit. Guest-Tek Interactive Entmt Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d at 45-46 (noting that the First Circuit has favored a broader reading of the CFAA) (citing EF Cultural Travel BV, 274 F.3d at 582-84).

On the flip side, three circuits have held that the CFAAs without authorization and exceeds authorized access do not impose criminal liability on a person with permission to access information on a computer who accesses that information for an improper purpose. In other words, a person violates the CFAA in these circuits only by accessing information he has no authorization to access, regardless of the reason. Valle, 807 F.3d at 527 (CFAA is limited to situations where the user does not have access for any purpose at all); WEC Carolina Energy Sols. LLC v. Miller, 687 F.3d 199, 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2012) (rejecting CFAA imposes liability on employees who violate a use policy and limiting liability to individuals who access computers without authorization or who obtain or alter information beyond the bounds of their authorized access); Nosal, 676 F.3d at 862-63 (holding that the phrase exceeds authorized access in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions). These courts have all relied on statutory construction plus some version of the rule of lenitythat, when a criminal statute is susceptible to a harsher construction and a less-harsh construction, courts should opt for the latter. For example, as Van Buren pointed out in his petition:

every March, tens of millions of American workers participate in office pools for the NCAA mens basketball tournament (March Madness). Such pools typically involve money stakes. When these employees use their company computers to generate their brackets or to check their standing in the pools, they likely violate their employers computer policies. Again, the answer to the question presented determines whether these employees are guilty of a felony.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, at 12-13; see also Nosal, 676 F.3d at 860-63 (applying use restrictions would turn millions of ordinary citizens into criminals). Numerous trial courts in these jurisdictions have followed suit. See, e.g., Shamrock Foods v. Gast, 535 F. Supp. 2d 962, 967 (D. Ariz. 2008) (concluding that the plain language, legislative history, and principles of statutory construction support the restrictive view of authorization); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Speed, et al., No. 6:05-cv-1580, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53108 at *24 (M.D. Fla. 2006) (finding that the narrow construction follows the statutes plain meaning, and coincidently, has the added benefit of comporting with the rule of lenity.).

So at bottom, the Supreme Court will decide whether the CFAA, in addition to access restrictions, also encompasses use restrictions.

What Future Impact May the Supreme Courts Decision Have on Trade Secret Cases?

If the Supreme Court adopts the narrower access-restriction-only enforcement of the CFAA, then the nature and extent of the alleged misappropriators authorization to access the trade secrets will determine the applicability of the CFAA. Even with this narrower interpretation, however, employers can still proactively take certain steps to improve their chances of being able to assert CFAA claims in the future.

Misappropriation of trade secrets under federal and state statutes, and breach of employment or nondisclosure agreements, are potential claims an employer can assert against an employee who accepts a job offer with a competitor and downloads trade secret information to take with him before leaving the company. Whether the company can also have a claim against this former employee under the CFAA depends on the level of access he had to the employers computer sources during the course of his employment. If (under the narrower interpretation of the CFAA) the employee downloaded the trade secrets from computer sources he had access to in the course of his ordinary job duties, then the company may not have a CFAA claim because the employees actions were neither without authorization nor exceed[ing] authorized access. But if the employee did not have permission to access those computer sources in the course of his normal job duties, then he may be guilty of exceeding his authorized access. See Nosal, 676 F.3d at 858 (accessing a computer without authorization refers to a scenario where a user lacks permission to access any information on the computer, whereas exceeds authorized access refers to a user who has permission to access some information on the computer but then accesses other information to which her authorization does not extend).

There are certain steps employers can take that can determine whether they can assert a CFAA claim against an employee if need be in the future. First, employees computer access should be limited to need-to-know. In other words, employees should not be able to access computer resources and information that are not necessary for them to perform their duties. For example, an employee may be provided access to customer and price lists (economic trade secrets), but not have access to servers where source code and technical information (technical trade secrets) are stored. Even within technical areas, an employees access privileges should be limited as much as possible to their specific areas of work. In addition, employment agreements, confidentiality agreements (with both employees and third parties), and company policies should make clear that employees (and business partners, where applicable) do not have permission to access resources that are not necessary in the performance of their job responsibilities. This may entail some additional IT overhead in tightening up employees access privileges, but any steps employers can take proactively to convert potential use restrictions into access restrictions will go a long way in preserving the viability of a CFAA claim.

Lastly, without use restrictions, if the Supreme Court decides those are overreach, a companys employment agreements, nondisclosures agreements, and computer use policies may still save the day. Under one line of thought which may survive even if the Supreme Court adopts the narrower interpretation, when an employee breaches one of these agreements or policies, or even just violates her duty of loyalty to the company, that can instantly and automatically extinguish her agency relationship with the company and, with it, whatever authority she had to access the companys computers and information. See Intl Airport Ctrs., 440 F.3d at 420-21 (relying on employees breach of his duty of loyalty [which] terminated his agency relationshipand with it his authority to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority had been that relationship.); see also Shurgard Storage, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (the authority of the plaintiffs former employees ended when they allegedly became agents of the defendant. Therefore, for the purposes of this 12(b)(6) motion, they lost their authorization and were without authorization when they allegedly obtained and sent the proprietary information to the defendant via e-mail.). Accordingly, it may be possible to bring a CFAA claim where an employee exceeds his authority by, for example, violating a policy that prohibits downloading confidential company files to portable media (essentially, a use restriction), which then automatically forfeits his access rights resulting in an access restriction violation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court may drastically narrow application of the CFAA when it decides the Van Buren case. But there are proactive measures employers can take now to potentially preserve their ability to use the CFAA in cases of trade secret misappropriation.

[1] WarGames (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios 1983).

[2] Tim Wu, Fixing the Worst Law in Technology, The New Yorker, Mar. 18, 2013 (available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/fixing-the-worst-law-in-technology.

[3] Evan Andrews, Who Invented the Internet? (Oct. 28, 2019), https://www.history.com/news/who-invented-the-internet).

[4] WarGames, supra n. 1.

[5] CFAA claims in civil trade secret misappropriation cases are typically brought under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) or (a)(4). The former states, Whoever

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains

(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);

(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or

(C) information from any protected computer;

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. The latter states, Whoever

(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period. shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

These are the portions of the CFAA that are usually more applicable to an employee or former employee who steals his employers trade secrets. The CFAA includes other provisions directed to outside hacker situations. For example, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)-(7) address scenarios such as malicious hacking with intent to cause damage or loss, trafficking in passwords, and ransomware.

[6] Sam Gustin, Aaron Swartz, Tech Prodigy and Internet Activist, Is Dead at 26 (January 13, 2013) (available at https://business.time.com/2013/01/13/tech-prodigy-and-internet-activist-aaron-swartz-commits-suicide/).

[View source.]

Here is the original post:

From WarGames to Terms of Service: How the Supreme Courts Review of Computer Fraud Abuse Act Will Impact Your Trade Secrets - JD Supra

A Quintillion Calculations a Second: DOE Calculating the Benefits of Exascale and Quantum Computers – SciTechDaily

Posted on by

By U.S. Department of EnergyAugust 6, 2020

To keep qubits used in quantum computers cold enough so scientists can study them, DOEs Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory uses a sophisticated cooling system. Credit: Image courtesy of Thor Swift, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

A quintillion calculations a second. Thats one with 18 zeros after it. Its the speed at which an exascale supercomputer will process information. The Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing for the first exascale computer to be deployed in 2021. Two more will follow soon after. Yet quantum computers may be able to complete more complex calculations even faster than these up-and-coming exascale computers. But these technologies complement each other much more than they compete.

Its going to be a while before quantum computers are ready to tackle major scientific research questions. While quantum researchers and scientists in other areas are collaborating to design quantum computers to be as effective as possible once theyre ready, thats still a long way off. Scientists are figuring out how to build qubits for quantum computers, the very foundation of the technology. Theyre establishing the most fundamental quantum algorithms that they need to do simple calculations. The hardware and algorithms need to be far enough along for coders to develop operating systems and software to do scientific research. Currently, were at the same point in quantum computing that scientists in the 1950s were with computers that ran on vacuum tubes. Most of us regularly carry computers in our pockets now, but it took decades to get to this level of accessibility.

In contrast, exascale computers will be ready next year. When they launch, theyll already be five times faster than our fastest computer Summit, at Oak Ridge National Laboratorys Leadership Computing Facility, a DOE Office of Science user facility. Right away, theyll be able to tackle major challenges in modeling Earth systems, analyzing genes, tracking barriers to fusion, and more. These powerful machines will allow scientists to include more variables in their equations and improve models accuracy. As long as we can find new ways to improve conventional computers, well do it.

Once quantum computers are ready for prime time, researchers will still need conventional computers. Theyll each meet different needs.

DOE is designing its exascale computers to be exceptionally good at running scientific simulations as well as machine learning and artificial intelligence programs. These will help us make the next big advances in research. At our user facilities, which are producing increasingly large amounts of data, these computers will be able to analyze that data in real time.

Quantum computers, on the other hand, will be perfect for modeling the interactions of electrons and nuclei that are the constituents of atoms. As these interactions are the foundation for chemistry and materials science, these computers could be incredibly useful. Applications include modeling fundamental chemical reactions, understanding superconductivity, and designing materials from the atom level up. Quantum computers could potentially reduce the time it takes to run these simulations from billions of years to a few minutes. Another intriguing possibility is connecting quantum computers with a quantum internet network. This quantum internet, coupled with the classical internet, could have a profound impact on science, national security, and industry.

Just as the same scientist may use both a particle accelerator and an electron microscope depending on what they need to do, conventional and quantum computing will each have different roles to play. Scientists supported by the DOE are looking forward to refining the tools that both will provide for research in the future.

For more information, check out this infographic:

Read the original post:

A Quintillion Calculations a Second: DOE Calculating the Benefits of Exascale and Quantum Computers - SciTechDaily

GE plans to give offshore wind energy a supercomputing boost – The Verge

Posted on by

GE plans to harness the power of one of the worlds fastest supercomputers to propel offshore wind power development in the US. IBMs Summit supercomputer at the US Department of Energys Oak Ridge National Laboratory will allow GE to simulate air currents in a way the companys never been able to before.

Ultimately, the research could influence the design, control, and operations of future wind turbines. Its also intended to advance the growth of wind power off the East Coast of the US by giving researchers a better grasp of the available wind resources in the Atlantic. The simulations Summit will run can fill in some of the gaps in the historical data, according to GE.

Offshore wind has the potential to provide almost twice the amount of electricity as the USs current electricity usage, according to the American Wind Energy Association. But to make turbines that are hardier and more efficient offshore, researchers need more information. Thats where Summit comes in.

Its like being a kid in a candy store where you have access to this kind of a tool, says Todd Alhart, GEs research communications lead. The Summit supercomputer is currently ranked as the second fastest supercomputer in the world after Japans Fugaku, according to the Top500 supercomputer speed ranking.

GEs research, to be conducted over the next year in collaboration with the DOEs Exascale Computing Project, would be almost impossible to do without Summit. Thats because theres usually a trade-off in their research between resolution and scale. They can typically study how air moves across a single rotor blade with high resolution, or they could examine a bigger picture like a massive wind farm but with blurrier vision. In this case, exascale computing should allow them to simulate the flow physics of an entire wind farm with a high enough resolution to study individual turbine blades as they rotate.

That is really amazing, and cannot be achieved otherwise, says Jing Li, GE research aerodynamics lead engineer.

Li and her team will focus on studying coastal low-level jets. These are air currents that dont follow the same patterns as winds typically considered in traditional wind turbine design, which gradually increase in speed with height. Coastal low-level jet streams are atypical, according to Li, because wind speeds can rise rapidly up to a certain height before suddenly dropping away. These wind patterns are generally less common, but they occur more frequently along the US East Coast which is why researchers want to better understand how they affect a turbines performance.

Theres been a growing appetite for offshore wind energy on the East Coast of the US. Americas first offshore wind farm was built off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016. A slate of East Coast wind farms is poised to come online over the next several years, with the largest expected to be a $1.6 billion project slated to be built off the coast of New Jersey by 2024.

See the original post:

GE plans to give offshore wind energy a supercomputing boost - The Verge

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Symptoms and causes …

Posted on by

Overview Coronavirus Open pop-up dialog box

Close

Coronavirus is a family of viruses that can cause respiratory illnesses such as the common cold, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that can cause illnesses such as the common cold, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In 2019, a new coronavirus was identified as the cause of a disease outbreak that originated in China.

The virus is now known as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease it causes is called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic.

Public health groups, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and WHO, are monitoring the pandemic and posting updates on their websites. These groups have also issued recommendations for preventing and treating the illness.

Signs and symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may appear two to 14 days after exposure. This time after exposure and before having symptoms is called the incubation period. Common signs and symptoms can include:

Early symptoms of COVID-19 may include a loss of taste or smell.

Other symptoms can include:

This list is not all inclusive. Other less common symptoms have been reported, such as rash, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Children have similar symptoms to adults and generally have mild illness.

The severity of COVID-19 symptoms can range from very mild to severe. Some people may have only a few symptoms, and some people may have no symptoms at all. Some people may experience worsened symptoms, such as worsened shortness of breath and pneumonia, about a week after symptoms start.

People who are older have a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and the risk increases with age. People who have existing chronic medical conditions also may have a higher risk of serious illness. Serious medical conditions that increase the risk of serious illness from COVID-19 include:

Other conditions may increase the risk of serious illness, such as:

This list is not all inclusive. Other underlying medical conditions may increase your risk of serious illness from COVID-19.

If you have COVID-19 symptoms or you've been in contact with someone diagnosed with COVID-19, contact your doctor or clinic right away for medical advice. Tell your health care team about your symptoms and possible exposure before you go to your appointment.

If you have emergency COVID-19 signs and symptoms, seek care immediately. Emergency signs and symptoms can include:

If you have signs or symptoms of COVID-19, contact your doctor or clinic for guidance. Let your doctor know if you have other chronic medical conditions, such as heart disease or lung disease. During the pandemic, it's important to make sure health care is available for those in greatest need.

Infection with the new coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The virus appears to spread easily among people, and more continues to be discovered over time about how it spreads. Data has shown that it spreads from person to person among those in close contact (within about 6 feet, or 2 meters). The virus spreads by respiratory droplets released when someone with the virus coughs, sneezes or talks. These droplets can be inhaled or land in the mouth or nose of a person nearby.

It can also spread if a person touches a surface with the virus on it and then touches his or her mouth, nose or eyes, although this isn't considered to be a main way it spreads.

Risk factors for COVID-19 appear to include:

Although most people with COVID-19 have mild to moderate symptoms, the disease can cause severe medical complications and lead to death in some people. Older adults or people with existing chronic medical conditions are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill with COVID-19.

Complications can include:

Although there is no vaccine available to prevent COVID-19, you can take steps to reduce your risk of infection. WHO and CDC recommend following these precautions for avoiding COVID-19:

If you have a chronic medical condition and may have a higher risk of serious illness, check with your doctor about other ways to protect yourself.

If you're planning to travel, first check the CDC and WHO websites for updates and advice. Also look for any health advisories that may be in place where you plan to travel. You may also want to talk with your doctor if you have health conditions that make you more susceptible to respiratory infections and complications.

Aug. 07, 2020

Here is the original post:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Symptoms and causes ...

COVID-19 Daily Update 8-10-2020 – West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

Posted on by

The West Virginia Department of Health andHuman Resources (DHHR) reports as of 10:00 a.m., on August 10,2020, there have been 326,886 total confirmatorylaboratory results received for COVID-19, with 7,754 totalcases and 141 deaths.

DHHR has confirmed the deaths of an83-year old male from Kanawha County and a 74-year old male from Logan County. Wemourn with all families suffering the loss of loved ones due to COVID-19, saidBill J. Crouch, DHHR Cabinet Secretary.

In alignment with updated definitions fromthe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the dashboard includes probablecases which are individuals that have symptoms and either serologic (antibody)or epidemiologic (e.g., a link to a confirmed case) evidence of disease, but noconfirmatory test.

CASESPER COUNTY (Case confirmed by lab test/Probable case):Barbour (29/0), Berkeley (671/27), Boone(101/0), Braxton (8/0), Brooke (63/1), Cabell (395/9), Calhoun (6/0), Clay(18/0), Doddridge (6/0), Fayette (151/0), Gilmer (17/0), Grant (120/1),Greenbrier (93/0), Hampshire (76/0), Hancock (108/4), Hardy (60/1), Harrison(223/3), Jackson (165/0), Jefferson (289/7), Kanawha (925/13), Lewis (28/1),Lincoln (87/0), Logan (234/0), Marion (187/4), Marshall (126/4), Mason (56/0),McDowell (63/1), Mercer (200/0), Mineral (121/2), Mingo (171/2), Monongalia(928/17), Monroe (20/1), Morgan (28/1), Nicholas (36/1), Ohio (266/3), Pendleton(40/1), Pleasants (11/1), Pocahontas (40/1), Preston (104/21), Putnam (194/1),Raleigh (248/7), Randolph (205/5), Ritchie (3/0), Roane (15/0), Summers (12/0),Taylor (55/1), Tucker (10/0), Tyler (13/0), Upshur (37/3), Wayne (208/2),Webster (4/0), Wetzel (43/0), Wirt (7/0), Wood (238/12), Wyoming (34/0).

Ascase surveillance continues at the local health department level, it may revealthat those tested in a certain county may not be a resident of that county, oreven the state as an individual in question may have crossed the state borderto be tested. Suchis the case of Marshall and Pleasants counties in this report.

Pleasenote that delays may be experienced with the reporting of information from thelocal health department to DHHR. Visitthe dashboard at http://www.coronavirus.wv.gov for more detailed information.

On July 24,2020, Gov. Jim Justice announced that DHHR, the agency in charge of reportingthe number of COVID-19 cases will transition from providing twice-daily updatesto one report every 24 hours. This becameeffective August 1, 2020.

Read the original post:

COVID-19 Daily Update 8-10-2020 - West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

How Patients Die After Contracting COVID-19, The New …

Posted on by

A doctor wearing a face mask looks at a CT image of a lung of a patient at a hospital in Wuhan, China. AFP via Getty Images hide caption

A doctor wearing a face mask looks at a CT image of a lung of a patient at a hospital in Wuhan, China.

Updated on March 17 at 6:43 p.m. ET:

Thousands of people have now died from COVID-19 the name for the disease caused by the coronavirus first identified in Wuhan, China.

According to the World Health Organization, the disease is relatively mild in about 80% of cases.

What does mild mean?

And how does this disease turn fatal?

The first symptoms of COVID-19 are pretty common with respiratory illnesses fever, a dry cough and shortness of breath, says Dr. Carlos del Rio, a professor of medicine and global health at Emory University who has consulted with colleagues treating coronavirus patients in China and Germany. "Some people also get a headache, sore throat," he says. Fatigue has also been reported and less commonly, diarrhea. It may feel as if you have a cold. Or you may feel that flu-like feeling of being hit by a train.

Doctors say these patients with milder symptoms should check in with their physician to make sure their symptoms don't progress to something more serious, but they don't require major medical intervention.

But the new coronavirus attacks the lungs, and in about 20% of patients, infections can get more serious. As the virus enters lung cells, it starts to replicate, destroying the cells, explains Dr. Yoko Furuya, an infectious disease specialist at Columbia University Irving Medical Center.

"Because our body senses all of those viruses as basically foreign invaders, that triggers our immune system to sweep in and try to contain and control the virus and stop it from making more and more copies of itself," she says.

But Furuya says that this immune system response to this invader can also destroy lung tissue and cause inflammation. The end result can be pneumonia. That means the air sacs in the lungs become inflamed and filled with fluid, making it harder to breathe.

Del Rio says that these symptoms can also make it harder for the lungs to get oxygen to your blood, potentially triggering a cascade of problems. "The lack of oxygen leads to more inflammation, more problems in the body. Organs need oxygen to function, right? So when you don't have oxygen there, then your liver dies and your kidney dies," he says. Lack of oxygen can also lead to septic shock.

The most severe cases about 6% of patients end up in intensive care with multi-organ failure, respiratory failure and septic shock, according to a February report from the WHO. And many hospitalized patients require supplemental oxygen. In extreme cases, they need mechanical ventilation including the use of a sophisticated technology known as ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), which basically acts as the patient's lungs, adding oxygen to their blood and removing carbon dioxide. The technology "allows us to save more severe patients," Dr. Sylvie Briand, director of the WHO's pandemic and epidemic diseases department, said at a press conference In February.

Many of the more serious cases have been in people who are middle-aged and elderly Furuya notes that our immune system gets weaker as we age. She says for long-term smokers, it could be even worse because their airways and lungs are more vulnerable. People with other underlying medical conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes or chronic lung disease, have also proved most vulnerable. Furuya says those kinds of conditions can make it harder for the body to recover from infections.

"Of course, you have outliers people who are young and otherwise previously healthy who are dying," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR's 1A show. "But if you look at the vast majority of the people who have serious disease and who will ultimately die, they are in that group that are either elderly and/or have underlying conditions."

Estimates for the case fatality rate for COVID-19 vary depending on the country. But data from both China and Lombardy, Italy, show the fatality rate starts rising for people in their 60s. In Lombardy, for instance, the case fatality rate for those in their 60s is nearly 3 percent. It's nearly 10 percent for people in their 70s and more than 16 percent for those in their 80s.

Del Rio notes that it's not just COVID-19 that can bring on multi-organ failure. Just last month, he saw the same thing in a previously healthy flu patient in the U.S. who had not gotten a flu shot.

"He went in to a doctor. They said, 'You have the flu don't worry.' He went home. Two days later, he was in the ER. Five days later, he was very sick and in the ICU" with organ failure, del Rio says. While it's possible for patients who reach this stage to survive, recovery can take many weeks or months.

In fact, many infectious disease experts have been making comparisons between this new coronavirus and the flu and common cold, because it appears to be highly transmissible.

"What this is acting like it's spreading much more rapidly than SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome], the other coronavirus, but the fatality rate is much less," Fauci told 1A. "It's acting much more like a really bad influenza."

What experts fear is that, like the flu, COVID-19 will keep coming back year after year. But unlike the flu, there is no vaccine yet for the coronavirus disease.

See the rest here:

How Patients Die After Contracting COVID-19, The New ...

America’s window of opportunity to beat back Covid-19 is closing – STAT

Posted on by

The good news: The United States has a window of opportunity to beat back Covid-19 before things get much, much worse.

The bad news: That window is rapidly closing. And the country seems unwilling or unable to seize the moment.

Winter is coming. Winter means cold and flu season, which is all but sure to complicate the task of figuring out who is sick with Covid-19 and who is suffering from a less threatening respiratory tract infection. It also means that cherished outdoor freedoms that link us to pre-Covid life pop-up restaurant patios, picnics in parks, trips to the beach will soon be out of reach, at least in northern parts of the country.

advertisement

Unless Americans use the dwindling weeks between now and the onset of indoor weather to tamp down transmission in the country, this winter could be Dickensianly bleak, public health experts warn.

I think November, December, January, February are going to be tough months in this country without a vaccine, said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

advertisement

It is possible, of course, that some vaccines could be approved by then, thanks to historically rapid scientific work. But there is little prospect that vast numbers of Americans will be vaccinated in time to forestall the grim winter Osterholm and others foresee.

Human coronaviruses, the distant cold-causing cousins of the virus that causes Covid-19, circulate year-round. Now is typically the low season for transmission. But in this summer of Americas failed Covid-19 response, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is widespread across the country, and pandemic-weary Americans seem more interested in resuming pre-Covid lifestyles than in suppressing the virus to the point where schools can be reopened, and stay open, and restaurants, movie theaters, and gyms can function with some restrictions.

We should be aiming for no transmission before we open the schools and we put kids in harms way kids and teachers and their caregivers. And so, if that means no gym, no movie theaters, so be it, said Caroline Buckee, associate director of theCenter for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvards T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

We seem to be choosing leisure activities now over childrens safety in a months time. And I cannot understand that tradeoff.

While many countries managed to suppress spread of SARS-CoV-2, the United States has failed miserably. Countries in Europe and Asia are worrying about a second wave. Here, the first wave rages on, engulfing rural as well as urban parts of the country. Though theres been a slight decline in cases in the past couple of weeks, more than 50,000 Americans a day are being diagnosed with Covid-19. And those are just the confirmed cases.

To put that in perspective, at this rate the U.S. is racking up more cases in a week than Britain has accumulated since the start of the pandemic.

Public health officials had hoped transmission of the virus would abate with the warm temperatures of summer and the tendency heightened this year of people to take their recreational activities outdoors. Experts do believe people are less likely to transmit the virus outside, especially if they are wearing face coverings and keeping a safe distance apart.

But in some places, people have been throwing Covid cautions to the wind, flouting public health orders in the process. Kristen Ehresmann, director of infectious disease epidemiology, prevention, and control for the Minnesota Department of Health, points to a large, three-day rodeo that was held recently in her state. Organizers knew they were supposed to limit the number of attendees to 250 but refused; thousands attended. In Sturgis, S.D., an estimated quarter of a million motorcyclists were expected to descend on the city this past weekend for an annual rally that spans 10 days.

Even on smaller scales, public health authorities know some people are letting down their guard. Others have never embraced the need to try to prevent spread of the virus. Ehresmanns father was recently invited to visit some friends; he went, she said, but wore his mask, elbow bumping instead of shaking proffered hands. And the people kind of acted like, Oh, you drank that Kool-Aid, rather than, We all need to be doing this.'

Ehresmann and others in public health are flummoxed by the phenomenon of people refusing to acknowledge the risk the virus poses.

Just this idea of, I just dont want to believe it so therefore its not going to be true honestly, I have not really dealt with that as it relates to disease before, she said.

Buckee, the Harvard expert, wonders if the magical thinking that seems to have infected swaths of the country is due to the fact many of the people who have died were elderly. For many Americans, she said, the disease has not yet touched their lives but the movement restrictions and other response measures have.

I think if children were dying, this would be a different situation, quite honestly, she said.

Epidemiologist Michael Mina despairs that an important chance to wrestle the virus under control is being lost, as Americans ignore the realities of the pandemic in favor of trying to resume pre-Covid life.

We just continue to squander every bit of opportunity we get with this epidemic to get it under control, said Mina, an assistant professor in Harvards T.H. Chan School of Public Health and associate medical director of clinical microbiology at Bostons Brigham and Womens Hospital.

The best time to squash a pandemic is when the environmental characteristics slow transmission. Its your one opportunity in the year, really, to leverage that extra assistance and get transmission under control, he said, his frustration audible.

Driving back transmission would require people to continue to make sacrifices, to accept the fact that life post-Covid cannot proceed as normal, not while so many people remain vulnerable to the virus. Instead, people are giddily throwing off the shackles of coronavirus suppression efforts, seemingly convinced that a few weeks of sacrifice during the spring was a one-time solution.

Osterholm has for months warned that people were being misled about how long the restrictions on daily life would need to be in place. He now thinks the time has come for another lockdown. What we did before and more, he said.

The country has fallen into a dangerous pattern, Osterholm said, where a spike in cases in a location leads to some temporary restraint from people who eventually become alarmed enough to start to take precautions. But as soon as cases start to plateau or decline a little, victory over the virus is declared and people think its safe to resume normal life.

Its like an all or nothing phenomenon, right? said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases. You all locked down or you get so discouraged with being lockdown that you decide youre going to be in crowded bars you can have indoor parties with no masks. You can do all the things that are going to get you in trouble.

Osterholm said with the K-12 school year resuming in some parts of the country or set to start along with universities in a few weeks, transmission will take off and cases will start to climb again. He predicted the next peaks will exceed by far the peak we have just experienced. Winter is only going to reinforce that. Indoor air, he said.

Buckee thinks that if the country doesnt alter the trajectory it is on, more shutdowns are inevitable. I cant see a way that were going to have restaurants and bars open in the winter, frankly. Well have resurgence. Everything will get shut down again.

Fauci favors a reset of the reopening measures, with a strong messaging component aimed at explaining to people why driving down transmission now will pay off later. Young people in particular need to understand that even if they are less likely to die from Covid-19, statistically speaking, transmission among 20-somethings will eventually lead to infections among their parents and grandparents, where the risk of severe infections and fatal outcomes is higher. (Young people can also develop long-term health problems as a result of the virus.)

Its not them alone in a vacuum, Fauci said. They are spreading it to the people who are going to wind up in the hospital.

Everyone has to work together to get cases down to more manageable levels, if the country hopes to avoid a disastrous winter, he said.

I think we can get it under much better control, between now and the mid-to-late fall when we get influenza or we get whatever it is we get in the fall and the winter. Im not giving up, said Fauci.

But without an all-in effort the cases are not going to come down, he warned. Theyre not. Theyre just not.

See more here:

America's window of opportunity to beat back Covid-19 is closing - STAT

What It’s Like When COVID-19 Lasts For Months – NPR

Posted on by

While many people with COVID-19 get over it relatively quickly, Marjorie Roberts has been living with symptoms for months. Marjorie Roberts hide caption

While many people with COVID-19 get over it relatively quickly, Marjorie Roberts has been living with symptoms for months.

For Marjorie Roberts, it started on March 26.

The healthy, 59-year-old life coach in Atlanta says it started as a normal day. She went out to get the mail. As she walked back to her apartment, she lost her balance. Odd for her, but she didn't think much of it.

By evening, "everything came down on me like a ton of bricks," she says. Extreme fatigue was the first symptom among several. Her long ordeal was just beginning. "I had no idea what I was in for."

On April 23, Natalie Nowell, 34, had a similar experience. A mom of three in Memphis, Tenn., she spent most of her time running around after her children. Her family had been quarantined for over a month.

Natalie Nowell with her husband and three children. She's been suffering from COVID-19 symptoms for months and still has trouble breathing. Ashley Veneman/Javen Photography hide caption

Natalie Nowell with her husband and three children. She's been suffering from COVID-19 symptoms for months and still has trouble breathing.

Then, seemingly out of nowhere came a heaviness in her chest and a feeling of deep unease. She told her husband she needed to rest. It was worse when she woke up. Awful chest pains "like there was a ton of bricks sitting on my chest," she says.

According to reports earlier this year from the World Health Organization, about 80% of coronavirus infections are "mild or asymptomatic" and patients typically recover after just two weeks.

That hasn't been the case for Roberts or Nowell. Months later, both women are still experiencing symptoms of COVID-19: shortness of breath, chest pains, vomiting, and neurological symptoms that range from headaches and fatigue to hallucinations and jumbled words.

Support groups on Facebook include thousands of people who say they have been wrestling with serious COVID-19 symptoms for at least a month, if not two or three. The groups have coined a name for themselves: "long-haulers."

While both Nowell and Roberts visited the emergency room early in the course of their illnesses, neither was admitted to an ICU. Doctors determined neither of them needed a ventilator; their cases technically counted as "mild."

But their lives have been irrevocably changed by the onslaught of symptoms relentless and rolling waves of fever, headache, nausea, and the terrifying inability to catch their breath. For Roberts, it's robbed her of time. "I was so good. This COVID-19 has stolen my life," she says.

Weeks after her initial symptoms, Nowell could barely walk from room to room in her house. Roberts, too, struggled to breathe.

Long-haulers are often left out of the COVID-19 narrative. Data sheets count cases, hospitalizations, recoveries and deaths, but Roberts and Nowell don't fit neatly into any of these categories. Neither woman initially tested positive for the disease. They both went to the hospital for a test when their symptoms became too much to bear, both tested negative, both were told to go home and just rest. Both women dealt with doctors who didn't believe them until finally both got confirmation they did have the virus.

Many long-haulers say their doctors doubted their symptoms were as severe as they were saying. Roberts says her original primary care physician insisted it was just stress and suggested she watch Lifetime movies and do puzzles to calm down. "I know stress," Roberts says. "This was not stress."

Nowell, who at that point couldn't form words to read bedtime stories to her children, begged her doctor to help. "He said, 'Well, maybe you have a UTI. Or maybe it's a stomach infection. Let's call it a sinus infection.' "

Both women eventually found doctors who believed them, and that made a huge difference.

"I was relieved because I felt like I was going to get taken seriously for how sick I felt," Nowell says. "And then the other part of me was terrified. Because the whole world is dealing with this, and now all of a sudden it's in my home, it's in my body and that was scary."

That was a few months ago. More than a hundred days from their first symptoms, Roberts and Nowell still struggle to breathe through constant congestion. The headaches come and go, and so does the nausea. Roberts' lungs are so scarred she had a biopsy in early August to get a better picture of her prognosis. She's still waiting for the results.

Nowell says she's doing better, but it's been slow going.

The heartbreaking loneliness of the pandemic has been difficult enough for healthy people. But it's been a terrifying challenge for those like Roberts and Nowell who also must live with foggy minds, intense fatigue and continual fear of erratic symptoms. Roberts says she's still afraid to go anywhere because the worst symptoms still come on so fast.

They both get through the day with a mixture of hope and prayer. Nowell has Bible verses she relies on. And Roberts says, "I pray they find a cure."

See the original post:

What It's Like When COVID-19 Lasts For Months - NPR