Select Page ::

The most innovative space companies of 2020 – Fast Company

Posted on March 13, 2020 by Danzig

As the Trump administration toyed with the idea of a Space Force, the privately funded space industry chugged along with essential (if less sexy) infrastructure and technological advances. SpaceX continued work on its Starlink mega-network of satellites, which hopes to provide high-speed internet to organizations including the U.S. Air Force in even the most remote corners of the world, while companies including Swarm Technologies, Spaceflight, and Momentus set their sights on democratizing the space industry by providing alternatives to high-tech, high price-tag options.

For building up its Starlink satellite constellation

Not just a launch company, SpaceX is quietly building its own mega-network of satellites. It launched 120 Starlink satellites (which power SpaceXs satellite internet) in 2019, and by early 2020 plans to launch another 120. SpaceXs ambitions seem even largerits requested a license for up to 42,000 satellites. The U.S. Air Force is testing connecting to Starlink satellites on aircraft. SpaceX has raised more than $1.3 billion in new funding in 2019.

For creating sandwich-size, low-fi affordable satellites

Swarm Technologies grilled-cheese-size satellites are lower cost (and lower tech) than is typical. The constellation networks created by companies like SpaceX and OneWeb aim to provide fast, high-speed, low-latency connection to sophisticated systems operated by the likes of the U.S. Air Forceat an equally high cost. But Swarms technology aims to fill in the gaps for less data-intensive communications, assisting organizations that want remote access to a network but dont necessarily need the speediest, most powerful connection. In 2019, for example, the company partnered with Ford to help it get better connectivity with cars in even the most remote parts of the world. It also partnered with the National Science Foundation to send ground station and handheld trackers to Antarctica.

For introducing ride share for space cargo

Spaceflight operates ride shares to space, allowing companies to reserve cargo space in launches for significantly lower prices than a traditional private launch. It launched its first dedicated ride share mission in late 2018, and since has been ferrying satellites for organizations including research centers, museums, middle schools, and more for both commercial and educational purposes. In addition to physically getting cargo to space, Spaceflight also helps less experienced players through the logistics of licensing and approval, and provides transparent pricing.

For designing a craft that NASA will send to explore Titan in search of E.T.

In 2019, the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Labs Dragonfly craft design was selected as NASAs next New Frontiers mission to Titan (a moon of Saturn), to search for extraterrestrial life. Dragonfly will launch in 2026, and reach the moon by 2034.

For inventing satellites that see through weather patternsand send images to the cloud

Capella Space builds satellites that can see through clouds and weather patterns. In 2020, it will launch a constellation of satellites and ground infrastructure in partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to allow instant downloads through the Amazon cloud.

For launching two human brain organoid models to the International Space Station

The respected lab-in-a-box company sent up its first experiment to the International Space Station using living brain organoids. Researchers will use them to study the effects of microgravity on the human brain.

For developing a promising method of using water to move satellites in orbit

Momentus is developing an innovative water-based propulsion system for moving satellites and cargo around in space. The system would allow companies to launch satellites into low orbit generally, then drive those satellites to correct placement.

For making more efficient satellite propulsion systems

Microsatellite company Accion Systems was one of 14 U.S. companies selected in 2019 for NASA Tipping Point partnership, developing moon and Mars technologies. Accion will work with NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to replace the cold gas propulsion system used for interplanetary CubeSats with a more efficient ion electrospray propulsion system. The company received $3.9 million for the project, with anticipated launch in the summer of 2021.

For engineering a high-volume assemble line for satellites

In 2019, OneWeb opened the worlds first high-volume, assembly line high-facility building advanced satellites in Florida. It also successfully launched the first 6 satellites of a planned 650 in Phase 1 of a mega constellation of small satellites, delivering affordable Internet access in a joint venture with Airbus.

For attempting the first private lunar landing

In 2019, Israel-based SpaceIL came tantalizingly close to landing an unmanned spacecraft on the moon. It was the first-ever attempt to deliver a privately funded lunar lander to the moons surface.

Read more about Fast Companys Most Innovative Companies:

Continue reading here:

The most innovative space companies of 2020 - Fast Company

All Alone in Interstellar Space, Voyager 2 Is About to Lose Contact With Home – ScienceAlert

Posted on March 13, 2020 by Danzig

It's lonely out there in deep space. Especially when a spacecraft has travelled so far into the vast emptiness, interstellar space is now all it can truly call home.

Of course, this was always Voyager 2's fate.The spacecraft which launched over 40 years ago and now stands as NASA's longest-running space mission was designed to venture out to the boundaries of our Solar System. For decades, it's done just that, but the incredible voyage is about to encounter a challenge it hasn't faced in all that long, lonesome journeying.

NASA has announced that Deep Space Station 43 (DSS43) the only antenna on Earth that can send commands to the Voyager 2 spacecraft is going silent, and not for a short time.

The giant dish, located in Australia, and roughly the size of a 20-storey office building, requires critical upgrades, the space agency says. The Canberra facility has been in service for almost 50 years, so it's not surprising that the ageing hardware needs maintenance.

DSS43. (CDSCC)

Nonetheless, the work comes at a cost. For approximately 11 months until the end of January 2021, when the repairs are expected to be complete Voyager 2 will be totally alone, coasting into the unknown in a quiescent mode of operation designed to conserve power and keep the probe on course until DSS43 comes back online.

"We put the spacecraft back into a state where it will be just fine, assuming that everything goes normally with it during the time that the antenna is down," explains Voyager project manager Suzanne Dodd from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"If things don't go normally which is always a possibility, especially with an ageing spacecraft then the onboard fault protection that's there can handle the situation."

During this almost year-long period of radio silence, the silence will only be one-way. Other antennas in the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex (CDSCC) will be configured to receive any signals Voyager 2 broadcasts to Earth; it's just that we won't be able to say anything back, even if we need to.

Artist's concept of Voyager 2. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

While NASA has done everything it can to prepare Voyager 2 for the communications blackout, it's still a gamble a calculated one, sure, but also seemingly an unprecedented predicament in the long duration of this historic space mission.

"There is risk in this business as there is in anything in spaceflight," CDSCC education and public outreach manager Glen Nagle told The New York Times. "It's a major change and the longest downtime for the dish in the eighteen years I've been here."

According to the space agency, the biggest unknowns are whether Voyager 2's automated thrust control systems which fire several times a day to keep the probe's antenna oriented towards Earth will work accurately for such an extended period, and whether power systems designed to keep Voyager 2's fuel lines sufficiently heated will also do their job.

The new challenge comes only days after NASA confirmed the spacecraft had resumed normal operations following a scare in January, when an anomaly triggered Voyager's autonomous fault protection routines.

The malfunction meant the spacecraft failed to perform a scheduled flight manoeuvre on January 25. Painstaking assessments from NASA engineers on Earth ultimately fixed the issue, with controllers having to wait 34 hours for each single response from Voyager 2, given the 17-hour transmission time for signals to travel to and from the distant probe.

Rectifying the problem involved turning five key scientific instruments off and turning them back on again something that reportedly had never been done before but luckily the reboot worked a charm.

Here's hoping the next 11 months proves equally successful for the far-flung Voyager 2, currently located over 17 billion kilometres (roughly 11 billion miles) from Earth, and scientifically confirmed to have now entered interstellar space, much like its twin before it, Voyager 1 (the only other human-made object to have travelled so far).

When DSS43 upgrades are complete, the repairs will not only bolster our communications with Voyager 2 but will future-proof the facility for other upcoming missions, including future Mars missions.

Before that, though, perhaps the most pressing matter will be to reconnect ties with this famous pioneer from decades ago, as it sails ever further away, on its one-way trip to the stars.

Originally posted here:

All Alone in Interstellar Space, Voyager 2 Is About to Lose Contact With Home - ScienceAlert

Space mining could lead to string of human colonies on alien planets – The Sun

Posted on March 13, 2020 by Danzig

ASTEROID mining could be a catalyst for humans colonising other planets, according to a new study.

The space rocks are desirable targets because they can contain precious metals such as gold, silver and platinum.

After Nasa's budget was increased back in 2018, Texas senator Ted Cruz said: "Ill make a prediction right now. The first trillionaire will be made in space."

That wasn't the first time that prediction had been made as scientists have had their sights set on the wealth that asteroids could bring for years.

There are around 9,000 asteroids that fly near Earth regularly and mining their resources could prove to be very useful for our planet.

A recent study released by market research firm Report Linker revealed that the technology created to mine these asteroids could improve spaceflight capabilities and the tech necessary for living on other planets.

The study stated: "Asteroid mining or space mining could help start the colonization of planets where finding water would be imperative.

"Also, the water can be broken down into hydrogen (used as fuel) and oxygen (air to breathe) and water is used to help grow food, as well as protective shield from the harsh rays from the space such as UV, infrared and others."

The study also claimed that asteroid mining tech could become a good defence against any dangerous asteroids heading for Earth.

Nasa is eyeing up a nearby asteroid that contains enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire.

Psyche 16 is nestled between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter and is made of solid metal.

As well as gold, the mysterious object is loaded with heaps of platinum, iron and nikel.

In total, it's estimated that Psyche's various metals are worth a gargantuan 8,000 quadrillion.

That means if we carried it back to Earth, it would destroy commodity prices and cause the world's economy worth 59.5trillion to collapse.

What's the difference between an asteroid, meteor and comet?

Here's what you need to know, according to Nasa...

In other space news, Elon Musk will be sending three space tourists on a 10-day holiday to theInternational Space Station next year.

Lettuce has beensuccessfully grown in space.

And, the most detailed panorama ever snapped fromthe surface of Marshas been unveiled by Nasa.

What are your thoughts on space mining? Let us know in the comments...

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at tech@the-sun.co.uk

Follow this link:

Space mining could lead to string of human colonies on alien planets - The Sun

Editorial: Preserving the First Amendment – Opinion – The Providence Journal

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

The First Amendment is the foundation of all of our freedoms. That is why it stands atop our Bill of Rights, which spells out strict limits on the governments power to crush individuals and deny them their liberty.

Under the First Amendment, Congress and, by extension, state legislatures shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press has been of incalculable value to the people of the United States. It has brought to light corruption and other problems that powerful officials would rather have suppressed. It has informed the American people about the issues so that they may govern themselves. It has righted injustice and championed justice.

Given the hunger for power reflected in the gnawing desire of some politicians to micromanage peoples lives the First Amendment provides an essential check against tyranny. Many politicians would like nothing better than to shut up the public and have their way. Certainly, this is how authoritarian regimes function.

Members of the Rhode Island legislature should understand all that. If they do not, it seems clear that our civics education is even worse than advertised.

Last week, we learned that four senators, all Democrats Sandra Cano, of Pawtucket; Elizabeth Crowley, of Central Falls; Ana Quezada, of Providence; and Harold Metts, of Providence sponsored legislation that on its face was an assault on the First Amendment.

It sought to dictate to the press what must be reported.

As the bill ludicrously put it: The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.

Needless to say, such an approach would be blatantly unconstitutional. As Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU, noted, These types of efforts to control the press have absolutely no place in a democratic society.

Sponsoring an assault on the peoples most basic freedoms for whatever reason is a black eye to those members and should be of concern to the voters in their districts.

Fortunately, even the sponsors backed off late last week.

According to Senate spokesman Greg Pare, Senator Cano sponsored the Senate legislation as a favor to Rep. Grace Diaz, D-Providence. Ms. Diaz said she withdrew her House bill after a colleague told her, you are setting yourself up for a headache.

Senator Cano then withdrew her bill and vowed in a tweet, My family came to this country for the freedoms of the 1st Amendment & I will do better in defending it!

It is, of course, the responsibility of the news media to strive to be fair and balanced.

But, for obvious reasons, you dont want politicians and bureaucrats dictating whats fair and what isnt in news coverage. And, under our glorious First Amendment, they may not.

Here is the original post:

Editorial: Preserving the First Amendment - Opinion - The Providence Journal

Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award – WTNH.com

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

WASHINGTON D.C. (WTNH) Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal received the First Amendment Defender Award from the Radio Television Digital News Foundation on Thursday evening.

Blumenthal was honored at the 30th annual recognition of First Amendment champions.

The award is presented to an individual or an organization that takes a public stand in support of press freedom.

At a time when press freedoms and access have been under attack, Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has stood tall for the rights of journalists to do their jobs and inform the public. He has an impressive record of fighting for the truth and defending the publics need to know.

Sen. Blumenthal is currently serving his second term in the U.S. Senate representing Connecticut. Previously, he served five terms as Connecticuts Attorney General, fighting for individuals against large and powerful special interests.

In a statement about the award, RTDNF explained Blumenthal was chosen for the honor for his relentless work eradicating corruption in state government and making state contracting accountable, fair, honest and transparent.

RTDNF goes on to say, in 2018, Sen. Blumenthal co-sponsored a resolution condemning the Trump Administrations attempts to restrict media access and affirming the importance of a free press. The RTDNF says Blumenthal also helped introduce and reintroduce the Journalist Protection Act, making it a federal crime to intentionally cause bodily injury to a journalist in the course of reporting. In 2019, he cosponsored the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act, a bill that would create a new memorial in Washington D.C. to honor journalists, photographers, and broadcasters that have died in the line of duty.

News 8s General Manager, Rich Graziano, joined Nexstar President, Tim Busch, and RTDNF Chairman and Vice President of Local Content Development of Nexstar Broadcasting, Jerry Walsh, at the First Amendment Awards show and dinner on Thursday night.

According to Graziano, This years honorees are a mix of local and network journalists that provide illuminating reporting, a respected national news program which holds the powerful accountable and a visionary who defends the publics right to know.

Blumenthal joined such honorees as the news show 60 Minutes, David Muir of ABC News, Steve Andrews of WFLA-TV, Lori Montenegro of Telemundo, Barbara Maushard of Hearst Television and Robert (Bob) Horner of NBC News.

Original post:

Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award - WTNH.com

The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? – Lawfare

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

This episode features a lively (andfair warninglong) interview with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center. We explore themes from her recent paper on regulation of online speech. It turns out that more or less everyone has an ability to restrict users speech online, and pretty much no one has both authority and an interest in fostering free-speech values. Conservatives may be discriminated against, but so are Black Lives Matter activists. I serve up one solution to biased moderation after another, and Daphne methodically shoots them down. Transparency? None of the companies is willing, and the government may have a constitutional problem forcing them to disclose how they make their moderation decisions. Competition law? A long haul, and besides, most users like a moderated Internet experience. Regulation? Only if we take the First Amendment back to the heyday of broadcast regulation. As a particularly egregious example of foreign governments and platforms ganging up to censor Americans, we touch on the Europe Court of Justices insufferable decision encouraging the export of European defamation law to the U.S.with an extra margin of censorship to keep the platform from any risk of liability. I offer to risk my Facebook account to see if thats already happening.

In the news, the FISA follies take center stage, as the March 15 deadline for reauthorizing important counterterrorism authorities draws near. No one has a good solution. Matthew Heiman explains that another kick-the-can scenario remains a live option. And Nick Weaver summarizes the problems that the PCLOB found with the FISA call detail record program. My take: The program failed because it was imposed on NSA by libertarian ideologues who had no idea how it would work in practice and who now want to blame NSA for their own shortsightedness.

Another week, another couple of artificial intelligence ethics codes: The two most recent ones come from DOD and the Pope? Mark MacCarthy sees a lot to like. I offer my quick and dirty CTRL-F bias test for whether the codes are serious or flaky, and both fail.

In China news, Matthew covers Chinas ever-spreading censorship regimenow reaching Twitter users whose accounts are blocked by the Great Firewall. We also ask whether and how much the U.S. name and shame campaign has actually reduced Chinese cyberespionage. And whether China is stealing tech from universities for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banksthats where the IP is.

Nick recounts with undisguised glee the latest tribulations suffered by Clearview and its facial recognition system: Its app has been banned from Android and Apple, and both its customers and its data collection methods have been doxed.

Mark notes the success of threats to boycott Pakistan on the part of Facebook, Google and Twitter. I wonder if that will simply incentivize Pakistan to drive its social media ecosystem toward the Chinese giants. Nick gives drug dealers a lesson in how not to store the codes for 53.6 million in Bitcoin; or is he offering a lesson in what to say to the police if you want that 53.6 million waiting for you when you get out of prison?

Finally, in a few quick hits, we cover new developments in past stories: It turns out, to the surprise of no one, that removing a GPS tracking device from your car isnt theft. West Virginia has apparently recovered from a fit of insanity and now does not plan to allow voting by insecure app. And the FCC is taking it slow in its investigation of mobile carriers for selling customer location data; now we know wholl be charged (pretty much everyone) and how much it will cost them ($200 million), but we still dont know the theory or whether the whole inquiry is going to kill off legitimate uses of location data.

Download the 302nd Episode (mp3).

Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll!

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!

As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to [emailprotected]. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Link:

The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Lawfare

Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post – Techdirt

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

from the opening-up-our-libel-laws dept

It appears whatever modest amount of restraint that our President had regarding his early promise to "open up our libel laws" have gone away. As you may recall, during the campaign he made such a promise, perhaps not realizing that defamation laws are not under the purview of the federal government -- and any changes at the state level are limited by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution (not something he can write away with an executive order). Right before he was inaugurated, he seemed to back down a little on that promise -- telling the NY Times that someone had pointed out to him that with more open libel laws, he was more likely to get sued as well.

Over the first three years of his Presidency, while constantly lashing out ridiculously at the press, and the Washington Post and the NY Times in particular -- including his constant authoritarian attack of calling them "the enemy of the people" -- he had not sued. Until last week when he tapped lawyer Charles Harder (who, we'll remind you, was the lawyer in the lawsuit against us), to represent the Trump Campaign (rather than Donald directly) to sue the NY Times over an opinion piece. Trump and Harder have now done so again, this time suing the Washington Post over two opinion pieces.

The complaint -- like the one against the NY Times -- is laughable and will be thrown out of court. Again, opinions are not defamatory, and the articles were opinion pieces. The statements they make, that the Trump campaign declares defamatory are basically all ones based on disclosed facts. The complaint is short and not very detailed. It highlights just a single line in each post that it claims is defamatory:

On or about June 13, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely (the June 13 Article), by Greg Sargent, which contained the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign tried to conspire with a sweeping and systematic attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.

The statement in the June 13 Article is false and defamatory. In fact, Special Counsel Muellers Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election released on or about April 18, 2019 (the Mueller Report), nearly two months before the June 13 Article, came to the opposite conclusion of the June 13 Article, namely, the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russias efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.

On or about June 20, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump: I can win reelection with just my base (the June 20 Article), by Paul Waldman, which contains the defamatory statement who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?

The statement in the June 20 Article is false and defamatory. There has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration inviting Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond. There also has never been any reporting that the Campaign has ever had any contact with North Korea relating to any United States election.

These are both issues that are subject to interpretation, and neither piece comes anywhere even remotely close to the necessary standard for defamation of a public figure (which, uh, the President absolutely is). On the first one, Harder is leaning heavily on the "conspiracy" word. While the Report did not show direct coordination between the campaign and the Russians, it did show multiple connection points. Indeed, the report itself says:

The investigation alsoidentified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Althoughthe investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trumppresidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefitelectorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did notestablish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russiangovernment in its election interference activities.

So this comes down to interpretation. The Mueller report showed links between the Russians and the Campaign, but did not find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy -- which is not definitive evidence of no conspiracy. Indeed, the report shows multiple situations in which members of the Trump Campaign appeared interested in working with the Russian government -- but not enough evidence of an actual conspiracy was found. But to say that's evidence of no effort to conspire is just silly. The opinion piece's summary of that as "tried to conspire" is... not anywhere near defamatory, in which case the Post would have to have believed this was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That's... not the case.

On the second one, I'll note, with amusement, that the final sentence only mentions North Korea as a government that the Trump Campaign has not discussed the election with and leaves out Russia. Interesting. But, more to the point, the article in question was discussing a Trump interview with George Stephanopoulos in which Trump is asked if he'd accept damaging information on election opponents from foreign nations, and Trump replied:

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

That is easily, and fairly, turned into the statement in the Post opinion piece that the Campaign was "inviting" foreign help. There is no way that such a statement could or would be seen as defamatory.

In the meantime, I feel the need to remind both Harder and Trump that not too long ago, in defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit in which Trump was the defendant, Harder wrote a stirring statement in support of the 1st Amendment and warned that:

A defamation standard that turns typical political rhetoric into actionable defamation would chill expression that is central to the First Amendment and political speech.

I wish the two of them would remember that sometimes.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, slappCompanies: washington post

Link:

Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post - Techdirt

First Amendment Gives You A Right To Be A Jerk, But With A Price – Big Easy Magazine

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

Years ago, at the now defunct Warehouse Grille (since rebranded Flamingo A Go Go) on Magazine & St. Joseph and hours before the Saints were scheduled to play the Carolina Panthers, a woman from Baton Rouge decided that was the perfect time to confront me over an alleged tweet that insulted her.

While I believed that this was the wrong place and time to do it, as well as an ambush of sorts, I also felt that the woman, who was rather profane in the confrontation and wouldnt give me a chance to profusely apologize, was well within her right to voice her displeasure. She was allowed that space to express how she felt, regardless of the tone and the word choice she used in her interaction with me.

Recently, two well-known jerks, former baseball player Aubrey Huff and insufferable gun advocate Kaitlin Bennett, have gone off the deep end about their First Amendment rights being trampled on by people who disagree with their political views. To them, they feel that being made fun of at Ohio University or being disinvited to a championship celebration is some liberal agenda.

When in actuality, its not.

The reason why Aubrey Huff, who played a major role in the Giants winning their first World Series since 1954, had nothing to do with his freedom to be a jerk or even his unwavering support of Donald Trump.

Huffs disinvite to the 10-year celebration of the 2010 championship celebration was largely in part due to the fact that he posted tweets about teaching his kids how to use a gun in the event that Bernie Sanders defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election as well as insulting tweets about MLBs first full-time female coach, Alyssa Nakken, who was hired by the Giants earlier this year.

Of course, like any clueless jerk, Huff was too stupid to realize that the Giants were well within their right to disinvite him to any event revolving around the team. So much so that he decided to tweet at Major League Baseball and Trump about what he felt was a grave injustice.

Over 2,000-plus miles away in Athens, Ohio, insufferable gun advocate Kaitlin Bennett (Im not sure we can even call her that) decided to pay a surprise visit to Ohio University on Presidents Day to ask students questions about the holiday. And while Bennett was well within her right to appear on the Ohio University campus unannounced, the students, who probably wanted to spend their Mondays doing something else, was well within their right to voice their displeasure about her visit.

Hours after being chased off the Ohio University campus, Bennett took a page out of the Aubrey Huff playbook, lamenting that the Ohio University campus police didnt do enough to protect her from protestors and said that Trump should strip funding from schools that dont do enough to protect his supporters.

This is what happens when a Trump supporter goes to a college campus, she wrote on Twitter about the protest.

Im pretty certain that Ohio University, like any other university in the country, has their lions share of Trump supporters on campus.

But the reason why the students at Ohio University, just like everyone else she comes into contact with, confronts her and makes her whine on social media like my four year-old surrogate niece in Broadmoor when things dont go her way, is because she goes out of her way to look for a fight when she goes into journalist mode.

Instead of asking questions without personal bias and a snarky tone, she does the complete opposite when she talks to college students, people that are for the most part 2-4 years younger than her. More importantly, she becomes petulant when the students that she interview dont agree with her controversial opinions.

According to the framers of the United States Constitution, the First Amendment means that we have the freedom to voice our opinions without the government stepping in. Meaning that both Bennett and Huff have the freedom to support whoever they want and be a jerk along the way.

However, while we as Americans have the freedom to be jerks, it doesnt mean that our jerk-like ways come without consequence.

For Huff, who actually had a solid baseball career and won two rings with the Giants, his jerk-like ways on social media, not his political support, cost him a chance to partake in the championship ceremony with his 2010 teammates.

The Giants were well within their rights to deny him that privilege.

That same line of thinking applies to Bennett as well. While she has the freedom to be a jerk and support whoever she wants, the downside of that is paying a hefty price, something that I learned years ago in a crowded Warehouse Grille and what Huff sorely doesnt want to learn.

You can huff and puff, tweet to Trump, and take your ball.

But sooner or later, youre going to be a sideshow attraction that everyone ignores.

First Amendment Gives You A Right To Be A Jerk, But With A Price - Big Easy Magazine

A sneaky attempt to end encryption is worming its way through Congress – The Verge

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

A thing about writing a newsletter about technology and democracy during a global pandemic is that technology and democracy are no longer really at the forefront of everyones attention. The relationship between big platforms and the nations they operate in remains vitally important for all sorts of reasons, and Ive argued that the platforms have been unusually proactive in their efforts to promote high-quality information sources. Still, these moves are a sideshow compared to the questions were all now asking. How many people will get COVID-19? How many people will die? Will our healthcare system be overwhelmed? How long will it take our economy to recover?

We wont know the answers for weeks, but Im starting to fear the worst. On Wednesday the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 had officially become a pandemic. A former director for the Centers for Disease Control now says that in the worst case scenario, more than 1 million Americans could die.

This piece by Tomas Pueyo argues persuasively that the United States is currently seeing exponential growth in the number of people contracting the disease, and that hospitals are likely to be overwhelmed. Pueyos back ground is in growth marketing, not in epidemiology. But by now we have seen enough outbreaks in enough countries to have a rough idea of how the disease spreads, and to understand the value of social distancing that is, staying behind closed doors. So I want to recommend that everyone here reads that piece, and consider modifying your behavior if youre still planning events or spending a lot of time in public.

* * *

One risk of having the world pay attention to a single, all-consuming story is that less important but still urgent stories are missed along the way. One such unfolding story in our domain is the (deep breath) Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act, which was the subject of a Senate hearing on Wednesday. Heres Alfred Ng with an explainer in CNET:

The EARN IT Act was introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican of South Carolina) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Democrat of Connecticut), along with Sen. Josh Hawley (Republican of Missouri) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Democrat of California) on March 5.

The premise of the bill is that technology companies have to earn Section 230 protections rather than being granted immunity by default, as the Communications Decency Act has provided for over two decades.

For starters, its not clear that companies have to earn what are already protections provided under the First Amendment: to publish, and to allow their users to publish, with very few legal restrictions. But if the EARN IT Act were passed, tech companies could be held liable if their users posted illegal content. This would represent a significant and potentially devastating amendment to Section 230, a much-misunderstood law that many consider a pillar of the internet and the businesses that operate on top of it.

When internet companies become liable for what their users post, those companies aggressively moderate speech. This was the chief outcome of FOSTA-SESTA, the last bill Congress passed to amend Section 230. It was putatively written to eliminate sex trafficking, and was passed into law after Facebook endorsed it. I wrote about the aftermath in October:

[The law] threatens any website owner with up to 10 years in prison for hosting even one instance of prostitution-related content. As a result, sites like Craigslist removed their entire online personals sections. Sex workers who had previously been working as their own bosses were driven back onto the streets, often forced to work for pimps. Prostitution-related crime in San Francisco alone including violence against workers more than tripled.

Meanwhile, evidence that the law reduced sex trafficking is suspiciously hard to come by. And there is little reason to believe that the EARN IT Act will be a greater boon to public life.

Yet, for the reasons Issie Lapowsky lays out today in a good piece in Protocol, it may pass anyway. Once again Congress has lined up some sympathetic witnesses who paint a picture that, because of their misfortune, whole swathes of the internet should be eliminated. It would do that by setting up a byzantine checklist structure that would handcuff companies to a difficult-to-modify set of procedures. One item on that checklist could be eliminating end-to-end encryption in messaging apps, depriving the world of a secure communications tool at a time when authoritarian governments are surging around the world. Heres Lapowsky:

The EARN IT Act would establish the National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, a 19-member commission, tasked with creating a set of best practices for online companies to abide by with regard to stopping child sexual abuse material. Those best practices would have to be approved by 14 members of the committee and submitted to the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission for final approval. That list would then need to be enacted by Congress. Companies would have to certify that theyre following those best practices in order to retain their Section 230 immunity. Like FOSTA/SESTA before it, losing that immunity would be a significant blow to companies with millions, or billions, of users posting content every day.

The question now is whether the industry can convince lawmakers that the costs of the law outweigh the benefits. Its a debate that will test what tech companies have learned from the FOSTA/SESTA battle and how much clout they even have left on Capitol Hill.

The bills backers have not said definitively that they will demand a backdoor for law enforcement (and whoever else can find it) as part of the EARN IT Act. (In fact, Blumenthal denies it.) But nor have they written the bill to say they wont. And Graham, one of the bills cosponsors, left little doubt on where he stands:

Facebook is talking about end-to-end encryption which means they go blind, Sen Graham said, later adding, Were not going to go blind and let this abuse go forward in the name of any other freedom.

Notably, Match Group the company behind Tinder, OKCupid, and many of the most popular dating apps in the United States has come out in support of the bill. (Thats easy for Match: none of the apps it makes offer encrypted communications.) The platforms are starting to speak up against it, though see this thread from WhatsApp chief Will Cathcart.

In the meantime, Graham raises the prospect that the federal government will get what it has long wanted greatly expanded power to surveil our communications by burying it in a complex piece of legislation that is nominally about reducing the spread of child abuse imagery. Its a cynical move, and if the similar tactics employed in the FOSTA-SESTA debate were any indication, it might well be an effective one.

Trending up: Amazon and the Gates Foundation might team up to deliver coronavirus test kits to Seattle homes. The test kits include nose swabs that can be mailed to the University of Washington for analysis.

Trending up: Amazon will give all employees diagnosed with coronavirus or put into quarantine up to two weeks of paid sick leave. The policy includes part-time warehouse workers. COVID-19 has really been a watershed for tech giants treating their contract workers like the human beings they are.

On the policy front:

The White House met with Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter, Apple, and Microsoft to coordinate efforts over the coronavirus outbreak. (Reuters)

YouTube will begin letting creators make money from their videos about the coronavirus. Its a reversal of an earlier decision the company made to automatically demonetize videos that talked about the outbreak. That decision angered creators, and now the company has walked it back. (Julia Alexander / The Verge)

On the economy:

Apple is closing all 17 of its retail stores in Italy until further notice as the coronavirus pandemic sweeps the country. (Mark Gurman / Bloomberg)

The coronavirus outbreak is hurting Airbnb hosts as travel screeches to a halt. The economic downturn is also impacting airlines and hotels, but hosts have fewer resources to cope. (Erin Griffith / The New York Times)

Travel influencers also say the spread of COVID-19 has impacted their lives and bottom lines. (Tanya Chen / BuzzFeed)

On the office front:

Google is asking all employees in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa to work from home due to coronavirus concerns. Employees in North American have already been given the same advice. (Isobel Asher Hamilton and Rob Price / Business Insider)

On the conference front:

The Council on Foreign Relations had to cancel a roundtable discussion about doing business under coronavirus due to, well, the coronavirus. Its one of many events that have been canceled or rescheduled in recent weeks to do the viruss spread. (David Welch / Bloomberg)

The biggest trade show in video games, E3 2020, was canceled due to coronavirus concerns. The event was supposed to take place at the Los Angeles Convention Center this June. (Jason Schreier / Kotaku)

On the misinformation front:

A Facebook group called U.K. Preppers & Survivalists is trying to stop misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic from spreading. One of the moderators said that while people should question news and politicians, questioning doctors isnt helpful. (Hussein Kesvani / Mel)

Hackers are sending emails with fake HIV results and coronavirus information that infect computers with malware, according to cybersecurity researchers at Proofpoint. The fake HIV emails are designed to look like they come from Vanderbilt University. (Jane Lytvynenko / BuzzFeed)

WeChat users in China are evading censors by translating a viral interview from a coronavirus whistleblower in Wuhan, China. Theyre rewriting it backward, filling it with typos and emojis, sharing it as a PDF, and even translating it into fictional languages like Klingon. (Ryan Broderick / BuzzFeed)

We need to combat misinformation about coronavirus the same way were combating the virus itself: with a communitarian focus. This strategy emphasizes the needs of the community rather than just focusing on the individual, this piece argues. (Whitney Phillips / Wired)

Elsewhere:

Microsoft, Google, and Zoom are trying to keep up with demand for their software, which allows people to work remotely. The companies have also started giving it away to companies and schools for free, as the coronavirus pandemic intensifies. (Rani Molla / Recode)

Heres the case for why coronavirus quarantines could be good for memes. Finally, some good news! (Brian Feldman / Intelligencer)

Maryland, Nebraska, and New York have all proposed taxes that would force tech companies to hand over a portion of the revenue generated from digital advertising. The proposals mirror taxes countries like France have also considered. Ashley Gold at The Information has the story:

The proposals vary in approach and scope, but they all center around the idea that big internet companies, having built their fortunes in part through the use of consumers personal information, should be contributing more to government coffers. The bills, which face mixed prospects for adoption, have drawn the ire of tech companies and other business groups, who say it could be challenging to determine precisely how much of their ad revenue comes from each state. In addition, tax experts said, the proposals could run afoul of federal law.

But lawmakers and other advocates believe the proposals might find favor with voters concerned about the power wielded by Silicon Valley and large corporations in general.

Also: The UK government confirmed that it will levy a 2 percent tax on the revenues of search engines, social media services and online marketplaces which derive value from U.K. users starting on April 1st. The United States government has been strongly opposed to the plan. (Shakeel Hashim / Protocol)

After 2016, Americans are alert to Russian election interference and outside attempts to spread discord. But conspiracy theories and vitriol are now coming from influencers in the United States verified users, many from within the media, and passionate hyper-partisan fan groups that band together to drive the conversation. (Rene DiResta / The Atlantic)

Joe Biden has more than tripled the amount of money his campaign is spending on Facebook ads following a strong showing on Super Tuesday. His spend on Facebook ads in March has exceeded that of Bernie Sanders and President Trump. (Salvador Rodriguez / CNBC)

As big tech companies struggle to moderate content with a mix of algorithms, fact-checkers, and policies, Wikipedia is quietly managing to stave off misinformation with an army of anonymous volunteers. (Alex Pasternack / Fast Company)

Clearview AI let multiple people associated with the Trump campaign use its facial recognition app. Venture capital firms including SoftBank, Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins, and Founders Fund also ran searches. Clearview previously tried to claim that the app was only for law enforcement. (Ryan Mac, Caroline Haskins and Logan McDonald / BuzzFeed)

Microsoft organized 35 nations to take down one of the worlds largest botnets malware that secretly seizes control of millions of computers around the globe. The move was unusual because it was carried out by a company, not a government. (David E. Sanger / The New York Times)

Content related to far-right candidates in Poland makes up a greater percentage of general Facebook content than of content on mainstream outlets Facebook pages, according to researchers at Stanford. Evidence suggests this might be because far-right pages are especially good at boosting engagement on Facebook by posting content simultaneously across their networks. (Daniel Bush, Anna Gielewska, Maciej Kurzynski / Cyber Policy Center)

TikTok is launching a Transparency Center in Los Angeles to give outside experts more insight into how the company makes content moderation decisions. Its one of many moves the company has made in recent months to quell the concerns of US regulators and lawmakers. This ones interesting. Reuters explains:

The center would later provide insights into the apps source code, the closely guarded internal instructions of the software, and offer more details on privacy and security.

Several U.S. agencies that deal with national security and intelligence issues have banned employees from using the app, whose popularity among teenagers has been growing rapidly.

According to a 2017 Chinese law, companies operating in the country are required to cooperate with the government on national intelligence.

Egon Durban of Silver Lake is the latest Twitter board member to have never tweeted before joining the board.

Rihanna just announced shes opening a Fenty Beauty House for TikTok creators as part of a promotion for her makeup line. Creators will be able to raid the fully stocked Make-up Pantry to create their own beauty-focused content. What a fun time to be trapped together in a house with a bunch of people you barely know! Dont share make-up brushes yall! (Bianca Betancourt / Harpers Bazaar)

Alphabet was supposed to help Google invent its next blockbuster technologies. But nearly a half-decade has passed since it launched, and the breakthrough new businesses havent materialized. (Nick Bastone and Jessica E. Lessin / The Information)

Google has pressured TV manufacturers not to use Amazons Fire TV system. The strategy has slowed Amazons efforts to expand its Fire TV platform. (Janko Roettgers / Protocol)

Googles sibling company Sidewalk Labs is walking back plans to create a futuristic city in Toronto. The plans, which combined environmentally advanced construction with sensors to track residents movements, raised privacy concerns. In May, the government will announce if the project will proceed. (Ian Austen / The New York Times)

Send us tips, comments, questions, and EARN IT Act worse-case scenarios: casey@theverge.com and zoe@theverge.com.

Originally posted here:

A sneaky attempt to end encryption is worming its way through Congress - The Verge

Newark warns of criminal prosecution for ‘false reporting of coronavirus’ | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

TheDepartment of Public Safety of Newark, N.J., is warning residents they could be prosecuted for falselyreportingcoronavirus cases in the city.

The citys public safety director, Anthony Ambrose, cautioned Newark residents against posting false information aboutcases on social media, saying it can cause unnecessary public alarm.

Ambrose said in a statementthat the department will investigate and try to identify those making false claims on social media, adding that state laws carry penalties for causingfalse public alarm.

The State of New Jersey has laws regarding causing a false public alarm and we will enforce those laws, Ambrose said. Individuals who make any false or baseless reports about the coronavirus in Newark can set off a domino effect that can result in injury to residents and visitors and affect schools, houses of worship, businesses and entire neighborhoods, he added.

Public Safety Director Ambrose warns against false reporting of coronavirus in Newark via social media https://t.co/U1fS0RALHu via @Nextdoor pic.twitter.com/m75Y2CuB8L

Some on social media criticized the announcement, saying it violates the First Amendment.

The coronavirushas infected more than 1,000 people in the U.S. and killed at least 29.

The global outbreak is affecting the worlds economy and causing many events to be canceled, including sports competitions and political rallies. Several events, like the next Democratic debate, will occur without a live audience.Schools and universities are also canceling classes or moving them online.

See the original post:

Newark warns of criminal prosecution for 'false reporting of coronavirus' | TheHill - The Hill

Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment – Techdirt

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

from the fuck-the-drafting-of-residents-into-Dan-Patrick's-war-over-words dept

Another challenger to the First Amendment has appeared. And his name is Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

Apparently offended by a Senate hearing witness garbed in an anti-police t-shirt, the Lt. Governor welcomed all challengers via Twitter to sue him for violating people's free speech rights.

In case you can't see the tweet, it says:

Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur. Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.

If you can't see the shirt (and you can't, because Dan Patrick blurred out the offending words/images), it's a hand with the middle finger extended above the phrase "Fuck the police."

Clearly of the belief that Supreme Court precedent almost exactly on point has no bearing on Texas Senate proceedings, the state's second-in-command has promised to ban any t-shirt he subjectively feels is "vulgar," but "especially" the ones that "denigrate" law enforcement.

The Supreme Court precedent -- delivered nearly 50 years ago -- dealt with a 30-day jail term given to a courthouse attendee who wore a "Fuck the Draft" jacket. That clearly denigrated the brave men and women who decided who was eligible to go die for their country in the United States' most infamous losing effort. The Supreme Court ruled that the government violated the First Amendment by demanding citizens only wear/make the most innocuous of statements while in the government's presence.

Patrick's proposal sounds exactly like a content-based ban on speech, which is exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment guards against. But there are those who believe time-and-place restrictions could allow Patrick's ban to bypass the First Amendment. Why? Because the state legislature can do whatever the hell it wants, apparently.

Chuck DeVore, vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, disagrees with Patricks critics.

Legislative chambers, DeVore said, have the power to set their own rules of decorum as a co-equal branch of government. While the courts have the power to review laws passed by a legislature, they cannot tell lawmakers how to pass those laws or run their affairs, he said.

Well, that assertion aside, the desire to ban things that offend one government official sure sounds like something a court should rule on. The Lieutenant Governor is on (Twitter) record as welcoming legal challenges to his "won't someone think of the cops?" content-based restriction. These are the oh-so-brave words of a man willing to spend other people's money to defend a move many of those people likely don't agree with. That's the luxury legislators have: the ability to force people to defend indefensible positions by proxy (but also directly via their tax dollars).

At some point, Patrick and his stupid new rule triggered by his triggering will have their day in court. And it seems highly unlikely he'll prevail. When he's done blowing money on forcing the public to respect cops, maybe the state's residents will be kind enough to vote his censorial ass out of office. Until then, the lieutenant governor will remain dissed like the cops he loves so much that he's willing to violate the Constitution for them.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dan patrick, free speech, fuck the police, texas

More here:

Lt. Governor Of Texas Gets Offended By An Anti-Police Shirt, Decides He Needs To Start Violating The First Amendment - Techdirt

TOM WARD Beyond the headline, complainer had a point – Valley Breeze

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

3/11/2020

Well, that didnt take long, thankfully. It seems last Thursday afternoon, a piece of legislation was filed by local state senators Sandra Cano and Betty Crowley, along with others. The Stop Guilt by Accusation Act was meant to ban media from selectively reporting certain facts.

Legislators noted that the First Amendment to the Constitution, the first and most important article in the Bill of Rights, said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. Then came the bill, abridging freedom of the press and promising $10,000 fines for non-compliance.

The senators had filed the bill at the request of Rep. Grace Diaz, of Providence, who met a man last year who felt he had been mistreated by the media.

Our editor, Ethan Shorey, upon learning of the bill, immediately tweeted it out, and the race was on as WPRIs Ted Nesi and others began asking questions.

Soon after, the bill was withdrawn. Well done! But then came the Friday Providence Journal story, and the headline and story became more about the man who asked for the bills filing than about the First Amendment. It seems the man, Chris Sevier, of Atlanta, is an anti-abortion and anti-LGBT activist. Wrote the Journal: According to a March 2 story about Sevier on the website Mississippitoday.org:He sued Apple for their laptops not blocking porn that he said killed his marriage. Hes drafted anti-LGBT bills that have been pushed by lawmakers in several states. He tried to marry his laptop in three states in apparent protest over same-sex marriage.

OK, so hes a right-wing activist making some very strange claims (and thats being kind).

But I was disappointed to read Diaz say, My feeling is beyond what I can express, after learning of Seviers history. If I knew, I would run ten-thousand-million miles away from that guy.So her sin, apparently, was talking to a right-winger, and not trying to limit press freedom. Wow. Lets never do that again!

Let me just say this: Obviously, I stand with journalists who were horrified by this bill. Every legislator should know from Civics 101 that there will never be a case or reason to abridge the free press. Period! There will never, ever be a circumstance where people would come to trust government censors and busybodies over their own ability to sort through news.

That said, I think Sevier has a point. His complaint was that the media did stories on accusations about him, but never followed up when he was acquitted. Sevier was left, he said to Diaz, with a damaged reputation and no recourse to set the record straight.

I wont speak for anyone beyond myself, but yes, this happens. And it can be damaging, especially in the new world of Google, where facts live online forever.

It would be a huge undertaking for any news outlet to track down every arrest they ever reported and then be forced to report the follow-up facts. But as a publisher, I can see where those accused unjustly would expect exactly that. I didnt begin this newspaper 24 years ago to anger and hurt my neighbors, but it can happen. It is a challenge.

Still, the government will have to live with the medias best efforts at self-policing, as well as monitoring by our readers and those accused. We must do our best, case by case. And yes, even if the complainer is on the fringe of the right-wing. He may be extreme, and I dont support his limits on a free press, but it doesnt mean he doesnt have a point.

Ward is publisher of The Valley Breeze

The rest is here:

TOM WARD Beyond the headline, complainer had a point - Valley Breeze

Young Hackers Are The Future Of Cybersecurity Lets Treat Them As Such – Forbes

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

Kirill Kukhmar/TASS

In February, a poster that featured the Metropolitan Police and National Crime Agency logos, created to warn parents about children and cybercrime, came under scrutiny. It warned parents against various online tools, including Tor Browser and Kali Linux, claiming the presence of such tools was a sign their child "could be a hacker". Both organizations said they had no involvement with the poster and rightly distanced themselves but it points to a worrisome attitude towards tech education in the UK.

If young people are vilified for honing their cyber skills, we risk alienating them from the tech industry. Associating legitimate software such as Kali Linux with cybercrime perpetuates a stereotype of young coders as potential hackers. While its easy to laugh this poster off as ignorance, there is a serious risk to young talent. At the very least they could be disincentivized from pursuing technical skills and at a time when there is a global deficit of cyber experts.

Technical ability is the future of work, which is why the British government has implemented policies such as the National Retraining Scheme. If our economy is to flourish, interest in these programs should be encouraged, not discouraged; we should be welcoming and encouraging hackers. (ISC)2 found that the number of unfilled IT security roles is more than four million and increasing by a million year-on-year. Tapping into the next generation of cyber-curious individuals is integral to plugging the gap.

This security talent deficit is already having an effect on security teams. A recent Marlin Hawk study found that 66% of CISOs are struggling to recruit senior talent because candidates either lack the right level of technical knowledge (34%), dont have the right experience (30%), or are not the right cultural fit (10%). This is especially prevalent in the APAC region, where 91% find it difficult to find the right talent, compared to 61% in the UK and 54% in the US. Encouraging young people to see tech, and especially cybersecurity, as a viable career path is essential. The outside the box thinking required to be a hacker is what cybersecurity firms are desperate for; new threats come in all shapes and sizes, so the industry needs people who can predict and counter such attacks.

There is also a trend of neurodiverse individuals succeeding in cybersecurity, and they are at risk of being put off by posters such as the one that appeared in February, as many of these individuals eschew formal education in favor of developing skills independently. Neurodivergent individuals possess unique insight, so we should encourage them to learn in a way that suits them. This is the exact reason they suit cyber roles: by thinking differently, neurodiverse people can spot things that others might miss and bring different problem-solving approaches which might otherwise be overlooked. This includes desirable skills such as focus, pattern recognition and methodical and logical thinking. It is no coincidence, then, that the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and GCHQ actively seek members of the neurodiverse community when hiring.

The tech community needs to correct the narrative when it comes to young hackers. The term hacker has a natural association with criminality, when, on the most simplistic level, what hackers do is by definition something that others thought impossible. Whether for positive or nefarious ends, being a hacker requires an innovative mindset. By creating an atmosphere of negativity around those involved in hacking from an early age, we risk driving them to the fringes perhaps even criminality. Telling children with strong computer skills that their interest in technology is bad can force them to be secretive about it and result in them being pushed into cybercrime. They need an outlet for their skills.

The employment gap in cybersecurity and many other parts of the tech industry is not going anywhere. The solution to this is staring us in the face: we must encourage, not admonish, those with the technical abilities to transform industries. Whether it be neurodivergent people, the young or indeed the elderly, we need to encourage the tech-savvy among us to be a force for good.

So the next time parents see a poster warning them that their child could be a hacker, we must ensure that both parent and child see it as a badge of honor the mark of someone who could one day be on the frontline, protecting us from the rising tide of cyber threats.

Paedophile used ‘sophisticated’ methods to avoid detection by police – Liverpool Echo

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

A paedophile who employed "sophisticated" means to prevent police from detecting his internet use was jailed at Liverpool Crown Court today.

The court heard how Adam Johnston, 30, of Ampthill Road in Aigburth, had used a VPN network to hide his computers IP address and a TOR browser that prevents a users internet activity from being tracked.

Johnston had previously pleaded guilty to four counts of making and possessing indecent videos and images of children at an earlier hearing.

Prosecuting, Paul Blasbery, told the court that on June 21 2019, police had attended Johnstons previous address in Liverpool City Centre and seized a laptop and a pen drive from his flat.

They were later found to contain 237 indecent images of children, made between March 15 2015 and July 19 2018.

142 of the images were category A considered the worst kind which included 116 videos and 26 still images, some which featured children as young as 12 to 18 months old.

The remaining 185 images consisted of both category B and C images and videos of children.

The court also heard that Johnston had eight previous convictions for 23 offences dating from 2004 to 2011.

Mr Killen, defending, told the judge that Johnston wanted to "move away from his past".

He said: "In committing these offences he [Johnston] had relapsed and failed.

"He had been working away and began to drink alone which made him go back to his old ways."

Mr Killen added that Johnston was "a good candidate for rehabilitation" and that imposing a jail sentence on his client would have a "catastrophic effect on his training and housing and likely leave him vulnerable to re-offending".

Sentencing, Judge Robert Warnock told Johnston: "Those children were as young as 12 to 18 months old.

"The equipment you used was sophisticated and intended to frustrate those investigating.

"It is clear that you retain a sexual interest in young children and I have an obligation to protect the public."

Johnston was sentenced to 12 months in prison and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years.

Paedophile used 'sophisticated' methods to avoid detection by police - Liverpool Echo

Do We Really Need to Send Humans into Space? – Scientific American

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

What future lies ahead for humans in space? Last year, the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing found a host of private and governmental projects that aim to send astronauts far beyond the near-Earth orbits that have limited human space exploration since 1972. China, which landed the first spacecraft on the lunar far side in 2019, has plans to place astronauts to the moon. India, which crashed a lander on the moon in 2019, dreams of doing likewise. Russia, which doesnt seem to have much of an ongoing astronaut program, still provides the rockets and launch facilities that provide astronauts with access to the International Space Station. The Trump administration proposes to create a lunar base as a key step in sending astronauts to Mars. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have spent large sums on future human space missions. Indeed, Musk has already created a thriving rocket business, which NASA uses to resupply the Space Station, 250 miles above Earths surface.

What benefits will flow from these efforts to send humans much farther into space? As children of the 1950s, we were thrilled and inspired by the satellites that began to circle Earth in 1957, the first astronautswho followed similar paths in the 1960s and made the first spacewalk in 1965and what turned out to be the culmination of human spaceflight: NASAs six astronaut explorations of the lunar surface from 1969 through 1972. Beyond any scientific returns, these efforts elevated the human spirit, reaching a peak on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong set humanitys first footprints on the moon. During the 1960s, we became astronomers with a deep passion to explore the cosmos.

But the past five decades have taught a clear lesson about how best to explore the cosmos. People venturing into space are fragile: They require a continuous supply of oxygen, water, food and shelter. They must endure long intervals of weightlessness. Their physical capabilities remain constant across generations. And their loss, when it occurs, casts a pall over our would-be joy of identifying with their exploration. In contrast, automated spacecraft require only a power supply. They cost far less than humans do, and we know how to improve them every year. And if they fail, we lose only dollars and scientific results.

Since the first moon landing, we have sent several hundred probes throughout the solar system, from innermost Mercury to Arrokoth (previously nicknamed Ultima Thule), a planetesimal orbiting far beyond Pluto. Spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Venus and Mars, spent years in orbit around Jupiter and Saturn, and surveyed Uranus and Neptune. And the Japanese Hayabusa2 spacecraft will soon pass by Earth to release a capsule with material from the asteroid Ryugu, one of the oldest members of the solar system. Multiple lunar missions have mapped the moons far side, detected the gravitational anomalies that make the man in the moon always face Earth and discovered huge amounts of water frozen in the soil at the lunar poles.

Limited to low-Earth orbits, astronauts have basically performed extensive experiments on the hazards and requirements of living in space-bound habitats. By far, the finest achievement of humans in space has been the five servicing missions that allowed astronauts to repair instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits Earth at the maximum altitude that the now defunct Space Shuttle could carry it to. Astronomers, who cheered these efforts more than anyone, remained deeply aware of an ironic fact: Hubble suffers from close proximity to our planet, whose reflected and emitted radiation greatly hampers the telescopes ability to peer clearly and deeply into space. The James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to supplant the now creaky Hubble next year, will be directed to the much more astronomically favored L2 point (for second Lagrange point), a million miles from Earth. Spacecraft at L2 can easily maintain a stable orbit, avoiding the slow drift that gravitational tugs from the sun and moon produce elsewhere. Astronomers have already maintained spacecraft at L2 to observe the cosmos in infrared, ultraviolet and x-radiation, unaffected by interference from our own planet.

Why, then, should we not expect future astronauts, if called upon, to repair one of the numerous space-borne instruments to be sent to L2? An astronaut expedition to repair one of these great observatories at L2 would involve at least as much complexity as a landing on the moonand possibly a greater expense than the creation and launch of a new and improved observational platform. In fact, the missions to repair the Hubble telescope cost significantly more than replacing it with a newer and better version. But these missions elevated our spirits, whereas writing off the telescope would have been a profound downera reminder that public opinion, which would have scorned the latter action while celebrating the former, understandably plays a crucial role in determining what our government chooses to do.

The contrast between astronaut and automated space missions will grow ever stronger as we improve our miniaturization, virtual-reality and artificial-intelligence capabilities. Today a trained geologist on the moon can perform as well as a robotic explorer, but the future of geologic investigation of other worlds lies with highly improved versions of our Mars rovers. These explorers will deploy numerous tools to probe rocks and minerals, using a memory equaland soon superiorto any humans. They will traverse the lunar or Martian surface for decades, continuously learning about the topography, seismographic activity and distribution of geologic strata in bulk and in detail. Conceptually similar robots will eventually be able to repair spacecraft at the L2 point, while others could construct complex structures in space, including an array of radio telescopes on the radio-quiet far side of the moon.

The fundamental issue of sending humans into the cosmos asks not how easily astronauts can repair instruments in deep space, how quickly they can land on the moon and construct a base there, or why they should travel to Mars and attempt to create a habitat there. Instead it queries, Why should we do any of this? Four major motivations deserve special attention as answers to this question.

Uplifting the human spirit. Sending humans into space adds glory to our lives. Overcoming the manifold challenges to long-term spaceflight inspires and delights us. Almost everyone naturally responds to heroic accomplishments, and many of us would regard a human landing on Mars as a paramount achievement of our species. But to many scientists, and to some among the public, such potent reactions fail to justify the costs and dangers of these missions.

We should note that several other motivations lie behind the push for astronaut expeditions to our celestial neighbors. These include the desire to outdo our rivals, the belief that space offers an eventual refuge from a debilitated Earth and an eagerness to exploit raw materials in the nearby solar system. Each of these arguments, in our opinion, favor expeditions not with humans but with our ever improved spacecraft and robot explorersat least until the habitats for the refuge of a chosen population are ready.

National pride. The cold war argument that the Russians could seize the high ground by establishing a lunar base never made sense, because any nation seeking to use space to launch weapons would attempt to do so close to Earth, not from a quarter-million miles away. There remains the pride that a nation may feel from sending the first humans to other worlds, as when President Donald Trump exalts a future when American astronauts will plant our beautiful Stars and Stripes on the surface of Mars, adding the pride of ownership to the thrill of human achievement.

Human survival. Shortly before his death in 2018, Stephen Hawking stated that spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth. More recently, Bezos has said that humans need space travel because we are in the process of destroying this planet. Among other outcomes, he envisions giant space colonies that would each allow millions of people to live in space.

To their enthusiasts, giant space colonies and human habitats on Mars offer not only sites to develop a better society but also places where we may modify humans themselves, partly for adaptation to the lower gravity on Mars or, in many scenarios, to the artificial gravitational force produced within the enormous rotating wheel of a million-person posthuman environment, where genetic engineering could attempt to reduce diseases and prolong human life.

Such future plans appeal to those who see Earths future as deeply uncertain or even hopeless. A moments thought, however, tends to reveal that (a) the notion that we can learn from our errors on Earth in order to survive in space involves pie-in-the-sky optimism and (b) the billions of people to be left behind deserve greater consideration. If we cant solve humanitys problem on our home planet, we seem highly unlikely to be able to do so by establishing ourselves in space.

Raw materials. Although less cited in the wider world, a great incentive for reaching nearby solar system objects springs from an old-fashioned, solid desire: the quest for raw materials for profit. One of the asserted justifications for sending humans back to the moon focuses on their potential for harvesting helium-3, a rare isotope of helium. Unlike those of helium-4, the far more common stable isotope of the element, helium-3 nuclei will fuse readily once they reach a sufficiently high temperature. Because this fusion releases large amounts of energy but no radioactive by-products, helium-3 nuclei could provide an almost ideal nuclear fuel. On Earth, helium-3 nuclei furnish only about one one-millionth of already scarce helium nuclei, but their relative abundance in lunar soil rises 100 times higher. Visionaries propose a future society that runs on helium-3 nuclei from the moon, which contains enough of these nuclei to provide many centuries of the worlds current power consumption.

The asteroids likewise offer a road to wealth. Although most asteroids have a composition that resembles Earths, a few of them consist largely of metals such as iron, nickel and cobalttogether with a much smaller amount of silver, gold and platinum. A metal-rich asteroid that is only the size of a house would contain a million pounds of metal, including 100 pounds of platinum, gold and other rare metals. We can imagine future space missions that use the more abundant minerals for the construction of mining colonies but that draw the bulk of their profits from the return of the most valuable metals to Earth.

Do any existing international agreements deal with these issues? In 1967 several countries ratified the United Nations Outer Space Treaty, whose full formal title includes the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The 100-plus nations that ratified this treaty include all those likely to carry out space exploration during the coming decades (with the possible exception of Iran, which signed the treaty but did not ratify it).

The treatys key provisions forbid placing weapons of mass destruction on the moon, in orbit or elsewhere in outer space. They also state that celestial bodies are to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and are not subject to national appropriation by any means and that all parties will follow international law in their activities relating to the exploration and use of outer space. One may easily see that space lawyers, who have a growing future ahead of them, can dispute the term national appropriation, which hardly seems to rule out operations by private parties that do not add directly to a nations wealth. Furthermore, the current geopolitical climate suggests the treatys terms might not fully govern the actions of any state or private party.

Lets examine the arguments in favor of sending humans into space in the in reverse order from which we have posed them.

Raw materials and the transformation of planetary surfaces. In 2015 the U.S. Congress passed legislation, informally known as the SPACE Act, that denies any assertion of authority over cosmic objects but promotes the right of U. S. citizens (which naturally includes corporations) to engage in the commercial recovery of space resources free from harmful interference ... subject to authorization and continuing supervision by the Federal Government. The marvelous word recovery, common in mineral-extraction circles, tends to hide the obvious impacts of such activities. On a moral basis, do we, as humans, U.S. citizens, or private individuals or corporations, possess the right to alter or even destroy the landscape of other celestial objects? To some, the answer is obvious: Of course we do. And the resources of these worlds belong to those who can first exploit them.

The opposing moral argument begins with the thought that humans ought not to embark on these activities lightly, because whatever we do may not be capable of being repaired. To scientists, the gravest threat from the recovery of other worlds resources resides in the possibility that human activities can forever cloud our knowledge of the origin and distribution of life in the solar system. Wherever we land, we inevitably leave behind traces of our own forms of life. NASA has worried about this problem ever since the first lunar probes and has taken pains, which the agency knows can never be entirely successful, to avoid the biological contamination of other worlds. Large-scale extraction efforts, however, could never proceed without this contamination. Even the moon or asteroids, hostile to life though they now are, may contain traces of past biological activity.

For colonies on Marseven harmless ones whose purpose is purely explorationthe problem increases steeply: Most experts agree that life probably existed on Mars when water ran freely over its surface and may that it may yet survive in underground pools. The discovery of life on a nearby world should reveal, through comparison of its DNA or equivalent material, whether life in the solar system originated separately or transferred itself from world to world onboard meteoroids or asteroids. If we find Earth-like organisms on Mars, our ability to discriminate will be lost if we cannot tell whether this transfer occurred in recent years or eons before.

Advocates of exploiting other worlds often point to a glorious future on Mars after engineers have terraformed the planet to produce more Earth-like conditions. By releasing sufficiently large amounts of carbon dioxide that currently reside in rocks and in Marss modest polar caps, along with other gases even better at trapping heat, we could produce a greenhouse effect that would raise the planets surface temperature and increase its atmospheric pressure to the point that liquid water could once again flow over the Martian surface. Those who oppose reworking an entire planet begin with a hard look at what humans have done to terraform Earth.

Human survival. Aside from the immense difficulties of creating sustainable, million-person colonies (required for sufficient long-term genetic variation), any lunar or planetary colonists will bring the same human attributes that have caused problems on Earth. In addition, plans to leave behind eight billion of their fellow humans on a dying planet might produce unrest sufficient to derail the project.

National pride. One need not be a one-worlder to recognize that national competition to explore nearby objectsand, even more so, to exploit space resourcesfails to furnish a sustainable basis for rational exploration. By exporting our Earthly competition into space, we increase the likelihood of conflict in both venues.

Uplifting the human spirit. Debating the wisdom of sending humans into space inevitably returns to the immense boost that humanity will receive from tracking astronauts as they explore other worlds. Undeniable though these emotions may be, they hardly settle the issue. What remains is the key question of whether this spiritual uplift so far surpasses any news that may be sent by spacecraft that humans in space must be worth the expense and the danger of contaminating other worlds, along with encouraging the exploitation of these worlds for economic gain.

Approximately 3 percent of astronauts who have begun a journey into space have not survived. Although our increased understanding of how to launch and return spacecraft safely may reduce this percentage, space tourisma phrase that suggests that ordinary people can enjoy the thrill of travel around the Earth or even fartherconceals the actual risks. Space travelers will long resemble stunt motorcyclist Evel Knievel more than they do Jules Vernes fictional adventurer Phileas Fogg.

Those who feel that our automated planetary explorers can never come close to the human experience in uplifting our spirits may find a modest rebuttal in our robotic explorers on Mars, which have commanded widespread attention and even some human identification during their years on the red planet. NASAs Opportunity rover, for example, spent more than 15 years on Mars and traversed complex topography for more than two dozen miles, at a price tag that is almost certainly less than 1 percent of what a comparable human expedition would cost today. In addition, we may reasonably expect that popular culture will expand our identification with our marvelous spacefaring machines.

Private expeditions. This discussion has assumed the existence of a forum to debate the pros and cons of humans in space and reach a (more or less) logical conclusion. What of the superrich who operate free from such constraints? The exploitation of raw materials in space offers a wide range of construction, destruction and confrontation among private parties and corporations. If these parties choose to act, who can stop them? Should we try? Human history shows that no scarcity of volunteers will arrive, including those who would gladly gain fame from being among the first to land, for example, on Mars, without any prospect of a return journey.

What, then, should be done? Should members of the public confront these arguments and attempt to influence governmental decisions? Do we want to regulate space adventuringand if so, how? Or do we prefer to let the space frontier work itself out? Private individuals, though aware of the considerations we have raised, need answer to none but themselves in their spacefaring endeavors. Statements by Musk and Bezos testify to deep beliefs in human activities in space, which they apparently regard as not even requiring justification. Musk has so deeply embraced the belief that only humans in space can fulfill the human desire to explore other worlds that he has tweeted nuke Mars! to express his plan to use nuclear weapons in order to release carbon dioxide stored in the Martian soil and polar caps in order to create a greenhouse effect to warm the planet.

Whether the exploits proposed by Musk and Bezos will inspire us to greater efforts on Earthor cause us to imagine that we can forget about problems on our planetremains an open question. Because little hope of curtailing these endeavors exists, we may do well to let them advance as the masters of space would wish, believing, as we always must, that humans will soon see the wisest way to proceed.

None of our discussion and suggestions looks beyond the next few decades, a sufficiently long stretch of time to beware the accuracy of our predictive abilities. If human civilization successfully overcomes its current problems and achieves long-term stability, we shall certainly send people to the other worlds in our solar system. If we discover much faster means of propulsion or find a way to prolong human life or invent a means of inducing limitless suspension of life during a multicentury journey, we can send humans to the nearest stars and their planetary systems. If we create human colonies in space, their inhabitants might undergo evolutionary changes that make them more fit for space travel. If, as is likely to happen soon, we can manipulate the human genome as we like, we could manufacture a new set of beings designed for space travel.

None of these ifs tells us much about what we should do within the next few years. Nor do they rule out machines as superior to whatever humans we may invent. Designs now exist for spacecraft that include photography and radio communication equipment, but which weigh only one-thirtieth of an ounce. These could be accelerated by lasers to 20 percent of the speed of light and reach the closest stars within a couple of decades. This concept leads to the mind-bending, though hardly impossible, notion that eventually we can send human consciousness, downloaded from individuals or created by artificial intelligence, to nanoexplorers that will range through the vastness of space in the name of humanity. Possibly, they may meet and interact with similar probes from an array of other civilizations.

Meanwhile we would do well to ponder the current advantages that our automated explorers of realms close to Earth maintain over their human counterparts.

Here is the original post:

Do We Really Need to Send Humans into Space? - Scientific American

Beyond Robotic Arms. Canada Funds Technology for Space Exploration – Universe Today

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has a long-standing tradition of innovation and technological development in space. Who can forget the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS), more familiarly known as the Canadarm, which was essential to the Space Shuttle program? How about its successor, the Canadarm2, which is a crucial part of the International Space Station and even helped assemble it?

Looking to the future, the CSA intends to play a similar role in humanitys return to the Moon which includes the creation of the Lunar Gateway and Project Artemis. To this end, the CSA recently awarded a series of contracts with private businesses and one university to foster the development of technologies that would assist with national and international efforts to explore the Moon.

Specifically, the CSA has awarded 7 contracts worth a total of $4.36 million to 5 companies and one university to produce concepts that will advance Canadas efforts to conduct landings and science operations on the surface of the Moon. The specified concepts include nano-rovers, micro-rovers, and autonomous science instruments.

Funding for these projects was made through theCSAsLunar Exploration Accelerator Program (LEAP), which is tasked with preparing Canadas space sector for the coming decade of lunar exploration. To this end, LEAP has earmarked a total of $150 million that will be distributed over the next five years to stimulate innovation in the fields of artificial intelligence, robotics, health, and other associated technologies.

As the Honourable Navdeep Bains the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry remarked:

Our Government is positioning Canadas space sector to reach for the Moon and beyond. This investment will help Canadian businesses bring their technologies to market, creating opportunities for them to join the growing space economy while supporting Canada to achieve world firsts in space science and exploration.

Of the contracts and funding that have been awarded so far, the largest share was secured by the Canadensys Aerospace Corporation, located in Caledon, Ontario. This company, which specializes in space systems and services, will receive two contracts worth a total of $1,099,366 for the sake of designing and developing technologies and prototypes for two different classes of small lunar science rovers (the nano- and micro-rover).

Another Ontario-based company that was awarded a contract is Bubble Technology Industries Inc, which specializes in radiation-related applications. In exchange for the $698,321 they will receive, Bubble will develop a spectrometer that can search for hydrogen autonomously, thus allowing future missions to detect the presence of water and ice near the lunar surface.

Quebec-based aerospace developer ABB was also awarded a contract for the development of autonomous technology. In exchange for the $693,193 they were issued, they will design, build and test a prototype for an autonomous infrared spectrometer. This device will act as a mineral mapper, giving future robotic missions the ability to remotely measure and the composition of the Moons surface.

Magellan Aerospace the global developer of aerospace technologies headquartered in Mississauga, Ontario was issued a contract totaling $607,258 to develop a lunar impactor that will deliver instruments to the surface of the Moon. These will include sensors designed to detect water within the permanently shadowed regions around the southern polar region of the Moon.

Rounding out the companies, Mission Control Space Services Inc. (from Ottawa, Ontario) was awarded a contract worth $573,829 to develop two software packages. These will consist of an Autonomous Soil Assessment System (ASAS) that will study the composition of lunar regolith and an AI-based science support tool that will help rovers navigate the challenging lunar terrain.

And then theres Western University in London, Ontario, which was awarded a contract totaling $690,123 to develop the Integrated Vision System. This system will be designed by Westerns Institute for Earth and Space Exploration (aka. Western Space) and will be used for surface operations to identify lunar geology and assist in rover navigation.

These and other related technologies are essential to what space agencies have planned for the coming decade, not the least of which will be the creation of a lunar base in the southern polar region. Looking even farther, these kinds of partnerships not only between space agencies but between government, industry, and academic institutions as well will be essential to humanity becoming an interplanetary species.

In short, when astronauts set foot on the Moon and Mars in this decade and the next, their success will be the result of collaborative efforts. We can also expect that several flags will be flying there!

Russia Is Exploring Space Technology Collaboration With Seychelles – Space in Africa

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

The new Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Seychelles, H.E Artem Alexandrovich Kozhin, while presenting his credentials to President Danny Faure during an accreditation ceremony held yesterday morning at the State House, disclosed that Russia is looking forward to collaborating with Seychelles in several fields including space technology to mitigate the risk of climate change.

We all have to fight with the negative consequences of climate change which is very important for this part of the world. This is one more sphere where space technology could be useful. Space is not only about but science but its also about saving the planet. We feel very optimistic in starting these projects and fulfilling these ambitious dreams, the Seychelles News Agency quotes the ambassador as saying.

Ambassador Kozhin sounded optimistic that Russia could in the nearest future begin cooperation in space exploration with Seychelles while emphasizing Russias expertise in scientific research in various fields including exploration of outer space which he hopes could be useful to Seychelles in realizing their national goals in outer space.

Kozhin further pitched possible collaboration between Russia and Seychelles in investment and trade, tourism, education and media, while noting that the Russia Africa Summit last year opened a new door and paved a new way of boosting the economic cooperation between Russia and countries of the African Union including Seychelles.

On behalf of the people and the government of Seychelles, I wish to take this opportunity to personally welcome you to Seychelles. We are committed to cementing our friendship with Russia. We believe that there is great scope for growth on a multitude of levels. We are confident that with your appointment, further progress in areas of mutual importance can be cultivated and that opportunities can be capitalized upon, said President Faure.

New Report: The African space economy is now worth USD 7 billion and is projected to grow at a 7.3% compound annual growth rate to exceed USD 10 billion by 2024. Read the executive summary of the African Space Industry Report - 2019 Edition to learn more about the industry. You can order the report online.

See the rest here:

Russia Is Exploring Space Technology Collaboration With Seychelles - Space in Africa

NASA needs astronauts. Do you have what it takes for outer space? – We Are The Mighty

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

Do some people call you a Space Cowboy? Or do they call you a Gangster of Love?

Well, if they do, have we got the job for you!

NASA recently announced that it is accepting candidates for its next astronaut class. The goal is to have humans on the Moon by 2024 with the next step of setting foot on Mars by the mid-2030s.

Dubbed the Artemis Generation, this new class of space cadets will make up the core of what should be the most historic period of space exploration since the Apollo Program.

"America is closer than any other time in history since the Apollo program to returning astronauts to the Moon. We will send the first woman and next man to the lunar South Pole by 2024, and we need more astronauts to follow suit on the Moon, and then Mars," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We're looking for talented men and women from diverse backgrounds and every walk of life to join us in this new era of human exploration that begins with the Artemis program to the Moon. If you have always dreamed of being an astronaut, apply now."

The last time NASA took applications, over 18,000 people applied for what would end up being 11 spots.

The odds are against you right?

You may be a genius when it comes to knowing everything during comment wars on Facebook, but to be an astronaut, you have to be educated in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) field with a minimum of a bachelor's degree from an accredited university. (the University of Hard Knocks doesn't count sorry) plus at least three years of proficiency in your field. Advanced degrees go a long way.

If you want to be a pilot (the new Orion might be the new transport for Americans), you must have over 1,000 hours of command pilot experience under your belt.

People usually focus on the science and education portion of being an astronaut without realizing that physical fitness is a major part of being accepted. Astronauts used to be only military men, but with the expansion of applicants into the civilian side, NASA makes sure that everyone that makes it into the interview stage (by this time down to 120 from 18,000) can pass a strenuous physical and medical exam.

It will probably be a bit more complicated than this.

As a civilian, you get paid GS11 to GS14 wages. If you are in the military still, you will get your typical military pay based on your rank and time in service.

If you made it past the initial selection, interviews and physical and medical exams, then you have to go through nearly two years of Astronaut training. What does that entail?

Here are some of the things you will have to learn and show proficiency in:

Candidates must complete military water survival and become SCUBA qualified to prepare them for spacewalk training. Astronaut Candidates must pass a swimming test in their first month of training. They must swim three lengths of a 25-meter pool without stopping, and then swim three lengths of the pool in a flight suit and sneakers. They also have to tread water for 10 minutes wearing a flight suit.

Candidates are exposed to problems associated with high (hyperbaric) and low (hypobaric) atmospheric pressures in the altitude chambers and learn to deal with emergencies associated with these conditions.

Additionally, candidates are given exposure to space flight during training in modified jet aircraft (the Vomit Comet) as it performs maneuvers that produce weightlessness for about 20 seconds. This sequence is repeated up to 40 times in a day.

Finally, Astronaut Candidate Program will require successful completion of the following:

Easy right?

If you think you have what it takes, go to USAJobs and apply!

The deadline is March 31.

From Your Site Articles

SpaceX’s Elon Musk wants the Space Force to become Star Fleet | TheHill – The Hill

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

Last December, around the time that Congress passed and President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump takes unexpected step to stem coronavirus Democrats start hinting Sanders should drop out Coronavirus disrupts presidential campaigns MORE signed into law the legislation that created the United States Space Force, SpaceX CEOElon Musk tweeted, Starfleet begins.

Musks tweet was put down to an excess of exuberance. For the foreseeable future, the closest that Space Force personnel will get to war fighting in space will be sitting at consoles controlling satellites and space-based weapons systems. No one is going to stride the bridge of the Starship Enterprise for a very long time.

But it seems that Musk was in earnest. Recently,according to Space.com, he was engaged in a fireside chat at a meeting of the Air Force Associations Air War Symposium taking place in Orlando, Florida. He spoke at length on the need for rapid innovation so that the United States can stay ahead of its nearest rival, China, in dominating the high frontier of space.

In order to really foster the kind of innovation that is needed, Musk stated, We gotta make Star Fleet happen. He went on to suggest that while warp drive and transporters are still a long way away, there could be --big spaceships that can go far places? Definitely. That can be done."

What sort of big spaceships one might ask? It happens that Musk is working on one at a growing facility at Boca Chica, Texas, near Brownsville. In keeping with the Star Trek theme, the vehicle is called the Starship. It will be a reusable space vehicle, launched into space by a first stage called the Super Heavy. With refueling, the Starship is designed to deliver 100 tons of people and material to the moon or Mars as needed.

Eric Berger at Ars Technica paid a visit to Boca Chica recently.In his account, he describes an operation that is so fast paced that it makes the Apollo race to the moon seem like a leisurely stroll by comparison. Musk is determined to build a fleet of a thousand Starship rockets at a pace of one a week to help fulfill his dream of founding a city on Mars. So far, he is doing that on his own dime, though he would never turn down a contract from NASA or the Space Force, for that matter.

The Starship will be able to do a few other things as well, from providing point-to-point transportation anywhere on Earth to supporting NASAs Project Artemis to establish a base on the moon. Elon MuskElon Reeve MuskHillicon Valley: Biden overtakes Sanders in Facebook ad spending for first time | New HHS rules would give patients access to health data | Twitter flags edited Biden video retweeted by Trump SpaceX's Elon Musk wants the Space Force to become Star Fleet Elon Musk: Panic over the coronavirus is 'dumb' MORE suggests that the reusable rocket ship could form the basis of a real-life Star Fleet.

What would the Space Force do with its own fleet of rocket ships? It might use them to, in the near term, learn to operate in space with a view to executing its mission of defending Americas space assets and, if necessary, striking at those of an enemy such as China or Russia.

NASA and other space agencies use spacecraft for one-off exploration missions. It was true during Apollo, and it will be true, at least initially, when Project Artemis becomes reality. The Space Force could develop rocket ships in the same way as every navy has ocean-going ships. The SpaceX Starship could be the very first ship of space to be used over and over again, a sort of space-faring version of the ocean-going galleon that Francis Drake sailed to explore the Americas and to fight the Spanish.

As the role of the United States and her allies in space evolves and grows, so would the Space Forces mission. Moon bases, asteroid mining facilities, space-based manufacturing and Musks dreamed of Mars settlement will need defending.

The Space Force will be not only a war-fighting service, but also a rescue organization, a peace-keeping force and even a space debris collection group. It may eventually take over space exploration duties from NASA or have the entire space agency folded into it.

To use a slightly altered version of a well-known line:

Space, the final frontier, our continuing mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Not to mention make Elon Musk richer than he already is and make the United States the undisputed superpower on and beyond the Earth for the foreseeable future. A marvelous win-win situation, that.

Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space and politics, has published a political study of space exploration entitledWhy is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?as well asThe Moon, Mars and Beyond. He blogs atCurmudgeons Corner.

See more here:

SpaceX's Elon Musk wants the Space Force to become Star Fleet | TheHill - The Hill

Asteroids: Asteroid mining may provide the foundation of colonizing other planets – EconoTimes

Posted on March 12, 2020 by Danzig

Many of the worlds natural resources are depleting with a very slim chance of sustainability. As space exploration continues with upcoming missions to the moon and to Mars, scientists are opening up the possibility of asteroid mining as a way to colonize other planets.

Analyzing asteroids that have passed by and or have yet to pass by Earth, scientists found that these rocks are rich in metals and elements that could inevitably solve the gaps in the market. One example would be an asteroid that flew by Earth back in 2016 that was found to have contained over four trillion dollars worth of platinum, which already costs $1 million per cubic centimeter.

A recent report reveals that 9,000 of the Near-Earth Objects identified by space agencies all over the world have the potential to be mined for its resources. Along with its resources, mining asteroids could provide the foundation for planet colonization and perhaps even defend the Earth from more dangerous asteroids and potential asteroid collisions.

According to a study by ReportLinker, space exploration is crucial for the future and can potentially solve many problems that are faced on Earth, from resources to population control, among many other noted issues. They also pointed out how asteroid mining can help start planet colonization, where finding a water source is important.

Upon finding the water source in other planets, The water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, and water is used to help grow food as well as a protective shield from the harsh rays from space.

Meanwhile, NASAs asteroid trackers recently spotted an asteroid hurtling towards Earth at a speed of 21,000 miles per hour. The scientists predict that it will be arriving in Earths orbit on the 12th of March. Named 2018 GY, this is classified as a Near-Earth Object or NEO that is on a close approach trajectory. This space rock measures between 95 feet to 213 feet in diameter, a little larger than Cinderellas castle at Disneyland at the most but at least as big as a cricket pitch.

It will fortunately only pass by Earth when it arrives, only getting as close as 0.01594 astronomical units. This is equivalent to 2.38 million kilometers away from Earth.

Read the original here:

Asteroids: Asteroid mining may provide the foundation of colonizing other planets - EconoTimes

Select Page ::