4 Ways Technology Improves the Human Resources (and Human) Experience – Entrepreneur

Posted on by

Many business leaders argue that technology is taking the "human" aspect out of human resources. However, from recruiting to hiring to connecting teams worldwide, the argument can be made that technology is greatly improving the human experience.

Related: A New Wave of HR Technology Is Disrupting the Market

Consider the case of Sarah Wilson, director of talent acquisition and principal staff officer at the Toronto bookstore, Indigo: Wilson has been using AI recruiting software to help personalize the hiring process.

"We started using Ideal.com last year, and we saw results within the first week," Wilson told me. "I think some people dismiss AI because they think it will hurt their candidate experience. We saw it as an opportunity to further improve ours."

The HRdirector said she didn't want hiring scenarios for her company that resembledthose of most large retailers, where candidates hear no response. Instead, AI technology helped her team cut out many time-consuming administrative tasks. This decreased the response time for getting back to applicants and helped her team spend more time with candidates they wanted to meet in person.

While Wilson was able to effectively use HRtech to improve the candidate experience, in general a balance between tech and human interaction can be hard to achieve. Here are four ways companies can use technology to improve the human experience:

Human connection is the end goal for business leaders, and HR tech is providing them the time to grow meaningful relationships.

"Both HR and recruiting professionals get caught up in the monotonous tasks associated with their jobs," Mahe Bayireddi, CEO of Phenom People, a talent-relationship marketing platform in Horsham, Pa., explained via email. "Where many people view HR tech as a human replacement, I view it as a bridge to a very apparent gap between HR and recruiting technology and the human element the industry has lost sight of in the past."

Bayireddi said he believes HR pros get overwhelmed with mundane tasks, making it impossible for recruiters to be more personal in their communications. By using automated technology, they're able to focus on building relationships and bringing on the best talent for their teams.

Tip: Help employees be more productive and motivated in their relationships by first understanding what tasks are holding them back. Before signing up for automation software, ask team members what tasks are preventing them from honing-in on the human element of recruiting and HR. Then, research which software can take care of these tasks and free up their time to target the best job candidates.

Related: Why Tech Is HR's Friend, Not Its Enemy

There's no doubt that things move fast in a startup. So, leaders often forget to stop and ask employees for feedback.

Steffen Maier, co-founder of Impraise, a performance-management software company in New York City, said he believes that letting feedback slip out of view can be detrimental to an entire organization.

"The emergence of feedback apps helped to change this by encouraging employees to ask for feedback when they need it, instead of waiting for an annual review," Maier said via email. "Creating an environment in which it's okay to ask for feedback, whether from your manager, reports or colleagues, means that information flows more freely throughout the organization."

Enhancing feedback, especially by offering the option of anonymity, gives managers the information they need to have a more meaningful dialogue with their employees.

Tip: Use a feedback or communication platform to perform a company-wide anonymous survey on employee or organizational matters. From pay and benefits to after-work activities, Maier has improved employees' performance and work experience by using their feedback.

The immersion of video in HR tech is fast evolving how leaders do business worldwide. Gayle Wiley, chief people officer at Lifesize, a video, audio and web-conferencing company based in Austin, puts her company to the test by using video conferencing for her recruiting needs.

"Externally, I use video-conferencing for interviewing candidates who are not located nearby," Wiley explained. "Internally, it is my main communications vehicle for conducting productive meetings with our entire global workforce -- for performance reviews, town hall meetings, onboarding of new employees, training and development and more."

With today's increasingly dispersed workforce, one-click face-to-face interactions are crucial in building the human experience. Co-workers who were once able to connect only over the phone or via email are now able to see one another and interact as though they were in the same room.

Tip: If possible, try the following exercise: Spend a few days communicating with people in your office via phone, email and on messaging platforms. Then, after a day or two of limited facial contact, connect with people via video.

Take notice of the deeper connection with co-workers that's restored through your return to face-to-face discussion. Now, imagine the connections being missed due to the absence of these personalized interactions.

With evolving tools, employers are able to take what were once limited standard procedures and create improved, more expansive experiences for their teams. Such experiences are especially relevant for employee perks and benefits.

Tip: With tools like Maestro Health, an employee health and benefits platform, employers are able to offer complete solutions in a personalized and simpler format. The platform allows users to be shown and to choose from a variety of health benefits to find the ones that are right for them.

Related: This Tech Start-up is Helping Companies Cut HR Expenses

Whether in the health and benefits arena or as part of the overarching employee experience, employees want perks that meet their individualized needs -- not everyone else's. With HR tech, they now have the tools to do this through improved, personalized human experiences.

Waldorf, Md.-basedHeather R. Huhmanis a career expert, experienced hiring manager and president ofCome Recommended, a content-marketing and digital-PR consultancy for job-search and human-resources technologies. She is the...

See original here:

4 Ways Technology Improves the Human Resources (and Human) Experience - Entrepreneur

Opinion: How technology can reduce gun violence – MarketWatch

Posted on by

On average, almost 115,000 Americans are shot in murders, assaults, suicides and suicide attempts or unintentional shootings each year. About 34,000 people die from gun violence, a type of violence that requires a fast response either to save a life and catch an assailant, or to quickly assess the situation and plan the correct police action.

Sadly, sometimes that response isnt fast enough. Furthermore, with fewer than one in five shooting incidents reported, gun crime is vastly underreported, and even when 911 calls are made, the location information provided tends to be inaccurate. People bleed out and die, and perpetrators run away, never to be seen again.

This is about to change though. ShotSpotter SSTI, -0.23% uses sophisticated audio sensors to detect and locate gunfire incidents, and to alert law enforcement agencies in real time. Sensitive microphones ascertain the location of the gunshot (within 10 feet) and send the information to the trained officer doing the surveillance.

After they have confirmed the source and the nature of the gunshot (that it is a weapon discharge, and not a pyrotechnic device), an alert is sent to police officers and an investigation can begin.

The real-time digital alerts sent by the ShotSpotter include a precise location on a map with corresponding data such as the address, number of rounds fired, type of gunfire, etc. The alert can be delivered to any browser-enabled device.

Its precisely because of that additional information that the officers can prepare their response more effectively. From the moment a blip appears on their screen, they will know if theyre facing a lone gunner, or if they would have to resolve a complex shootout.

The entire process between shooting the gun and uncovering its exact location takes approximately 45 seconds, which is significantly faster than dialing 911 and determining where the incident took place in an old-fashioned way this alone means a lot in scenarios where seconds make a difference between life and death.

ShotSpotter is currently available in 90 cities worldwide, including cities in 23 U.S. states and territories (New York City; San Francisco; Boston; New Haven, Conn.; Canton, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wis.; Miami Gardens, Fla.; Camden, N.j.; Denver; and San Antonio). Each sensor network covers radius of more than 300 miles.

There have been some concerns about privacy violations involving ShotSpotter microphones, but it seems theres no cause for alarm. First of all, sensors are located 30 feet or more above the street level. Second, the microphones dont record sounds quieter than a gunshot, which means that microphones are not sensitive enough to record conversations. Finally, once activated, sensors record mere seconds of the gunfire, because thats all thats required for triangulation and analysis of the recorded signal.

The implementation of ShotSpotter has failed in a number of cities. While its official website claims this is mainly because of poor practice in using the system, another thing is also mentioned: budget constraints and the resulting limited implementation of the sensor network. Not enough sensors means not only the existence of gaps in coverage, but also less accuracy.

So, how expensive is this technology? The annual subscription fee is between $65,000 and $95,000 per square mile, with a minimum of three square miles covered.

On the other hand, 26 out of 28 U.S. cities employing the ShotSpotter reported a median 29% reduction of gun violence within a year of implementation. Some have even reported up to 80% in gunfire reduction and 40% reduction in related violent crime and homicides.

So, will ShotSpotter solve the problem of gun violence? Absolutely not on its own its a tool that can help a well-coordinated police force and community to better respond to incidents. It will also help protect both officers and civilians, but Its success depends on how well it has been implemented and used in daily police work.

What do you think about the importance of using technology in resolving violence on the streets? Let me know in the comment section below.

See the original post:

Opinion: How technology can reduce gun violence - MarketWatch

The 5 Top Technology ETFs – Motley Fool

Posted on by

The technology sector has always been a haven for high-growth companies, leading the way forward with innovative ideas that, in some cases, change the world. If you want to invest in a variety of tech stocks through a single investment, exchange-traded funds that specialize in technology can be a great way to go. The following five ETFs are among the most popular for technology investors, and they can help you spice up your portfolio with higher-growth prospects.

Technology ETF

Assets Under Management

Expense Ratio

5-Year Average Annual Return

Technology Select Sector SPDR (NYSEMKT:XLK)

$16.2 billion

0.14%

17.3%

Vanguard Information Technology (NYSEMKT:VGT)

$13.1 billion

0.10%

17%

First Trust Dow Jones Internet (NYSEMKT:FDN)

$4.4 billion

0.54%

18.9%

iShares U.S. Technology (NYSEMKT:IYW)

$3.4 billion

0.44%

17%

First Trust Nasdaq-100 Technology Sector (NYSEMKT: QTEC)

$2 billion

0.60%

23.1%

Data sources: Fund providers.

Different technology stocks have differing scope across the sector. Some funds include every bit of the industry, including hardware, software, telecommunications, technology manufacturing equipment, and information technology services. The tech ETFs with the broadest scope include some stocks that you wouldn't necessarily first think of as being tech stocks, but they often share the same growth characteristics as traditional tech names.

Three of the ETFs on the list have a big-picture approach to tech. The Technology Select SPDR is the largest, and it has the vast majority of its money spread across software, internet, hardware, services, and semiconductors. Telecom makes up a small but still significant portion of the ETF's assets, and overall, you'll see nearly 75 stocks that give good coverage of the sector as a whole.

The Vanguard Technology ETF has slightly lower costs, and its approach doesn't entirely mirror that of the SPDR Tech ETF. Internet companies are the industry with the greatest weight in the Vanguard ETF, followed by hardware, systems software, and semiconductors. The holdings are more extensive, with 365 stocks in its portfolio as of its most recent report.

The iShares Technology ETF has a higher expense ratio than the Vanguard and SPDR ETFs, but its holdings look eerily similar. The fund's software and services industry, which includes both traditional and internet-related offerings, make up more than half of the assets of the fund. Hardware is another quarter, with semiconductors representing all but a tiny fraction of remaining assets. One notable difference is that telecom is almost unrepresented in the iShares ETF's portfolio.

Image source: Getty Images.

One issue with all three of the ETFs discussed above is that their holdings are weighted by market capitalization. That leads to the top stocks in the ETFs having huge weightings compared to the remainder of the stocks in the portfolio, so fund performance relies heavily on those key players.

The First Trust Nasdaq 100 Technology ETF uses a different approach. It looks at the tech stocks in the Nasdaq 100 index and then invests on an equal-weight basis, rebalancing quarterly. Therefore, all 34 holdings have weights of about 3%. That works out well when the top stocks in the industry are doing poorly, but it can lead to lagging performance when tech giants do well. You can see from relative returns that those smaller stocks have done a good job over the past five years, and that has bolstered the First Trust ETF's performance.

Another First Trust fund focuses only on internet stocks, defined as getting half of annual revenue from the internet. First Trust Dow Jones Internet has 42 holdings, and although it takes market capitalization into account in weighting those stocks, it also looks at average share volume and accounts for float-adjusted factors. That's especially important with internet stocks, many of which release only a small portion of their outstanding shares in initial public offerings.

Internet related stocks include a vast array of companies, ranging from internet retailers and online brokerage companies to cloud-computing specialists and social media sites. The growth of those subindustries has led to outperformance for the ETF, and investors hope that favorable trend will continue.

These top technology ETFs offer investors several options to get their tech exposure. You should be able to find a fund that will match up well with where you think the future of the technology sector will be.

Dan Caplinger has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read the original post:

The 5 Top Technology ETFs - Motley Fool

Why technology hasn’t solved our parking problems – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

Parking apps have been of limited benefit to drivers looking for open spaces in congested areas like Bostons Newbury Street.

A few years back, it seemed like one of the perennial headaches of urban life parking was about to be vanquished by the equivalent of an extra-strength aspirin.

Startups installed sensors in the pavement that would alert your smartphone when a space opened up, or hired armies of valets who would scoot over to pick up your car and whisk it into a garage. One company, FlightCar, even made use of your vehicle when you left it in an airport lot, by renting it out to incoming travelers and giving you free parking and a car wash in exchange.

Advertisement

Many of the companies, including FlightCar, have since gone out of business, or discontinued their original services while rushing to figure out something else that might work.

Parking, it turns out, is an especially vexing problem to solve in part because the way we get around cities is so much in flux.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:

An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.

It was 2013 when Uber launched its lower-cost UberX car service in Boston. (Before that, Uber only offered pricier town cars). Lyft followed shortly after. So in 2014, as many of the parking startups were promoting their apps, they were competing with two very deep-pocketed companies that were pitching chauffeur services, and had millions of dollars to spend on marketing. Why drive your own car if you could go from Cambridge to Beacon Hill and back in an Uber for $20?

By October 2015, Uber reported it had served 28 million riders in Massachusetts. Disruptors, it turns out, can make life difficult for other disruptors.

Startups like San Francisco-based Luxe tried to compete by offering new users $30 in free parking, and daily rates that felt like a steal. You could use the Luxe app to have a valet pick up your car, stash it in a garage for the day, and then return it with a maximum daily rate that would never exceed $25. Compare that with 90 minutes in the Prudential Centers garage, which will set you back $30.

Advertisement

I remember the joke around town was that everyone was parking on the venture capitalists dime with Luxe, because even the everyday consumer knew that the prices were too good to be true for the company to ever make money, says Braden Golub, founder of SPOT, a Boston parking startup. The first time I used Luxe, I even got a free T-shirt that said We Pahk Your Car. That was in June 2015; Luxe discontinued its Boston operation in January 2016.

SPOT, meanwhile, is growing. It runs a marketplace for private parking spaces, allowing the owner to rent them out by the hour, day, or week, similar to what Airbnb does for spare bedrooms. Unlike Luxe, you do the parking yourself. The company has six employees, and has raised $1.6 million in funding, according to Golub.

FlightCar, headquartered in San Francisco, made its entrepreneurial path even steeper by trying to build a business around airport parking. Customers would show up at a FlightCar lot, leave their car, and get a ride to the terminal. The company would try to rent out their vehicle while they were away. But airport authorities, it turns out, like to tax car rental agencies and regulate everyone that picks up and drops off passengers at the terminal, which FlightCar was doing. After spending $40 million, and facing a lawsuit from the San Francisco Airport, FlightCar shut down last July.

Co-founder Rujul Zaparde, who put a Harvard University acceptance on hold to start the company, now works as a product manager at Airbnb. He observes that parking is not a very scalable business, which makes the economics challenging. Parking a car requires one human at a time, and thus cant be made much more efficient with scale, he says. Thats different from Uber and Lyfts carpooling offerings, which can pair two or three riders with similar routes, or a meal delivery venture that can transport several dinners at once, Zaparde says.

A City of Boston experiment with broadcasting information about available spaces in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood ran from 2013 to 2014, in partnership with a Silicon Valley startup called Streetline. The sensor tech is good but not perfect, explains Kris Carter, co-chair of the Mayors Office of New Urban Mechanics. Sometimes, he explains, the information about an open space just took too long to be displayed by the mobile app which meant the space would be filled before the driver arrived. (That was the case when I tried the app in 2014. My own eagle eye delivered better results.) Carter says that it was also difficult to get a lot of drivers to download an app that only contained data about 330 available parking spots in just one part of Boston.

Carter says that a different kind of sensor is now being used to monitor how many vacant parking spots there are on the street. And the objective has changed: pole-mounted sensors are now being used to raise or lower metered parking rates based on how many spots are available. That, the city hopes, will ensure that a space is more likely to be open if youre willing to pay a higher price. Carter says that could cut the amount of time drivers spend circling the block hunting for a spot, which would help reduce traffic.

SpotLight Parking was hatched on the campus of Tufts University in 2013; it has raised about $500,000 from investors, according to co-founder Michael Miele. The company ran a beta test in Boston to see whether it could help drivers save time by avoiding that seemingly-endless search for a space in city garages. Youd use the SpotLight app to let the garage know you were getting close and request a valet. Then a garage employee would come out to take possession of your vehicle.

SpotLight tested a $5 or $10 surcharge for the service, but it didnt take off with users, and garage attendants werent wild about doing one more job even though they could earn a tip, says Miele. SpotLight ended its valet parking test in May 2016, but Miele and co-founder Karan Singhal are working on another tech offering for garage operators, which they hope to test later this summer.

Silicon Valley investor Semil Shah observes that the billions of dollars being spent to develop self-driving vehicles is another factor casting a shadow over the whole business of parking. (Shah is an investor in Luxe.) That, in combination with app-summoned car services like Uber, creates fear in the venture [capital] space to invest in parking startups, Shah explains.

One other dynamic that Shah highlights is an expected decline in vehicle ownership among young people, especially in big cities where the parking business is concentrated.

I asked Miele, 25, whether he owns a car. He said that he does, primarily to get to business meetings and garages around the city. Among his peers who live in the city, though, he says close to zero percent own cars. The only ones who do are salesmen who drive up to Connecticut or New Hampshire every week for their jobs, he says. Thats about it. Instead, twenty-somethings in the city rely on Uber and Lyft both of which are developing self-driving technology that will enable vehicles to run more or less 24/7. Those vehicles will have no need for a parking spot, only a garage in the outskirts of the city where theyll recharge (or gas up) and be maintained.

Its possible that, given some time, the headache of Boston parking will go away on its own.

View original post here:

Why technology hasn't solved our parking problems - The Boston Globe

For Many, Technology Addiction Is Real – eMarketer

Posted on by

Many people have a hard time walking away from their devices, even when they know they should.

A study from GfK found that over a third of internet users worldwide agree they have a hard time disconnecting from technology. Younger users struggle most with technology attachment.

In fact, nearly half (44%) of respondents ages 15 to 19 agree that its difficult for them to take a break from their devices. Respondents ages 20 to 29, and those in the 30-to-39 age bracket, were not too far behind in their agreement. Overall, few internet users under the age of 40 said it was easy to take a break from technology.

Meanwhile, many older respondentsparticularly those over the age of 60said they didnt have a difficult time breaking away from technology. Only 15% of internet users in that age group said they have trouble disconnecting.

In the US, the findings were similar. Younger users were more likely than their older counterparts to say that its difficult for them to walk away from technology.

Also in the US, the 60-plus age group had a significantly higher percentage (44%) of respondents who didnt think it difficult to take a break from technology. Thats an 11-percentage point difference compared with global respondents in that same age group.

But these differences in behavior by age arent surprising. Separate data from Safe Home, a home security ranking and review company, found that older people in the US would be more likely to give up on technology, or stop using it, if they felt it could be a threat to their privacy.

Nearly four in 10 (38%) internet users over the age of 65 said they would not use a device due to a privacy threat, and nearly as many respondents ages 45 to 54 and those 55 to 64 agreed.

By contrast, fewer respondents under the age of 45 would stop using their device due to a privacy threat. For example, just 15% of 18- to 24-year-olds would end device use out of privacy concerns.

Rimma Kats

Follow this link:

For Many, Technology Addiction Is Real - eMarketer

Betsy DeVos Heads to North Korea to Reverse Its Progress in Math and Science – The New Yorker (satire)

Posted on by

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report )Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is being dispatched to Pyongyang in what the White House is calling a high-stakes mission to reverse North Koreas years of progress in math and science.

DeVos, who is expected to arrive in Pyongyang later this week, plans to throw a monkey wrench in North Koreas swiftly advancing nuclear program by replacing its current system of training scientists with a dizzying array of vouchers, sources said.

According to the White House, it is hoped that, after a few weeks in North Korea, DeVos will succeed in returning that nations nuclear program to pre-1970 levels.

At a press briefing announcing the mission, the White House deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, called DeVos our nations best bet to stop North Korea.

If anyone can get North Koreas missiles to start blowing up on the launchpad again, its Betsy, Sanders said.

Read more:

Betsy DeVos Heads to North Korea to Reverse Its Progress in Math and Science - The New Yorker (satire)

Beyond ‘nerds’ and ‘ninjas,’ slow progress for Asian actors in Hollywood – CNN International

Posted on by

"Asian actors want to play the lead, the romantic character, the hero, just like everyone else," Tan told CNN.

And like most Asian and Asian American actors, Tan has had to battle stereotypes.

"We're cast as ninjas, monks, nerds, the third, fourth, fifth best friend who is a nerd, killers, doctors and for women, the sexy Asian woman who's dating a white guy," Tan quipped.

The actor, who is of Chinese, Singaporean and British descent, most recently starred as Zhou Cheng in the Netflix series "Iron Fist."

The action-packed show follows the adventures of a martial artist who possesses a mystical force.

Yet the central role went to white actor, Finn Jones, to the dismay of some viewers who wanted to see Tan in the part even though the character in the comic "Iron Fist" isn't Asian.

Regardless, Tan considers his role on the show a win.

"It's an exciting time in a lot of ways because things are opening up," Tan said. "There was a time when things weren't as open for [Asian actors], so it's exciting for me to see actors being booked and called in for roles."

To date, the call for increased diversity in the film and television industry has primarily focused on opportunities for African American, Latino and LGBT creatives, with artists of Asian descent somewhat ignored.

That felt evident to some at the 2016 Academy Awards.

Even as #OscarsSoWhite took center stage, host Chris Rock made a joke using three Asian child actors that resulted in two dozen Asian members of the Academy crafting an open letter demanding an apology.

There has been some notable progress with portrayals in Aziz Ansari's critically acclaimed Netflix series "Master of None" and ABC's sitcom-hit "Fresh Off The Boat," but other projects showcase the challenges many Asian performers still face.

Actors Daniel Dae Kim and Grace Park departed the CBS drama "Hawaii Five-0" last week over a reported pay disparity between the actors and their white co-stars.

"The path to equality is rarely easy," Kim wrote in a Facebook post about leaving the show. "But I hope you can be excited for the future. I am."

"As an Asian American actor, I know first-hand how difficult it is to find opportunities at all, let alone play a well developed, three dimensional character like Chin Ho," he also said. "I will miss him sincerely."

Tan, who spoke to CNN prior to Kim and Park leaving their show, said while he'd like to see even more opportunities for actors of Asian descent, he applauds the inclusion of people of color period.

"I want to see everyone rise," he said. "I think we all will have our time, if we push it, if we do the work and if we make our voices heard."

See the original post:

Beyond 'nerds' and 'ninjas,' slow progress for Asian actors in Hollywood - CNN International

Trump vowed to wipe out the trade deficit. He hasn’t made much progress. – Washington Post

Posted on by

The U.S. trade deficit narrowed in May as a rebound in global growth boosted foreign demand for U.S. exports of automobiles, consumer products, and other goods and services to their highest level in more than two years.

The trade deficit, the gap between U.S. imports and exports of goods and services, fell to $46.5 billion, falling $1.1 billion from the previous month, data released Thursday morning by the Commerce Department showed.

U.S. exports rose 0.4 percent to $192 billion, evidence of a rebound in global trade, while imports declined just 0.1 percent to $238.5 billion.

Trade is back, Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank, wrote in an email to clients.

Yet while the U.S. trade balance fell in May, itis on pace to be larger this year than last.In the first five months of 2017, the trade balance came to $233 billion, compared to $206 billion in the first five months of 2016.

Even in some countries whose trade practice President Trump has specifically criticized, the imbalance continues to grow.The U.S. trade deficit with Canada has widened by $7.7 billion this year, while the trade deficit with Mexico has grown by $3.8 billion, Fotios Raptis, an analyst at TD Economics, said in a note Thursday.

Trade deficits with Europe and China have also widened, as a stronger U.S. economy increased demand for imports.

That will likely come as unwelcome news to the Trump administration, which has persistently criticized the trade deficit as evidence that other countries are taking advantage of the United States.

Economists generally caution against these views, arguing that, althougha persistent trade deficit can be a troubling sign, trade balances can fluctuate for all kinds of reasons, including the value of relative currencies, the strength of economies and international investment flows.

For example, imports sometimes rise when the U.S. economy is doing well and Americans can better afford products from abroad. A strong U.S. economy also tends to push up the value of the U.S. dollar, causing exports to fall.

Trump issued an executive order March 31 calling for the Commerce Department to prepare a report within 90 days on the bilateral trade deficits the United States maintains with other countries. That time frame would have called for the report to be issued by June 29, but it has yet to be released.

View post:

Trump vowed to wipe out the trade deficit. He hasn't made much progress. - Washington Post

USD/JPY Strategy: Major Trend Change in Progress? – DailyFX

Posted on by

To receive Ilya's analysis directly via email, please SIGN UP HERE

Talking Points:

The US Dollar appears poised to test two-month highs above the 114.00 figure against the Japanese Yen after prices extend a three-week rally. The pair has broken resistance guiding the broad down trend since mid-December 2016, hinting that a major upward reversal may be in progress.

From here, a daily close above the May 11 high at 114.37 opens the door for a test of the 38.2% Fibonacci expansion at 115.44. Alternatively, a reversal back below the 23.5% level at 112.65 sees the next downside barrier at 111.86, a former resistance level now recast as support.

Seemingly attractive risk/reward parameters reinforce a compelling technical setup and a long USD/JPY trade has been activated at 113.09, initially targeting 114.37. A stop-loss will be activated on a daily close below 112.65. Profit on half of the trade will be booked and the stop moved to breakeven once the first target is met.

Need help building your FX trading strategy? See our guides and join our live webinars!

See original here:

USD/JPY Strategy: Major Trend Change in Progress? - DailyFX

UPDATE: Burro Fire grows but firefighters make progress; 11 perc – KVOA | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona – KVOA Tucson News

Posted on by

UPDATE: The Burro Fire burning in the Santa Catalina Mountains has grown to 24,547 acres, or 38.3 square miles, and is now 11 percent contained.

688 personnel are battling the fire and have made progress on strengthening control lines using burnout operations to keep the fire from spreading southward, according to the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management.

A community meeting to discuss the Burro Fire will be held on Thursday, July 6, at Sahuaro High School, 545 N. Camino Seco, at 5:30 p.m.

UPDATE: The Burro Fire burning in the Catalina Mountains has grown to 23,238 acres, or 36.3 square miles, as of Wednesday morning.

While the fire is 11percent contained, fire officials say that does not mean firefighters have not made progress in battling the blaze.

Officials say they'll wait to see if fire lines hold up to strong winds today before they calculate a new containment percentage around the Burro Fire.

About 595 personnel are assigned to fighting the fire, but officials say they'll continue using helicopters and air tankers to drop retardant in rugged terrain where firefighters can not be deployed.

TUCSON - Redington Road is closed until further notice, according to fire officials.

The Burro Fire has grown to 21, 035 acres and is still zero percent contained.

The incident management team for the Burro Fire held a meeting Tuesday evening at SabinoHigh School.

"The fire remained active well into the evening Monday night," saidJayson Coil, operations section chief.

"That was due to the outflow winds that occurred from a thunderstorm that built near the fire, butdidn't really drop any precipitation," he said. "It moved the fire to the southeast."

Coil said a meteorologist is assigned to the Burro Fire that will be watching nearby thunderstorm activity. He said if a thunderstorm is nearbybut doesn't produce rain over the fire, it causes high winds.

"To make sure everyone is aware of where that build up is occurring and the potential of that build up creating those strong outflow winds. And with those cells come the chance of new ignition from lightning."

He said on Monday,firefighters were able to keep it from impacting the Bellota Ranch. Firefighters have beenable to keep the fire north of Redington Pass Road.

On the west side of the fire, near the Catalina Highway, firefighters are doing prep along the road.

"What that means is that they created defensible space around thestructures," he said. "They also put pieces of hand line to tie the different pieces of the road system together because it is really steep."

The incident management team used infrared imaging Monday nightto gather the new acreage numbers.

The fire is at zero percent containment, but Coil said that number does not mean zero percent progress.

"When we call a section of the fire contained, it means that we have the fire's edge to a place we know will hold. That could be a road,a hand line, changes in terrain," he explained.

He said as far as effort, fire crews are giving 100 percent.

There are now nearly 600firefightersworking the Burro Fire. On Monday, there were 185.

Coil said it is "possible, not probable" the Burro Fire will grow to be as large as the 2003Aspen Fire. He said the Aspen Fire started earlier in the yearthan the Burro Fire.

"The predicted information from the weather service aboutwhen the monsoons are supposed to come in,it doesn't appear that we have enough time for that type of fire growth to occur."

The town of Summerhaven was evacuated Monday morning. Coil said currently there is no "imminent threat" to Summerhaven.

Residents can pick up mail at the Ft Lowell Post Office, 6460 E Grant Road, between Costco and Target from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Residents can knock onthe Dutch door so they don't have to wait in line. The Post Office will be closed Tuesday. Contact Burro Fire Information at 928-351-7537 for more information.

"The reason for the evacuations is not because we think there is an immediate threat to Summerhaven, but there is a threat to Summerhaven, but more importantly there is a significant likelihood that the road could be compromised."

The Catalina Highway at the base of Mt. Lemmon will remain closed to everyone until further notice.

An evacuation center has been set up at the Kirk-Bear Canyon Library, 8959 E Tanque Verde Road.

No cause has been released.

See the article here:

UPDATE: Burro Fire grows but firefighters make progress; 11 perc - KVOA | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona - KVOA Tucson News

Omnipotence at the price of nihilism – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

The bestselling bookHomo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrowby Yuval Noah Harari argues that our species homo sapiens (man the wise) is evolving into homo deus (man the god).

Our technology is progressing at such a rate that human beings will merge with our machines. The resulting cyborgs will be omnipotent.

So far, this is just more fantasizing towards the new cyber-religion. But then Harari gets more original and more interesting: He says that the alliance between science and humanism that has held ever since the Enlightenment will break down.

The era of Homo Deus will no longer have a basis for justice, freedom, human rights, or any kind of moral ideals. So we will have to learn to live without them.

Harari takes for grantedthat religion has been disproven by science. Not only that there is no God, but that there is no soul, just the physical brain. And not only is there no soul, but there is no free will, no moral agency, and no meaning to existence.

That science has proven all of this is completely unfounded. But, as Michael Gerson points out in his review of the book (after the jump), Harari is at least intellectually honest in facing up to the implications of his ideas, which lead to utter nihilism: Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach, Harari says, but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness.

From Michael Gerson, Humans reach for godhood and leave their humanity behind The Washington Post:

Much analysis of Yuval Noah Hararis brilliant new book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, focuses on the harrowing dystopia he anticipates. In this vision, a small, geeky elite gains the ability to use biological and cyborg engineering to become something beyond human. It may upgrade itself step by step, merging with robots and computers in the process, until our descendants will look back and realize that they are no longer the kind of animal that wrote the Bible [or] built the Great Wall of China.. . .

Yet the predictions are not the most interesting bits of the book. It is important primarily for what it says about the present. For the past few hundred years, in Hararis telling, there has been a successful alliance between scientific thought and humanism a philosophy placing human feelings, happiness and choice at the center of the ethical universe. With the death of God and the denial of transcendent rules, some predicted social chaos and collapse. Instead, science and humanism (with an assist from capitalism) delivered unprecedented health and comfort. And now they promise immortality and bliss.

This progress has involved an implicit agreement, In exchange for power, says Harari, the modern deal expects us to give up meaning. Many (at least in the West) have been willing to choose antibiotics and flat-screen TVs over the mysticism and morality behind door No. 2.

It is Hararis thesis, however, that the alliance of science and humanism is breaking down, with the former consuming the latter. The reason is reductionism in various forms. Science, argues Harari, revealed humans as animals on the mental spectrum, then as biochemical processes and now as outdated organic algorithms. We have opened up the Sapiens black box and discovered there neither soul, nor free will, nor self but only genes, hormones and neurons.. . .

But Harari has one great virtue: intellectual honesty. Unlike some of the new atheists, he recognizes that science is incapable of providing values, including the humanistic values of Locke, Rousseau and Jefferson. Even Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and the other champions of the new scientific worldview refuse to abandon liberalism, Harari observes. After dedicating hundreds of erudite pages to deconstructing the self and the freedom of will, they perform breathtaking intellectual somersaults that miraculously land them back in the 18th century.

Harari relentlessly follows the logic of reductionism as it sweeps away individualism, equality, justice, democracy and human rights even human imagination. . . .

This is the paradox and trial of modernity. As humans reach for godhood, they are devaluing what is human. Omnipotence is in front of us, almost within our reach, Harari says, but below us yawns the abyss of complete nothingness.

[Keep reading. . .]

Illustration 2014 Luna Sea.Medusa Cyborg Vampire from Space. Licensed underCC-BY. Unchanged. via Sketchport.

Originally posted here:

Omnipotence at the price of nihilism - Patheos (blog)

Valentino Couture Fall 2017 – WWD

Posted on by

Years ago, John Fairchild had a name for the type of fashion editor who early on embraced the shroudlike avant-garde side of the Eighties, and who appeared to fall into a state of rapture at shows she loved. That name: fashion nun. It wasnt a compliment.

Would that Mr. Fairchild were around today, to sit down with Valentinos Pierpaolo Piccioliover a good bottle of red andengage in some serious guy talk about fashion. Perhaps the younger might convince the older that theres nothing wrong with a little fashion religion.

Hed at least make an impressive case.Piccioli believes genuinely in the power of fashion, couture in particular, to elevate the spirit. Some may find that thought itself profane. At a preview, he explained his premise. Inthis moment, everything is digital and about rationalism, Piccioli said. I think all of us are looking for something more spiritual, beyond reality. This is really close to the idea of couture because every aspect of the sacred is expressed by rituals, and couture is made by rituals. Sacred is what is beyond reality, what you dont see but you just feel, you just perceive. What makes couture special, unique and magical is what you dont see all the ritual to arrive at the piece.

Piccioli called his fall collection a reflection about the sacred. He was inspired by ecclesiastical garments and the religious portraits of 17th-century painter Francisco de Zurbarn, but also by the prettiest of pagan deities, Venus.

The results were Heaven-sent. That Piccioli turns out a spectacular evening gown is hardly a surprise. His Valentino has made covered-up evening dressing not only alluring, but also cool, no small feat in this era of the social media sexpot on endless display. What intrigues now and whats essential for the brand is the way hes advancing the look. For fall, he scaled back significantly on the decorative flourish so expected in couture, to work more with an iconoclastic minimalism based on dramatic volumes that fall away from the body, some with that monastic aura. Yet hes no religious zealot; Piccioli also showed a number of intricately collaged gowns and a pair of billowing beauties one pink, one red to befit the chicest of storybook heroines.

Still, the collections bigger news was its daywear, cut with all of the obsessive perfection inherent in couture, but not a trace of madame attitude. Rather, Piccioli took a separates approach, layering on piece after piece: long unfettered coats or more statement-y capes over vests over dresses over shirts over pants, all in slightly dissonant colors. Will the couture client go for it? Lets hope; lets pray. No, lets not pray. Theyre fabulous, but as Mr. Fairchild would say, theyre only clothes.

More From ParisHaute CoutureWeek Fall 2017:

Chanel Couture Fall 2017:Karl Lagerfeld focused on an essential tenet shared by the Eiffel Tower and couture itself: perfection of structure.

Backstage at Christian Dior Couture Fall 2017:Peter Philips and Guido Palau fashioned the beauty look of the show.

Atelier Versace Couture Fall 2017:The collection blended Baroque references and rock n roll with a soupon of 3-D printing.

Iris van Herpen Couture Fall 2017:For her 10th anniversary show, the designer sent out aquatic-themed creations to a performance by underwater group Between Music.

Paris Couture Gains Extra Day as Confidence Returns: Frances Chambre Syndicale de laHaute Couturehas welcomed five brands as guest members on this seasons schedule.

See the original post here:

Valentino Couture Fall 2017 - WWD

Stanley: Is Trump an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? – CNN

Posted on by

Last week, President Trump tweeted a video of himself wrestling a man to the floor, the man's head digitally replaced with the CNN logo. CNN tracked down the Reddit user who created the video, and also asked him about other posts of his that consisted of racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic language and imagery. HanA**holeSolo, as the user is known, apologized profusely, insisted that he loves "people of all races, creeds and origins," and insisted that the video wasn't intended to incite violence against the media. The President, on the other hand, did not say "sorry." He tweeted: "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" Parties on each side of this saga could legitimately say they're taking a stand for free speech. CNN is defending the freedom of the press against a President who has sometimes appeared to threaten it. Conservatives charge CNN with being thin-skinned, but I've reported on Trump rallies where the audience has been moved to send up a chant of "CNN sucks," and where the anger at the so-called mainstream media nearly boiled over into outright intimidation. When the President of a democracy tweets a video of himself beating up a media organization, isn't that an implicit threat against the free press?

HanA**holeSolo's creation is classic Trumpery: it shows the President figuratively wrestling the media to the ground, yes, but with a dash of self-aware humor that the left is oddly tone-deaf to.

Does Trump really think he has the physique of a pro wrestler? Or that his tweets are witty ripostes worthy of Downton Abbey? No. He's a troll on a cosmic scale, and sometimes liberals would do well to ignore the one-liners he bashes out on his phone and focus on what he's doing in his day job.

So, which is it? Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? Personal experience has taught me that the line between these two things is vanishingly thin.

Down the years, I've had it all thrown at me: anti-Semitism, accusations of being a racist, homophobia, accusations of homophobia, cartoons of me in a gas oven, etc. I've said some bad things myself -- never that bad, I want to emphasize -- and feel guilty for having contributed my own small portion to this moral mudslide.

But if I might pretend to be completely innocent for a moment, then I have a couple of observations to make. One is that women always get it worst. Another is that people are happy to turn a blind eye to abuse when they agree with it politically. Liberals can give offense but they never take it lightly.

A third is that the cost of being bad online is rising. Reputations can be ruined by a nasty tweet, or even a tweet that just wasn't well phrased or was unfairly misinterpreted. Generosity is dying; it's rare to be given the benefit of the doubt. Social media is starting to become a strange mix of the abrasive and the censorious, of which the CNN wrestling story is a rather good illustration.

My sympathy, however, does lie with CNN -- for one simple reason. Online abuse is killing the appeal of public service. Any sane, ethical young person would see the ugliness of modern politics and journalism and conclude they want no part of public life. The President is encouraging that.

Horrible things have been said about Trump, true. He could argue that he's simply fighting back, yes. But fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to more fire, and while I'm sympathetic towards some of Trump's agenda, I look upon the state of politics in this era with despair. It is not unreasonable for journalists to say "enough is enough."

See more here:

Stanley: Is Trump an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? - CNN

Protecting truly free speech is hard work – GlobalComment.com

Posted on by

Recently I undertook a final year undergraduate class in political philosophy. The opening lecture commenced with a trailer from1984(1984). This film adaptation of George Orwells original dystopian novel (1949) imagines a society monitored pedantically by an all-encompassing omniscient totalitarian super state (Oceania).

My lecturer subsequently discussed her upbringing in formerly USSR-controlled East Germany. East Germany was a microcosmic manifestation of Airstrip One (Britain rechristened in1984). It was a relatively small communist province managed maliciously from Russia.

What dangers can transpire when a singular overriding ideology is bequeathed an exclusive cultural and legislative precedence?

Stringent protections of free speech (the right to dissent) are an important guarantor against any potential monopoly of power. When free speech is unjustifiably curtailed, democratic societies are threatened. Enabling disparate voices to participate in political and academic life ensures that current orthodoxies become neither lackadaisical nor presumptively unequivocal. Unpopular schools of thought, strong opposition parties and a variety of editorial slants constrain intellectual egomania and unhealthy political power grabs.

Most people will acknowledge this principle to some extent. At a base level, many Republicans recognize that they need Democrats. Often, academics are more indebted to their detractors than they would care to admit. But should disparate fascist cohorts and militant Islamic groupsbe given a hearing in democratic societies? Should extremist spokespersons be allowed to benefit from the privileges which they would seek to suppress in alternative circumstances?

What if particular radical tenets exploited susceptible listeners? Surely some measure of benevolent paternalism is warranted. In practice, many developed nations do place limitations upon free speech.

Recently, Ursula Haverbeck, a prolific revisionist historian and neo-Nazi, was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust on German soil. The British government has also introduced anti-extremism legislation. Even views which were oncethemain sway of opinion merely decades ago are now mitigated against legislatively and on university campuses.

In 2016, Angus Buchan (a conservative evangelical South African evangelist) was banned from preaching in Scotland. LGBT groups cited his allegedly homophobic and misogynistic views in justification of the prohibition. Offbeat second wave feminists like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have had their invitations to universities revoked by disenfranchised students.

These measures are not only inappropriate, but fundamentally counter-productive. Furthermore, they send a dangerous message to zealous minority factions. Theprima facieobvious ought to be stated: these demarcations are purely symbolic. Everyone knows that the most efficient way to stifle reprehensible opinions merely requires not paying attention to them.

Unsurprisingly; bannings, finings and imprisonment provide frenzied radicals with much larger spheres of influence. Nothing is more ineffectual than bestowing notoriety upon fringe groups which would otherwise have never been given any platform. Attempts to curtail free speech merely ratify the grandiose outlaw status which agitators thrive upon. Outrage just adds fuel to the fire of irrational contempt.

Ifcertain views really are beyond the pale of rational discourse, there is no inherent reason for their adherents to feel any compulsion towards dialogue, compromise or self-critique. Abhorrent positions should be forced to earn their place in an economy of ideas rather than being crowned royalty in a much more lucrative, less competitive, black market.

Why then have coercive attempts to restrict hate speech become so popular? Perhaps attempts to officially proscribe certain opinions pertains to a far more raw, emotive and visceral essence. An ancient human facethas resurfaced: team psychology.

An ability to cooperate in large collectives is one of the characteristics which distinguish humanity from other primates. This remnant of our tribal ancestry is manifest almost everywhere; competitive sports; fashion; political partisanship; etc. Even whenever we are not facing any imminent danger we still sense a pressing need to express particular loyalties and make specific alliances.

However, in his infamous Ted Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (N.Y.U.) identified one precarious trait innate to team psychology: The psychology of teams [] shuts down open minded thinking.

This is tantamount to stating the obvious. But Haidts observation should provoke serious introspection. Is it possible to reasonably discard ingroup thinking and pursuethecommon good? Do attempts to officially silence various antagonistic voices actually have a predominantly self-validating function?

Our position within a specific social tribe is reinforced. We are no longer required to critically assess objectionable opinions. The immense pleasure tribalism affords us makes it difficult and painful to distinguish between advocacy and enactment. Acknowledging the practical ineffectuality of anti-free speech legislation feels like betrayal.

Notwithstanding this phycological complication, there remains an immense difference between allowing persons to vocalize positions and possessing a blaze attitude towards the manifestation of such beliefs. Mob psychology has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of populism and social polarization (e.g. identity politics) throughout many Western nations which arose after the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown. Speech regulation provides continuity in an unstable world.

However, preemptively shutting down the possibility of dialogue with others cannot provide long term social security. The War on Extremism will soon be cataloged alongside other failed social Wars (like the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs). If monitoring language is counter-productive, what posture should anti-extremist political engagement take?

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent years. The rise of cultural libertarianism (embodied by alternative media outlets like the Rubin Report) has remapped the political landscape for many millennials. Its purported free speech fundamentalism resonates amongst people alienated by consensus politics; which characterized both the 90s and Noughties. Cultural libertarianism is a flashy somewhat adolescent protest movement with plenty of uncanny insights and a remarkable lack of real solutions.

The conscientious branding which these star struck demagogues have deployed does their crusade a damning disservice. They have inadvertently capitalized upon the tribal loyalties which underlying anti-free speech regulation in the first place.

Furthermore, this movement has failed to attract much needed cross-partisan support. Left of center socially minded democrats, often disparagingly christened Social Justice Warriors, are presumptively excluded from this more open project. As Milo Yiannopoulos (a recently defamed former darling of the Cultural Libertarian troop) states; free speech is now a conservative issue.

Cultural Libertarianism is too facile. Its unwavering commitment to value facts over feelings reflects a limited awareness of the complexities inherent throughout the historical development of moral and political theory. Social liberalism has produced revolutionary free speech advocates liketheinfamous British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Without the Quran political toleration may never have got off the ground.

Yes; free speech is under threat. Democratic participation is difficult. Authentic university life is fragile. The freedom of the press is always somewhat in jeopardy. Protecting free speech involves hard work. It requires putting up with ideas we dislike and hoping that reasonable discourse will win out in the end.

Free speech advocates on the right, left, top, bottom and center should recognizethe importance ofgrey. We must stop painting ourselves and our adversaries in cheap gaudy colors. Unless we are careful, one persons utopia may become everyone elses nightmare.

Photo: John Nakamura Remy/Creative Commons

See the rest here:

Protecting truly free speech is hard work - GlobalComment.com

Using ‘free speech’ as a cover for discrimination – The Boston Globe – The Boston Globe

Posted on by

Jack Phillips is the operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Phillips, who has religious objections to same-sex marriage and had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips is devout about his artistry in icing and fondant. Hes also devout about his Christian faith, so much so that he believes it would be deeply sinful to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission one in a series of efforts to fence in the galloping acceptance of same-sex marriage could come as soon as this fall.

Events were set in motion in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who planned to marry in Massachusetts, stopped into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused to serve them, even though Colorado law says businesses open to the public cant discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Advertisement

Phillips, of course, has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to profess his faith. And hes made it clear theres no room for compromise, telling The New York Times: I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that to participate in a sin is wrong for me. For me to take part in it against my will is compelling me to make a statement that I dont want to make. But theres another right hanging in the balance, rooted in the 14th Amendment and codified by the Supreme Court in 2015: the right to same-sex marriage.

Historically, courts have tried to strike an equitable balance between expanded civil rights and religious expression. Since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1964, lawmakers and the courts have allowed some exemptions but have tended to draw the line when claims of religious freedom are used to justify discrimination. As James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT project put it: You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision two years ago was transformative, addressing vital claims to liberty and dignity for millions of gay Americans. Phillipss protest also comes at a time when national support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. A majority of Americans surveyed 62 percent now support gay marriage, including two-thirds of Catholics and 68 percent of mainline Protestants. And while white evangelical Christians arent exactly waving rainbow flags, support for same-sex marriage has grown from 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent today, according to Pew.

Theres a broader First Amendment principle at stake, however. The Phillips case is another alarming assault on freedom of speech, part of an effort by businesses large and small to turn that most essential constitutional right into an antiregulatory tool. This compelled speech doctrine is already making its way through Congress and the court system, most notably in a case involving business groups fighting a 2010 law that requires them to disclose whether their products contain minerals linked to warlords in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In June, the US House passed the Financial CHOICE Act, which includes a pro-business provision to repeal the conflict-mineral disclosure. The US Senate should reject the bill, which also rolls back Dodd-Frank reforms. And the Supreme Court justices should recognize that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not about forcing speech, but about banning discriminatory conduct. The Colorado cakemaker should be free to worship as he pleases, but not to abrogate settled civil rights law under the guise of the First Amendment.

Continue reading here:

Using 'free speech' as a cover for discrimination - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

Debullshitifying the free speech debate about CNN and Trump’s alt … – Boing Boing

Posted on by

In the wake of CNN threatening to out a critic if he does not limit his speech in the future, former federal prosecutor and First Amendment champion Ken White has published an eminently sensible post about the incoherence of the present moment's views on free speech, and on the way that partisanship causes us to apply a double standard that excuses "our bunch" and damns the "other side."

As you'd expect from White, he goes beyond the "pox on both your houses" and sets out a course for a consistent and coherent view on free speech, speech with consequences, and taking sides.

We're not consistent in our arguments about when vivid political speech speech inspires, encourages, or promotes violence. We're quicker to accept that it does when used against our team and quicker to deny it when used on the other team.

We're not consistent in our moral judgments of ugly speech either. We tend to treat it as harmless venting or trolling or truth-telling if it's on our team and as a reflection of moral evil if it's on the other team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether online abuse and threats directed at people in the news are to be taken seriously or not. We tend to downplay them when employed against the other team and treat them as true threats when used against our team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether calling some individual out by name exposes them to danger. We tend to claim it does when the person supports our team and sneer at the issue when the person supports the other team.

We're not consistent in our treatment of the significance of behavior by obscure individuals. When some obscure person's online speech gets thrust into the limelight, we tend to treat it as fairly representative if they're on the other team and an obvious non-representative outlier if they are on our team.

We're hopelessly bad at applying consistent legal principles to evaluate whether speech is legally actionable depending on which team it comes from.

We're pretty inconsistent in our assessment of what social consequences should flow from ugly speech, with our views of proportionality, decency, and charity diverging widely depending on whether the person at issue is on our team or not.

CNN, Doxing, And A Few Ways In Which We Are Full of Shit As A Political Culture [Ken White/Popehat]

Louisiana Republican congressman Clay Higgins shot video of himself talking about the need for invincible U.S. powerwhile wandering the gas chamber at Auschwitz. In his five-minute ramble, Higgins explains the horrors that took place at the camp, where some 1.1m people, mostly Jews, where murdered by the Nazis during World War II. And that this []

Described by the BBC as a stunning attack on a female news anchor as if such a thing were at all unusual for the president of the United States of America, Trumps latest twitter barrage concerns the allegedly bleeding badly facelift of MSNBCs low I.Q. Crazy Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski tweeted back, to mock Trumps famously []

Piers Morgan is a British journalist, pundit and Trumpkin who blew his big break in America and now presents breakfast television when not being nasty to women on Twitter. Here he is on Good Morning Britain getting savagely owned by copresenter Susanna Reid. This moment was just too beautiful for words, @susannareid100 @piersmorgan @CharlotteHawkns pic.twitter.com/hK2n88nBS4 []

Excel, Microsofts venerable spreadsheet program has some seriously powerful capabilities. But unless you know where to look in the maze of menus and toolbars, you probably leave the pivot tables and conditional formatting to your offices Excel guru. If you want to level up your skills and steal the title from the resident guru, take []

Entertaining bold changes in your career can feel like an abandonment of what youve worked for thus far, but this fallacious mindset can cost you a lot more in the long run than the time spent at your current gig. Change is constant, and building new skills outside of your typical wheelhouse will do much []

Immersive 3D sound is usually only possible with an array of surround-sound speakers, or by using headphones with Binaural audio content. And since most readily-available media is mastered for generic stereo, your Dolby 5.1 setup wont automagically add an extra dimension to your listening experience. But you can still simulate a rich audio environment with []

Read the rest here:

Debullshitifying the free speech debate about CNN and Trump's alt ... - Boing Boing

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer – News & Observer

Posted on by

News & Observer
What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer
News & Observer
Where will this country be if its speech tradition falters? In public places and social settings, when we come face to face, we're hesitant to say what we think.

and more »

Follow this link:

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer - News & Observer

Taboo of Atheism in Saudi Arabia – International Policy Digest (press release) (blog)

Posted on by

Atheism remains one of the most extreme taboos in Saudi Arabia. It is a red line that no one can cross. Atheists in Saudi Arabia have been suffering from imprisonment, maginalisation, slander, ostracisation and even execution. Atheists are considered terrorists. Efforts for normalisation between those who believe and those who dont remain bleak in the kingdom.

Despite constant warnings of Saudi religious authorities of the danger of atheism, many citizens in the kingdom are turning their backs on Islam. The Saudi dehumanizing strict laws in the name of Islam, easy access to information and mass communication are the primary driving forces pushing Saudis to leave religion. Unfortunately, those who explicitly do, find themselves harshly punished or forced to live dual lives.

Unfair Trials and Atheists

Just recently Saudi Arabia has sentenced another atheist to death for uploading a video renouncing Islam.

The man has been identified as Ahmad Al-Shamri, in his 20s, from the town of Hafar Al-Batin, a village located in Saudi Arabias eastern Province. In his video, Al-Shamri renounces Islam and makes disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad.

Saudi authorities first picked him up in 2014 after he uploaded a series of videos reflecting his views on social media, which led to him being charged with atheism and blasphemy.

While leaving Islam is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, the countrys Supreme Court, ruled against Al-Shamri on 25 April 2017, effectively sending him to his death. Court proceedings could last for months but when it comes to blasphemy, atheism or homosexuality, the sentence is more likely to be known beforehand.

Riyadh introduced a series of laws in 2014 criminalizing those who spread atheist thought or question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion. According to the Amnesty International Global Report on death sentences and executions, Saudi Arabia has scored 154+ executions, in which death penalty was imposed after proceedings that did not meet international fair trial standards.

In January 2017, an unnamed Yemeni man living in Saudi Arabia reportedly was charged with apostasy and sentenced to 21 years in prison for insulting Islam on his Facebook page.

InNovember 2016, an Indian migrant worker, Shankar Ponnam, reportedly was sentenced to four months in prison and a fine of 1,195 for sharing a picture of the Hindu god Shiva sitting atop the Kaaba on Facebook.

In November 2015, Palestinian poet and artist Ashraf Fayadh was sentenced to death for apostasy for allegedly questioning religion and spreading atheist thought in his poetry. His sentence was reduced to eight years in prison and 800 lashes to be administered on 16 occasions.

In 2014, Raif Badawi was also convicted of blasphemy for creating a website dedicated to fostering debate on religion and politics. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes.

In 2012, the journalist Hamza Kashgari was accused of blasphemy after he posted a string of tweets. He was captured in Malaysia and brought back to the kingdom. No further information about his case has surfaced since.

Atheists are Terrorists

In 2014, Saudi Arabia introduced a series of new laws in the form of royal decrees, which define atheists as terrorists. The new royal provisions define terrorism as calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which Saudi Arabia is based.

Conflating atheism and terrorism has become official in Saudi Arabia, by which nonbelievers who commit thought crimes are the same as violent terrorists.

Article 4 of the kingdoms laws on terrorism states: Anyone who aids [terrorist] organisations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom; this includes participation in audio, written, or visual media; social media in its audio, written, or visual forms; internet websites; or circulating their contents in any form, or using slogans of these groups and currents [of thought], or any symbols which point to support or sympathy with them.

In a program named UpFront on Al Jazeera America, Saudi Ambassador to the UN, Abdallah Al-Mouallimi explains why advocating atheism in Saudi Arabia is considered a terrorist offence.

Al-Mouallimi says that atheists are deemed terrorists because we are a unique country.

We are the birthplace of Islam, he adds. We are the country that hosts the two holiest sites for Muslims in Mecca and Medina. We are the country that is based on Islamic principles and so forth. We are a country that is homogeneous in accepting Islam by the entire population. Any calls that challenge Islamic rule or Islamic ideology is considered subversive in Saudi Arabia and would be subversive and could lead to chaos.

If he [an atheist] was disbelieving in God, and keeping that to himself, and conducting himself, nobody would do anything or say anything about it. If he is going out in the public, and saying, I dont believe in God, thats subversive. He is inviting others to retaliate, Al-Mouallimi elaborates.

Counter Measures

President of the Centre for Middle East Studies in Riyadh, Anwar Al-Ashqi, does not see the authorities adoption of these laws as suppression of freedoms. While he believes that atheism, as an independent thought is positive, it may become negative and require legal accountability if it aims to transform the traditional nature of the Saudi society, which instigates communal strife and challenges religion. The state in this case, according to him, has the right to outlaw this type of atheism and declare it as an aspect of terrorism.

Similar to other Gulf States, Saudi Arabia perceives atheism as a threat that should be eliminated. Thus, there have been several conferences, trainings and workshops in recent years aimed at immunising society, especially the youth, against atheistic ideas. Saudi Arabia has established Yaqeen Centre at The Al-Madina University Department of the Study of Faith and Religions. Yaqeen Centre, which means certainty specializes in combating atheistic and non-religious tendencies. The centres vision is to achieve leadership in countering atheism and non-religiosity locally and globally. Activities of this centre remain unknown.

In October 2016, the Saudi Ministry of Education launched a government program called Immunity in schools to inoculate children against Westernisation, atheism, liberalism and secularism.

Atheists in the Kingdom?

In 2012, a poll by WIN-Gallup International (Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism) found that almost a quarter of people interviewed in Saudi Arabia described themselves as not religious and of those 5 to 9% declared themselves to be convinced atheists. Extrapolating that figure on a national scale suggests there are about 1.4 million atheists living in Saudi Arabia. This of course excludes all work migrants from different parts of the world, who might be already nonbelievers.

The percentage of people who believe they are convinced atheists is the highest in Saudi Arabia among all Arabic-speaking countries. This percentage is the highest in comparison to Arab countries, even those known for their secular leanings such as Tunisia and Lebanon.

However, these figures contradict the ones released by the Egyptian Fatwa observatory of Dar al-Iftaa Al-Missriyyah in 2014, in which only 174 atheists are thought to be living in Saudi Arabia. It remains mysterious how this number could be this accurate.

Scientifically speaking, there are no official figures about the number of atheists in Saudi Arabia because it is very difficult to conduct a research about such a sensitive topic. However, there are several pages for atheists sweeping the Internet such as Saudis without Religion, Spreading Atheism in Saudi, and Saudi Secular, which indicate that there are some atheist activities despite all restrictions. It is difficult to determine whether these pages operate from within the kingdom or from outside.

On Twitter, the most widely used site in Saudi Arabia, over 20,000 Saudis reacted to topics related to the spread of atheism in Saudi Arabia. Voices advocating the rights of atheists appeared only very rarely compared to the ones affirming demanding persecution of atheists in the kingdom.

It must be noted that most accounts in Saudi Arabia hide behind fake names to avoid prosecution. A Saudi young man, 28, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison, 2,000 lashes and 4,780 fine after being convicted of publishing more than 600 atheist tweets.

Many Saudis say the presence of atheists in Saudi Arabia is like any other country, but their number in the kingdom is negligible compared to millions of Saudis who are adherents of Islam as a religion and as a law applied by their state in the finest details of life.

Go here to read the rest:

Taboo of Atheism in Saudi Arabia - International Policy Digest (press release) (blog)

Help #NormalizeAtheism – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

Human minds are quirky things. No matter how logical and clear-cut we are going to try and make our thinking, we are never going to be perfect. When it comes down to it, we arent very good at thinking intuitively or in a purely statistical manner. We are always going to have cognitive biases, and try as we might, we will likely never escape those entirely. While atheists regularly face cultural opposition and oftentimes persecution, its a good thing to attempt to push back using cold rational arguments and reason against religion. These are good tools, but in order to get an effective message across, we should be adding more of a human element to the discussion. This is why the #NormalizeAtheism campaign has started up.

#NormalizeAtheisms exists as a campaign to spread general public awareness about what atheism really is. Of course, we know that atheism isnt more than a simple nonbelief in gods, but the general public usually doesnt understand that who you are as a person exists outside of this simple nonbelief. You can be an altruistic and caring person or you can be an asshole, and these are both independent of your belief in a deity or not. There is an unfortunate negative stereotype against atheists that exists, and it would be beneficial to get the world to recognize that atheists are normal people just like anyone else. We can be happy, we can be sad, we can get angry, and the only significant difference between us and most people is that we believe in one less god than they do.

Yours truly in my #NormalizeAtheism tank top, bro-ing it up

Regarding the negative perceptions of atheists, NormalizeAtheisms website has this to say.

This isnt an easy problem to solve as the story of Diagoras shows us, its a very old problem. Solving it will require changing the way atheists are perceived by the societies in which we live. And the first step toward realizing that change is reminding everyone else that were here. It doesnt demand any particular political affiliation, it doesnt necessitate the acceptance of a specific ideology. All it requires is for all of us who are able to speak up and say, Im an atheist. And I think its time for us to #NormalizeAtheism.

The point of Normalize Atheism is to be visible with your atheism. We can wear atheist apparel. We can join local advocacy groups like Atheists Helping the Homeless. We can talk casually about going to a local atheist meetup this weekend (which we should be able to bring up just as casually as religious folks will casually bring up attending church). These behaviors serve to correct ignorance, and to show we can live normal, if not fulfilling lives, as nonbelievers.

I happen to think that the findings of science, through psychology and sociology, emphasize the importance of visibility in everyday culture. When it comes to marginalized groups, I used to think representation in media and everyday life was mere lip service to show inclusion for identities that werent really represented. However, theres more purpose than that to representation. Students learn more from teachers who look like them. When we dont have diverse actors or personalities on television, we may be reducing self-esteem of those who arent represented. It also plays into cognitive biases like the availability heuristic or the representativeness heuristic, which will inevitably affect our everyday decision-making.

Ive already written about how visibility is one of the best ways to change peoples minds. A 2016 study published in Science indicated that those biased against gender and sexual minorities can have their minds significantly changed by one-on-one interactions.

Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments.

Social movements like the LGBTQ movement have spent a lot of effort in making queer and trans people visible, largely to normalize their identities and show they are everyday people. We as atheists should take a cue from their efforts and use some of these strategies in our own endeavors.

Ive had some very positive interactions when trying to Normalize Atheism since the campaign has started. Whenever I go grocery shopping, I make sure that I am wearing something that specifically says atheist on it (including one shirt I got from the Normalize Atheism store). Ever since Ive started doing this, Ive gotten positive comments from people in the store about my apparel. While Im normally an introvert who doesnt like talking to strangers, Im pretty happy to create positive interactions for a cause I believe in.

One time I was wearing my shirt that has the hastag #NormalizeAtheism on it and I was checking out of my local grocery store. The cashier asked me what Normalizing Atheism meant to me. I explained to her mostly existing in spaces with non-atheists, to show that we are regular people. She thought it was a nice idea, and while she herself was not an atheist, she had atheist friends and was supportive of our rights. I was happy to meet and talk with her, and based on our interactions I think she felt the same.

Hopefully this cashier had a positive interaction with an out atheist, and that perception carries over into her future interactions. This is what visibility should do, ideally. As more and more people build positive perceptions of atheists in their everyday life, this will cause culture as a whole to be more accepting of atheists. Perhaps it will even cause more people to question their own beliefs.

It should go without saying that not everyone may be able to do this. I happen to be in a very progressive college town, so I am not in danger of violence or ostracism by being an out atheist. Someone who lives in the American South may not have that type of luxury, and that is okay. If you cannot be out and proud for personal safety or privacy, there is nothing to be ashamed of. This should, however, motivate those of us who can afford to be visible to actually be visible.

I encourage readers here to think of ways they can be visible and do their part to Normalize Atheism. When on social media, they should use the hashtag #NormalizeAtheism and be open about their nonbelief. If the question of religion should come up, we should be open about our positions on religion and gods. When acting as productive members of society, we should make our atheist identities open and visible. While it may not seem like much, a lot of people joining in will help build a positive culture, and help push back against a culture of dogma.

Check out the site and use the hashtag #NormalizeAtheism if you can!

Read more:

Help #NormalizeAtheism - Patheos (blog)

Now Is the Time to Colonize Mars, Elon Musk Says

Posted on by

Artists illustration showing SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft landing on Mars.

SAN FRANCISCO Humanity shouldn't dally in its quest to colonize Mars, SpaceX's billionaire founder and CEO Elon Musk says.

"Now is the first time in the history of Earth that the window is open, where it's possible for us to extend life to another planet," Musk told a huge crowd here Tuesday (Dec. 15) at the annual winter meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

"That window may be open for a long time and hopefully it is but it also may be open for a short time," he added. "I think the wise move is to make life multiplanetary while we can." [SpaceX's Plan for Mars & Reusable Rockets (Video)]

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk talks to Margaret Leinen, the director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, on Dec. 15, 2015, at the annual fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Colonizing Mars has long been a passion of Musk's. Indeed, the entrepreneur has repeatedly said that he founded SpaceX in 2002 primarily to help make humanity a multiplanet species. Having a self-sustaining outpost on the Red Planet would serve as an insurance policy, making humanity's extinction unlikely even if something goes terribly awry here on Earth, Musk said Tuesday.

Colonizing Mars would have other benefits as well, he added; the effort would greatly advance science discoveries and technological capabilities, and it would help inspire and excite people from all walks of life and from all around the globe.

Mars settlement "would be a great adventure," Musk said. "There need to be things that people look forward to when we wake up in the morning."

Colonizing Mars won't be easy, but humanity can do it with a few key technological advances, Elon Musk said. Chief among them are fully and rapidly reusable rockets, and the ability to produce rocket propellant from local materials on the Red Planet.

Currently, rockets are used just once and then ditched into the ocean. That means a lot of money is sinking to the ocean floor after every launch.

For example, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket costs about $16 million to build, but the fuel for each of the booster's liftoffs costs just $200,000, Musk said Tuesday. So finding a way to fly rockets again and again has the potential to slash the cost of spaceflight by a factor of 100, he added.

SpaceX is working hard to do just that. The company has tried twice this year to land a Falcon 9 first stage on an "autonomous drone ship" in the Atlantic Ocean during orbital launches. Both attempts, which occurred in January and April, were near misses; the rocket stage hit the target but ended up toppling and exploding on the ship's deck.

SpaceX will try again soon to bring a Falcon 9 first stage back down for a soft landing this time, perhaps on land at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, Musk said recently.

Mars colonization could be complicated by the discovery of indigenous life forms on the surface, Musk said Tuesday; in such a case, scientists and decision makers would have to make sure Red Planet pioneers tread as carefully as possible.

But Musk doesn't think such planetary-protection concerns will end up being a major issue.

"It really doesn't seem like there's any life on Mars, on the surface at least," Musk said here Tuesday. "We're not seeing any sign of that."

The Martian underground is more hospitable, since any life forms there would be protected from the harsh radiation environment and cold temperatures encountered on the surface, he added. But Musk doesnt think subsurface life would or should derail Red Planet colonization.

"I think anything we do on the surface is really not going to have a big impact on the subterranean life," he said.

Musk hopes to be a key player in the spread of humanity to another planet, but he doesn't expect to be around to see the full fruits of his labor.

"It will be superhard to do this, and it will take a long time," he said of Mars colonization. "I suspect I won't live to see it become self-sustaining."

Follow Mike Wall on Twitter@michaeldwallandGoogle+.Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebookor Google+. Originally published onSpace.com.

View original post here:

Now Is the Time to Colonize Mars, Elon Musk Says