Researchers Create ‘self-aware’ Super Mario With Artificial Intelligence – Video

Posted on by


Researchers Create #39;self-aware #39; Super Mario With Artificial Intelligence
Mario just got a lot a smarter. A team of German researchers has used artificial intelligence to create a "self-aware" version of Super Mario who can respond...

By: WochitTech

Read more:

Researchers Create 'self-aware' Super Mario With Artificial Intelligence - Video

Artificial intelligence future wows Davos elite

Posted on by

Davos (Switzerland) (AFP) - From the robot that washes your clothes to the robot that marks homework: the future world of artificial intelligence wowed the Davos elite Thursday, but the rosy picture came with a warning.

Stuart Russell, a professor of computer science at the University of California Berkeley, painted a futuristic vision for those who hate the chore of washing.

"We have already developed robots who can do the complete laundry cycle. It is able to pick up a big bin of laundry, sort the clothes according to the sort of wash it needs, put them in the washing machine, take them out, sort them again, fold them," he told a bewildered Davos panel.

"The one thing it hasn't figured out is where is the missing sock," he quipped.

Anthony Goldbloom, a young tech entrepreneur from the United States, said that algorithms were being developed that could correct pupils' homework.

"It is possible to train machines to grade essays more reliably than a teacher," he said, while acknowledging that the technology remains "a long way off from being deployed in schools."

Several advances in artificial intelligence are aimed at the ageing baby-boom generation, which will be the fastest-growing market in the coming years, the experts predicted.

Driverless cars are one of the key trends, allowing an increasing elderly population better mobility.

"There's no need to park your car, because your car will just go home and come back when you need it. That changes the situation for public transport, because you'll just get taken to the station and then your car will go back home," said Russell.

"You can even imagine your car going to the supermarket and doing your groceries," he added.

Read the original here:

Artificial intelligence future wows Davos elite

What’s New In Aerospace from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC – Video

Posted on by


What #39;s New In Aerospace from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC
Bringing an Object to Life is the topic for the Smithsonian #39;s What #39;s New in Aerospace? Series and presented in collaboration with NASA. In this segment, rese...

By: NASA

Read more here:

What's New In Aerospace from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC - Video

Ball Aerospace Names Michael Gazarik as Technology Director

Posted on by

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. has hired Michael Gazarik as Director for its Office of Technology on the Boulder campus effective March 2.

Dr. Gazarik will lead the alignment of Balls technology development resources with business development and growth strategies.

Mike is extraordinarily respected in the technology community and Ball feels fortunate to have landed someone with his background and knowledge, said Ball Aerospace President, Robert Strain. For nearly 60 years, Ball has been known as a leader for technical innovation and we anticipate Mikes expertise will add to that legacy.

Gazarik joins Ball following an 11-year career with NASA. He has over 25 years' experience in the design, development, and deployment of spaceflight systems. He has contributed to the development of technology with application to NASA's exploration, space operations and science missions. His most recent role has been the Associate Administrator for the Space Technology Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters where he led NASAs rapid development and incorporation of transformative technologies that enable the Agencys missions, and address the Nations aerospace communitys most difficult challenges.

While at NASA, Gazarik supported Balls Green Propellant Infusion Mission, a non-toxic propellant technology demonstration scheduled to launch in 2016, because it has the potential to revolutionize how we travel to, from and in space.

Earlier in his career, Gazarik served as deputy director for programs at NASAs Langley Research Center in the Engineering Directorate. Prior to joining NASA, Gazarik served as project manager for the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory. He also led the development of the Airborne Sounder Testbed-Interferometer, an instrument that helps scientists understand temperature and water vapor profiles of the Earth's atmosphere. Gazarik also worked in the private sector on software and firmware development for commercial and government applications including telecommunications and signal processing.

Gazarik earned a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh in 1987. He earned an M.S. in 1989 and a Ph.D. in 1997, both in electrical engineering, from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Gazarik has received numerous awards, including NASA's Outstanding Leadership Medal and a Silver Snoopy Award, one of NASA's highest honors.

Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. supports critical missions for national agencies such as the Department of Defense, NASA, NOAA and other U.S. government and commercial entities. The company develops and manufactures spacecraft, advanced instruments and sensors, components, data exploitation systems and RF solutions for strategic, tactical and scientific applications. For more information, visithttp://www.ballaerospace.com/.

Ball Corporation (NYSE: BLL) supplies innovative, sustainable packaging solutions for beverage, food and household products customers, as well as aerospace and other technologies and services primarily for the U.S. government. Ball Corporation and its subsidiaries employ 14,500 people worldwide and reported 2013 sales of $8.5 billion. For more information, visitwww.ball.com, or connect with us on Facebook or Twitter.

Originally posted here:

Ball Aerospace Names Michael Gazarik as Technology Director

Charlie Hebdo terror attacks a NATO ‘Operation Gladio’ PsyOp? Pippa Jones, Tony Gosling – Video

Posted on by


Charlie Hebdo terror attacks a NATO #39;Operation Gladio #39; PsyOp? Pippa Jones, Tony Gosling
Paris Charlie Hebdo attack has at least 3 NATO Gladio Op. signatures Webster Tarpley 7 Jan Charlie Hebdo 2 days after Hollande talked end of Russia sanctions...

By: Peter Borenius

Read the original post:

Charlie Hebdo terror attacks a NATO 'Operation Gladio' PsyOp? Pippa Jones, Tony Gosling - Video

Argument preview: Dog sniffs and traffic stops once more to the Fourth Amendment well

Posted on by

Prior decisions of the Supreme Court addressing the constitutionality of the use of narcotics-sniffing dogs versus other law enforcement techniques have been on a theoretical collision course for years. On Wednesday, the Court will hear argument in Rodriguez v. United States and consider aspects of the issue once again: does the Fourth Amendment restrict the use of drug-sniffing dogs by the police at a roadside traffic stop, when the officer has finished issuing any citation and the stop is prolonged for a few minutes solely to conduct the dog sniff?

The nuances of simple facts

As in many Fourth Amendment cases, although the facts in Rodriguez are relatively simple they raise difficult theoretical questions which often turn on nuances about the details. One evening shortly after midnight, a car being driven by Dennys Rodriguez and carrying passenger Scott Pollman was stopped by Officer Morgan Struble. Struble had observed the car drift slowly onto the shoulder of a highway and then jerk suddenly back onto the road this was concededly probable cause to believe that Nebraska traffic statutes had been violated. Coincidentally, Officer Struble was a canine officer, and he had his drug-sniffing dog with him in his patrol car.

Upon questioning, Rodriguez told Officer Struble that he had swerved to avoid a pothole; the officer found that implausible. The officer was also suspicious of the overwhelming odor of air freshener; and he thought Pollman was unusually nervous for a passenger. When the officer asked Rodriguez to come sit in the patrol car during a records check, Rodriguez asked if he was required to do so. Upon being told that he was not, Rodriguez stayed in his own car.

When the records check came back negative, the officer went back to Rodriguezs car and spoke with Pollman, a conversation that the officer later said he also found suspicious. When the officer returned to his car, this time to run a records check on Pollman, he called for a second officer to come to the scene: Officer Straube had apparently decided to conduct a dog sniff and wanted another officer as back up for safety reasons.

Officer Struble then went back to Rodriguezs car, returned all documents to both men, and issued Rodriguez a written warning. At this point the stop of the car for traffic reasons appears to have been over. Officer Struble then asked for permission to walk his dog around the car. When Rodriguez refused, Officer Struble ordered him out of the car. This also concededly appears to be a moment of Fourth Amendment detention. They waited for the second officer, and when that officer arrived the dog sniff was conducted. The dog alerted within a few seconds. A search of the car yielded a bag of methamphetamine and the case went federal. Undisputedly, about seven or eight minutes elapsed from when Officer Struble gave Rodriguez the written warning until the dog alerted.

The federal magistrate found that the facts did not add up to reasonable suspicion once the traffic stop was over. Nevertheless, he recommended against suppression because the delay to conduct the dog sniff was a de minimis intrusion under Eighth Circuit precedent. The federal district court agreed, Rodriguez then pled guilty conditionally, and on appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Thus the question whether the Fourth Amendment permits an eight-minute detention, after a valid traffic stop has been completed, to conduct a dog sniff, seems clearly presented. More generally, the question whether (and for how long) a traffic stop may be prolonged, for reasons unrelated to the traffic violation itself, has divided lower courts. Note however, that the question in Rodriguez is premised on the assumption that the officer on the facts of this case did not have reasonable suspicion regarding narcotics. In addition to arguing that the dog-sniff detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the United States also argues that the Court could alternatively find that there was, as a matter of law, reasonable suspicion here. If the Court were to accept that view, then the detention for dog sniff without suspicion question would presumably be moot. But given the views of the trial judges, this alternative seems unlikely (although it could be open if there were a reversal for Rodriguez and remand).

The constitutional collision course

Heres a brief sketch of the constitutional debate regarding dog sniffs. The Fourth Amendment concept of a search is a constitutional trigger for inquiring into further requirements (probable cause, reasonable suspicion, possibly a search warrant, or some recognized exception). Absent a search (or seizure), officers are not restricted by the Fourth Amendment at all. Thus if a dog sniff is not a search, then there are no Fourth Amendment constraints on officers employing them (although this still leaves the question of the length of the detention here).

Continue reading here:

Argument preview: Dog sniffs and traffic stops once more to the Fourth Amendment well

Volokh Conspiracy: An update to the Virginia constitution that the General Assembly should pass over

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, Virginia Delegate Rich Anderson (R) and Senator Richard Stuart (R) introduced an amendment in the Virginia General Assembly, HJR 578, which would amend the Virginia constitution by replacing the state equivalent of the Fourth Amendment with an all new version designed to be an update for the 21st century. A reader asked me for my opinion of the proposal. This post provides it.

My overall assessment is that this proposal isnt ready for prime time. First, its a truly radical set of ideas. It would restrict police power to enforce the law in dramatic ways far beyond anything seen before. Second, its a grab-bag of different police restrictions, many poorly drafted and murky as to their scope. And ironically, several of the proposed changes actually arent likely to be changes at all. Theyre drafted in odd ways that probably miss their intended targets.

Heres some context to understand my reaction. The Virginia state constitution has a search and seizure provision that dates back to 1776 and was part of George Masons original Virginia Declaration of Rights. Heres the text:

That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

For most of Virginias history, this provision was the primary protection of search and seizure law that regulated Virginia law state and local law enforcement. In 1949 and 1961, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Fourth Amendment also applies to state and local governments under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of those U.S. Supreme Court developments, state constitutional protections play little or no role in most states. Most state Supreme Courts interpret their state constitutions to match or mostly match the federal Fourth Amendment, and the federal Fourth Amendment already provides a floor below which state and local officials cant go.

Virginia is one of those states. The Supreme Court of Virginia has concluded that the requirements of Virginias 1776 search and seizure provision are substantially the same as those contained in the Fourth Amendment. Lowe v. Commmonwealth, 230 Va. 346 (1985) (quoting A. Howard, I Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia 182 (1974)). States are certainly free to do more. Either by judicial construction, or by express textual amendment, states are free to enact greater protections that will regulate state and local governments more than the federal government. But its an option, not a requirement, and so far Virginias constitution hasnt gone beyond the federal Fourth Amendment.

The new proposal would change that. The proposal would replace George Masons 1776 language in its entirety with the following new language:

That the government shall not violate the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, businesses, lands, papers, and effects, including communications and stored personal information and data. A reasonable search or seizure is one based on probable cause that a law has been or will be broken. An unreasonable search or seizure is one that is not based on a valid law. Warrants and other demands shall be issued only based upon probable cause, signed by a neutral judge or magistrate, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons, property, or things to be seized, or the communications, personal information, or data to be accessed or obtained. A persons disclosure of papers, effects, communications, personal information, or data to another person shall not alone constitute a waiver of this right. The people shall have remedies of exclusion and actions for damages and other remedies wherein defendants shall not enjoy greater immunity than other citizens of the Commonwealth.

What is this language supposed to do? Good question. Just reading it, its somewhat hard to tell what the drafters were thinking. In the Washington Examiner, however, Ken Cuccinelli and Mark Fitzgibbons (C&F) offer an endorsement of the proposal that gives a relatively detailed explanation of it. Its the most thorough discussion I have found, and it gives us enough context to evaluate the proposed amendment sentence-by-sentence.

Lets start at the beginning with the first sentence:

Read more:

Volokh Conspiracy: An update to the Virginia constitution that the General Assembly should pass over