Monthly Archives: March 2017

Stephen Hawking observed a milestone when he turned 75 earlier this year. A man who has achieved remarkable things and shown a remarkable nature from the very beginning of his career, his advancements combine work in the fields of gravitation, cosmology, quantum theory, thermodynamics and information theory. This synthesis of disciplines in search of answers secures his place as the leading genius of modern physics.

Part of Hawkings legend rests not only on his influence, but also to his willingness to harness as well as to push forward the technology that has helped to make that influence possible. Dr. Hawkings achievements are so remarkable and his interfacing with technology so seemingly natural, that it begs the question, what benefits does that interface hold for the rest of us?

With the advent of cognitive technologies, we are seeing a flowering in AI-based advancements: self-learning computers, conversational interfaces (like Siri), and self-driving cars that represent technology serving humanity. We have designed tech in our own image so that it behaves more and more like humans, but, as technology becomes prevalent in our lives, we behave more referentially to it and are viewed by some as victims being shaped BY technology. Trying to leverage this technological determinism for gain, there are even companies offering digital detoxes, with the goal of achieving momentary respite, metaphorically freeing space on our hard drives.

But academic interest in AI grows rapidly. Our analysis shows that global research on machine learning has doubled, going from 6,766 publications in 2011 to 13,405 in 2016. Within the AI field, themes including effective computing, knowledge representation and deep learning have emerged as the most popular. In the case of deep-learning research, data shows a quintuple increase in global research output in five years.

This profusion of research indicates an increasing willingness to explore a myriad of interfaces with AI. This is positively revolutionizing how we make decisions and live life, making AI an extraordinarily powerful tool for improving our connections to each other in ways that could only be imagined just a few years ago.

Consider the impact on medicine. As Satava and Ellis wrote as early as 1994, The increasing use of robotics, computers, and virtual realitywill become easier to use and enhance the surgeon--the technology must adapt to the surgeon, not the reverse. Since then, medical technology has flowered, designed to meet human - read: patient - needs first. Robotic surgery has become commonplace and conferred immense benefits. Electronically controlled prostheses and functional neuromuscular stimulation radically transformed limb-replacement technology, and amputees interface with technology becomes ever more beneficial and less noticeable as part of that benefit. The use of computer graphics, 3-D imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, and laser technology point toward new directions in medicine in disciplines across the board, with all technologies created or adapted to meet caregiver and consumer need or abandoned by the wayside.

And, while medicine has embraced artificial-intelligence-based data analytics with less alacrity than the financial industry and other sectors, the benefits of machine learning algorithms are allowing physicians to treat patients based on a combination of their own knowledge and data from the cases of all other patients facing the same disease. Predictive analysis leading to early intervention is an unheard of benefit; for example, Google DeepMind has created a machine learning algorithm designed to detect diabetes and macular degeneration by analyzing case data from a million patients, allowing doctors to treat before these conditions emerge. As part of the interface, AI is providing doctors with predictions based on deep data analysis, which from the outside may look very much like experience-based deduction.

Predictive analysis also works at micro-level interfaces. Dr. Hawking communicates through an open-source program called ACAT, which provides a software keyboard on his computer screen. He selects letters by moving a cursor with his cheek (that movement is detected by sensor on his eyeglasses). ACATs SwiftKey word prediction algorithm, programmed with Dr. Hawkings writings, offers word choices after he types only a couple of characters. When he has a whole sentence, Dr. Hawking sends it to a speech synthesizer. His interface is personal, highly customized and built to help him deal with the particular challenges of motor neurone disease. Most importantly, it frees him to communicate and connect in way that wouldnt have been possible in the recent past.

Technology does not determine human action; human action shapes technology. As we push forward into this age of the marriage of data and technology, we must apply the basic principle that technology needs to serve humanity, first and last. Armed with that guiding principle, we can create opportunities for individuals and communities to achieve, while at the same time, overcome the fear that too often accompanies the introduction of complex ideas, and advance with positive optimism and open curiosity.

Read more:
Benefits of the Human-Technology Interface - Huffington Post

WASHINGTON The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights heard from civil rights and other advocacy groups on Tuesday about their concerns with the Trump administrations immigration policies.

Commissioners said they hoped to hear from the government, too. But they couldnt the federal government skipped the hearings, which officials said was because of ongoing litigation.

Advocates and observers said the move was highly unusual and sent a concerning message about the new administrations respect for international bodies such as the Organization of American States, of which the commission, or IACHR, is a part. Multiple experts said the U.S. almost always attends and hasnt skipped a hearing in at least eight years.

Todays no-show is a new low, Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Unions Human Rights Program, said at one of the hearings, calling it an unprecedented show of disrespect to the international community that will alienate democratic allies.

This is another worrying sign that the Trump administration is not only launching an assault on human rights at home but is also trying to undermine international bodies charged with holding abusive governments accountable, he added.

The governments absence was noted multiple times by commissioners, who said they werent sure why it happened. IACHR President Francisco Jos Eguiguren Praeli told reporters that U.S. government officials informed the commission on Monday that they would not be in attendance at the hearings, one dealing with President Donald Trumps executive orders on travel and immigration enforcement, the other on treatment of asylum-seekers.

Suffice it to say that it is a pity that this is the situation, IACHR Vice President Margarette May Macaulay said during one of the hearings, while noting the government had declined to attend and answer questions.

Commissioner Paulo Vannuchi, speaking in Spanish at the other hearing, said he regretted the absence, which is what would have made it possible for there to be a democratic exchange of opposing views being aired.

The State Department, which has a permanent mission to the Organization of American States, said the government did not attend because it is not appropriate for the United States to participate in these hearings while litigation on these matters is ongoing in U.S. courts, acting spokesman Mark Toner said.

The United States has tremendous respect for the role performed by the IACHR in safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the hemisphere, including in the United States, he said in a statement.

The State Department did not provide examples of other instances in which the government has declined to attend hearings last year, officials were present for a separate hearing that dealt with asylum-seekers or exact litigation. The presidents temporary ban on entry to the country for refugees and certain foreign nationals is subject to pending litigation. Another State Department spokesperson, who declined to comment with their name, said participants at both thematic hearings included parties to such ongoing litigation.

The spokesperson said the departments decision not to participate does not have any bearing on current or future U.S. engagement with the Commission.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Department of Homeland Security, which were also expected by the ACLU to attend one or more of the hearings, responded to requests for comment.

Experts said it was far from normal for the government to skip a hearing. Ariel Dulitzky, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and former assistant executive secretary of the IACHR, said in an email that it is highly unusual for States not to participate and that under former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, the U.S. attended hearings.

Marselha Gonalves Margerin, advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, said it is the first time in the past eight years that the U.S. did not attend an IACHR hearing. She has litigated before the commission and been a close observer for about 16 years, she said.

Countries that skip hearings generally do so to send a message, she said, noting that Cuba, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic have declined to attend at times when they did not want to talk about accusations of human rights violations.

Does America first mean disengagement of its human rights obligations? asked Gonalves Margerin, who was not at the hearings.

The IACHR issued a statement on Wednesday calling it troubling that the U.S. government did not send representatives to its hearings. Cuba and Nicaragua also decided not to participate in hearings, according to the commission

The Inter-American Commission underscores the importance that the States participate in all hearings, in good faith and with adequate substantive information, in order to work constructively toward solutions to human rights problems in the region, the commission said in a statement. The inter-American human rights system is strengthened by the active participation of States, victims and their representatives, and civil society organizations.

Sarah Paoletti, director of the University of Pennsylvanias Transnational Legal Clinic, said during the asylum-seeker hearing that those present were extremely disappointed to not hear from the government.

We fear this is a further reflection of their disregard for the human rights of migrants, she said, and hope that they will fully engage in future hearings and prove us wrong.

Because the U.S. government wasnt there, no one presented counter-arguments to a dire picture put forward by advocates, who argued the presidents executive orders on immigration were discriminatory, dangerous and presented a potential for abuse by Customs and Border Protection agents.

At the asylum-seeker hearing, advocates who criticized Obama on treatment of vulnerable people apprehended at the border as well said they were concerned things would get even worse under Trump. Commissioners seemed sympathetic Macaulay said they agree that detention of families, asylum-seekers and children is completely contrary to international norms and standards.

In no way can the commission accept these acts of violations which are occurring and which seem to be multiplying and becoming more and more serious as each day progresses, she said.

This story has been updated with a statement from the IACHR.

See the original post here:
Trump Administration Is A No-Show At Hearings On Human Rights - Huffington Post

Human development is a process of enlarging peoples choices. But human development is also the objective, so it is both a process and an outcome

Mar 23, 2017- Nepal has graduated to medium human development grouping in the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI), indicating Nepalis are growing healthier, becoming more educated and earning more.

Nepal secured a score of 0.558 in HDI in 2015, as against 0.548 in 2014, says the Human Development Report 2016 published by the UN.

With this score, Nepal secured 144th position in the HDI among 188 countries surveyed by the UN. This ranking is same as that of the previous year. The slight improvement in the score also helped Nepal to escalate to the medium human development group from the low human development group.

The HDI integrates three basic dimensions of human development, according to the UN. Life expectancy at birth reflects the ability to lead a long and healthy life. Mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling reflect the ability to acquire knowledge. And gross national income per capita reflects the ability to achieve a decent standard of living.

Life expectancy at birth of Nepalis on average rose to 70 years in 2015 from 69.6 a year ago. Similarly, expected years of schooling of every Nepali stood at 12.2 years in 2015, while mean years of schooling hovered around four years. Likewise, gross national income per capita increased to $2,337 in 2015 from $2,311 a year ago. These HDI values, however, are way below that of Sri Lanka, which leads the HDI league table in South Asia. Nepal also lags behind the Maldives, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh in terms of human development.

Human development is a process of enlarging peoples choices. But human development is also the objective, so it is both a process and an outcome, says the UNs report titled Human Development for Everyone. This implies people must influence the processes that shape their lives.

In all this, economic growth is an important means to human development, but not the end, says the report, adding, Human development is the development of the people through building human capabilities, by the people through active participation in the processes that shape their lives and for the people by improving their lives. It is broader than other approaches, such as the human resource approach, the basic needs approach and the human welfare approach.

The 2014 Nepal National Human Development Report had found wide variations in HDI values across population groups in Nepal, although the trends are towards less inequality. The Newar people have the highest HDI value, 0.565. Close on the heels are Brahmins and Chhetris, with HDI value of 0.538. This was followed by Janajatis, with HDI value of 0.482, Dalits (0.434) and Muslims (0.422).

The variations in HDI values are even significant within these groups, depending on where they live. The highest inequalities are in education, and this may have pronounced long-term effects on capabilities later in life.

Yet Nepal has been trying to bridge this gap in education.

The Welcome to School Initiative, for instance, led to an increase in net enrolment of 470,000 children, 57 percent of them girls, within a year of its implementation in 2005. The programme primarily focused on girls and disadvantaged groups. Nepals policy on adolescent girls was initially centred on health and education but now encompasses needs in employment, skills development and civic participation, says the report.

Published: 23-03-2017 10:56

Read the original:
Nepal graduates to medium human development grouping - The Kathmandu Post

This weeks restrictions on larger electronic devices in carry-on luggage from many of the Middle East and North Africas largest airports by the governments of the US and UK is an effort at making it more difficult for terrorists to attempt to blow up airplanes at will. Whether the restrictions are based on intelligence reports, recent event history, the application of common sense, or some combination of all of them, it is yet another incremental step in the direction of attempting to ensure the safety of the flying public. But one could certainly argue that it is also like placing a band-aid on a gaping wound while creating more of a false sense of security in a system that is rife with gaps, inconsistencies, and vulnerabilities.

One irony, of course, is that almost none of the airports and airlines impacted by the regulation are in failed states, where there is ample reason to presume that the air transportation infrastructure does not come close to meeting U.S. Federal Aviation Administration security standards. And, as has been demonstrated numerous times in recent years, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has itself failed to live up to its own security standards. For example, in a nationwide test in 2015, the US Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) Office of the Inspector General was able to successfully transfer mock explosives or banned weapons through airport security screening systems 95 percent of the time.

Also in 2015, only two major US airports made comprehensive employee screening part of their operational protocol -- meaning that all other major airports in the country do not do so. Another DHS investigation found that the TSA had failed to identify 73 employees of airlines, airport vendors, and other employers with active clearance badges who had links to terrorism. In other words, the TSA was inadvertently sanctioning the employment of individuals with terrorist links to work in roles that could endanger the US public. So, the US is not exactly in a position of authority in terms of setting the gold standard for airport and airline security.

While it should be presumed that the U.S. government has good intelligence-based reason to single out the airports and airlines that it did in its action, there are a number of problems with the approach. Among them, other airports and airlines from failed states, or from countries which are known to be a safe-haven for terrorists, are not included in the restrictions. There is also little to prevent a terrorist who might otherwise have chosen the subject airports and airlines to simply choose another origination point or airline. The restrictions may also ultimately backfire, and encourage terrorists to seek even more sophisticated means of targeting commercial aviation in the future.

What would be even more useful than imposing additional passenger restrictions would be for airport and airline security officials to adopt protocols that not only integrate the latest intelligence, but also the human factors that have made Israels El Al Airlines so successful at thwarting potential attacks. All vehicles that arrive at Ben Gurion Airport must first pass through a preliminary security checkpoint where armed guards search the vehicle and exchange a few words with the driver and occupants to gauge their mood and intentions. Plain clothes officers patrol the area outside the terminal building, assisted by sophisticated hidden surveillance cameras which operate around the clock. Armed security personnel patrol the terminal and keep a close eye on people entering the terminal building. If any persons seem suspicious or anxious, security personnel will approach them and engage them in conversation in an effort to gauge their intentions and mood. Vehicles are subject to a weight sensor, a trunk x-ray and an undercarriage scan.

Departing passengers are questioned by highly trained security agents before they reach the check-in counter. These interviews could last as little as one minute or as long as an hour, based on such factors as age, race, religion and destination. Unlike in many western airports, passengers are not required to remove their shoes while passing through physical screening processes. Furthermore, there are no sophisticated x-ray machines; rather, traditional metal detectors are still in operation.

The passenger-oriented security system is more focused on the human factor, based on the assumption that terrorist attacks are carried out by people who can be found and have been stopped through the use of this simple but effective security methodology. That said, there is a great array of equipment and technology available for the authorities to help combat any potential terrorist attacks. For example, checked baggage is put in a pressure chamber to trigger any possible explosive devices and robots patrol the airport grounds.

Ben Gurion airport does not sub-contract its security to private companies. Given their priority in ensuring safety and preventing terrorist attacks, the personnel on duty at Ben Gurion are highly trained army graduates who have specialist skills in detection and interrogation. They leave nothing to chance and are able to monitor the most minute details. Officials think of passenger security as a series of concentric circles, with increasing scrutiny as individuals arrive closer to the plane.

Agents also pay close attention to the parts of the airport that passengers do not frequent, such as fences around the airports perimeter, which are monitored with cameras at all times, and radar systems that check for intrusions when weather prevents cameras from effectively broadcasting. The Israelis focus on the human factor is not of course infallible, but the range of methods employed at Ben Gurion has proven to be extremely effective in preventing terrorist attacks, as its history demonstrates. Even so, many security and terrorist experts believe that, if this were always accompanied by the latest passenger-oriented security technology, Ben Gurions security would be even more robust.

The Israelis have taken on board the concerns of civil liberties groups and researchers in developing technology that could ease concerns about racial profiling, through the use of innovative check-in kiosks, but this can never of course replace the intuition and gut instinct that accompanies human interaction. Many airport authorities around the world have sought to benefit from the Israelis approach to airport security, though none use the entire range of tools at their disposal. In the end, limitations on financial and human resources, and preferred methodologies, determine just how thorough or inadequate security protocols can be.

If more airport authorities were to adopt Ben Gurions approach, surely it would be more difficult for those intending to do harm to succeed. There is a lot to be said for emphasizing eye contact, behavioral cues, and instinct when addressing the subject of airport security. Rather than continuing to implement ever broader restrictions on law abiding passengers, governments would perhaps be better off devoting the resources necessary to focus on the human intelligence and other protocols that very few airports and airlines actually provide, and that the Israelis have proven work very well.

*Daniel Wagner is Managing Director of Risk Cooperative and co-author of the book Global Risk Agility and Decision Making.

View original post here:
The World's Airports and Airlines Need More Human Intelligence - Huffington Post

Sadly, well never ID the first human to slide a digit or foreign object between the buttocks after doing number two.

SLUG SIGNORINOWhen and why did humans start wiping or manually cleaning themselves post-defecation, since animals generally don't do this? Roger

Many of humanitys greatest pioneersNewton, Edison, Rubikhave been fortunate enough to achieve household-name status for their groundbreaking work. Others, unluckier but no less visionary, must necessarily remain unknown. Sadly, well never ID the first human to slide a digit or foreign object between the buttocks after doing number two, just as well never locate the first person who decided it was a good idea to wash up afterwards. But we can figure out roughly when evolution would have made it necessary for our ancestors to develop a species-appropriate method of anal cleansing.

As you say, animals in general dont make a habit of wiping after defecationlimbwise, few are up to the task anyway. Birds and fish would seem to lack means, motive, or both. Some mammals, its true, do clean themselves when necessarythink of your cat licking itself. (Maybe dont think about it too long, though.) Only the most flexible hominids would be able to pull off that grooming trick, and the rest of us, I'd imagine, arent generally envious. Nor does it seem appealing to follow the lead of those species that occasionally drag their rumps along the ground to tidy up down below. (If you notice your dog engaging in such behavior, thats more likely an attempt to relieve fluid buildup in the anal glands than some canine stab at hygiene.)

Our pressing need to wipe is the result of a significant anatomical difference separating us from the rest of creation. You and I may be so used to having them that we dont think of our uniquely fatty, muscular posteriors as an evolutionary development that makes us stand out as humansor, more precisely, stand up. Considered strictly as an adaptation, the glutes certainly dont get all the good press that, say, the opposable thumb does. Nonetheless, the development of a stronger set of gluteal muscles was a major leap forward in enabling us to become an exclusively bipedal species.

It didnt happen all at onceAustralopithecus was strolling around upright nearly four million years ago with a body more akin to an apes than to ours. But eventually, between one and two million years ago, those of us who had sturdier hips and stronger muscles supporting them began to outrace our peers and our predators. The evolutionary advantage of the thickened layers of fat that cushion the glutes is less evidentsome scientists speculate they offered a reserve that could be burned off for energy when food grew scarce.

Essential as they proved to be, butts came with issues. Our anal cavity was now tucked away within two mounds of flesh. From our present-day acculturated vantage point, this might seem like an obvious improvement, helping to keep the anus out of sight and mind. But for prehistoric folks it created a hazard that our animal friends, what with their exposed bungholes, rarely faced: fecal residue might linger in there, and the accumulation of bacteria in so moist a locale could cause infection. Women were especially vulnerable, given the proximity of the exposed vagina and urethra.

So one of these buttock-equipped humansnamed by science Homo erectus, after their default posturewas probably the first wiper. Some rectal discomfort must have inspired this innovator to impulsively run a finger or two through the crevice and (ideally) wipe the accumulated crud off somewhere. H. erectus didnt stand on formalities, after all. Perhaps over time those who engaged in the habit prospered, and taught their offspring to do likewise. Nobody said evolution was pretty.

As human culture progressed, of course, taboos and rituals developed around our eliminatory regimens, some apparently rooted in prudence, others in disgust. By the time of Deuteronomy, divinely ordained pooping instructions had been set forth, enjoining the Israelites to scoot out of camp before doing their business and bring a little shovel along to cover up the evidence. At length toilet paper enters the picturethough as I mentioned in a TP column way back in 1986, folks were ripping pages out of the Sears Roebuck catalog before softer tissue became more widely available. Even today, many cultures prefer the gentle cleansing of the bidet, as we discussed at some length last year when someone wondered if wiping was necessary at all.

Bear in mind that our ancestors might not have needed to wipe as vigorously or diligently as we do. Their diet, however omnivorous and haphazard, lacked the modern poisons that gunk up our GI tractsCheetos and Twinkies were hard to come by in paleolithic times, you know. And toilet use hadnt yet trained them to relieve their bowels in an unnatural seated position. Squatting in the woods not only puts less strain on the system (possibly making squatters less prone to hemorrhoids) but allows smoother fecal passage, alleviating some of the need to wipe. Homo erectus had more to teach us, it seems, if wed only been wise enough to listen.Cecil Adams

Link:
When and Why Did Humans Start Wiping or Manually Cleaning Themselves Post-Defecation? - Washington City Paper