The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: March 5, 2020
GMO brought us the Impossible Burger but what does it actually mean? – Screen Shot
Posted: March 5, 2020 at 6:22 pm
What is digital food? Heres everything you need to know
The food industry has been undergoing monumental changes in the past few decadesnew technologies were implemented, even into the way we cook, produce and buy food. Climate change pushed more and more people to watch out for how much meat they consume, which then made becoming a vegetarian or vegan extremely trendy. This created a growing need for plant-based meats and non-dairy products.
Along with these shifts, a new term appeared in the culinary world: digital food. Its here, and it doesnt look like its going to vanish anytime soon, so you better get used to it. But what exactly is digital food, and what changes will it inspire in the ever-changing industry that is the food sector?
First of all, lets start by clarifying something: digital food and new technologies being used in the daily operations of food companies are two different things. New technologies meant that manufacturing processes were upgraded and started producing more food at a faster pace. But digital food is something else entirely. With social media came the recent boom in online food-based media, which completely changed the way we look at food online and seek out new recipes, restaurants and reviews.
We began craving new flavours from different countries, but it went even further than that. From sharing images of food on Instagram to augmented reality (AR) filters that shape our faces into a peach or a tomato or any food you can think of, it seems that the term digital food still has many meanings and, therefore, that there is no general consensus on its definition. Why is it not clearer? Because digital food is so recent that it is still in constant change. In other words, digital food is the future but no one can tell what the future holds.
Forget about the Instagram face, the new trend involves face filters that either allow you to look like your favourite food or make photo-realistic 3D food models appear on your camera. Not only can you look like your favourite kind of bubble tea, but you can also help reduce food waste by playing with food digitally. Because, lets be honest, who hasnt tried the Greggs face filter that lets you know which Greggs product you are?
Screen Shot spoke to Clay Weishaar, also known as @wrld.space on Instagram, the AR artist specialising in food filters, about our new obsession with food, especially on social media, and why his designs mainly focus on digital food, Food culture has always been a big subject on Instagram. So has fashion. This has really inspired me to explore the idea of food as fashion. I loved the idea of people wearing their favourite food. With augmented reality technology we have the ability to do this.
This can explain the kind of feedback that his Instagram filters received: I am a huge foodie myself. Combining food, fashion and technology was a sweet spot for me. I think the reason my filters have almost 2 billion impressions is that food is something people identify with. Its a universal subject, and it is what brings people and cultures together.
Some big food chains have already seen the potential in digital food. For example, Dominos created a Snapchat filter that would let users see an AR pizza and offer them the possibility of ordering the pizza online, straight from their Snapchat app. Using AR, brands could show us exactly what a specific meal would look like, making it easier for potential customers to make up their minds on what theyd like to order.
Five years ago, people were writing about food online to complain about the trend of people sharing pictures of their meals on Instagram. Now, people are looking, liking and sharing pictures of fake fooddigital food.
Among the few who can already see the potential of digital food is Jessica Herrington, who created the Instagram account Fresh Hot Delicious, a completely digital restaurant specialising in digital desserts. She described the concept in OneZero, saying, Each dessert exists as a freely available AR filter on Instagram. To simulate a real-world restaurant, the desserts sell out when the AR filters reach a specific number of views. Users can play with the desserts for free until they are sold out and become deactivated. In this way, the digital restaurant gives a life span to previously permanent digital objects.
Experiencing digital food through AR is an accessible and innovative alternative to engage with an audience. Food brands are trying to sell more than a productthey need to sell an experience, and digital food could help them build a connection with potential customers. The future of the food sector is digital, and weve only witnessed a few of the many ways we will consume digital food. As unusual it may seem to many for now, digital food will offer us a new approach to traditional eating experiences, and I dont know about you, but all this made me hungry.
What is digital food? Heres everything you need to know
See more here:
GMO brought us the Impossible Burger but what does it actually mean? - Screen Shot
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on GMO brought us the Impossible Burger but what does it actually mean? – Screen Shot
What is the Covid-19 coronavirus and how might it continue to affect professional cycling? – Cyclingnews.com
Posted: at 6:22 pm
With the coronavirus now spreading rapidly in Italy, recent concerns that various spring races most notably this Saturday's Strade Bianche, next week's Tirreno-Adriatico and Milan-San Remo (March 21) could be affected have now become very real, and their cancellation extremely likely, with the Italian government calling for a halt to all sporting and public events for the next month. Additionally, a number of cycling teams have revealed their own concerns in the past 24 hours about racing in Italy and at Paris-Nice in France and many have already pulled out of the races.
The Italian races now seem most likely to be rescheduled for a later date, although RCS Sport the organiser of Strade Bianche, Tirreno-Adriatico and Milan-San Remo hopes that their spring events might be able to be rescheduled, with further announcements expected following meetings on Thursday.
But what exactly is the Covid-19 coronavirus? Cyclingnews dug into the facts, as reported by theCenters for Disease Controland Prevention and other sites, in order to be able to explain more about the virus, who it affects and why it is important to control its spread.
Bottom line? Practising good personal hygiene and helping prevent the spread of the virus is the absolute best way to protect yourself, your loved ones, your neighbours and your community, and the world at large.
Covid-19 is the disease caused by a new type of coronavirus. The group is named after the viruses' appearance, with each virion surrounded by bunches of spiky proteins that look like a halo, or the corona of the sun, under a microscope. The virus that causes Covid-19 is actually named SARS-CoV-2.
Coronaviruses are common in animals, and in rare cases can pass to humans from direct contact. It is not yet known which animal was the source of SARS-CoV-2, although it is suspected it may have come from bats. Other types of coronaviruses that have jumped from animals to humans include Ebola, MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) and SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China.
Myth: The virus came from a genetic-research facility. Scientists have sequenced the entire genome of the virus and found no evidence that it was the result of genetic engineering, which would leave hallmark sequences behind.
The problem with SARS-CoV-2 is that it is new, so humans likely don't have immunity to it. Immunity from previous infection or vaccination can hamper the ability of a virus to spread, which is why vaccinations like the ones for polio, measles and diptheria are so effective at stopping the spread of the diseases they cause.
Viruses vary in their transmission rate the rate depends on a number of factors including when and how long a person is infectious, how the virus is transmitted, and how long it can stick around in the air or on surfaces. Scientists have been furiously studying SARS-CoV-2 to determine how it's passed along in order to predict how it will spread.
So far, scientists agree that Covid-19 is spread much like the flu or the common cold, by infected people coughing out tiny droplets of virus-laden moisture that can land on people within a few feet or be left on surfaces that others can pick up on their hands. People then become infected when they touch their eyes or mouth, or inhale the droplets.
As a result, good personal hygiene hand-washing, and not touching your eyes, nose or mouth is important. Most professional cyclists already practise this in order to try not get sick during the season.
Because there is no vaccination yet for SARS-CoV-2, it is important to slow the spread using other methods, like isolating sick patients and quarantining people who might have come into contact with infected people. To be safe, these quarantines are kept in place for two weeks to make sure anyone who is infected with the virus can be identified once they begin to show symptoms. Quarantines can keep the virus from spreading outside the community.
To measure how infectious a disease is, epidemiologists calculate the R0 (R-nought) or number of people an infected person is likely to infect. Some viruses like chickenpox or measles are highly contagious because they are carried on smaller vapour particles and can linger in the air much longer. There is little evidence at this point that Covid-19 is as infectious as that. One person with the measles can infect 12-18 people, while one person with Covid-19 typically infects two to three.
But the R0 isn't static; people can bring the infection rates down. According toScientific American, the SARS outbreak went from about three to 0.4 after people took preventative measures. Once the R0 goes below one, the virus will die out.
The best way to stop a virus is immunity, which is why scientists are working quickly to find a vaccination, but until then, the best steps to slow the spread are quarantines, such as those being imposed in regions where infections have been confirmed like China, South Korea and Italy, and good personal hygiene.
It's important to take this seriously if you have travelled to an area with active contagion. One woman in South Korea refused to take a test for coronavirus and is thought to have infected more than 30 people at her church.
The outbreak in Italy has now likely caused the cancellation of Milan-San Remo, Strade Bianche and Tirreno-Adriatico, and potentially even the Giro d'Italia (May 9-May 31) if the virus continues to spread, with RCS Sport's Mauro Vegni initially tellingCyclingnewsof his concern for his races at last week's UAE Tour, and saying on Wednesday that he now hopes thatStrade Bianche, Tirreno-Adriatico andMilan-San Remo, if/when declared cancelled, could be rescheduled for June or September.
The main symptoms of Covid-19 are fever, a cough and aching muscles. More severe cases can develop into difficulty breathing and pneumonia, while the most critical cases require hospitalisation. In Wuhan, the death rate has been higher than in other cities because the hospitals there became overwhelmed with patients.
If you've been to an area where Covid-19 is present, keep an eye on your temperature and quarantine yourself if you spike a fever, and be sure to cover your mouth when coughing, and wash your hands to reduce the chances of spreading it to those close to you.
Myth: Healthy people need to wear masks to keep from getting the virus. The masks are actually most effective for sick people to keep them from spreading the germs with their coughs. Masks require precise fitting and training to ensure that air doesn't get around them to your nose and mouth, so it's likely they won't protect you from getting sick if you're healthy.
The chances are in favour of you surviving the outbreak. Recent statistics show that 81 per cent only have mild symptoms from the virus. The reason health officials are so concerned is because of the potential of this virus to spread from human to human in a population without immunity to it. Healthy young people have the least to fear it's the elderly and other vulnerable groups that are most at risk.
The chances of dying from a virus is known as 'case fatality rate', or CFR. For the flu, the CFR is typically less than 0.5 per cent. The estimated CFR for Covid-19 is more than 2 per cent from numbers taken in China. That's why it is important to take this outbreak seriously.
Myth: The flu vaccine offers protection against SARS-CoV-2. No, it doesn't. But not getting the flu will help free up medical resources for people who get Covid-19.
The most recent study estimated the death rate of Covid-19 to be 2.3% of those infected in China. It's less deadly than MERS (34.4%) or SARS (9.6%), but more transmissible. But the measurement is still a rough estimate because there may be more people infected without symptoms or with mild symptoms that were not counted.
Unlike the 1918 flu also known as Spanish flu which struck healthy young adults and children, Covid-19 appears to be more deadly for the elderly and those with pre-existing medical conditions, such as cancer or cardiovascular disease. There have been no deaths of those aged nine or under, but the CFR for people 80 and older in China was 14.8%.
The disease becomes critical when the body's immune system goes into overdrive, producing chemicals called cytokines that signal to the immune system to produce more white blood cells to fight the pathogen. These immune cells then congregate at the site of infection the lungs and cause inflammation and fluid build-up as they try to battle the virus. In some patients, the body goes overboard producing cytokines, resulting in a 'cytokine storm' that can lead to organ failure, sepsis and death.
No. Be encouraged by the fact that 81 per cent of the cases are mild, and that one per cent of people infected don't show any symptoms at all.
Also be encouraged by the fact that scientists are working faster on this virus, and sharing their data more widely, than at any other time, using cutting-edge technology to learn how it works and how to fight it. There are already efforts under way to create a vaccine for Covid-19, and trials for various drugs to treat severe and critical cases.
The key is to buy time for science to come up with a vaccine to prevent the spread of the virus and to find effective treatments for the severe cases. It took less than a year for the SARS virus to be fully contained, and while Covid-19 has infected more people, there's still time to stop it in its tracks.
The biggest risk to professional cycling is travel restrictions because of quarantines. The summer will be unpredictable, however, with officials speculating that if the virus is not contained by May, this summer's Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan, could be cancelled.
But don't worry there's always e-racing...
See the rest here:
What is the Covid-19 coronavirus and how might it continue to affect professional cycling? - Cyclingnews.com
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on What is the Covid-19 coronavirus and how might it continue to affect professional cycling? – Cyclingnews.com
Is There a Coronavirus Vaccine? Here’s Everything You Need to Know – WIRED
Posted: at 6:22 pm
Stermina Therapeutics
This is another mRNA vaccine project, based at Shanghai East Hospital of Tongji University. The CEO of Stermina told Chinese state media at the end of January that manufacturing has already begun, and doses could be ready for human testing sometime in March.
Imperial College London
A team of British scientists are currently testing their own DNA-based vaccine in mice at labs in Imperial College London. The researchers are looking for funding partners to advance the candidate into human testing later this year.
Several other companies are also developing protein-based vaccines. These include:
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
One of the worlds leading vaccine manufacturers, GSK is lending its technology to a Chinese firm called Clover Biopharmaceuticals to work on a coronavirus vaccine. Through the partnership, Clover will be producing viral proteins, and GSK will be providing its proprietary effectiveness-boosting compounds, known as adjuvants. Neither company has provided a testing timeline.
Novavax
Novavax got a jump on the competition from its previous work developing vaccines against SARS and MERS. The Maryland-based company announced in February that it had generated several candidates comprised of recombinant protein nanoparticles derived from the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Company representatives said they expect to complete animal testing soon and move to the first phase of human trials by the end of spring 2020.
Altimmune
Unlike its competitors, this Maryland-based company is developing a vaccine that gets sprayed into patients noses, not injected into their arms. Best known for its nasal-spray flu vaccine, Altimmune announced in February that it had completed the design and prototyping of a vaccine against Covid-19 and is now advancing it toward animal testing and manufacturing for human trials.
Vaxart
This Bay Area biotech is the only one so far developing an oral vaccine against Covid-19. In January, the company announced plans to generate candidates based on the published genome of SARS-CoV-2, but no further timelines have been released.
Expres2ion
This Denmark-based biotech firm is leading a European consortium of vaccine developers to tackle Covid-19. It uses insect cells from fruit flies to produce viral antigens. The company aims to test its candidate vaccine in animal models later this year.
Generex Biotechnology
Four companies in China have contracted with Florida-based Generex to develop a vaccine using the companys proprietary immune-activating technology. Company representatives say it could have a candidate ready for human trials as early as June.
Vaxil Bio
This Israeli immunotherapy company normally specializes in cancer. But last month representatives announced they had discovered a combination of proteins they believe will be an effective vaccine against Covid-19. The company plans to start manufacturing doses for initial testing and looking for partners to scale up further if that goes well.
iBio
This Texas-based biotech company uses modified relatives of the tobacco plant to grow viral proteins for vaccines. The company is partnering with a Chinese vaccine maker to put its FastPharming platform to work on a Covid-19 vaccine. Company officials expect to have a candidate ready for animal testing later this summer.
Baylor College of Medicine / New York Blood Center
Peter Hotezs group is pushing for funding to test their SARS vaccine against the Covid-19. He says they already have about 20,000 doses ready to be deployed for clinical trials. These researchers are simultaneously working on developing a new vaccine from scratch, based on the binding receptor domain of the new virus, SARS-Cov-2, but that will take several years to develop.
University of Queensland
A team of Australian researchers, with funding from CEPI, have developed a vaccine candidate they say is ready to move forward into human testing. It relies on a molecular clamp technology invented in the lab of molecular virologist Keith Chappell, which helps stabilize viral proteins so they have the same shape theyd have on the surface of the virus. The group is now intending to ramp up production for clinical trials.
Go here to see the original:
Is There a Coronavirus Vaccine? Here's Everything You Need to Know - WIRED
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on Is There a Coronavirus Vaccine? Here’s Everything You Need to Know – WIRED
Response to a ‘Pains Driven’ Approach to Facilities of the Future – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News
Posted: at 6:22 pm
Exponential change doesnt come from incremental improvements, according to Michael Gagne, founder and CXO (chief experience officer), ARTeSYN Biosolutions. This truth seems especially relevant in bioprocessing, where companies are frustrated with existing supply chains, which are full of pain points and resistant to being improved link by link. Companies need a comprehensive solution. To eliminate multiple pain points all at once, companies need Bioprocessing 4.0.
Gagne states that the pains driven approach to moving to a facility of the future does away with the biggest obstacle to exponential progress: complacency in supplier selection or product design. End users or original equipment manufacturers, he argues, require a push to reject these inefficiencies and respond with urgency when given a chance to collaborate on something that fits their needs and promises to advance their interests. Suppliers, he continues, should emphasize cooperation with end users, and not competition with their peers, when working toward a pains-driven solution.
Many manufacturers are stuck in trying to simply optimize what they are doing, rather than take the leap and make a paradigm shift to a facility of the future, Gagne continues. The right mindset is the key to really make this transition. That and a deep understanding of the major problems plaguing biomanufacturing today. If traditional facilities are so great, why do they inspire so little confidence among the biomanufacturers who are pioneering cell and gene therapies? Why is the next-generation facilitythe facility of the futurebecoming a standard instead of remaining an anomaly in biomanufacturing? The traditional approach has flaws that have pretty much become a natural part of biomanufacturing, but that need not be so.
Typical flaws, or pain points, are instances of downtime. According to Gagne, downtime can be caused by parts washing, cleaning validation, leakage, high hold-up volumes, kinking in single-use (SU) tubing, and human error. He adds that all these sources of downtime can be eliminated at once, provided biomanufacturers embrace an exponential approach.
We have already seen an exponential approach to the facility of the future design enabling a 10-fold reduction in the cost of setting up and running a bioprocessing facility for a global manufacturer, asserts Gagne. Thats because we didnt try to squeeze more out of the manufacturers existing solutions. Instead, we chose the more challenging route of searching for the most forward-looking single-use technology. Even with the issues accompanying single-use technology, its the far better option.
If you listen to the market and where its headed, anything short of a cutting-edge leap wont suffice, he continues. Confronting the rising wave of cell and gene therapies as a viable clinical option will require a substantial shift in the industrys approach to everything from facilities to hardware to software design. It will push end users to reconsider their reliance on decades-old technology and challenge their perception of how far single-use technology has advanced today and how to make it work for them.
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on Response to a ‘Pains Driven’ Approach to Facilities of the Future – Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News
Coronavirus vaccine wont be ready for another year and will miss first wave of bug, top doc warns – The Irish Sun
Posted: at 6:22 pm
A CORONAVIRUS vaccine won't be ready for another year - and will miss the 'first wave' of the bug, Britain's top doctor has warned.
Professor Chris Whitty said it would be "lucky" to get a booster for Covid-19 in 2020, though existing drugs could play a role.
4
And the Chief Medical Officer added that even if we did get a vaccine for the deadly bug it would "not get us out of a hole now."
He said: "I think ... a year would be lucky to get this - so we will not have a vaccine available for the first wave if we have a first wave."
Despite this, Prof Whitty said other existing treatments may work in high-risk groups although they would not be "perfect".
Prof Whitty made the revelation while being grilled by MPs by the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee on Covid-19.
4
Health Secretary Matt Hancock also admitted that a vaccine to treat the deadly bug was months away.
It comes after scientists at a genetic engineering company in Texas last month claimed they had finished developing the first coronavirus vaccine.
However, they admitted it could still be two years before the vaccine is available to use as it now needs to be tested in animal experiments before human trials can begin.
Chinese doctors are also stepping up their efforts to develop a vaccine as soon as possible.
Health chiefs are relying on the summer to mitigate an outbreak in Britain, and hope that Chinese efforts will delay the spread until the weather warms up.
4
They hope that coronavirus will behave like flu, which spreads far more slowly during the summer, buying time to develop a vaccine in case it returns next winter.
"Sunlight kills viruses quickly. Sars pretty much died in July and August [2003] and it's quite plausible we'll see that here," Professor Paul Hunter, of the University of East Anglia, said.
"In summer schools are closed and people are also out of doors more. If you're walking around in the sunshine you are much less likely to spread infection than if you're cramped up together to keep warm indoors."
The number of cases of Covid-19 in the UK has surged to 90 today - with three new cases confirmed in Scotland.
4
Health bosses say the best way to protect yourself is to wash your hands with soap and water for the time it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice.
Happy Birthday takes about 20 seconds to sing twice and is said to be the perfect number to clean your hands to thoroughly.
You should also not touch your eyes, nose or mouth with unwashed hands and avoid close contact with people who are sick.
Cleaning and disinfecting objects and surfaces which you may have touched is also important.
Dr Daniel Atkinson, clinical lead atTreated.com, said: "Hygiene is incredibly important to ward off any viruses.
What to do if you're worried you've got coronavirus
The new coronavirus is continuing to sweep its way across the globe with Britain seeing more cases in people who aren't linked to outbreaks overseas.
Symptoms of Covid-19 can include:
In most cases, you won't know whether you have a coronavirus or a different cold-causing virus.
But if a coronavirus infection spreads to the lower respiratory tract, it can cause pneumonia, especially in older people, people with heart disease or people with weakened immune systems.
It is incredibly contagious and is spread through contact with anything the virus is on as well as infected breath, coughs or sneezes.
The best way to prevent catching any form of coronavirus is to practice good hygiene.
If you have cold-like symptoms, you can help protect others by staying home when you are sick and avoiding contact with others.
You should also cover your mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough and sneeze then throw it away and wash your hands.
Cleaning and disinfecting objects and surfaces which you may have touched is also important.
Meanwhile, leading symptom-checking provider to the NHSDoctorlinkhas been updated to help identify patients' risk of having coronavirus.
Source: NHS
Live Blog
KILLER VIRUSCoronavirus LIVE: UK cases soar as government warns spread inevitable
HANDS FREEPrem players BANNED from shaking hands before games amid coronavirus fears
'a s***show'Doctor with coronavirus worked full shift at University Hospital Limerick
Latest
VIRUS SPREADSCalls for 'national effort' in fight against coronavirus as cases rise to 13
Travel adviceIs Australia safe? Latest travel advice on Sydney and Melbourne
Global killerHow did coronavirus start? Outbreak of COVID-19 explained
Travel AdviceIs it safe to travel to Poland? Latest advice as first case is confirmed
AGE NO BARRIERChinese pensioner aged 101 RECOVERS from coronavirus
RAIN OF FEAR'Black rain' sparks wild claims its caused by burning coronavirus bodies
VIRUS CRISIS1st coronavirus death in UK as Brit woman, 75, dies after catching bug
"Make sure to wash your hands thoroughly - for at least 20 seconds - and cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze.
"If you can, avoid contact with sick people and avoid shaking hands with anyone displaying flu-like symptoms."
Globally, there are currently over 96,000 cases of coronavirus and more than 3,000 deaths from the bug worldwide.
Originally posted here:
Coronavirus vaccine wont be ready for another year and will miss first wave of bug, top doc warns - The Irish Sun
Posted in Genetic Engineering
Comments Off on Coronavirus vaccine wont be ready for another year and will miss first wave of bug, top doc warns – The Irish Sun
The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? – Lawfare
Posted: at 6:21 pm
This episode features a lively (andfair warninglong) interview with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center. We explore themes from her recent paper on regulation of online speech. It turns out that more or less everyone has an ability to restrict users speech online, and pretty much no one has both authority and an interest in fostering free-speech values. Conservatives may be discriminated against, but so are Black Lives Matter activists. I serve up one solution to biased moderation after another, and Daphne methodically shoots them down. Transparency? None of the companies is willing, and the government may have a constitutional problem forcing them to disclose how they make their moderation decisions. Competition law? A long haul, and besides, most users like a moderated Internet experience. Regulation? Only if we take the First Amendment back to the heyday of broadcast regulation. As a particularly egregious example of foreign governments and platforms ganging up to censor Americans, we touch on the Europe Court of Justices insufferable decision encouraging the export of European defamation law to the U.S.with an extra margin of censorship to keep the platform from any risk of liability. I offer to risk my Facebook account to see if thats already happening.
In the news, the FISA follies take center stage, as the March 15 deadline for reauthorizing important counterterrorism authorities draws near. No one has a good solution. Matthew Heiman explains that another kick-the-can scenario remains a live option. And Nick Weaver summarizes the problems that the PCLOB found with the FISA call detail record program. My take: The program failed because it was imposed on NSA by libertarian ideologues who had no idea how it would work in practice and who now want to blame NSA for their own shortsightedness.
Another week, another couple of artificial intelligence ethics codes: The two most recent ones come from DOD and the Pope? Mark MacCarthy sees a lot to like. I offer my quick and dirty CTRL-F bias test for whether the codes are serious or flaky, and both fail.
In China news, Matthew covers Chinas ever-spreading censorship regimenow reaching Twitter users whose accounts are blocked by the Great Firewall. We also ask whether and how much the U.S. name and shame campaign has actually reduced Chinese cyberespionage. And whether China is stealing tech from universities for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banksthats where the IP is.
Nick recounts with undisguised glee the latest tribulations suffered by Clearview and its facial recognition system: Its app has been banned from Android and Apple, and both its customers and its data collection methods have been doxed.
Mark notes the success of threats to boycott Pakistan on the part of Facebook, Google and Twitter. I wonder if that will simply incentivize Pakistan to drive its social media ecosystem toward the Chinese giants. Nick gives drug dealers a lesson in how not to store the codes for 53.6 million in Bitcoin; or is he offering a lesson in what to say to the police if you want that 53.6 million waiting for you when you get out of prison?
Finally, in a few quick hits, we cover new developments in past stories: It turns out, to the surprise of no one, that removing a GPS tracking device from your car isnt theft. West Virginia has apparently recovered from a fit of insanity and now does not plan to allow voting by insecure app. And the FCC is taking it slow in its investigation of mobile carriers for selling customer location data; now we know wholl be charged (pretty much everyone) and how much it will cost them ($200 million), but we still dont know the theory or whether the whole inquiry is going to kill off legitimate uses of location data.
Download the 302nd Episode (mp3).
Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll!
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!
As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to [emailprotected]. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.
Read this article:
The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Lawfare
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? – Lawfare
The University’s First Amendment Rights | Leadership in Higher Education – Inside Higher Ed
Posted: at 6:21 pm
When we talk about the First Amendment and freedom of expression in higher education, our analysis typically focuses on individual rights. We talk about the rights of unpopular speakers to express their views, the rights of students to invite such speakers, the rights of protesters to respond to or disrupt those with whom they disagree, and the rights of faculty members to say or teach without interference. But what about the First Amendment rights of the college or university itself, as an institution? Does a college or university have First Amendment rights in cases like these?
The traditional answer in these cases is no. While university speakers, students and faculty members have First Amendment rights, the university is a mere neutral forum. The university provides the setting, the context, in which individuals seek to express, protect and vindicate their rights, but it is not itself viewed as a significant First Amendment actor. The university can be sued for lack of neutrality, but in free expression cases, it basically serves as the arena, not as a player with its own unique values and interests.
I believe this is wrong, both as matter of law and of fundamental principle. I believe that colleges and universities have strong First Amendment rights as institutions, and that those institutional rights are so important to a free society, they may, in some instances, trump the rights of many individuals who seek to speak in the university setting.
The foundation of this robust idea of institutional First Amendment rights lies in Justice Frankfurters famous concurrence in the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957). In Sweezy, a state attorney general sought to question an economist and magazine editor who had delivered a lecture on Marxism at the University of New Hampshire. Sweezy refused to answer, was held in contempt and ultimately took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where his contempt conviction was overturned.
The Sweezy decision is often cited as the foundation of the individual First Amendment right of faculty members to teach free from government interference, but a careful reading of Frankfurters opinion reveals that it is really the university, not the individual, that possesses the most important rights under the First Amendment. Frankfurter noted that the existence of our free society depends on free universities. This means, he continued, the exclusion of governmental intervention in the intellectual life of a university.
How can we protect universities from unconstitutional intervention? By respecting what Frankfurters opinion, quoting a South African study on academic freedom, called the four essential freedoms of a university -- to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. In Frankfurters view, Sweezy had a right to speak at the University of New Hampshire not because of his own right to free expression, but because the university has a right to control its own intellectual environment, and thus the right to choose who will and who will not speak in its halls, free from government dictates.
Justice OConnor reasserted this strong view of university rights and university autonomy in the landmark affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). In Grutter, OConnor noted that in the United States, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition. The Supreme Court, she wrote, has long recognized that universities have a right of educational autonomy that is grounded in the first amendment. This includes, she wrote, quoting Justice Powell in Bakke, the freedom of a university to make its own judgments as to education.
These basic constitutional principles have never been questioned, but their implications have long been ignored. If, as Sweezy, Bakke and Grutter recognize, universities occupy a special and protected place in First Amendment jurisprudence, with a right to autonomy and to control their own educational and intellectual environments, the implications are profound. On this reading, universities do not have to be a passive neutral forum. They may, instead, exercise a strong First Amendment right to define for themselves the appropriate educational and intellectual setting for learning, free from interference by legislatures and courts. This means that universities may, contrary to current practice, exclude some speakers whose views have no place in an intellectual setting devoted to science, rational argument and the creation of a proper learning environment.
How might this robust First Amendment institutional right to autonomy play out in specific cases? Imagine a white supremacist is invited by a student group to speak at a public university. Under traditional neutral forum analysis, the university does not have a right to exclude him or her. But if, as Sweezy, Bakke and Grutter suggest, the university has a right to control its intellectual and educational environment, it may exclude a speaker it believes will harm the academic environment it seeks to maintain. If the university believes the speaker will undercut the seriousness of intellectual discourse or the right to students to study free from harassment, they do not need to provide a forum for that person to speak.
This notion of strong institutional rights under the First Amendment has not been tested in the courts. It may be that when push comes to shove, the courts will insist on content neutrality even if it interferes with a universitys autonomous right to create a proper intellectual and learning environment. But we wont know this, of course, until universities try to assert and protect what Justice OConnor called their right to educational autonomy based on their special niche in our constitutional tradition.
John Kroger served as the president of Reed College and as attorney general of Oregon.
More:
The University's First Amendment Rights | Leadership in Higher Education - Inside Higher Ed
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The University’s First Amendment Rights | Leadership in Higher Education – Inside Higher Ed
Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award – WTNH.com
Posted: at 6:21 pm
WASHINGTON D.C. (WTNH) Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal is set to receive the First Amendment Defender Award from the Radio Television Digital News Foundation Thursday evening.
Blumenthal will be honored at the 30th annual recognition of First Amendment champions.
The award is presented to an individual or an organization that takes a public stand in support of press freedom.
At a time when press freedoms and access have been under attack, Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has stood tall for the rights of journalists to do their jobs and inform the public. He has an impressive record of fighting for the truth and defending the publics need to know.
Sen. Blumenthal is currently serving his second term in the U.S. Senate representing Connecticut. Previously he served five terms at CTs Attorney General, fighting for individuals against large and powerful special interests. Among other things, he is being honored for his relentless work eradicating corruption in state government and making state contracting accountable, fair, honest, and transparent.
Blumenthal joins such honorees as the news show 60 Minutes, David Muir of ABC News, Steve Andrews of WFLA-TV, Lori Montenegro of Telemundo, Barbara Maushard of Hearst Television, and Robert (Bob) Horner of NBC News.
Read this article:
Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award - WTNH.com
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award – WTNH.com
Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? – Reason
Posted: at 6:21 pm
This episode features a lively (and fair warning long) interview with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center. We explore themes from her recent paper on regulation of online speech. It turns out that more or less everyone has an ability to restrict users' speech online, and pretty much no one has both authority and an interest in fostering free-speech values. The ironies abound: Conservatives may be discriminated against, but so are Black Lives Matter activists. In fact, it looks to me as though any group that doesn't think it's the victim of biased content moderation would be well advised to scream as loudly as possible about censorship anyway for fear of losing the victimization sweepstakes.
Feeling a little like a carny at the sideshow, I serve up one solution for biased moderation after another, and Daphne methodically shoots them down. Transparency? None of the companies is willing to allow real transparency, and the government may have a first amendment problem forcing companies to disclose how they make their moderation decisions. Competition law as a way to encourage multiple curators? It might require a "magic" API, and besides, most users like a moderated Internet experience. Regulation? Only if we want to take First Amendment law back to the heyday of broadcast regulation (which is frankly starting to sound pretty good to me).
As a particularly egregious example of foreign governments and platforms ganging up to censor Americans, we touch on the CJEU's insufferable decision encouraging the export of European defamation law to the US with an extra margin of algorithmic censorship to keep the platform from any risk of liability. Turns out, that speech suppression regime is not just an end run around the first amendment; it's protected by the first amendment. I offer to risk my Facebook account to see if that's already happening.
In the news, FISA follies take center stage, as the March 15 deadline for reauthorizing important counterterrorism authorities draws near. No one has a good solution. Matthew Heiman explains that another kick-the-can scenario remains a live option. And Nick Weaver summarizes the problems that the PCLOB found with the FISA call detail record program. My take: The program failed because it was imposed on NSA by libertarian ideologues who had no idea how it would work in practice and who now want to blame NSA for their own shortsightedness.
Another week, another couple of artificial intelligence ethics codes: The two most recent ones come from DOD and the Pope? Mark MacCarthy sees a lot to like. I offer my quick and dirty CTRL-F test for whether the codes are serious or flaky, and both fail.
In China news, Matthew covers China's ever-spreading censorship regime which now reaches Twitter users whose accounts are blocked by the Great Firewall. We also ask whether and how much the US "name and shame" campaign has actually reduced Chinese cyberespionage. And whether China is stealing tech from universities for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks that's where the IP is.
Nick recounts with undisguised glee the latest tribulations suffered by Clearview AI's facial recognition system: Its app has been banned from Android and Apple, and both its customers and its data collection methods have been doxed.
Mark notes the success of threats to boycott Pakistan on the part of Facebook, Google, and Twitter. I wonder if that will simply incentivize Pakistan to drive its social media ecosystem toward the Chinese giants.
Nick gives drug dealers a lesson in how not to store the codes for 53.6 million in Bitcoin; or is it a lesson in what to say to the police if you want that 53.6 million waiting for you when you get out of the clink?
Finally, in a few quick hits, we cover new developments in past stories: It turns out, to the surprise of no one, that removing a police tracking device from your car isn't theft. West Virginia has apparently recovered from a fit of insanity and now does not plan to allow voting by insecure app. And the FCC is doing a slow striptease in its investigation of mobile carriers for selling customer location data; now we know who'll be charged (pretty much everyone) and how much it will cost them ($200 million), but we still don't know the theory or whether the inquiry is going to kill off legitimate uses of location data.
Download the 302nd Episode (mp3).
Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll!
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!
As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, families or pets.
View original post here:
Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Reason
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? – Reason
Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post – Techdirt
Posted: at 6:21 pm
from the opening-up-our-libel-laws dept
It appears whatever modest amount of restraint that our President had regarding his early promise to "open up our libel laws" have gone away. As you may recall, during the campaign he made such a promise, perhaps not realizing that defamation laws are not under the purview of the federal government -- and any changes at the state level are limited by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution (not something he can write away with an executive order). Right before he was inaugurated, he seemed to back down a little on that promise -- telling the NY Times that someone had pointed out to him that with more open libel laws, he was more likely to get sued as well.
Over the first three years of his Presidency, while constantly lashing out ridiculously at the press, and the Washington Post and the NY Times in particular -- including his constant authoritarian attack of calling them "the enemy of the people" -- he had not sued. Until last week when he tapped lawyer Charles Harder (who, we'll remind you, was the lawyer in the lawsuit against us), to represent the Trump Campaign (rather than Donald directly) to sue the NY Times over an opinion piece. Trump and Harder have now done so again, this time suing the Washington Post over two opinion pieces.
The complaint -- like the one against the NY Times -- is laughable and will be thrown out of court. Again, opinions are not defamatory, and the articles were opinion pieces. The statements they make, that the Trump campaign declares defamatory are basically all ones based on disclosed facts. The complaint is short and not very detailed. It highlights just a single line in each post that it claims is defamatory:
On or about June 13, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely (the June 13 Article), by Greg Sargent, which contained the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign tried to conspire with a sweeping and systematic attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.
The statement in the June 13 Article is false and defamatory. In fact, Special Counsel Muellers Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election released on or about April 18, 2019 (the Mueller Report), nearly two months before the June 13 Article, came to the opposite conclusion of the June 13 Article, namely, the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russias efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.
On or about June 20, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump: I can win reelection with just my base (the June 20 Article), by Paul Waldman, which contains the defamatory statement who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?
The statement in the June 20 Article is false and defamatory. There has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration inviting Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond. There also has never been any reporting that the Campaign has ever had any contact with North Korea relating to any United States election.
These are both issues that are subject to interpretation, and neither piece comes anywhere even remotely close to the necessary standard for defamation of a public figure (which, uh, the President absolutely is). On the first one, Harder is leaning heavily on the "conspiracy" word. While the Report did not show direct coordination between the campaign and the Russians, it did show multiple connection points. Indeed, the report itself says:
The investigation alsoidentified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Althoughthe investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trumppresidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefitelectorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did notestablish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russiangovernment in its election interference activities.
So this comes down to interpretation. The Mueller report showed links between the Russians and the Campaign, but did not find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy -- which is not definitive evidence of no conspiracy. Indeed, the report shows multiple situations in which members of the Trump Campaign appeared interested in working with the Russian government -- but not enough evidence of an actual conspiracy was found. But to say that's evidence of no effort to conspire is just silly. The opinion piece's summary of that as "tried to conspire" is... not anywhere near defamatory, in which case the Post would have to have believed this was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That's... not the case.
On the second one, I'll note, with amusement, that the final sentence only mentions North Korea as a government that the Trump Campaign has not discussed the election with and leaves out Russia. Interesting. But, more to the point, the article in question was discussing a Trump interview with George Stephanopoulos in which Trump is asked if he'd accept damaging information on election opponents from foreign nations, and Trump replied:
"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."
That is easily, and fairly, turned into the statement in the Post opinion piece that the Campaign was "inviting" foreign help. There is no way that such a statement could or would be seen as defamatory.
In the meantime, I feel the need to remind both Harder and Trump that not too long ago, in defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit in which Trump was the defendant, Harder wrote a stirring statement in support of the 1st Amendment and warned that:
A defamation standard that turns typical political rhetoric into actionable defamation would chill expression that is central to the First Amendment and political speech.
I wish the two of them would remember that sometimes.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, slappCompanies: washington post
Here is the original post:
Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post - Techdirt
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post – Techdirt