Flying Saucer Concept

A mechanical engineer and a member of the family whose aerospace and transportation company builds trains, planes, and more, Bombardier’s at his best when he ignores pesky things like budgets, timelines, and contemporary physics. Since 2013, he’s run a blog cataloging more than 200 concepts, each a fantastic, farfetched new way for people to travel through land, air, water, and space. His ideas are out there, but it’s Bombardier’s sort of creative thinking that keeps us moving forward.

My take on the idea, the Jexet, would be the size of a small car, with room for one person. Five jet thrusters sitting under the fuselage, with fuel tanks built into the frame on opposing sides, would provide the power for vertical takeoffs and landings, plus horizontal flight.

An onboard system would help control and stabilize the Jexet in flight, but the human inside would need some training to fly the thing and understand aerodynamics and aviation regulations.

LED landing lights, built-in navigation, and an easy-to-read dashboard would make it easier to zip around. Backup thrusters, interior and exterior airbags, and a parachute could combine to keep everybody safe in case of problems.

Uber says it wants to help create a world of flying cars, but needs other players to make the technology happen. So maybe the Jexet has a place in the sky after all.

CHART: How Many Birds Are Killed By Wind, Solar, Oil, And Coal?

In response to growing accusations from both conservationists and conservatives that renewable energy sources like solar and wind kill too many birds, U.S. News and World Report has compiled data on which energy industries are responsible for the most bird deaths every year.

For each power source — wind, solar, oil and gas, nuclear, and coal — the data on bird deaths is gathered from different advocacy and industry groups, academic institutions, and government sources. Because estimates vary so widely on solar, wind, and oil, U.S. News included both low-range and high-range estimates for how many birds are killed by those electricity sources.

Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind. Note the chart below:

0*FlgPzNwGlNYMtFSy.jpg

A U.S. News and World Report chart shows estimates of how many birds are killed each year by different fuel sources. CREDIT: U.S. News & World Report

The results should be taken with a grain of salt. As U.S. News noted, each study used a different methodology to come up with their numbers. “There’s no standardized way of doing it that everyone can agree to,” Garry George, the renewable energy director for Audubon California, told the magazine.

In addition, some of the research used is outdated, and does not take into account that renewable power stands to increase in the United States. For example, the study used to estimate bird deaths from United States wind power was from 2009, and wind power has increased substantially in the United States since then. According to the American Wind Energy Association, total installed wind capacity in the U.S. was approximately 35,000 megawatts — a number that has increased to about 61,000 for 2014. Those numbers stand to increase as well, as more than 12,000 megawatts of wind capacity were currently under construction at the end of 2013, according to AWEA.

The research also varies by source. Both the low and high estimates of wind power bird deaths came from a peer-reviewed study in the journal Biological Conservation, and was essentially a round-up of all available data peer-reviewed studies on the matter done by other scientists. For oil and gas, both the low and high estimates came from a Bureau of Land Management memo from 2012.

The low estimate for bird deaths from solar power comes from the solar company BrightSource, which was recently accused by the Center for Biological Diversity of operating a solar farm that kills as many as 28,000 birds a year. The high estimate comes from the Center for Biological Diversity, whose estimate is just from that one solar farm in California. Bird deaths from solar farms have been estimated to be relatively low, though — a U.S. Fish and Wildlife study earlier this year found only 233 bird deaths at three different solar farms in California over the course of two years.

As for coal, those bird death numbers came from a peer-reviewed study in the journal Renewable Energy. That estimate had a more sweeping methodology, though, with the study’s author including everything from coal mining to production — and bird deaths from climate change that coal emissions produce. Together, that amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy produced by coal, almost 8 million per year.

Either way, U.S. News notes that none of these numbers hold a candle to cats, which are estimated to kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds every year.

This article originally appeared at: https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-solar-oil-and-coal-230d2a939bbb#.9h8jsftiz

Facebook’s Stumbles Expose Flaws in Its Plan to Rule Advertising

Last week, Facebook said it found flaws in the metrics it reported to advertisers—the measurements by which those advertisers judge the success of their ad campaigns on the platform. The company said it overstated the reach of Facebook Pages and Instant Articles, as well as its count of referrals to apps from ads. This admission of miscounting came just a few months after Facebook said it had inflated how much time on average viewers spent watching video ads for two years.

Facebook has promised more transparency. But in media and advertising circles, some critics are starting to ask whether they’ve been spending their money wisely on Facebook. Were they duped into making costly business decisions based on wrong information? Yes, Facebook is still an enormously powerful platform. Close to a fifth of the world’s population checks the social network every day, and all those eyeballs are incredibly valuable to advertisers and publishers. But the revelation that it exaggerated its own reach points to real flaws in the narrative about what Facebook—and indeed, digital advertising on the whole—can accomplish.

Miscounting Metrics

Facebook says it has an incredibly robust system that offers up to 220 different ways to measure how well advertisers’ ads do. But Facebook’s sterling reputation has left advertisers all the more confounded by how Facebook’s miscounts could have happened in the first place. “Facebook is supposed to be the best of the best, the cream of the crop, with advertisers spending good money with them,” says Brian Wieser, a media industry analyst at Pivotal Research. “There’s an expectation that you don’t get this thing wrong.”

‘Facebook is supposed to be the best of the best. There’s an expectation that you don’t get this thing wrong.’

And yet Facebook did. It overstated app referrals by 6 percent on average by counting not only posts that directed traffic back to the app maker’s website or app but also clicks to view photos or video that kept a user inside of Facebook. Facebook Pages—the pages brands maintain as their home bases on the site—double-counted repeat visitors, leading to greatly exaggerated estimates of the size of their audiences. (The company said page owners should be prepared to see their “28-day reach” fall by 55 percent.) Facebook also said that, due to a math error, it estimated audiences were spending 7 to 8 percent more time reading fast-loading Instant Articles than they really were.

The company doesn’t say exactly how it came to discover these new discrepancies, pointing to “bugs” in the system. But Wieser says it’s likely that Facebook looked into the issue more deeply after finding the mistake in counting that video metric back in October. “Pick your analogy or theory,” Wieser says. “The cockroach theory, where you see one somewhere, then you see more, and say, geez, this must be something systemic. Or the Comey analogy: the problem was brought up then seemed to be settled, but then it comes up again.” Whatever the case, he says, the mistakes definitely amount to a “sackable offense.” (Facebook says it has established what it’s calling a measurement council to respond to advertisers’ concerns.)

Google’s AI Can Now Translate Between Languages It Wasn’t Taught to Translate Between

AI of “Interlingua” 

Neural networks are machines and algorithms developed to behave like the  human brain—but a development from Google Translate shows that (once again) AI can outperform humans in a big way. Google’s AI can now translate language pairs it has not been trained for. To be clear, this means that it can translate between languages that it wasn’t taught to translate. This works if the AI first translates both of the languages into a common language that it knows.

The development is detailed in a paper published on Cornell University’s arXiv.

To break this down, Google recently upgraded Translate to the company’s deep-learning Google Neural Machine Translation (GNMT) system, paving the way for a slew of improved capabilities. In a blog post, researchers from the team, which is aptly called Google Brain, discussed how this new “Zero-Shot Translation” works. In short, the system is able to automatically group sentences and phrases with the same meaning. It then links together meaning through previously-learned languages in what the developers call “interlingua”.

Google 

Tomplay – Interactive Sheet Music for iPad, PC and Mac.

“Tomplay is the application that my students were missing. The possibility to play with orchestral accompaniments or with the piano allows for a listening exercise that cannot be matched.”
app-icon.png

Play music with Tomplay on iPad

“Tomplay is the application that my students were missing. The possibility to play with orchestral accompaniments or with the piano allows for a listening exercise that cannot be matched.”

New Basic Income Project Set to Launch in January

Income for All 

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has been gaining a lot of traction as of late with various industry experts, government officials, and financial experts expressing the need to explore the possibilities of implementing a basic income program.

UBI is a lump sum of money given periodically to individuals unconditionally. There are no tests or work requirements that bar an individual from getting the money. In addition to this, the income that they will receive is a supplement to their total income which means that under this system, individuals have an option to work or not.

At the heart of the proposals for UBI is the prevention of poverty in certain countries which is why it is highly suited in regions like Africa where poverty is rampant.

This is why Eight, a charity founded in 2015, is conducting a pilot study in an undisclosed village in the Fort Portal region of Uganda. This will start on January 2017 with the aim of finding out the impact of basic income on four areas namely: education participation of girls and women, access to health care, engagement in democratic institutions, and local economic development. The amount of basic income that will be distributed is approximately 30 percent of the Uganda’s average income for low-income families which will amount to 18.25 USD per month for adults and 9.13 USD for children.

Testing the Waters 

The study will run its course for about 2 years, after which the results will be published and a documentary will be created by filmmaker Steven Janssens called “Village One.”

This pilot study is one of many that are being planned out around the world. Finland has already started to give out basic income to its residents with the same goal of reducing poverty. Ontario, Canada and Oakland, California are also starting to plan out their own programs.

Whatever the results may be, the discussion on the viability of a basic income will surely shape the years to come, especially when it comes to the increasing use of automation in our lives.

Google’s AI can now lip read better than humans after watching thousands of hours of TV

Researchers from Google’s AI division DeepMind and the University of Oxford have used artificial intelligence to create the most accurate lip-reading software ever. Using thousands of hours of TV footage from the BBC, scientists trained a neural network to annotate video footage with 46.8 percent accuracy. That might not seem that impressive at first — especially compared to AI accuracy rates when transcribing audio — but tested on the same footage, a professional human lip-reader was only able to get the right word 12.4 percent of the time.

The research follows similar work published by a separate group at the University of Oxford earlier this month. Using related techniques, these scientists were able to create a lip-reading program called LipNet that achieved 93.4 percent accuracy in tests, compared to 52.3 percent human accuracy. However, LipNet was only tested on specially-recorded footage that used volunteers speaking formulaic sentences. By comparison, DeepMind’s software — known as “Watch, Listen, Attend, and Spell” — was tested on far more challenging footage; transcribing natural, unscripted conversations from BBC politics shows.

DeepMind’s AI program was trained on 5,000 hours of TV

More than 5,000 hours of footage from TV shows including Newsnight, Question Time, and the World Today, was used to train DeepMind’s “Watch, Listen, Attend, and Spell” program. The videos included 118,000 difference sentences and some 17,500 unique words, compared to LipNet’s test database of video of just 51 unique words.

DeepMind’s researchers suggest that the program could have a host of applications, including helping hearing-impaired people understand conversations. It could also be used to annotate silent films or allow you to control digital assistants like Siri or Alexa by just mouthing words to a camera (handy if you’re using the program in public).

But when most people learn that an AI program has learned how to lip-read, their first thought is how it might be used for surveillance. Researchers say that there’s still a big difference in transcribing brightly-lit, high-resolution TV footage, and grainy CCTV video with a low frame rate, but you can’t ignore the fact, that artificial intelligence seems to be closing this gap.

This article originally appeared at: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/24/13740798/google-deepmind-ai-lip-reading-tv

Who Rules this Domain? [infographic]

In 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) decided that the number of top level domains (TLDs) available for use by the public needed to be broadened.  They opened a window of several months for anyone who was willing to pay ($185,000) to apply to register the top level domain of their choice and hence claim their own little corner of the Internet. This year, the application process for all 1900 of the first wave of applications will be complete, and the last of around 1300 new TLDs (about 600 applications went belly up for various reasons) will be made available for use and, in many cases, for sale to the general public.

TLD appication stats

Some of these TLDs will likely remain exclusive to the companies that registered them (.samsung, .apple), but addresses on other new TLDs (.blog, .lawyer, . fun) will probably start appearing for sale en masse in the coming months. Most of these will cost a little more than your average .com address -.luxury domain names, for example, can cost several hundred dollars a year -but as they become widely used and recognized, these new TLDs have the potential to become very impactful.

Imagine, for example, a world where city names as top level domains have become commonplace (that world is next year).  Instead of a Google search for “theatre london”, traveler start to think “let’s just type in “theatre.london”.   To https://theatre.london they go, without passing go, potentially without even hitting the SERP.  Need a lawyer in Denver?  Type in denver.lawyer.  Whatever clever sod scored that address early on gets the traffic and gets the business.

DOMAINS AT AUCTION STATS

Anyone preparing to move their website would do well to take a closer look at the new TLDs becoming available and consider whether it might be worth waiting (and paying) to score an address on their niche domain.

Now, we realize, that for those who are new to the web hosting world, acronyms like “ICANN” and “TLD” might not mean much.  So we’ve created the infographic below to explain a little about how domains are made, who runs them, and what the heck is going on with the new top level domains.

Who Rules Domains TLD infographic 

This article originally appeared at: https://hostingfacts.com/top-level-domains-explained/