среда, 31 мая 2017 г.

Word Clouds for Labour/Conservative party Twitter accounts during #GE2017

I thought it would be interesting to have a summary of what the major parties are saying on Twitter during #GE2017, so here’s what I did:


For both @Conservatives and @UKLabour, I took all tweets & replies from every day for the entire month of May 2017, and pasted them into a spreadsheet. I then removed all of the Twitter fittings & furniture and usernames and what have you, so the only words that remained were from the body of tweets.


(Obviously, words that were displayed in image or video files were not detected or counted.)


I then entered each set of words into a .TXT file for upload to wordclouds.com, gave each resulting text cloud the same font, shape, size and pattern, and the results are what you see below: a visual summary of what each campaign has had to say so far, as expressed through Twitter.


-


word cloud of @uklabour tweets

Word Cloud of tweets by @Conservatives during May 2017



-


Word cloud of @Conservatives tweets

Word Cloud of tweets by @Conservatives during May 2017



-


I’ll leave any analysis to others. Personally, I think the data speaks for itself.


Do feel free to use these images to make your point out there, just be sure to link back to the little black duck who did all of the hard work.


Cheers all.



Psst! Look for me in Replies to the @Conservatives, and check out the tag #TheyLie on Twitter, especially if you’re a fan of kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.



(MINI-UPDATE – I should be clear that I gave each set the same instructions. While both data sets are trying to form a circle, one data set clearly looks more organic than the other, and that’s because that data set has more variety in the text.)





Draper's Genetically Modified Cyborg DragonflEye Takes Flight

A live dragonfly with a cybernetic backpack and optical implants is now airborne

No Better Time to Be an Entrepreneur

Canada's Minister of Finance Bill Morneau (C) operates a robot with student Spencer Pelzer (R) while Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi looks on during their tour of the robotics lab at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology in Calgary on March 27, 2017. Automation threatens many low-skilled jobs, but Canada has benefited from technological advances in the long term. (The Canadian Press/Todd Korol)

The entrepreneurship bug is spreading in Canada. It’s sorely needed for a labor force and an economy that need to adapt in the face of technological change.


The way people work is changing from a generation ago. The work-life balance is more fluid. The “sharing,” or “gig,” economy provides an alternative to how people view the way they work.


“I grew up in a world where I expected to work for the same company for 30 years,” said Tony Bailetti, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, in a phone interview. He is also director of Carleton’s Technology Innovation Management master’s program.


“With my kids, they have five or six jobs and they’re in their 40s and they don’t think twice about it. That’s the way the world goes.”


Given the pace of technological change and automation taking place, Bailetti said the development of entrepreneurial skills enables us to do what we were not able to do before. He compared it with emancipation—a term associated with sociology.


“Once you have those entrepreneurial skills, you feel liberated,” he said. Once liberated, a person is not tied to a job and then rendered obsolete because the technology has changed.


Entrepreneurial skills deal with innovation, creativity, and leadership. Entrepreneurship programs are now offered at many universities and colleges in Canada.


Shopify’s research found that 3 in 10 Canadians have started their own businesses and 53 percent believe that entrepreneurship is a possibility for them in the future. The survey also found that Canadians think entrepreneurs are vital to the economy by creating jobs, innovating, adding to national income, and creating social change.


Entrepreneurial skills involve innovation, creativity, leadership, and being able to connect the dots to solve a problem. (Fotolia)
Entrepreneurial skills involve innovation, creativity, leadership, and being able to connect the dots to solve a problem. (Fotolia)

“Our objective is to make commerce better for everyone and to create more entrepreneurs around the world,” said Harley Finkelstein, Shopify’s chief operating officer, while speaking on a panel about Canada’s innovation agenda on May 15 in Ottawa.


Small business is the engine of job creation. Between 2005 and 2015, of the 1.2 million jobs created, 88 percent was attributable to small business, according to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s June 2016 Key Small Business Statistics report.


It makes sense for companies to continue to get smaller, said Bailetti. It has become very easy for companies to outsource functions.


“I only have to build the things that are going to make me distinct as opposed to everything else, which I can acquire in a pretty open market,” he said.


Get Started


There’s no time like the present to start a business, especially as a tech entrepreneur.


“In 2017, the cost of failure for entrepreneurship is trending as close to zero as it’s ever been,” Finkelstein said. “Technology has completely reduced the barrier to entry of entrepreneurship in a way we’ve never seen before,” he added.


Given the advances in Internet technology, the growing presence of business incubators and accelerators, and the government’s push for innovation, the support system for entrepreneurs is getting better and better.

Once you have those entrepreneurial skills, you feel liberated.
— Tony Bailetti, Carleton University


“If we figure out how to get more entrepreneurial people, I think we are going to have a more dynamic economy,” said serial entrepreneur Daniel Debow.


Bailetti said technology that can change quickly is built on top of pre-existing building blocks that don’t change as fast. Today’s tech entrepreneurs don’t necessarily have to build everything from scratch.


The iCub robot tries to catch a ball during the Innorobo European summit in this 2013 file photo. The event is dedicated to the service robotics industry in Lyon, France. Robots and artificial intelligence threaten low-skilled manufacturing jobs but open opportunities for those capable of creating and programming them. (AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani, File)
The iCub robot tries to catch a ball during the Innorobo European summit in this 2013 file photo. The event is dedicated to the service robotics industry in Lyon, France. Robots and artificial intelligence threaten low-skilled manufacturing jobs but open opportunities for those capable of creating and programming them. (AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani, File)

Creating companies that grow and, in turn, create jobs is a tremendous benefit to an economy. Bailetti said what distinguishes companies that do well from those that cease operations in the first few years is whether they were initially created to address a global problem.


He ascribes to the “glocalization” theory. “Invent a better mousetrap and take it global,” he said. The examples of glocalization by large well-known companies are numerous, from the big fast food chains offering different items in different regions to a washing machine manufacturer considering the type of clothing typically worn in a region.

If it wasn’t for advances in technology, we’d be living in caves and dying before we’re 25.
— Tony Bailetti, Carleton University


“We will need people with highly technical skills to program and repair the technology. We will also need people to perform tasks that may never be replicated by a machine because they require creativity, intuitive judgment, inspiration, or simply a human touch,” said Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Wilkins in a recent speech to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.


A McKinsey study found that about 60 percent of all occupations have at least 30 percent of activities that are technically automatable based on currently demonstrated technologies.


The consulting firm suggests that it may take at least two decades before automation reaches 50 percent of all of today’s work activities.


Such change is not unheard of in Canada’s history. Employment in the agriculture sector has been falling dramatically—from nearly half the workforce in 1881, to a quarter of it in 1941, to 2 percent of it in 2001, according to Statistics Canada.


“If it wasn’t for advances in technology, we’d be living in caves and dying before we’re 25,” Bailetti said.


The skills needed by the workforce change over time as new technologies are adopted. Gradually, standards of living, productivity, and economic output increase.


“I think that every time there is a technology change, people who do not have entrepreneurial skills suffer the most. No question about that,” Bailetti said.


Follow Rahul on Twitter @RV_ETBiz


Hillary Clinton Is Out of Fucks


Hillary Clinton appeared at Recode Wednesday in conversation with founders Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, and to steal a headline from myself, she is out of fucks.



It was fascinating to watch. She didn't hold back. You can watch the full thing below or continue on for some highlights.





Here are some good bits, courtesy of the recode live blog:



On emails!!!



"The over riding issue that affected the election that I had any control over — because I had no control over the Russians. Too bad about that — was the use of my emails. The way that it was used was very damaging. The New York times covered it like Pearl harbor.



On Goldman Sachs speeches



"I have to say, Walt I never thought someone would throw out my entire career...because I made a couple of speeches…Men got paid for the speeches they made...I got paid for the speeches I made…I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that's not why I lost”



On the vast right-wing conspiracy

"What is hard for people to accept, although now after the election there's greater understanding, is that there are forces in our country...who have been fighting rear guard actions for as long as I've been alive…We were on a real roll as a country despite assassinations, despite setbacks, expanding rights to people who never had them in any country was frankly thrilling. I believe then as I believe now that we're never done with this work. Part of the challenge is to maintain the focus and energy to move forward but you have to understand the other side is never tired either."



On fake news

"Fake news...lies that's a good word too...The other side was using content that was just flat out false and delivering it in a very personalized way. Above the radar screen and below."



On the DNC



"I inherit nothing from the Democratic party. It was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. I had to inject money into the [DNC] for it to keep going."



On the RNC



"They raised...best estimates are close to $100 million...to build this data foundation. They beta tested it. They ran [hundreds of thousands of surveys]. Trump becomes the nominee and is [given] this tried and true...platform."



On Russia collusion

"I think it's fair to ask how did that actually influence the campaign and how did they know what messages to deliver. Who told them? Who were they coordinating with or colluding with?…The Russians in my opinion could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided by Americans."



"Within one hour of the Access Hollywood tapes being leaked, the Russians or say Wikileaks—same thing—dumped the John Podesta emails. They were run of the mill emails. "Stuff that were so common. Within one hour they dumped them and then began to weaponize them. They had their allies like Infowars say the most outlandish, absurd lies you could imagine. They had to be ready for that."



On Putin



"It's important that Americans...understand that Putin wants to bring us down. He was an old KGB agent."



On Obama



"Barack Obama saved the economy and he doesn't get the credit he deserves, I have to say that [because people don't know that.]" Clinton re: democrats not investing in creating content.



 



This post is being updated.

How Polar Bears Became the Dragons of the North

Renaissance maps depicting the “white bears” say more about our own fears and fantasies than about the predators themselves

Incredibly Soothing Robot Makes Towers of Balanced Stones

Relax and watch this robot arm carefully stack rocks one on top of another

What a Vampire Bat Can Teach Us About the Economics of Friendship

A Smithsonian scientist says important lessons about making friends and sharing can be learned from these blood-sucking creatures

вторник, 30 мая 2017 г.

Fiduciary Rule Detractors Get Second Chance at SEC (Audio)

(Bloomberg) -- John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, and Jill Fisch, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School, discuss why the Securities and Exchange Commission is weighing a second look at Obama-era fiduciary rules. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Darrell Issa Appears to Flee to Building Roof to Avoid Protesters


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was seen taking refuge on the roof of his office building in Vista, California, Tuesday, taking photos of angry constituents who had gathered below to protest the congressman's voting record. The incident comes before a much-anticipated town hall meeting this Saturday at San Juan Hills High School, where the nine-term congressman is expected to face a hostile crowd because of his support for various Trump administration policies, including the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.



Democrat Mike Levin, an environmental lawyer who recently announced his bid to challenge Issa in 2018, shared an image of the congressman appearing to avoid demonstrators on social media, where it was roundly mocked.







Others saw his retreating to a rooftop as reminiscent of Michael Scott, Steve Carrell's character in The Office who memorably took to the roof in the episode titled "Safety Training."








Issa, on the other hand, described his trip to the roof a bit differently. Shortly after the criticism, he took to Twitter to offer this narrative. We recommend zooming in to take a closer look at the signs:







For more on Levin and the fight to defeat Issa, the richest man in Congress, head to our profile here.

Checking in at Indie Web Camp Nuremberg


Once I finished my workshop on evaluating technology I stayed in Nuremberg for that weekend’s Indie Web Camp.



IndieWebCamp Nuremberg



Just as with Indie Web Camp Düsseldorf the weekend before, it was a fun two days—one day of discussions, followed by one day of making.



IndieWebCamp Nuremberg
IndieWebCamp Nuremberg
IndieWebCamp Nuremberg
IndieWebCamp Nuremberg



I spent most of the second day playing around with a new service that Aaron created called OwnYourSwarm. It’s very similar to his other service, OwnYourGram. Whereas OwnYourGram is all about posting pictures from Instagram to your own site, OwnYourSwarm is all about posting Swarm check-ins to your own site.



Usually I prefer to publish on my own site and then push copies out to other services like Twitter, Flickr, etc. (POSSE—Publish on Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere). In the case of Instagram, that’s impossible because of their ludicrously restrictive API, so I have go the other way around (PESOS—Publish Elsewhere, Syndicate to Own Site). When it comes to check-ins, I could do it from my own site, but I’d have to create my own databases of places to check into. I don’t fancy that much (yet) so I’m using OwnYourSwarm to PESOS check-ins.



The great thing about OwnYourSwarm is that I didn’t have to do anything. I already had the building blocks in place.



First of all, I needed some way to authenticate as my website. IndieAuth takes care of all that. All I needed was rel="me" attributes pointing from my website to my profiles on Twitter, Flickr, Github, or any other services that provide OAuth. Then I can piggyback on their authentication flow (this is also how you sign in to the Indie Web wiki).



The other step is more involved. My site needs to provide an API endpoint so that services like OwnYourGram and OwnYourSwarm can post to it. That’s where micropub comes in. You can see the code for my minimal micropub endpoint if you like. If you want to test your own micropub endpoint, check out micropub.rocks—the companion to webmention.rocks.



Anyway, I already had IndieAuth and micropub set up on my site, so all I had to do was log in to OwnYourSwarm and I immediately started to get check-ins posted to my own site. They show up the same as any other note, so I decided to spend my time at Indie Web Camp Nuremberg making them look a bit different. I used Mapbox’s static map API to show an image of the location of the check-in. What’s really nice is that if I post a photo on Swarm, that gets posted to my own site too. I had fun playing around with the display of photo+map on my home page stream. I’ve made a page for keeping track of check-ins too.



All in all, a fun way to spend Indie Web Camp Nuremberg. But when it came time to demo, the one that really impressed me was Amber’s. She worked flat out on her site, getting to the second level on IndieWebify.me …including sending a webmention to my site!



IndieWebCamp Nuremberg



Bloomberg Law Brief: US & UK Intelligence Relations (Audio)

Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid P.C., discusses strained relations between US and UK intelligence services after information about the Manchester bombing leaked to US media. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

понедельник, 29 мая 2017 г.

The big asks of British Airways

NHC

The big asks of British Airways


It’s hard to know what to fully make of the dreadful mess in which British Airways finds itself today. It follows over three full days of massive disruption to the airline’s business that has resulted in wide scale flight cancellations around the world, huge queues at terminals at the UK’s major airports and many in other countries, and a severe hit on reputation and trust that could cost BA dearly. According to BA, a computer systems failure led to all this. It was caused by a power outage at a data centre near Heathrow airport in London on Saturday May 27, they said. That event knocked out all the airline’s means of managing flights, aircraft movements, passenger bookings, check-ins, baggage handling, you name it, even their phone systems. The impact was global, affecting operations everywhere. The result has been ugly scenes on the TV screens in every broadcaster’s news bulletins throughout this past weekend and during the Monday Bank Holiday in the UK, showing airport terminals packed with crowds looking for answers and solutions that nobody was able to answer or fully deliver. It’s been splashed across the front pages of newspapers here and worldwide, every day for three days.



First published as The big asks of British Airways on NHC


воскресенье, 28 мая 2017 г.

Not the psychology of Joe average terrorist

News reports have been covering a fascinating study on the moral reasoning of ‘terrorists’ published in Nature Human Behaviour but it’s worth being aware of the wider context to understand what it means.


Firstly, it’s important to highlight how impressive this study is. The researchers, led by Sandra Baez, managed to complete the remarkably difficult task of getting access to, and recruiting, 66 jailed paramilitary fighters from the Colombian armed conflict to participate in the study.


They compared this group to 66 matched ‘civilians’ with no criminal background and 13 jailed murderers with no paramilitary connections, on a moral reasoning task.


The task involved 24 scenarios that varied in two important ways: harm and no harm, and intended and unintended actions. Meaning the researchers could compare across four situations – no harm, accidental harm, unsuccessfully attempted harm, and successfully attempted harm.


A consistent finding was that paramilitary participants consistently judged accidental harm as less acceptable than other groups, and intentional harm as more acceptable than others groups, indicating a distortion in moral reasoning.


They also measured cognitive function, emotion recognition and aggressive tendencies and found that when these measures were included in the analysis, they couldn’t account for the results.


One slightly curious thing in the paper though, and something the media has run with, is that the authors describe the background of the paramilitary participants and then discuss the implications for understanding ‘terrorists’ throughout.


But some context on the Colombian armed conflict is needed here.


The participants were right-wing paramilitaries who took part in the demobilisation agreement of 2003. This makes them members of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia or AUC – a now defunct organisation who were initially formed by drug traffickers and land owners to combat the extortion and kidnapping of the left-wing Marxist paramilitary organisations – mostly notably the FARC.


The organisation was paramilitary in the traditional sense – with uniforms, a command structure, local and regional divisions, national commanders, and written statutes. It involved itself in drug trafficking, extortion, torture, massacres, targeted killings, and ‘social cleansing’ of civilians assumed to be undesirable (homeless people, people with HIV, drug users etc) and killings of people thought to support left-wing causes. Fighters were paid and most signed up for economic reasons.


It was indeed designated a terrorist organisation by the US and EU, although within Colombia they enjoyed significant support from mainstream politicians (the reverberations of which are still being felt) and there is widespread evidence of collusion with the Colombian security forces of the time.


Also, considering that a great deal of military and paramilitary training is about re-aligning moral judgements, it’s not clear how well you can generalise these results to terrorists in general.


It is probably unlikely that the moral reasoning of people who participated in this study is akin to, for example, the jihadi terrorists who have mounted semi-regular attacks in Europe over the last few years. Or alternatively, it is not clear how ‘acceptable harm’ moral reasoning applies across different contexts in different groups.


Even within Colombia you can see how the terrorist label is not a reliable classification of a particular group’s actions and culture. Los Urabeños are the biggest drug trafficking organisation in Colombia at the moment. They are essentially the Centauros Bloc of the AUC, who didn’t demobilise and just changed their name. They are involved in very similar activities.


Importantly, they are not classified as a terrorist organisation, despite being virtually same organisation from which members were recruited into this study.


I would guess these results are probably more directly relevant in understanding paramilitary criminal organisations, like the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, than more ideologically-oriented groups that claim political or religious motivations, although it would be fascinating if they did generalise.


So what this study provides is a massively useful step forward in understanding moral reasoning in this particular paramilitary group, and the extent to which this applies to other terrorist, paramilitary or criminal groups is an open question.

 


Link to open access study in Nature Human Behaviour.


What Should the Tories Do to Get their Campaign Back on Track? Answer: Let Lynton be Lynton & (Maybe) Ditch the Social Care Policy Altogether

There’s nothing the Conservative Party seems to enjoy more than a midcampaign wobble. It usually lasts a couple of days before things get back on an even keel. This one has lasted more than ten days. Election campaign wobbles often happen when the chain of command isn’t clear – when no one knows who is actually in charge. Think back to 1987 when no one in CCHQ was clear whether Lord Young (put in CCO by a prime minister who had doubts about her party chairman) or Norman Tebbit (who had lost Mrs T’s confidence). Think back to 2010 when no one really knew whether it was Lynton Crosby, George Osborne or party chairman Eric Pickles.


So how do the Tories get their campaign back on track? When Sir Lynton Crosby was hired to run this election campaign he will have known that his chief interlocutors would be Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, the Prime Ministers two most trusted lieutenants. Neither of them suffer fools gladly and they expect to get their own way. They are conviction people. They lack self doubt. And they expect their will to be done and Number Ten is run in their image. Number Ten may not be as happy and chilled out as under David Cameron but their iron rule has made it a much more effective operation, even if the written and broadcast media have found the place far more difficult to deal with.



Neither Hill, nor Timothy has been involved in running a general election campaign before. In itself that shouldn’t necessarily be a problem, but when an election is called so unexpectedly it is not surprising that things have been more difficult than they otherwise might have been. Take the manifesto, for example. It is widely reported that the manifesto was almost exclusively written by Nick Timothy. It is said that Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt wasn’t even consulted about the Social Care policy and was told about it – yes, told – only hours before the media. It was the same for Damian Green. I have no idea what either of those gentlemen thought about the policy. I haven’t asked them. We know, or we think we know, that John Godfrey, the Number Ten Head of Policy and Fiona Hill were both against it, and Theresa May made the final decision to overrule them and include it in the manifesto. As I said on Newsnight on Friday night, ultimately the buck stops with her. Advisers advise, ministers decide.


I have no idea whether Lynton Crosby had any right of veto over any part of the manifesto. He certainly would have had in 2015. I doubt whether he did this time. If he didn’t, he should have.


On Tuesday morning all the leading lights of the campaign will be meeting in London to decide the strategy for the final eight days of the campaign. Leaving aside the fact that this meeting should have been taking place today, there are a number of decisions that meeting should make.


The first is that Lynton Crosby must be given full and absolute control of the campaign. He knows what he is doing. He’s run enough campaigns for everyone to have complete and total trust in him. I know from my own experience back in 2005, he is a leader of men and women and is the sort of person people die in a ditch for. No one should second guess him. He must lay out the strategy and have the power to implement it. He must define the messaging for the next nine days and ensure that everyone sticks to it.



The Conservatives’ media strategy has so far been based around a very select view of politicians who are allowed on TV and radio. This group needs to be expanded. The “When in doubt send for DD, Fallon or Gauke” strategy is OK as far as it goes, but in the current media age they can’t do it all. There are too many outlets to satisfy. Interestingly IDS and Michael Gove are being used, but that very fact has severely hacked off other perfectly competent media performers who happen to be senior ministers. Where on earth is Liam Fox? Greg Clark? Patrick McLoughlin? In any normal campaign the Conservative party chairman would effectively be ‘Minister for the Today Programme’. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall hearing Patrick McLoughlin, one of the Cabinet’s most reassuring voices, give a single broadcast interview since the election was called.


In addition, the women’s vote is haemorraghing to Labour. The lead is down to one point. There are lots of capable Tory women who should be used on the media far more than they have been so far. Justine Greening, Margot James, Andrea Leadsom and many more need to become a much more integral part of the campaign.


Boris Johnson has been allowed out occasionally, but we’ve only seen the Chancellor once. In a war, you deploy your strongest weapons, even if occasionally they might end up aiming in the wrong direction. Just as I am suggesting that the Tories should let Lynton be Lynton, they should also let Boris be Boris. Philip Hammond is also an underrated media performer. Given what I am about to write, he needs to now be front and centre of the campaign.



If we look back to 18 April, the day the PM called the election, we ought to remind ourselves of the reason this election was called. Remember these words from the Prime Minister?



“At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division. The country is coming together, but Westminster is not. In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with the European Union. "The Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standsill. The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe that because the Government’s majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course. They are wrong. They under-estimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country. "Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government’s negotiating position in Europe. If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election. Division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country. So we need a general election and we need one now, because we have at this moment a one-off chance to get this done while the European Union agrees its negotiating position and before the detailed talks begin. I have only recently and reluctantly come to this conclusion. “Since I became Prime Minister I have said that there should be no election until 2020, but now I have concluded that the only way to guarantee certainty and stability for the years ahead is to hold this election and seek your support for the decisions I must take. Every vote for the Conservatives will make it harder for opposition politicians who want to stop me from getting the job done. Every vote for the Conservatives will make me stronger when I negotiate for Britain with the prime ministers, presidents and chancellors of the European Union. Every vote for the Conservatives means we can stick to our plan for a stronger Britain and take the right long-term decisions for a more secure future. It was with reluctance that I decided the country needs this election, but it is with strong conviction that I say it is necessary to secure the strong and stable leadership the country needs to see us through Brexit and beyond.”



This was supposed to be a single issue election. It has become anything but. The Manchester terror attack has reenforced that fact. Even before the bombing Labour had managed to seize the initiative. Deliberately leaking their manifesto gave them five days of dominating the news. The Conservatives assumed the electorate would laugh at the manifesto. The electorate did the opposite, finding it eyecatching, radical and bold. By contrast the Tory offering six days later was seen as boring, stale and didn’t have a single eyecatching initiative for Tory canvassers and candidates to go out and sell on the doorstep. And the single policy which did stand out, turned out to be a stinker.


The rest of this election campaign needs to be fought on Tory territory, not Labour’s. There should be four strands to the remainder of the campaign and it’s Lynton Crosby’s task to make sure they become the narrative of the next nine days…



  • Get Brexit back on the agenda

  • Security for all

  • A strong economy

  • Leadership



Getting Brexit back on the agenda won’t be a simple task. Only two pages out of 84 in the manifesto were Brexit. Why? Because there wasn’t anything new to say. There still isn’t. There is no prospect of giving any more details of the government’s negotiating strategy. If Juncker or Tusk say anything stupid over the next few days, it’s job done, but even they aren’t that stupid. What the PM and David Davis must do is look forward to the negotiations starting only eleven days after the election, and contrast their approach to the task in hand with that of the Labour Party.


There is little doubt that a national crisis like the one over the last week plays into the hands of the incumbent prime minister. By definition, it is the PM who is making the decisions and reacting to events. The Leader of the Opposition can do little but to support the actions of the PM. The PM is able to show leadership, something the Leader of the Opposition can’t really do. That’s why it was important for Jeremy Corbyn to make that speech on Friday morning – to hit the ground running and seize back the agenda. Well he did that, but couldn’t resist the self indulgence of talking about issues which he must have known would be a gift to the Tories.


However, there are risks here too for the Tories. They’ve launched an all out initiative to paint Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser, but in doing so risk going over the top. They certainly have raw material to attack Corbyn in that manner, but sometimes it’s best to be quite subtle about these things rather than completely in voters’ faces. Sometimes you have to trust the people to work it out for themselves, albeit with a little help. Instead of a constant attack on Corbyn I suspect it would be better to concentrate the fire on the prospect of Diane Abbott (sans Afro) becoming Home Secretary. She is both viewed as an extreme left winger and hopelessly incompetent. Her interviews with Nick Ferrari, me on Friday and Andrew Marr today have done nothing to alter that view. The Tories should exploit it.


Most election revolves around whether people think they will be better off or not over the ensuing five years if they vote for one party rather than another. Although this election is somewhat different, there is still time for it to be framed around the concept of ‘stick to nurse for fear of something worse’. Economic competence v Labour’s magic money tree. The trouble is, the media has framed it as ‘More austerity and an uncosted manifesto v Labour’s eyecatching economic proposals’. So far, much of the electorate has bought into that and decided that some tax rises for the rich and penalising big multinational corporations by dramatically increasing business taxes will indeed lead to “our NHS” getting all the extra funding it needs. It’s been a major failure of the campaign so far not to have combatted this narrative. I have no idea why Philip Hammond has barely appeared in this campaign so far, but that needs to change, and change now.



The leadership issue is clearly the easiest and it has already been a running theme, but this needs to be hammered home in all sorts of ways in the runup to June 8th. But when I say ‘hammered home’ there needs to be a subtlety about it. Jeremy Corbyn has a certain zen calmness about him and even under huge pressure he usually manages to suppress his annoyance and anger at the way he’s being questioned. We saw that on Friday in his interview with Andrew Neil. In many ways it ought to have been seen as a car crash for him – and if you’re a Tory watching it, you’ll think it was, but Andrew Neil didn’t really rattle him once despite a very hostile line of questioning. Although his answers were often all over the place, Corbyn just remained in a zen like state. Many elements of the electorate quite like that and they don’t seem him as the ‘pseudo commie terrorist sympathiser’ the Conservatives are portraying him as. The messaging on this has to be very careful. In any normal election May v Corbyn as a leadership contest ought to be a one horse race. The Tories now need to make it one.


A 15-20 point Tory lead has evolved into a 7-14 point lead. The best poll for Labour was a Yougov poll which showed a 5 point lead on Friday. That had increased to 7 points in today’s YouGov poll. I’ve always thought of YouGov and ICM polls to be the most reliable, but the latest ICM poll shows a 14 point lead. They can’t both be right. In some ways a lower poll lead is a good thing for the Tories. I know that sounds odd, but there’s certainly no talk of complacency any longer, and a smaller poll lead will help persuade Tory voters to actually go out and vote. However, a narrative is developing that any majority which isn’t three figures will be seen as a defeat for Theresa May. It’s quite ridiculous, of course, because any majority in excess of 50 would surely justify the Prime Minister’s decision to call the election in the first place. Was Margaret Thatcher’s 44 seat majority in 1979 seen as a defeat for her? Of course it wasn’t.


Earlier in the campaign I predicted that the Conservatives would get around 390 seats and Labour around 165, with the LibDems on 16 and the SNP on 53. I might revisit that in the final week, but I’m not sure I see any real grounds to change it at the moment. Perhaps the LibDems are a little high, given that their campaign hasn’t taken off at all.


So, to sum up, here’s what should happen to the Tory campaign…


1. Let Lynton be Lynton and give him total control

2. Brexit means Brexit, and it needs to be a dominant issue in the last 9 days

3. Widen the circle of ministers appearing on the media

4. Deploy Boris

5. Deploy Philip Hammond and take the fight to Labour on the economy

6. Leadership, leadership, leadership – make the contrast at every available opportunity

7. Constantly raise the prospect of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary

8. Ensure the country sees the Conservatives as the party of security and defence

9. Underplay the poll lead so as not to risk a low turnout

10. Address the issue of the women’s vote disappearing to Labour


And finally [brace yourselves], the most radical shift of all… If the Tory lead was to continue to fall I’d suggest that serious consideration is given to ditching the social care pledge altogether. It would be a complete humiliation but I’m not sure that the party leadership understands what a disaster it has been on the doorstep and on the radio phone-ins. The partial U-turn on Monday meant that the hole digging had been put on hold. But perhaps it may be time to fill the trench back in. A strong and stable Prime Minister might find it a difficult one to sell, but admitting you’re wrong can sometimes be a refreshing lance of the boil. Tony Blair was usually at his most popular when he admitted he’d cocked up. Cameron the same. But if it’s to be done, it needs to be done in the next 48 hours. Better brains than mine need to be thinking about the pros and cons of doing this, and I’m assuming they may have done so already. At least I’m hoping they have…

суббота, 27 мая 2017 г.

Mother Of Uber CEO Killed In Boating Accident

The CEO’s father was being treated at an area hospital for what was described as moderate injuries.

RPGCast - Episode 427: "Very Tragickarp"

Today's episode is pretty fishy. But that doesn't keep Alice from telling us about her music sequencer powered robot armor. It doesn't stop Capcom from shocking Chris with a Switch version of Monster Hunter. And it doesn't stop Square Enix from having the most amazing release windows for the FFVII remake.

Toronto Sports Media From May To June

By TSM It’s been a crazy couple of weeks sports media fans and I finally have a few minutes to settle down for a few minutes and put fingers to this keyboard. No major items to break, so just some random thoughts: A reliable source tells me that things are 50/50 at best on Bob […]

Links for May 27th

1968 Demo Interactive – Doug Engelbart Institute Broken down, chapter-ified version of the Mother of All Demos (made by Bret Victor and Christina Englebart). And now easily pointed at. (tags: dougenglebart motherofalldemos interactiondesign design technology interaction )

Troops on the streets, crazy in the news sheets


One death-drive turns another. One journalist calls for the "internment of thousands". Another calls for a "final solution".


When the Westminster attacker, Khalid Masood, struck, there was the usual authoritarian frenzy, such as calls for the end of instant messaging privacy, and The Sun demanding armed cops on every street corner -- a lurid Petainist fantasy. But there was also a sub-current of exciting, macho rhetoric. 


Andrew Neil, in a speech he was allowed to deliver to camera by the BBC, derided this "poundland terrorist". Do you, he wondered, have any idea who you're dealing with? We are the British. We conquered half the planet. We have committed untold acts of violence. You are nothing next to us. Bring it on. Send your best, send your worst. Come ahead, square go. This phallic bombast was so thrilling that Tommy Robinson, sharing the speech, said it gave him goosebumps. A visceral reminder that all rhetoric is erotica.


The stirring evocation of armour-plated British omnipotence was, however, only as persuasive as the attack was unsuccessful. Masood's methods were crude and chaotic. His headlong death-lunge at the nominal centre of British power was always doomed to fail. The indications are that he had converted to Islam to get out of a violent life -- he dreamed of blood, as he put it. But he was seemingly never a doctrinaire jihadi. 


Salman Abedi, the 22 year old suicide attacker in Manchester, was a different type of attacker. This we know just from what he did. He used an explosive device, not knives. He picked a soft target, and a large target. Some 21,000 people, not protected by armed police, or even a baggage check, were potentially within the radius of his explosion. And maybe there was also an element of religious sadism, in targeting young people who had been having a good time. It seems obvious what he sought to provoke; exactly the kind of reaction that similar attacks have provoked in France, in the hope that an increasingly embattled minority of young Muslim men will flock to the theocratic far right. They want British politicians, spies and cops to become the recruiting sergeants for Daesh, and also collaterally the recruiting sergeants for Europe's next wave of fascism. Another turn in a depressingly familiar death-spiral.


And so, the Prime Minister gave a speech. The reclusive, gaffe-prone, gurn-smirking Theresa May, finally found her mark. It was, by all accounts, stateswomanlike, dignified, resolute, capturing the mood of the nation -- which is to say, it was exactly the same as any speech any Prime Minister would have given at such a moment. It said nothing, but said it with conviction. The point of such speeches is that, in their authoritative disbursement of information that was already available, in their solemn declarations of the obvious, in their insistence on certain adjectives which do the heavy lifting of explanation -- cowardice, evil, and so on -- they seem to make a superficial sense. Such attacks do not make sense. They are where sense breaks down. But the obligatory Prime Ministerial speech insists on making sense. In saying that we are strong, they were weak; we are brave, they are cowards; we will win, they will lose, it re-asserts a whole order of sense-making that has come into question.


What was far more important, registering the actual tenor of her policy response, was what came after. Theresa May is an ally of hardliners in the state, particularly in MI5. It was a former spook whom she recruited to draft her snoopers' charter some years ago. Her repertoire of responses to terror all fall on the side of intensified authoritarianism. Last time, she used the occasion to once more browbeat messaging services like Whatsapp -- on the preciously thin grounds that Masood may have sent a vital message linked to his attack before dying -- into abolishing user privacy. 


This time, in the middle of an election, she has raised the "threat level" to "critical" and sent armed forces out into the streets. Without attempting to second-guess government claims that there is another terror attack imminent, or inquire into the integrity of those "threat levels" (if it hasn't dropped below "severe" in such a long time, perhaps the war isn't working), this is obviously not going to stop an attack.


It is, like airport security, a superstitious ritual. The point of this sort of terrorist tactic is that it is flexible, unpredictable, designed to upset calculations, and work around obstacles. As long as Daesh and like organisations have the ability to recruit, to summon loyalty, there will always be soft targets. Why? Because the idea of an ironclad, completely securitised nation, with no vulnerabilities, is a sinister totalitarian fantasy. Even if it were possible, it would depend on a repression ten times more ferocious than that which it was called down to stop.


So this is posturing, which happens to serve the interests of Theresa May and of police hardliners who want to show off a bit of British muscle and steel. And the more barbaric and violent the discourse becomes, the more it can be canalised into this statist machismo. The more-or-less civilised, collectivist, solidaristic reaction of Mancunians, the blood donations and free taxi rides, the homeless man rushing in to help the victims, the refusal to 'be divided', the chasing away of EDL provocateurs, is a cultural counterweight to that dangerous and ineffectual strutting. 


But at some point, we need that multicultural conviviality to be conjoined with something which is presently absent, and that is a serious and critical reappraisal of every assumption of every 'counterterrorist' policy that has produced this terrifying impasse. That would mean the Prevent strategy, the various foreign policy interventions, the alliance with Saudi Arabia, everything. It would all have to be on the table, without intimidation. Because that intimidation is coming. The Birmingham MP, Khalid Mahmood, is already using the attack to demand that people stop criticising the hugely discriminatory and counterproductive Prevent strategy. Bear in mind that even such figures as Liam Byrne and Syeeda Warsi have criticised Prevent for the chilling effect it has on Muslim communities and on the enjoyment of civil liberties. The vitriol against Corbyn for his supposed Provo sympathies is part of this offensive, pour encourager les autres


Nonetheless, the discussion has to happen. Because the cost of not having these conversations will probably be measured in a body count.





(Cross-posted from my Patreon account. If you like it, please consider sending me a couple of quid.)

пятница, 26 мая 2017 г.

Reuters: Jared Kushner Had Undisclosed Contact With Russian Envoy, Say Sources


By Ned Parker and Jonathan Landay



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, had at least three previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, seven current and former U.S. officials told Reuters.



    Those contacts included two phone calls between April and November last year, two of the sources said. By early this year, Kushner had become a focus of the FBI investigation into whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, said two other sources - one current and one former law enforcement official.



Kushner initially had come to the attention of FBI investigators last year as they began scrutinizing former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s connections with Russian officials, the two sources said.



    While the FBI is investigating Kushner’s contacts with Russia, he is not currently a target of that investigation, the current law enforcement official said.



The new information about the two calls as well as other details uncovered by Reuters shed light on when and why Kushner first attracted FBI attention and show that his contacts with Russian envoy Sergei Kislyak were more extensive than the White House has acknowledged.



    NBC News reported on Thursday that Kushner was under scrutiny by the FBI, in the first sign that the investigation, which began last July, has reached the president’s inner circle.  



    The FBI declined to comment, while the Russian embassy said it was policy not to comment on individual diplomatic contacts. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.



Multiple attempts to obtain comment from Kushner or his representatives were unsuccessful.



In March, the White House said that Kushner and Flynn had met Kislyak at Trump Tower in December to establish “a line of communication.” Kislyak also attended a Trump campaign speech in Washington in April 2016 that Kushner attended. The White House did not acknowledge any other contacts between Kushner and Russian officials.



 



BACK CHANNEL



Before the election, Kislyak’s undisclosed discussions with Kushner and Flynn focused on fighting terrorism and improving U.S.-Russian economic relations, six of the sources said. Former President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Russia after it seized Crimea and started supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine in 2014.



After the Nov. 8 election, Kushner and Flynn also discussed with Kislyak the idea of creating a back channel between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could have bypassed diplomats and intelligence agencies, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine how those discussions were conducted or exactly when they took place.



Reuters was first to report last week that a proposal for a back channel was discussed between Flynn and Kislyak as Trump prepared to take office. The Washington Post was first to report on Friday that Kushner participated in that conversation.



Separately, there were at least 18 undisclosed calls and emails between Trump associates and Kremlin-linked people in the seven months before the Nov. 8 presidential election, including six calls with Kislyak, sources told Reuters earlier this month. . Two people familiar with those 18 contacts said Flynn and Kushner were among the Trump associates who spoke to the ambassador by telephone. Reuters previously reported only Flynn’s involvement in those discussions.



Six of the sources said there were multiple contacts between Kushner and Kislyak but declined to give details beyond the two phone calls between April and November and the post-election conversation about setting up a back channel. It is also not clear whether Kushner engaged with Kislyak on his own or with other Trump aides.



 



HOW KUSHNER CAME UNDER SCRUTINY



    FBI scrutiny of Kushner began when intelligence reports of Flynn’s contacts with Russians included mentions of U.S. citizens, whose names were redacted because of U.S. privacy laws. This prompted investigators to ask U.S. intelligence agencies to reveal the names of the Americans, the current U.S. law enforcement official said.



Kushner’s was one of the names that was revealed, the official said, prompting a closer look at the president’s son-in-law’s dealings with Kislyak and other Russians.



    FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.



    The head of Russian state-owned Vnesheconombank, Sergei Nikolaevich Gorkov, a trained intelligence officer whom Putin appointed, met Kushner at Trump Tower in December. The bank is under U.S. sanctions and was implicated in a 2015 espionage case in which one of its New York executives pleaded guilty to spying and was jailed.



The bank said in a statement in March that it had met with Kushner along with other representatives of U.S. banks and business as part of preparing a new corporate strategy.



    Officials familiar with intelligence on contacts between the Russians and Trump advisers said that so far they have not seen evidence of any wrongdoing or collusion between the Trump camp and the Kremlin.  Moreover, they said, nothing found so far indicates that Trump authorized, or was even aware of, the contacts.



    There may not have been anything improper about the contacts, the current law enforcement official stressed.



    Kushner offered in March to be interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating Russia’s attempts to interfere in last year’s election.



The contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials during the presidential campaign coincided with what U.S. intelligence agencies concluded was a Kremlin effort through computer hacking, fake news and propaganda to boost Trump’s chances of winning the White House and damage his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.



 



 (Reporting by Ned Parker and Jonathan Landay; Additional reporting by John Walcott, Warren Strobel and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Kevin Krolicki and Ross Colvin)



 

The 1961 Mobot Mark II Had All the Moves

Billed as a “Replacement for Man,” the Hughes Mobot combined strength with a delicate touch

Kushner in Focus in Latest Russia Investigation Turn (Audio)

(Bloomberg) -- Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School, and Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid P.C., discusses new reports that White House adviser Jared Kushner is now a focus in the FBI's Russia investigation. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

10 Great Headphones for True Audiophiles

href='http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/g3380/10-audiophile-headphones/'>

With countless offerings to choose from, these in-ear and over-ear headphones are designed to deliver a high-quality audio experience.

ConHome Diary: Diane Abbott's New Nickname & Credit To Donald Trump (Yes, Really)

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Donald Trump’s first trip broad as President was tipped by everyone to be a disaster. People assumed there would be gaffe and gaffe and he would embarrass himself, his country and his hosts. Well it hasn’t happened, has it? Even his speech on Islam in Saudi Arabia barely caused a feather ruffle. He sailed through two days of potential pitfalls and political icebergs in Israel and even his meeting with the Pope went off without a hitch, even though the Pope, unusually, found it difficult to crack a smile. As I write this Trump has moved on to Brussels where he is attending his first NATO summit. Get through that without controversy and he can rightly regard the last nine days as something of a triumph.

*

UKIP unveiled their election manifesto yesterday. Like anyone cared.

*


I am a massive supporter of the so-called ‘Special Relationship’, although the very mention of the term brings me out in hives. But by definition it has to work both ways. It is outrageous that US intelligence is leaking details of the Manchester bombing to the US media and it is to the UK government’s credit that they are making no secret of the fact that there is a massive degree of fury about it on this side of the Atlantic. Donald Trump has been complaining for months that the US security services leak like a sieve, and here he has his proof. But why is it happening? To cause problems for Trump? Probably. The trouble is that the extent of these leaks seem to indicate that it’s not just one malcontented person that’s doing it. Greater Manchester Police have decided no longer to share information with the Americans. I wonder if MI6 and GCHQ will do the same. When I interviewed Michael Fallon about it on Wednesday evening he described it all as “disappointing”. When I put it to him that what he really meant was “bloody furious” he didn’t say yes, but his answer indicated he didn’t really demur. If you’ve ever seen the film LOVE ACTUALLY, you’ll know what I mean when I say that Theresa May ought to have a ‘LOVE ACTUALLY moment’ and at her next press conference make very clear exactly what she thinks about US behaviour over the last few days. She’d have the whole country behind her.

*

It’s difficult to know what effect the last few days will have on the general election campaign or result. I suspect that the level of debate will be slightly less aggressive than it would have been and that the voting public won’t be in the mood for the usual political games. Will the agenda be dominated by people’s demands that the party react to the terror attack or will other domestic issues creep back up the political agenda. There’s little doubt that the social care debacle seems a distant memory, although it may not remain so. If I were Jeremy Corbyn I’d now concentrate on the cuts to the police which have led to a net fall of 20,000 police officers since 2010. There’s gold to be mined for Labour there and the Conservatives had better have a well thought out response.

*


Words I’ve never said until this week: Alexa, play Ariana Grande

*

So immigration was down 84,000 in 2016 compared to 2015. The net total was 248,880. That’s nearly fifteen tens of thousands away from the much-vaunted target. What those who call for a dramatic fall in net migration don’t seem to be able to compute is that most of the people that come here are absolutely vital to the functioning of our economy. Without them, well, we’d be in a lot of trouble. I’m afraid that anyone thinks that we can reduce immigration to less than 100,000 is either deluded or will be sadly disappointed. It. Will. Never. Happen.

*


Diane Abbott has become the Scarlet Pimpernel of British politics. They seek her here, they seek her there, they seek her everybloodywhere. Since her car crash interview with my LBC colleague Nick Ferrari she has barely been seen. We asked for an interview with her on Wednesday to talk about security issues but were told she wasn’t available. We’ll keep trying, on your behalf, dear reader.

NASA’s Jupiter Mission Reveals the ‘Brand-New and Unexpected&#x2019

Observations taken from the first few orbits of the Juno spacecraft provide a glimpse of the interior, the poles and the equator of the solar system’s largest planet.

Bloomberg Law Brief: Deerfield Partners Charged (Audio)

Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell University Law School, and Eugene Soltes, a professor at the Harvard Business School and author of "Why They Do It: Inside the Mind of the White-Collar Criminal," discuss insider trading allegations against Deerfield Partners, which have highlighted the information highway between Washington D.C. and Wall Street. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

What triggers that feeling of being watched?

You feel somebody is looking at you, but you don’t know why. The explanation lies in some intriguing neuroscience and the study of a strange form of brain injury.


Something makes you turn and see someone watching you. Perhaps on a busy train, or at night, or when you’re strolling through the park. How did you know you were being watched? It can feel like an intuition which is separate from your senses, but really it demonstrates that your senses – particularly vision – can work in mysterious ways.


Intuitively, many of us might imagine that when you look at something with your eyes, signals travel to your visual cortex and then you have the conscious experience of seeing it, but the reality is far weirder.


Once information leaves our eyes it travels to at least 10 distinct brain areas, each with their own specialised functions. Many of us have heard of the visual cortex, a large region at the back of the brain which gets most attention from neuroscientists. The visual cortex supports our conscious vision, processing colour and fine detail to help produce the rich impression of the world we enjoy. But other parts of our brain are also processing different pieces of information, and these can be working away even when we don’t – or can’t – consciously perceive something.


The survivors of neural injury can cast some light on these mechanisms. When an accident damages the visual cortex, your vision is affected. If you lose all of your visual cortex you will lose all conscious vision, becoming what neurologists call ‘cortically blind’. But, unlike if you lose your eyes, cortically blind is only mostly blind – the non-cortical visual areas can still operate. Although you can’t have the subjective impression of seeing anything without a visual cortex, you can respond to things captured by your eyes that are processed by these other brain areas.


In 1974 a researcher called Larry Weiskrantz coined the term ‘blindsight’ for the phenomenon of patients who were still able to respond to visual stimuli despite losing all conscious vision due to destruction of the visual cortex. Patients like this can’t read or watch films or anything requiring processing of detail, but they are – if asked to guess – able to locate bright lights in front of them better than mere chance. Although they don’t feel like they can see anything, their ‘guesses’ have a surprising accuracy. Other visual brain areas are able to detect the light and provide information on the location, despite the lack of a visual cortex. Other studies show that people with this condition can detect emotions on faces and looming movements.


More recently, a dramatic study with a blindsight patient has shown how we might be able feel that we are being looked at, without even consciously seeing the watchers’ face. Alan J Pegna at Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland, and team worked with a man called TD (patients are always referred to by initials only in scientific studies, to preserve anonymity). TD is a doctor who suffered a stroke which destroyed his visual cortex, leaving him cortically blind.


People with this condition are rare, so TD has taken part in a string of studies to investigate exactly what someone can and can’t do without a visual cortex. The study involved looking at pictures of faces which had their eyes directed forward, looking directly at the viewer, or which had their eyes averted to the side, looking away from the viewer. TD did this task in an fMRI scanner which measured brain activity during the task, and also tried to guess which kind of face he was seeing. Obviously for anyone with normal vision, this task would be trivial – you would have a clear conscious visual impression of the face you were looking at at any one time, but recall that TD has no conscious visual impression. He feels blind.


The scanning results showed that our brains can be sensitive to what our conscious awareness isn’t. An area called the amygdala, thought to be responsible for processing emotions and information about faces, was more active when TD was looking at the faces with direct, rather than averted, gaze. When TD was being watched, his amygdala responded, even though he didn’t know it. (Interestingly, TD’s guesses as to where he was being watched weren’t above chance, and the researchers put this down to his reluctance to guess.)


Cortical, conscious vision, is still king. If you want to recognise individuals, watch films or read articles like this you are relying on your visual cortex. But research like this shows that certain functions are simpler and maybe more fundamental to survival, and exist separately from our conscious visual awareness.


Specifically, this study showed that we can detect that people are looking at us within our field of view – perhaps in the corner of our eye – even if we haven’t consciously noticed. It shows the brain basis for that subtle feeling that tells us we are being watched.


So when you’re walking that dark road and turn and notice someone standing there, or look up on the train to see someone staring at you, it may be your nonconscious visual system monitoring your environment while you’re conscious attention was on something else. It may not be supernatural, but it certainly shows the brain works in mysterious ways.


This is my BBC Future column from last week. The original is here.


четверг, 25 мая 2017 г.

New Study Shows Effectiveness of Consent Decrees (Audio)

(Bloomberg) -- Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown University, discusses a new study that contests attorney general Jeff Sessions' views on consent decrees for city police departments. She speaks with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Deerfield Partners Charged with Insider Trading (Audio)

(Bloomberg) -- Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell University Law School, and Eugene Soltes, a professor at the Harvard Business School and author of "Why They Do It: Inside the Mind of the White-Collar Criminal," discuss insider trading allegations against Deerfield Partners, which have highlighted the information highway between Washington D.C. and Wall Street. They speak with June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Cool social media data – Infographic

Incredible data dump regarding social media sites and other websites, although some are saying that all sites are social these days.


Data Never Sleeps 4.0


Source


The post Cool social media data – Infographic appeared first on Digital marketing blog Cornwall seo.


What happens next in B. C

B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver is joined by elected party member Sonia Furstenau to speak to media in the rose garden following election results in Victoria, B.C., on Wednesday, May 14, 2017. British Columbia entered a new stage of political uncertainty Wednesday as the final vote count from an election held more than two weeks ago confirmed the province's first minority government in 65 years. But with the balance of power firmly in his grasp, Green Leader Andrew Weaver indicated he wants to end the confusion that has gripped the province since May 9 by trying to reach a deal with either the Liberals or the NDP on a minority government by next Wednesday. (Chad Hipolito/CP)

Andrew Weaver says he wants to end the uncertainty over who will govern B.C. by reaching a deal with either the NDP or Liberals by Wednesday. (Chad Hipolito/CP)


So the recounts are over in the super-tight British Columbia provincial election, with no changes to the seat count: 43 Liberals, 41 NDP, 3 Green. It’s obvious that (Greens + anybody else) = viable majority in the 87-seat legislature. So now what?


Green Party leader Andrew Weaver, no fool, is speaking to both parties, trying to maximize his advantage. Liberal leader Christy Clark says she’ll advise the lieutenant-governor by Wednesday whether she intends to try to form a government. I’d be astonished if she didn’t try: she has more seats than any other party, and is said to be politically ambitious. And she’s talking like someone who plans to tough it out: “With 43 B.C. Liberal candidates elected as MLAs, and a plurality in the legislature, we have a responsibility to move forward and form a government,” she said in a media release.


But Weaver is also talking to NDP leader John Horgan. And in a statement Wednesday, he said he looks forward to working “with both other parties,” which sounds, for the time being at least, like the distinct absence of a preference between them.


Now here’s what I need you to understand: the two cases—Greens+Liberals and Greens+NDP—are not symmetrical. The next government is not a coin toss or a Schrödinger box. There is, indeed, no “next government”—there is, still today, a Liberal government in B.C. Christy Clark gets to keep governing as long as she’s able. And the other parties have a very narrow window for replacing her without another election.


This is what’s meant by people who say the incumbent head of government has the right to “test the House” (or I guess the legislature, this being provincial politics). The government dissolves the legislature, a strange thing called an election happens and then everyone comes back in and the government gets to govern some more— unless in the interim, the government resigns and lets another government have its chance.


Now, it’s almost always so obvious who’s won an election that the resignation happens on election night or in the days after. Stephen Harper could have returned from the 2015 federal election and tried to present a Throne Speech and a legislative agenda, but pretty soon the Liberals would have said, Hey now, we outnumber you 184 to 99, stop that. Even in narrower cases, the loser still loses. Paul Martin was still the incumbent prime minister on the night of the 2006 election, and his Liberals plus Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc would have outnumbered the Harper Conservatives, but that was ridiculous and Martin resigned on election night.


RELATED: Why the B.C. Green party should be wary of a coalition


It’s when things are very close that this notion of “testing the House (or legislative assembly)” starts to matter a lot. Take Quebec in 2007. Jean Charest’s Liberals lost 28 seats and wound up with 48 to 41 for Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique. The PQ had a great big 36-seat balance of power. It would have been easy for the PQ to withhold confidence in Charest’s government and cook some deal to make Dumont the premier. Easy, but galling for the prideful PQ, so they passed, and Charest got to keep governing.


Well, surely at some point the PQ could have changed their minds and withdrawn support for Charest? Yes— but the convention, or deeply entrenched habit of things, is that opposition parties don’t have forever to get their acts together and propose an alternative government. In fact, they don’t have very long at all. They basically get one chance to propose an alternative to the incumbents and test that alternative in a confidence vote. And they don’t even get to decide when that vote happens, because it happens immediately whether they’re ready or not.


This is a little more confusing, so it helps to remember the odd events after the 2008 federal election. Stephen Harper won a plurality of the seats, again, as in 2006. Liberals plus NDP plus Bloc, together, outnumbered him, although their hand was so weak that it took almost all of those three caucuses to do so. Jack Layton tried to persuade his opponents in the other opposition parties to do something bold, fast. They shrugged him off. It wasn’t until five weeks later that they decided to co-ordinate.


But by then it was already too late to simply write to the Governor General and replace Harper with Stéphane Dion. As the Conservatives immediately started reminding everyone, the opposition parties had voted in such a way as not to defeat the government on its throne speech. So they had effectively acknowledged its legitimacy to govern.


Harper promptly asked the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, to prorogue the House rather than holding the confidence vote Dion was demanding. She obliged. Even though what he was asking was highly dubious and entirely self-serving.


FILE--NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe shake hands as Liberal leader Stephane Dion looks on after signing agreements on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Mon Dec. 1, 2008. Whether you're talking about the Conservatives' partisan, stink-bomb-laden fall economic update or the unlikely and unloved opposition coalition it helped spawn, risk, recklessness and uncertainty are the orders of the day as our federal politicians lurch into 2009. (Adrian Wyld/CP)

From left: Layton, Dion and Duceppe after signing their agreements to co-operate in December 2008. (Adrian Wyld/CP)


 


People who never liked Harper are still mad at Jean for doing his bidding. But it is the GG’s job (or the LG’s job in a provincial capital) to do what the head of government asks. It’s called responsible government. We had a whole crisis over it in 1849. Ask your kids.


So can Clark govern forever without a worry? No. Her government can fall at any time to a confidence vote, but if it falls any time after the very first few days it governs, convention demands that the legislature be dissolved and the question be put to the voters in a new election.


That’s why the anti-Harper coalition fell apart by early 2009: its leaders knew they couldn’t defend what they were doing in an election, and the GG had already signalled she wouldn’t hand power to them without a new election.


But the best demonstration of this notion is the Ontario provincial election of 1985. The province’s eternal Progressive Conservative government, now in the hands of cheerful Frank Miller, fell to 52 seats. The Liberals under David Peterson had 48—so close. The NDP under Bob Rae had the whip hand with 25 seats. Miller prepared to govern. Naturally assumed he’d be able to govern with no problem. But the Liberals and NDP cooked a deal whereby Peterson could govern as premier and the NDP would promise not to withdraw confidence in this new government for two years.


What’s crucial to remember is that the deal was concluded immediately, before Miller could present a throne speech, and that while Miller managed to avoid holding a vote in the legislature for several days, the first vote on amendments to the throne speech was the chance Liberals and NDP needed to vote against the Conservatives. And David Peterson became premier. Miller had threatened to call an election, but decided against it.


So the window for replacing an incumbent government without an election is very short. It is probably measured in a small number of weeks, and in a single vote in the legislature.


RELATED: The next few days in B.C. politics will be strange and fun


People who don’t like the incumbent government will assume the lieutenant-governor’s job is to figure out some way to stop it. But don’t blame Judith Guichon, the LG of B.C. I’ve never met her, but I can tell you how she will order her priorities. She will take her counsel from the premier. If it isn’t clear who the premier is, she will take her counsel from the legislature. If the legislature can’t decide very soon, she will take her counsel from B.C. voters.


And she will have no patience for an extended round of futzing about, because like every modern LG and GG, she will view a new election as vastly preferable to any improvised solution she might dream up. A new election won’t hurt anyone; we have elections all the time in Canada. An Erector-Set government cooked up in Mom’s basement by an improvising viceroy might.


What does this mean for Andrew Weaver? It means that if he wants to work, over any extended period of time at all, with “both other parties,” then he will be working with a Liberal government and an NDP opposition.


If he prefers an NDP government, he needs to make that decision before next Wednesday. He and Horgan need to inform the LG that they are prepared to govern, and at the first vote on any matter in the legislature, they need to vote together against the Liberals. Guichon would take that as her cue that the election actually changed the situation, and she would invite Horgan to form a government. But that would be Horgan’s only chance, until the next election, whether that came in two months or four years.


There are no guarantees. But the strong advantage is Christy Clark’s.


 


The post What happens next in B.C. appeared first on Macleans.ca.