Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

Popular Posts Today

Conference touts industry changes

Written By Unknown on Selasa, 29 April 2014 | 00.33

State officials and manufacturing execs hope to send the message that the industry's days of smoke-filled factories are being replaced by greater opportunities, higher salaries and cleaner technology.

"It not only pays well, but we're very competitive at it," Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Greg Bialecki told the Herald. "We make things in Massachusetts that a lot of other people don't make, and we make a lot of things we sell to China, like medical devices … because we're better than everyone else at making them."

Hundreds of manufacturing leaders and others are expected to descend on Worcester tomorrow to network and talk about the industry's future during the second annual Advanced Manufacturing Summit at the DCU Center.

Bialecki said starting salaries are often around $40,000, don't require college degrees — and the associated student debt — and average around $60,000 to $70,000, which is more than the state's median salary.

"The primary purpose is just to convey the message there are a lot of people that believe in the future of manufacturing in Massachusetts," said Bialecki. "It's a great career."

"We'll be talking about … how to promote manufacturing as a career for young people and remind people that manufacturing is not dirty, grimy factories as we imagine they were," said Marty Jones, the president and CEO of MassDevelopment. "They're high-tech, interesting places where people can earn a good living."

The keynote speaker will be Harry Moser, the founder of the Reshoring Initiative, and Gov. Deval Patrick will speak during a luncheon.

Speakers earlier in the day include Jones, INCOM President and CEO Michael Detarando and Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tim Murray, the former lieutenant governor.

Three separate panels and workshops also will be held, with experts from companies such as DePuy Synthes Companies of Johnson & Johnson, EMC, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon, Smith & Wesson, TE Connectivity and United Technologies.

Bialecki himself will moderate a morning session entitled "Our Workforce Future: What Do You Demand?"

The event is expected to draw about 150 manufacturers, and 500 people are already registered, said Jones.

"The purpose of this event is really to get together manufacturers and people who can provide resources to manufacturers to talk about really growing their business in Massachusetts," said Jones. "The sessions are how to supply to the life sciences industry, aeronautics, electronics, defense."


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Correction: Renouncing America story

In a story April 26 about Americans renouncing their citizenship, The Associated Press reported erroneously that the U.S. government does not tax Americans abroad on their first $96,600 in income. The exclusion for the 2013 tax year was $97,600, and it applies only to earned income.

A corrected version of the story is below:

More renounce US citizenship but deny stereotype

Cast as tax evaders, but deciding to give up US citizenship as much for life as wealth

By ADAM GELLER

AP National Writer

Inside the long-awaited package, six pages of government paperwork dryly affirmed Carol Tapanila's anxious request. But when Tapanila slipped the contents from the brown envelope, she saw there was something more.

"We the people...." declared the script inside her U.S. passport — now with four holes punched through it from cover to cover. Her departure from life as an American was stamped final on the same page: "Bearer Expatriated Self."

With the envelope's arrival, Tapanila, a native of upstate New York who has lived in Canada since 1969, joined a largely overlooked surge of Americans rejecting what is, to millions, a highly sought prize: U.S. citizenship. Last year, the U.S. government reported a record 2,999 people renounced citizenship or terminated permanent residency; most are widely assumed to be driven by a desire to avoid paying taxes on hidden wealth.

The reality, though, is more complicated. The government's pursuit of tax evaders among Americans living abroad is indeed driving the jump in abandoned citizenship, experts say. But renouncers — whose ranks have swelled more than five-fold from a decade ago — often contradict the stereotype of the financial scoundrel. Many are from very ordinary economic circumstances.

Some call themselves "accidental Americans," who recall little of life in the U.S., but long ago happened to be born in it. Others say they renounced because of politics, family or personal identity. Some say signing away citizenship was a huge relief. Others recall being sickened by the decision.

At the U.S. consulate in Geneva, "I talked to a man who explained to me that I could never, ever get my nationality back," says Donna-Lane Nelson, whose Boston accent lingers though she's lived in Switzerland 24 years. "It felt like a divorce. It felt like a death. I took the second oath and I left the consulate and I threw up."

When Americans do hear about compatriots rejecting citizenship, it's more often people keeping their U.S. citizenship and dropping that of another country.

Last year, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz acknowledged the Canadian citizenship he was born to, but said he would renounce it. In 2012, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, saying she was "100 percent committed to our United States Constitution," announced she was giving up Swiss citizenship gained through marriage.

One of the few times rejected U.S. citizenship has gotten significant ink was Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's 2011 decision to turn in his American passport after moving to Singapore. Saverin likely avoided millions of dollars in taxes by doing so shortly before Facebook's initial stock offering.

Other wealthy Americans also have relinquished U.S. citizenship. Denise Rich, the ex-wife of pardoned trader Marc Rich, expatriated in 2012 and lives in London. Last fall, singer Tina Turner, a resident of Switzerland since 1995, relinquished her U.S. passport.

But Saverin's decision, in particular, hit a political nerve, along with scandals surrounding UBS and Credit Suisse, which were caught matching wealthy Americans with offshore accounts.

In recent years, federal officials have stepped up pursuit of potential tax evaders, using the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act which requires that Americans overseas report assets to the IRS or pay stiff penalties. Those trying to comply complain of costly fees for accountants and lawyers, having to report the income of non-American spouses, and decisions by some European banks to close accounts of U.S. citizens or deny them loans.

But some of those surrendering citizenship say their reasons are as much about life as about taxes, particularly since the U.S. government does not tax Americans abroad on their first $97,600 in earned income, a figure adjusted annually for inflation.

Decisions to renounce "are driven by a whole range of emotional considerations. ... You've got anger, you've got fear, you've got a strong sense of indignation," said John Richardson, a Toronto lawyer who advises people on expatriation. "For many of these people, this is not a tax issue at all."

Even some who acknowledge tax worries say decisions to renounce are far more complicated than a simple desire to avoid paying.

Peter Dunn, born in Chicago and raised in Alaska, moved to Canada to pursue a graduate degree in theology. He met his wife, Catherine, and they made Toronto home when her work as one of the owners of an aviation maintenance firm made her the breadwinner.

Dunn remained an American. But he was alarmed by a change in U.S. law requiring those with more than $2 million in assets to pay an exit tax if they gave up citizenship. He didn't have $2 million. But his wife was doing well enough that he imagined one day they could get there. The idea of the U.S. government taxing his Canadian wife's money didn't seem right.

"When I learned about that, I decided that to protect my wife, I better expatriate," he says.

Corine Mauch arrived at the same decision by a different route. Mauch was born a U.S. citizen to Swiss parents who were college students in Iowa. They lived in the U.S. until she was 5, then again for two more years before she turned 11. Mauch maintained dual citizenship even after she was elected to Zurich's city council. But when she became mayor, she reconsidered.

During the last American presidential election, "I asked myself 'Where do I feel at home?' And the answer is clear: In Zurich and in Switzerland. My attachment to America is limited to my very early youth," Mauch said. Double taxation was "not the crucial factor for my decision. But I will not miss the U.S. tax bureaucracy either."

Taxes play little or no role in other decisions.

Norman Heinrichs-Gale's parents were missionaries from Washington state who raised him in Asia and the Middle East. In 1986, he traveled to Austria with his American wife, and they found work at a conference center in an alpine valley town of 6,000. The jobs were supposed to last a year. But the couple stayed, sending their children to local schools.

On yearly trips to the U.S. he felt increasingly like a stranger. "I never forget going into a grocery store and just being stunned by my choice of cereals," Heinrichs-Gale says. "I was stunned by just the pace of life compared to what we have here, stunned by the extremes of wealth and poverty that I encountered."

There wasn't one single thing that pushed him away. But his children wanted to attend Austrian colleges and he and his wife wanted to vote in the country they considered home. The family was tired of renewing visas and work permits. And so they signed documents giving up U.S. citizenship. Now, one of the last vestiges of American culture in their home is watching Seattle Seahawks games online.

Sports played the central role in Quincy Davis III's decision. Davis, raised in Los Angeles and Mobile, Ala., played professional basketball in Europe after three years as Tulane University's leading scorer. By 2011, he was home studying to become a firefighter when he was offered a spot on a Taiwanese pro squad. He's since helped lead the Pure Youth Construction team to two championships.

When the team's owner suggested last year that he join Taiwan's national team, Davis says he found little motivation to keep his U.S. citizenship.

"When you think about who I am as a black guy in the U.S., I didn't have opportunities," he says. "You get discriminated against over there in the South. Here everyone is so nice. They invite you into their homes, they're so hospitable. ... There's no crime, no guns. I can't help but love this place."

Many others cutting their U.S. ties say tax laws drive decisions that have nothing to do with secreting wealth.

"I wish I were wealthy," said Nelson, who says she takes in about $50,000 a year from pensions and earnings from publishing an online journal covering credit union news.

Nelson has vivid memories of growing up in the U.S. Even after moving to Europe, she continued sending five to 10 emails a week to members of Congress, opposing the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. After 15 years, she acquired Swiss citizenship so she could vote. But she began considering expatriation only in 2010 after a banker told her that, because of new U.S. financial reporting laws, it was closing the accounts of many Americans and a mistake as minor as an overdraft could mean the same for hers.

"How would my clients pay me?" says Nelson, who is 71 and also an author of mystery novels. "Where does my Social Security get deposited? Where does my pension get deposited?"

The jump in renunciations reflects evolving views about national identity, said Nancy L. Green, an American professor at the L'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. When the U.S. got its start, citizenship was defined by "perpetual allegiance" — the British notion of nationality as a birthright that could never be changed.

American colonists rejected that to justify becoming citizens of a newly independent country. But changeable citizenship wasn't widely embraced until the mass immigration of the late 1800s, says Green, a historian of migration and expatriation.

Even then, U.S. artists and writers who moved to Europe in the 1920s were criticized, suspected of trying to avoid taxes. Until the 1960s, U.S. citizenship remained a privilege the government could take away on certain grounds. It's only since then that U.S. citizenship has come to be viewed as belonging to an individual, who could keep — or surrender it — by choice.

But Carol Tapanila's life in Canada has tested that redefinition.

Six years after Tapanila's husband lost his job at a Boeing factory in Washington state and they moved to Canada for work, the couple became citizens of their new country. She says U.S. consular officials told her that, by swearing allegiance to Canada, she might well have lost her American citizenship.

After retiring from a job as an administrative assistant at an oil company in Calgary, Tapanila began putting $125 a month into a special savings account for her developmentally disabled son, matched by the Canadian government. In her will, she authorized creation of a trust fund to draw on retirement savings and other assets to provide for her son, who is now 40, after her death.

Tapanila says she didn't know she was required to file U.S. tax returns until 2007, when her daughter raised the subject. Her troubles were compounded by her decision to apply for a U.S. passport after a border officer told her she should have one. She has since spent $42,000 on fees for lawyers and accountants and paid about $2,000 in U.S. taxes, including on funds in her son's disability savings account.

In 2012 she turned in the passport, renouncing U.S. citizenship to protect money saved for her retirement and her son. Tapanila, 70, has tried and failed to renounce U.S. citizenship on his behalf, saying officials told her such a decision must be made by the individual alone.

"You know, we are not rich people and we are not tax evaders and we are not traitors and I'm more than tired of being labeled that way," Tapanila says.

"I'm sorry that I've given my son this burden and I can do nothing about it ... I thought we had some rights to go wherever we wanted to go and some choices we could make in our lives. I thought that was democracy. Apparently, I've got it all wrong."

___

AP writer Peter Enav in Taipei contributed to this report. Adam Geller can be reached at features@ap.org. Follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/adgeller.


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Burger King bringing back 'Subservient Chicken'

NEW YORK — Burger King is bringing back one of its strangest advertising creations if you don't count its creepy King — the Subservient Chicken.

The campaign, which was considered groundbreaking when it ran in 2004, featured a website where a giant chicken dressed in garters appeared to perform any task visitors commanded. A costumed actor had been pre-recorded performing hundreds of acts so it would seem as though the chicken was obeying people's orders.

It was an unexpected take on chain's "Have It Your Way" slogan, all just to promote a new chicken sandwich. The site got 100 million hits in the two weeks after its launch, according to Burger King.

A decade later, the Miami-based chain is trotting out the Subservient Chicken once again to promote yet another chicken sandwich — a triple-decker called the Chicken Big King that resembles a Big Mac, except with chicken patties.

Burger King says it will post a short video detailing the "rise and fall" of Subservient Chicken on www.subservientchicken.com at 9 a.m. EDT Wednesday.

Like a host of other companies, Burger King Worldwide Inc. is hoping to create a viral marketing hit to connect with younger consumers. The strategies have varied widely and it's not always clear whether they ultimately help boost sales.

KFC, for instance, recently captured widespread attention online when it issued a video of a boy giving his prom date a corsage made with a chicken drumstick. Whether its popularity can help turn around a yearslong sales slump is yet to be seen. In the first quarter of this year, sales at established locations fell 3 percent, after falling 5 percent for last year.

Burger King, like other traditional fast-food chains, is struggling to boost sales as well. As for attention on social media, the chain's most memorable recent moment in the spotlight may have been when its Twitter account was hacked. The hacker changed its profile picture to the McDonald's logo and tweeted messages containing obscenities, references to drug use and racial epithets.

Burger King had to ask Twitter to temporarily suspend the account.

As for the Subservient Chicken website, it is already live and shows what appears to be a shot of the empty room where the character originally performed its tasks 10 years ago, including dancing, moonwalking and doing pushups. A pop-up alert for a "Missing Chicken Error" prompts people to click a "Help Us" button, which then asks people to share the link on social media.

Eric Hirschhorn, chief marketing officer for Burger King North America, declined to provide details about the video that will be posted Wednesday, but said the idea is that the chicken is "turning the tables" on people. It will include an appearance by Dustin Diamond, the actor best known for playing Screech on the teen sitcom "Saved By the Bell."

"I don't want to spoil it, but he's an incredible addition to the film," Hirschhorn said.

Burger King has since cut ties with the creators of the Subservient Chicken campaign, Crispin Porter + Bogusky and The Barbarian Group and says they were not involved in making the new video, which was directed by Bryan Buckley, who has created many Super Bowl ads.

To tease the video, Burger King planned to run ads in several major newspapers Sunday, including the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.

The campaign will not include TV ads.

As for whether Burger King planned to bring back the King character, another one of its famous advertising creations, Hirschhorn declined to say.

"I can't confirm or deny at this point," he said.

___

Follow Candice Choi at www.twitter.com/candicechoi


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

With ethanol fuel, no gas line antifreeze needed

This past winter I added gas line antifreeze and water remover when I refueled my car. Is this really necessary since gasoline is 10 percent ethanol?

No, adding a gas line antifreeze is not necessary when using ethanol-blended fuel. The ethanol — ethyl or grain alcohol — is an effective antifreeze/moisture remover so no additional additive is necessary. In fact, adding a gas line antifreeze on a regular basis can be too much of a good thing — excess alcohol in the tank can cause driveability issues.

Several years ago, the state of Oregon mandated the addition of ethanol in our fuel. Since that time we have had engine trouble with our 1994 Ford van with 150,000 miles on it running rough or hesitating when accelerating. Fuel additives helped in the past but not anymore. I found a gas station that sells ethanol-free fuel, and the van appears to run normally after my first tank of ethanol-free. Are older engines just not designed to handle ethanol, or does the fuel system need a periodic cleaning from now on? When traveling, finding ethanol-free fuel could be challenging.

Challenging? That's an understatement. Welcome to the world of alcohol-blended motor fuels. You are not the first, nor will you be the last, motorist to experience fuel system and drivability issues when switching from pure gasoline.

In Minnesota, we experienced these problems back in the '90s when ethanol was mandated in our fuel. In Florida, the same issues cropped up a couple of years ago when ethanol was added to its 
fuels. In these two states, non-alcohol fuels are available only from limited sources and are for use in recreational vehicles, small engines and collector vehicles, which helps those of us with older equipment and vehicles.

Alcohols are solvents. Thus the buildup over the years of moisture, varnish and other gunk in your vehicle's fuel tank is cleaned and carried through the fuel system. In addition, the lower energy content and higher volatility of alcohol may account for some of your drivability issues with your pre-OBDII engine management system. Modern vehicles are much more accommodating to these fuels.

I have a four-cylinder 2005 Hyundai Tucson I purchased new. It runs fine, but the mechanic suggested changing the timing belt at the recommended mileage interval or spend three or four thousand dollars in engine repair costs if it fails. What are the symptoms of impending timing belt failure?

There's the rub — there are no symptoms to impending timing belt failure. And since the 2-liter engine in your Hyundai is an interference engine — meaning the pistons can physically contact the valves if the timing belt fails — significant engine damage can occur.

Hyundai recommends timing belt replacement at 60,000-mile intervals under "normal" driving circumstances. Under "severe" service conditions, the replacement interval is 40,000 miles.

I bought a 2013 Nissan 370Z last November. The windshield and rear window have colors like glitter in the glass. The colors are brilliant like rainbow or diamond. It is very distracting on a sunny day. I've taken the car to the dealer twice and they said they cleaned the glass with glass cleaner but the colors remain. Any suggestions?

Nissan recommends the use of 0000-superfine steel wool to remove foreign material from windshield glass. They suggest fresh steel wool from an unopened bag to avoid contamination that could scratch the glass.

The fundamental issue is whether the "sparklies" are in, or on, the glass. While foreign matter on the glass is not a warranty item, defective glass may well be. Have the dealer try the Nissan-recommended cleaning procedure. If this doesn't "clear" the problem, ask them about warranty coverage for replacement.

Paul Brand, author of "How to Repair Your Car," is an automotive troubleshooter, driving instructor and former race-car driver. Readers may write to him at: Star Tribune, 425 Portland Ave. S., Minneapolis, Minn., 55488 or via email at paul brand@startribune.com.


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age

WASHINGTON — Two Supreme Court cases about police searches of cellphones without warrants present vastly different views of the ubiquitous device.

Is it a critical tool for a criminal or is it an American's virtual home?

How the justices answer that question could determine the outcome of the cases being argued Tuesday. A drug dealer and a gang member want the court to rule that the searches of their cellphones after their arrest violated their right to privacy in the digital age.

The Obama administration and California, defending the searches, say cellphones are no different from anything else a person may be carrying when arrested. Police may search those items without a warrant under a line of high court cases reaching back 40 years.

What's more, said Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, "Cellphones are now critical tools in the commission of crimes."

The cases come to the Supreme Court amid separate legal challenges to the massive warrantless collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency and the government's use of technology to track Americans' movements.

Librarians, the news media, defense lawyers and civil liberties groups on the right and left are trying to convince the justices that they should take a broad view of the privacy issues raised when police have unimpeded access to increasingly powerful devices that may contain a wealth of personal data: emails and phone numbers, photographs, information about purchases and political affiliations, books and a gateway to even more material online.

"Cellphones and other portable electronic devices are, in effect, our new homes," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that urged the court to apply the same tough standards to cellphone searches that judges have historically applied to police intrusions into a home.

Under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, police generally need a warrant before they can conduct a search. The warrant itself must be based on "probable cause," evidence that a crime has been committed.

But in the early 1970s, the Supreme Court carved out exceptions for officers dealing with people they have arrested. The court was trying to set clear rules that allowed police to look for concealed weapons and prevent the destruction of evidence. Briefcases, wallets, purses and crumpled cigarette packs all are fair game if they are being carried by a suspect or within the person's immediate control.

Car searches pose a somewhat different issue. In 2009, in the case of a suspect handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser, the court said police may search a car only if the arrestee "is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment" or if police believe the car contains evidence relevant to the crime for which the person had been arrested.

The Supreme Court is expected to resolve growing division in state and federal courts over whether cellphones deserve special protection.

More than 90 percent of Americans own at least one cellphone, the Pew Research Center says, and the majority of those are smartphones — essentially increasingly powerful computers that are also telephones.

In the two Supreme Court cases being argued Tuesday, one defendant carried a smartphone and the other an older and less advanced flip phone.

In San Diego, police found indications of gang membership when they looked through defendant David Leon Riley's Samsung smartphone. Prosecutors used video and photographs found on the smartphone to persuade a jury to convict Riley of attempted murder and other charges. California courts rejected Riley's efforts to throw out the evidence and upheld the convictions.

Smartphones also have the ability to connect to the Internet, but the administration said in its brief that it is not arguing for the authority to conduct a warrantless Internet-based search using an arrestee's device.

In Boston, a federal appeals court ruled that police must have a warrant before searching arrestees' cellphones. Police arrested Brima Wurie on suspicion of selling crack cocaine, checked the call log on his flip phone and used that information to determine where he lived. When they searched Wurie's home, armed with a warrant, they found crack, marijuana, a gun and ammunition. The evidence was enough to produce a conviction and a prison term of more than 20 years.

The appeals court ruled for Wurie, but left in place a drug conviction for selling cocaine near a school that did not depend on the tainted evidence. That conviction also carried a 20-year sentence. The administration appealed the court ruling because it wants to preserve the warrantless searches following arrest.

The differences between the two cases could give the court room to craft narrow rulings that apply essentially only to the circumstances of those situations.

The justices should act cautiously because the technology is changing rapidly, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in her court filing.

Harris invoked Justice Samuel Alito's earlier writing that elected lawmakers are better suited than are judges to write new rules to deal with technological innovation.

On the other side of the California case, Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, representing Riley, cited FBI statistics showing 12 million people were arrested in 2012. In California and elsewhere, he said, those arrests can be for such minor crimes as "jaywalking, littering or riding a bicycle the wrong direction on a residential street."

It shouldn't be the case, Fisher said, that each time police make such an arrest, they can rummage through the cellphone without first getting a judge to agree to issue a warrant.

The cases are Riley v. California, 13-132, and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/shermancourt


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

For North Dakota, drones a possible growth market

WASHINGTON — Forget the North Dakota energy boom. How about a drone boom?

State and federal officials have big hopes for the growth of what are known as unmanned aircraft systems. And North Dakota has positioned itself well to take advantage of its unique attributes: A first-of-its-kind academic program, an established military presence, a strong commitment from state and federal officials to find funding, and even the weather.

"North Dakota made a conscious decision, several years ago, that they wanted to focus on this," said Ben Gielow, general counsel for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a group that promotes unmanned systems and robotics. He added, "North Dakota is one of the leaders and a model that we point to."

The result is a growing footprint for a new and potentially lucrative business: According to a report compiled by AUVSI last year, drones have the potential to create more than 100,000 jobs and more than $80 billion in economic growth between now and 2025. Domestic drones could yield big rewards for states that invest now, said Greg McNeal, a law professor at Pepperdine University who researches drones.

"Basically, you're saying that you want to be a hub for technological development, that you want to be the new Silicon Valley," McNeal said. "And that Silicon Valley might be in North Dakota, but it might not be in a state like Texas because of anti-drone legislation."

Becoming a nexus of drone research could build on the state's oil prosperity. Drilling at the Bakken and Three Forks shale formations have led the state's oil production to surge over the past several years, bringing economic stability, population growth and low unemployment.

The push to make North Dakota a drone leader as well got a boost this month when Michael Huerta, the Federal Aviation Administration administrator, announced in Grand Forks that his agency had granted North Dakota a two-year certificate to begin flying small drone test flights. That's the first of six FAA-selected test sites to get such approval. North Dakota is one of six states, along with Alaska, Nevada, New York, Texas and Virginia, picked to research integrating drones into the civilian airspace.

The FAA does not yet allow the commercial use of drones, but is working on operational guidelines and has said as many as 7,500 small commercial drones could be flying within five years of getting widespread access to U.S. skies.

Grand Forks, the location of the FAA's approved test site, is at the center of the state's drone ambitions. The Air Force is expected in June to finalize a 50-year lease at Grand Sky, an aerospace and technology park in the city. That facility will be anchored by defense contractor Northrop Grumman Corp. With the FAA's designation, state officials and others hope to attract more investment and interest.

Privacy issues tend to hover over any discussion of investment in domestic drones. North Dakota has largely avoided a backlash by working on the issue proactively. When Gov. Jack Dalrymple set up a committee to oversee the Grand Forks site's operations, he included establishing public safety procedures and privacy restrictions as core goals.

John Villasenor, a UCLA professor and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said privacy issues chilled drone investment in some states, "but drones have many applications, such as crop spraying, that don't raise privacy concerns at all."

The first FAA-approved test flights next month will showcase that sort of use. The Draganflyer X4ES will fly over North Dakota State University's Carrington Research Extension Center. Missions are scheduled for the summer over Sullys Hill National Game Preserve near Devils Lake. In both cases, they will avoid private property and focus on research of agriculture-related uses.

NDSU's extension service is examining how drones can be used to improve seed applications, fertilizer and pesticide, which could potentially reduce costs and improve crop performance. The drones will also collect data designed to help look at how they can be integrated into commercial airspace.

While the state already had the University of North Dakota's first-of-its-kind unmanned aircraft degree program. Gielow also cited the presence of the Air Force's unmanned aircraft mission at the Grand Forks Air Force Base as a reason for the state's strong position.

North Dakota officials have also spent money to welcome drone research. The state put more than $14 million in the Grand Forks site, and the congressional delegation has consistently pitched federal officials that it would be a good home for drone research.

Then there is North Dakota itself. The weather provides a variety of test conditions, and the relatively small population and lack of commercial air traffic make it an attractive location to run test flights.

"For testing purposes, that is what you want," Gielow said.


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Tony Blair pressed on role he and George W. Bush played in growth of terrorism

Was the leadership of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush in the post-9/11 landscape in any way responsible for the growth of Islamic terrorism? That was the question posed by NBC's David Gregory to Blair on today's episode of Meet the Press, seen in the above video provided by The Daily Caller. 


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Microsoft fan goes Pro

I was wrong.

In February, I wrote of the MacBook Air and Pro that "neither laptop has wowed me enough to stay away from the Microsoft Store just yet."

Fast-forward two months to yesterday, when I took the plunge and bought a MacBook Pro.

I think I'd be remiss if I didn't deliver a Mac mea culpa, or at the very least, an update letting you know that in fact I did go to the Microsoft Store. Several times. After looking far and wide for the perfect laptop for work and life, yesterday I ponied up and purchased a 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display (refurbished). Thanks to a 12-month financing plan, I'll be paying it out over the next year with zero percent interest.

"Welcome to Mac. It's amazing here," texted my best friend, a professor of graphic design in Miami who epitomizes everything that's wrong with Mac-lovers with her frequent refrain, "If Apple made a toaster, I would buy it."

My husband is the other extreme — a Microsoft-loving software architect who winces if he should happen to touch my iPhone 5S.

And somewhere between those two is me: happy to try out the next new iDevice, but knowing full well that Apple's advantage stems as much from excellent self-promotion as it does from true innovation.

What pushed me over the edge was the ecosystem. Multimedia apps for photo- and video-editing have driven me to own an iPhone and iPad. So I've already partially invested in the world of iTunes and apps. After considering several touchscreen laptops, and even the Surface Pro 2 (biggest problem: it doesn't work on your lap), I couldn't find a Windows offering that wowed me enough to justify the inconvenience of straddling both worlds.

If I were what Microsoft terms a "power user" — someone who deals in the dense world of spreadsheets and databases — my considerations would have been different. In that case, there's little doubt I'd be rocking out with the Windows ecosystem and all its Microsoft Excel and Access glory. But if I don't need 30 years of legacy features, why buy 30 years of legacy features? Same goes for if I were a PC gamer — I'd be all Windows, all the time.

But I think I'm like most people in that my three main considerations were battery life, portability and price. Whether it was Toshiba or Lenova or Dell, Apple won in every head-to-head matchup on those three fronts.

The cost-benefit analysis also included the fact that we're an Xbox One household. But Microsoft made that one easy for me: I have the SmartGlass app and my iPhone becomes a remote. My choice of laptop doesn't make a difference in that equation.

And there's the fact that I love being able to peruse the headlines early in the morning, save articles to my "reading list" and go through them at my leisure on any device later in the day. A ton of these little conveniences come with choosing one ecosystem and sticking with it. It's no longer a question of "which laptop is for me," but which world do I live in?

And much like when a person decides which town to live in and house to buy, you're not saying that other places are bad.

Circumstances led you there, and I just joined a little town of Mac.


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Google: Driverless cars are mastering city streets

LOS ANGELES — Google says it has turned a corner in its pursuit of a car that can drive itself.

The tech giant's self-driving cars already can navigate freeways comfortably, albeit with a driver ready to take control. But city driving — with its obstacle course of jaywalkers, bicyclists and blind corners — has been a far greater challenge for the cars' computers.

In a blog entry posted Monday, the project's leader said test cars now can handle thousands of urban situations that would have stumped them a year or two ago.

"We're growing more optimistic that we're heading toward an achievable goal — a vehicle that operates fully without human intervention," project director Chris Urmson wrote.

Urmson's post was the company's first official update since 2012 on progress toward a driverless car, a project within the company's secretive Google X lab.

The company has said its goal is to get the technology to the public by 2017. In initial iterations, human drivers would be expected to take control if the computer fails. The promise is that, eventually, there would be no need for a driver. Passengers could read, daydream, even sleep — or work — while the car drives.

Google maintains that computers will one day drive far more safely than humans, and part of the company's pitch is that robot cars can substantially reduce traffic fatalities.

The basics already are in place. The task for Google — and traditional carmakers, which also are testing driverless cars — is perfecting technology strapped onto its fleet of about two dozen Lexus RX450H SUVs.

Sensors including radar and lasers create 3D maps of a self-driving car's surroundings in real time, while Google's software sorts objects into four categories: moving vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and static things such as signs, curbs and parked cars.

Initially, those plots were fairly crude. A gaggle of pedestrians on a street corner registered as a single person. Now, the technology can distinguish individuals, according to Google spokeswoman Courtney Hohne, as well as solve other riddles such as construction zones and the likely movements of people riding bicycles.

To deal with cyclists, engineers initially programmed the software to look for hand gestures that indicate an upcoming turn. Then they realized that most cyclists don't use standard gestures — and still others weave down a road the wrong way.

So engineers have taught the software to predict the behavior of cyclists based on thousands of encounters during the approximately 10,000 miles the cars have driven autonomously on city streets, Hohne said. The software projects a cyclist's likely movements and plots the car's path accordingly — then reacts if something unexpected happens.

"A mile of city driving is much more complex than a mile of freeway driving, with hundreds of different objects moving according to different rules of the road in a small area," Urmson wrote.

Before recent breakthroughs, Google had contemplated mapping all the world's stop signs. Now the technology can read stop signs, including those held in the hands of school crossing guards, Hohne said.

While the car knows to stop, just when to start again is still a challenge, partly because the cars are programmed to drive defensively. At a four-way stop, Google's cars have been known to wait in place as people driving in other directions edge out into the intersection — or roll through.

The cars still need work on other predictably common tasks. Among them, understanding the gestures that drivers give one another to signal it's OK to merge or change lanes, turning right on red and driving in rain or fog (which requires more sophisticated sensors).

And when will these and other problems be solved?

"You can count on one hand the number of years until people, ordinary people, can experience this," company co-founder Sergey Brin said in September 2012. He made the remarks at a ceremony where California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation legalizing the cars on public roads in the state.

To date, Google's cars have gone about 700,000 miles in self-driving mode, the vast majority on freeways, the company said.

California's Department of Motor Vehicles is in the process of writing regulations to implement that law. Nevada, Florida, Michigan and Washington, D.C., also have written driverless car laws.

Google has not said how it plans to market the technology. Options include collaborating with major carmakers or giving away the software, as the company did with its Android operating system. While Google has the balance sheet to invest in making cars, that likelihood is remote.

Traditional automakers also are developing driverless cars. Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said he hopes to deliver a model to the public by 2020.

___

Contact Justin Pritchard at https://twitter.com/lalanewsman


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More

Closing arguments delayed in Apple-Samsung trial

SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal court has delayed by a day closing arguments in the Apple and Samsung trial because of an appeals court ruling in another case on a related patent issue.

Dueling expert witnesses will be called back to the stand Monday in a San Jose, California, federal courtroom to discuss whether the ruling in a legal dispute between Apple and Motorola has any effect on the Apple and Samsung trial.

Lawyers will now deliver closing arguments Tuesday.

The Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. on Friday upheld a federal judge's legal definition of Apple's so-called "quick links" patent at issue in the dispute between Apple and Motorola.

Apple accuses Samsung of infringing the patent, which allows users to send phone numbers directly to a device's dialer.


00.33 | 0 komentar | Read More
techieblogger.com Techie Blogger Techie Blogger