[not able to retrieve full-text material] Find out about trade and professional companies (people). Today we rank them by members since Sept. 15.
Thursday, June 28, 2018|4:12 p.m.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.– A robotic with true expert system will attack area.
The large, round, plastic robotic head is part of SpaceX’s latest supply shipment to the International Space Station.
Friday’s pre-dawn liftoff likewise includes 2 sets of genetically similar female mice, 20 mousestronauts that will pick up where NASA’s identical twin brother astronauts ended a few years ago. Super-caffeinated coffee is also flying up for the space station’s java-craving crew.
As interesting as similar space brother or sisters and turbo-charged space coffee may be, it’s the German robot– called Cimon, pronounced Simon, after a genius medical professional in science fiction’s “Captain Future”– that’s taking the program.
Don’t fret about AI running amok on the spaceport station. Cimon’s human handlers guarantee the first AI space bot will behave. No mutinous takeovers like HAL from the 1968 film timeless “2001: An Area Odyssey.”
” He’s a friendly man and he has this hard power-off button,” German Space Company physicist Christian Karrasch, the project supervisor, informed The Associated Press on Thursday.
Like HAL, the self-governing Cimon is an acronym: it means Crew Interactive Mobile Buddy. Its AI brain is thanks to IBM.
German astronaut Alexander Gerst, who got to the orbiting laboratory a month ago, will introduce Cimon to area life during three one-hour sessions. Already smart about Gerst’s science experiments, the self-propelling Cimon will drift at the astronaut’s side and aid, when asked, with research study procedures.
Cimon has Gerst’s face and voice inscribed in its memory. So while the robotic could assist the 5 other station astronauts, it is best fit for Gerst, inning accordance with Karrasch.
To obtain Cimon’s attention, Gerst will require just to call its name. Their common language will be English, the official language of the spaceport station.
Next year, Italian astronaut Luca Parmitano will be Cimon’s orbital master. That’s when the AI scientists will dig more into mood.
As it is, Cimon smiles when it senses the discussion is upbeat and frowns when it’s sad. A little screen on the sphere functions as its face.
Throughout its open-ended remain on the spaceport station, Cimon should grow ever smarter and more well-informed, its system updated by means of IBM’s Cloud.
Researchers selected a ball instead of a humanoid face for Cimon due to the fact that they thought it would be less potentially disturbing or weird. Since it’s perfectly round– a little larger than a basketball– it’s also much safer, with no sharp edges that might damage spaceport station equipment or poke astronauts.
The whole project, barely two years in the making, was available in under 5 million Euros, or $5.8 million.
The real AI payoff will be when astronauts travel to the moon, Mars or other far-off locations. In a medical emergency situation, nobody will wish to wait 20 minutes for a call for help to reach Earth and after that another 20 minutes for recommendations to get back to the stricken crew, said NASA’s spaceport station program manager Kirk Shireman. An AI companion could supply instant help.
Cimon is suggested for additional brainpower, so it doesn’t have legs or arms. NASA’s humanoid Robonaut, on the other hand, lacked AI however was visualized as a Spiderman of sorts, its hands and feet developed for grabbing and climbing up. Its developers saw Robonaut as a prospective spacewalker, off in the future, that could venture outside for mundane jobs, conserving astronauts substantial time and threat.
Robonaut is back on Earth. It returned aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule in May after long bouts of lack of exercise and circuitry difficulty. When repaired, an enhanced Robonaut might fly back to the spaceport station.
The Associated Press Health & & Science Department gets assistance from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is entirely accountable for all material.
[not able to recover full-text material] For husband and wife R.J. Guideng and Audrey Nghiem, weding traditional values with modern-day innovation offers their dental practice a familial quality they depend on for success.
Sunday, Feb. 11, 2018|9:21 a.m.
NEW YORK– NBC has said sorry to South Koreans for an on-air remark by an analyst that mentioned Japan as an example that has been essential to the country’s own improvement.
The remark was made by analyst Joshua Cooper Ramo throughout NBC’s coverage of Friday’s opening ceremony. He was keeping in mind the significance of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit.
“Every Korean will tell you that Japan is a cultural and technical and economic example that has been so essential to their own change,” Ramo said.
An online petition quickly circulated demanding an apology, and NBC did on its NBCSN cable network Saturday and formally to the Pyeongchang Olympic organizing committee.
Japan inhabited Korea from 1910 to 1945. Petitioners stated anybody familiar with Japanese treatment of Koreans during that time would be deeply harmed by Ramo’s remark. They likewise slammed the precision of offering Japan credit for South Korea’s resurgence.
The petition had more than 10,000 supporters on Sunday.
“Our company believe that staying quiet is not a suitable reaction to such oblivious, insensitive, and damaging details that defies the very spirit of peace, harmony, and human dignity of the Olympics,” it said.
NBC said in a statement Sunday it was pleased that regional Olympic authorities accepted the apology. The network stated that South Korea and its Olympic organizers have actually been “remarkable hosts in every method.”
Ramo, a previous reporter sometimes magazine, is co-CEO at Kissinger Associates and had been employed momentarily by NBC to bring historical context to its protection. The network stated his task at the Olympics is now over.
Scott Sonner/ AP A gaming analyst said this week that Reno is in “the early phases of what is a very interesting expansionary cycle.”
Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2017|2 a.m.
. The city of Reno is poised for a long-term economic upswing, inning accordance with an expert from Union Gaming Research Study of Las Vegas.
“We have actually seen real estate costs really firm up,” said Union Video gaming analyst John DeCree on “Nevada Newsmakers” Monday. “That is constantly a great economic sign for the gambling establishment and show business.”
Construction tasks and property advancement stimulate more sustainable economic activity. “As big business come and create construction jobs, they bring population and migration to the city, which then requires housing development, then expansion of schools and other social services,” DeCree said.
“We remain in the early phases of exactly what is an extremely exciting expansionary cycle for Reno,” DeCree said. “Each action we take, the more economic development there is. And certainly, a casino is an entertainment alternative, and as the city gets bigger, more tourism comes. As more people reside in the city, the airport can then expand and include more direct service.”
DeCree stated the investment community seldom appears to look past a year or more, however Reno’s long-lasting potential customers are sound. “In 3 to 5 years (if we are) still in a high-growth cycle and if things keep going as they are, 10 to 20 years is something that might be practical. Let’s hope the international and U.S. economy type of steer the course, and I think Reno will keep leading away.”
Factors in his assessment of Reno’s growth capacity– particularly for video gaming companies– include:
– The “Tesla effect,” development in jobs and incremental business travelers developed by big business such as Tesla, Switch, Apple and Google.
– Home-grown and well-schooled sets of family executives from the Farahi and Carano families, operators of King and the Reno-based Eldorado Resorts.
– Progress made by video gaming executives and the Reno Stimulates Convention and Visitors Authority in seeking more conferences and convention service.
Union Video gaming just recently updated shares of Monarch Gambling establishment & & Resort Inc.– the parent company of Reno’s Atlantis Resort & & Spa– from a hold score to a buy ranking.
A sky bridge links the Atlantis resort with the Reno-Sparks Convention Center. The Eldorado is also strategically based to make the most of conferences and convention service, DeCree said.
The Reno video gaming community’s midweek tourist downturn is being aggressively resolved by the authority’s marketing for meetings and conventions, DeCree said.
“Reno, in general, is starting to deal with (midweek concerns),” DeCree stated. “The convention authority is under new management, really well-directed, and we are pretty excited about the chances ahead.”
contact) Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017|2 a.m. As an environmental engineer and a specialist in energy policy, Samantha Gross is no fan of climate-change deniers who see no factor
to decrease greenhouse gases. But Gross, a Brookings Organization fellow in foreign policy, likewise disagrees with far-left activists who tout solar and wind energy as a simple answer to international warming.
The response to climate change and energy is complicated, Gross said, and lies somewhere deep in between those extremes. One size does not fit all, as renewable energy works better in some locations than others and all sources have some negative impact on the environment.
“No one wishes to deal with the complicated middle where we’re going to need to find ways to change the huge energy system to make it run differently,” she said.
Tonight at UNLV, Gross will go over the intricacies of worldwide climate policy and the results of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of President Barack Obama’s efforts to suppress global warming. Her hourlong lecture, entitled “Paris Arrangement 101,” is arranged for 6 p.m. at Greenspun Hall and is open to the general public.
Gross, a former U.S. Department of Energy administrator, took a seat Tuesday with the Sun to preview her discussion and talk about topical issues on climate change, renewable resource and more. Edited excerpts of the discussion follow:
Let’s start with the news last week that President Donald Trump prepared to rescind the Clean Power Strategy. What do you view as the implications of that?
It was clearly going to take place, based on campaign guarantees and based upon the kind of folks in EPA. But the thing that’s interesting about rescinding the Clean Power Plan is the EPA is (lawfully) needed to control greenhouse gases and CO2. So in this process of rescinding or drawing back the Clean Power Strategy, they haven’t recommended anything to change it. So you have 20-odd states who are suing versus the Clean Power Plan. The other 20-odd states are now going to sue due to the fact that the Clean Power Plan was drawn back. So this is going to end up being a little bit of a legal food battle.
And what’s going to be intriguing to see is what the administration does next. They have to do something, however will they propose something quite weak? Will they slow stroll?
As far as the emissions ramifications of it, it’s going to make a difference state by state. Some states have state policies (to minimize CO2) or don’t have a lot of coal anyway, so they weren’t going to be that constrained by the Clean Power Strategy, whereas in others it will probably make a difference.
So it depends on the sort of electrical power generation mix that states started with what does it cost? of a distinction it will make that it’s not there.
In a recent editorial, the New york city Times argued that deserting the Clean Power Plan was ridiculous not just ecologically but financially. Do you agree?
I do typically agree with that. I believe the arguments that rescinding the Clean Power Strategy will be an advantage for the economy are not truthful. You’re definitely seeing declines in expenses of renewable energy– in solar and wind. You’re seeing solar and wind technology improve such that there are other ways to offer a few of the grid services that huge power plants supply– things like keeping voltage constant.
I say this all over I go: The EPA had practically absolutely nothing to do with eliminating coal. Two things have actually killed coal and coal jobs. One is really inexpensive natural gas– the shale gas revolution has actually resulted in gas prices that are way lower than anyone expected a few years earlier. And the important things that’s truly killed coal jobs is mechanization. You can mine a lot more coal per employee than you utilized to. So even if coal need were to increase, you would not necessarily bring all those tasks back.
That’s a really frustrating part of this. You look at the Trump administration and its promises to coal miners, and I get that individuals– particularly in Appalachia– are hurting. However I do not think guaranteeing to bring coal back is a sincere way to help those people, due to the fact that I don’t think it can be done.
When Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris arrangement, you described it as a “actually sad day.” Why?
There was truly no need for us to withdraw from Paris. It was sort of a meaningless exercise.
If you look at the way the Paris accord was structured, the goals that the various countries set and brought to Paris are not binding. We didn’t absolutely, die-hard promise we ‘d do those things; that was simply what we said we were going to aim to do. So it just didn’t need to take place.
Among the other things that I discovered actually unfortunate, especially in the talk that President Trump gave in the Rose Garden, is that he resumed a great deal of concerns that were truly bothersome in past environment arrangements and that Paris was structured to get around.
He stated several times, China doesn’t need to do anything, and China can run coal plants and we can’t, those sorts of declarations. And that reopened a few of the old developed vs. developing world, developed nations vs. lower developed nations. And that was really what made Kyoto problematic and replacing Kyoto problematic.
I’ll speak about this Wednesday night, but both sides had affordable arguments. No one was wrong, it’s simply that the Earth doesn’t care. It does not matter who’s right, we simply have something we have to do.
So there had been movement toward the middle.
There was. And what occurred at Paris, which is exactly what truly changed the thinking and the underlying structure of international environment arrangements, is that rather of it being top-down, they said each nation will bring exactly what it can do. They established exactly what were called Nationally Figured out Contributions. They were all structured differently. Some of them were just, “We’ll reduce our emissions’ intensity,” a few of them were, “We’ll definitely lower our emissions by this much.” They all came in different tastes, but they included them together and that became the Paris agreement. So it was BYOG (bring your own objectives.)
So a mix of that and the reality they were nonbinding made it possible for 195 nations to sign on, which is impressive.
But the mix of those things– inform us exactly what you can do, and we’re going to hold you to keeping track of and reporting what you’re doing, however we’re not going to hold you to your goals– that made for something everyone could sign. And it was totally different from exactly what the world had done before.
At the National Clean Energy Top last week here in Las Vegas, Al Gore revealed optimism that the U.S. would satisfy its Paris objectives in spite of Trump’s action. Are you as positive?
I believe the objectives are going to be challenging. The Clean Power Strategy was among the signature policies to allow us to satisfy those goals, and having us draw back is going to be a problem.
Some states will fulfill the goals and go even more, and some will not without pushing.
The wild card would be expense of renewables and whether it will continue to come down.
Which is the factor he mentioned, largely.
If that continues to take place, and if you can create economical grid-scale storage, then whatever changes. That gets rid of a few of the intermittency (in power supply). The issue now is you need to have fossil fuel plants in reserve to cover when it’s dark or when it’s not windy.
But you have actually raised a caution flag concerning those who suggest that by 2050 we can relatively quickly or inexpensively switch over to totally wind and solar energy. Why do you believe that’s improbable?
The idea of restricting yourself to a little number of technologies– we’re only going to do wind, solar and water– why would you do that? Exactly what we’re doing today is dealing with a lot of innovations and how far we can push them and exactly what we can do most inexpensively. Different innovations are going to work much better in different places. Therefore restricting yourself to wind and solar, I kind of have to roll my eyes to that.
Affordable storage is the grail. If somebody fractures that nut quicker rather than later, you can get the rollout quicker.
Right now, it’s just costly. You consider what does it cost? battery you require for a phone versus how much you need for an automobile, and it begins getting costly at the vehicle scale. Then you scale that approximately grid-scale storage, and you’re yapping of batteries and it gets really expensive.
What other type of innovations should we be exploring more?
In the U.S., we remain in a little bit of a bad put on nuclear advancement.
However there’s a great deal of effort going into advancement here and all over the world on smaller sized, more modular reactors, and that has some capacity. Not everyone loves nuclear power, however as a consistent, carbon-free source of electrical energy I do not believe we must count it out.
That’s a tough sell in Nevada, since of Yucca Mountain.
The waste is a real bear.
You understand, obviously, if there was a totally free lunch on all this, we ‘d be consuming it. I imply, what do we do with hazardous waste versus can we handle the carbon?
Well, take lithium mining for batteries. That has an impact, too, in water use and prospective ecological damage, right?
Right. And if you look at a focused solar plant, you need to cool that, and that’s substantial water use.
I feel like on this problem, the more you know the more questioning you end up being and the more you realize you do not know.
I see a lot of young activists out there, and I enjoy them and like their energy, however on the other hand there’s this thought of “This is so simple, and why do not you just do this?” And I wish that were the case– actually I do.
It’s a fascinating problem, since I see two sides of things and I have significant problems with both. On the one side, you see environment deniers, consisting of a lot of individuals in our administration. This isn’t a genuine problem, it’s going to kill our economy, it’s not something we must be handling. But then on the far other side you hear, this is simple, why don’t we simply speak about wind and solar, and only reason we’re not doing this is the nonrenewable fuel source lobby. And those individuals are harmful, too. They’re not assisting the argument, either, when the solution is in the middle.
And I feel that far-lefty argument sort of takes the individual duty out of it. If it’s ExxonMobile’s fault, then it’s not mine. I don’t like that, since it’s all of our fault. I indicate, I flew here, and I rented a vehicle because it’s the most convenient way to get around.
Nobody wishes to deal with the complex middle that we’re going to need to find ways to change the huge energy system to make it run differently, to make our activities go differently.
So understanding exactly what you know– or maybe understanding what you have no idea– how positive are you?
I’ll address your question in 2 different directions.
The one direction exists will not be a U.S. hole. There are all these things going on in the U.S. that aren’t occurring at the federal level. They’re not our main agents to the Paris procedure, but they’re out there. They’re cooperating with their counterparts in other countries and within the U.S., which is fantastic.
So it’s not like all activity in the United States stopped.
My other avenue of optimism is that the Paris contract’s in location, and we have actually had the world agree on directionally what we ought to do. It doesn’t get us all the method to where we have to be, however it’s something– which’s huge. We’ve set aside the old, nasty fight of developing vs. industrialized world for the a lot of part. And exactly what you’re seeing now is the development of smaller sized groups who are really dealing with particular problems. Which’s where development is going to take place. The U.N. isn’t going to mandate some sort of renewable resource target. But smaller groups of individuals can do experiments and actually discover how things work.
What will be a few of the key points in your discussion?
One of the things I haven’t discussed, which I believe I’ll open the talk with, is why is climate change so hard?
I deal with an international company called the Hartwell Group, and one of the men at the head of that group explains this as a “wicked” issue. And I truly like that description. Since if you were to sit down and design a public policy problem, you could not make one that was much worse.
It strikes at the very heart of the contemporary economy. It’s whatever we do. So you have to make strong actions now that have clear costs but have unpredictable advantages in the future. The expenses are here and now, the advantages are diffuse and later.
And after that you have the issue that environment modification does not fit well into the political cycle. We have 2-, four- and six-year cycles here in the U.S., and it doesn’t fit together well in the time frames where political leaders are elected. Which makes it really hard. They can state, “We’re going to make this improvement for our kids and our grandkids,” however politicians do not get elected for people’s kids and grandkids, they’re elected to fix bread-and-butter problems now.
Then you include this war of the worlds thing with the established vs. developing world. The establishing world states, “You produced the problem,” which is true, and the developed world states, “Well, you’re the future of the problem,” which is also true.
So no easy answers tonight?
I think it’s important to examine why the circumstance is so complicated. You know, there are solar panels on this building (Greenspun Hall)– so individuals who come here may say, “Why doesn’t everybody do that, and we’ll be done?”
Well, there are specific sectors that are more difficult. When we go deeper and deeper, it’s going to get harder and harder.
I’ll likewise talk a little about why am I more and less distressed about the Trump administration’s choice to pull out of Paris. I’m even more troubled on the global front than the domestic front. I think it’s horrible for our track record abroad. You look at other deals we might wish to do– trade deals, maybe, or North Korea. We do not look like a reliable partner. Would you do a deal with us? We’re reneging on all type of offers.
On the domestic front, we’re OKAY. A lot of individuals care, and things are happening. And we have among the very best research and development sectors on the planet, which is not always thinking on a four-year cycle. So that things all continues.
Exactly what didn’t I ask that I should have?
The one thing I stress over with the administration, and which I aim to tell every audience I talk to everywhere, is early research study and development. If you take a look at what the federal government is well-suited to do, early research study and development. That’s an extremely natural, main federal government function, from a financial and technical viewpoint. You think about innovative business, they’ll take technology and run with it. However that actually early stage, it’s too risky for business to do and it’s also really challenging if they make a significant science breakthrough to catch all the value from it. So private market’s simply bad at that. Universities do it. Things like the nationwide laboratories do it. And a lot of the money for those projects is federal.
Ernest Moniz (former Energy secretary) mentioned the very same concern recently at the National Top of Clean Energy.
Ernie’s one of the most intelligent people I have actually ever met. I’m in One Hundred Percent agreement. If I take a look at what I want to ensure the administration continues, that basic R&D, we have to continue doing that. It would be a horrendous embarassment, not simply for the environment but for our economy if we stopped doing that.
It’s what we’re good at.
Where are we on that funding?
I saw some bad signs at the beginning, but I do not believe they’re always going to happen. Like, you look at the slim budget that came out months back, and it was horrifying. They took a great deal of things out of the budget plan, especially for the Department of Energy. They did some defunding for various nationwide laboratories; they totally defunding ARPA-E (Advanced Research Study Projects Agency-Energy), which is an early stage energy financing mechanism based on DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Firm), which created the web. So that’s crazy. But I don’t believe Congress desires that to take place, and I do not believe it will.
But assistance for that early stage science, we have to keep doing that.
When industrial capacity from this early phase science ends up being clear, someone will get it and run with it. Google didn’t create the internet; DARPA did. But once it ended up being clear that loan can be made from it, people will be all over it.
[unable to recover full-text content] Find out about trade and expert companies. Today, we rank them by number of private members since Oct. 1 …
[not able to recover full-text content] Discover trade and expert companies. This week, we rank them by number of member companies as of Oct. 1 …
Friday, Oct. 6, 2017|3:58 p.m.
Las Vegas shooter Stephen Craig Paddock’s anti-social personality will only hamper detectives as they try to figure to piece together what caused the shooting.
“It’s very difficult,” said Erroll Southers, the director of homegrown violent extremism studies at the University of Southern California.
“The absence of a social media footprint is likely intentional,” Southers said. “We’re so utilized to in the first 24 to 2 Days having the ability to review social networks posts. If they don’t leave us a note behind or a manifesto behind, and we’re not seeing that, that’s exactly what’s making this longer.
“What’s actually confusing is that we’ve seen him with comparable sort of activity– reserving rooms in other places– so you need to ask yourself the factor he selected Las Vegas and not somewhere else.”
Paddock fired indiscriminately Sunday from his upper-level room at the Mandalay Bay hotel casino at people participating in a c and w celebration below, eliminating dozens and injuring nearly 500 people. The 64-year-old Paddock killed himself as authorities closed in.
Because so few people knew Paddock well, investigators will likely have an even more difficult time arranging through his background to aim to discover any possible leads, Southers stated.
“You do not have any cases of leakage– no one to state who’s he mad at, what his intention is,” Southers stated. “The key to this case right now is the girlfriend.”
“The reason you wish to take part in a fear attack is you wish to accentuate an extremist ideology, you want publicity,” he said. “You desire people to be afraid of what you believe what you do.”
Aon to acquire leading real estate investment consultant Townsend Group; extending leadership position in financial investments Acquisition reinforces Aon’s position as a leading international expert services firm providing threat, retirement and health options
Aon, a global professional services firm providing a broad variety of risk, retirement and health solutions, accepted obtain The Townsend Group, majority-owned by Nest NorthStar Inc., a worldwide property and financial investment management firm.
London-based Aon is to spend for $475 million for Cleveland-based Townsend subject to particular purchase cost adjustments. No other financial terms were revealed by Aon.
NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. paid $383 million in January 2016 for its 84% interest in Townsend Group– valuing the business then at $455 million.
Townsend offers worldwide investment management and advisory services mostly focused on real estate. This deal will bolster Aon’s offering in alternative personal market assets, reflecting the increasingly essential role they have in client portfolios.
With the integration of Townsend’s options into its financial investment organisation, Aon will broaden its financial investment capabilities considerably, that include contracted out primary financial investment officer (OCIO) services and advisory services for large and mid-sized worldwide organizations.
Aon’s Financial investment organization presently handles more than $100 billion of around the world assets1 and encourages on $4.2 trillion of properties internationally for more than 2,500 clients all over the world.
Townsend encourages on $175.7 billion in worldwide properties and manages $14.5 billion in properties. The firm’s customers consist of a lot of the world’s leading worldwide financiers in The United States and Canada, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
“We mored than happy to have a large number of quality companies that wanted to partner with us, but it was the commonness of culture, approach and competence that led us to Aon,” stated Terry Ahern, CEO of Townsend Group.
Ahern will continue to lead property and genuine possession financial investment services as part of Aon’s Global Retirement & & Financial investment company.
“The divestiture of Townsend is certainly bittersweet for Nest NorthStar,” stated Richard B. Saltzman, president and CEO of Colony NorthStar, “but we’re extremely delighted that the gifted Townsend team has actually found an excellent new house with Aon. Townsend is an excellent non-core tradition NorthStar company, however by the closing of the Nest Capital/NorthStar merger in January of this year, it ended up being clear that the marketplace perceived a dispute with Colony’s institutional investment management service. For these reasons, Colony NorthStar’s sale of Townsend to Aon is a winning outcome for all 3 companies.”
Morgan Stanley & & Co. LLC functioned as special financial advisor for the deal.
The deal is anticipated to close over the next six months, based on traditional closing and worked out conditions.