Brazilian police to use 'Robocop-style' glasses at World Cup

Brazilian police will use futuristic 'Robocop-style' glasses fitted with facial recognition equipment to identify and root out troublemakers at the 2014 World Cup.

By Robin Yapp

A small camera fitted to the glasses can capture 400 facial images per second and send them to a central computer database storing up to 13 million faces.

The system can compare biometric data at 46,000 points on a face and will immediately signal any matches to known criminals or people wanted by police.

If there is a match a red signal will appear on a small screen connected to the glasses, alerting the police officer of the need to take further action or make an arrest.


The devices will soon be tested at football matches and concerts and police in Brazil, South America's biggest country, are already planning to use them during the next World Cup.

The camera will generally be used to scan faces in crowds up to 50 metres (164ft) away but can be adjusted, if searching for a specific target, to recognise faces as far as 12 miles away.

Military Police officials from Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, which will both host key games in the World Cup, have been given demonstrations of how the device works.

Major Leandro Pavani Agostini, of Sao Paulo's Military Police, said: "It's something discreet because you do not question the person or ask for documents. The computer does it.

"To the naked eye two people may appear identical but with 46,000 points compared, the data will not be beaten."

He said the device will be useful to police trying to monitor many different locations and events, ranging from airports and bus terminals to concerts and football matches.

"I can insert into the database a supporter who was involved in a brawl on the field and even with the old images, he can be located in the future," added the Major.

Robocop, the American film of 1987, told the story of a police officer who was killed by criminals but re-created as a cyborg with an array of weaponry and built-in zoom vision.

House votes to direct $100M in taxpayer dollars to religious private schools

by: Mike Daniels

Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives (many of whom were elected on promises of cost-cutting and budget-slashing) voted to direct $100M of your taxpayer dollars to prop up private religious schools in Washington, DC.

In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars — $100M per year over the next five years — are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.
More than 80 percent of students in the D.C. voucher program attend private religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

Church-state separatists and proponents of religious liberty were up in arms.
“This legislation is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “The D.C. voucher program uses millions of American taxpayer dollars to fund the religious training of thousands of District students who attend private, religious institutions that do not offer students an op-out option and are exempt from federal civil rights laws.”
“Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize religious proselytizing and discrimination,” Faircloth continued. “We urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation on the grounds that it is unjust and unconstitutional.”
“Speaker Boehner says we’re broke and have to slash federal spending,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “Yet, he’s willing to throw $20 million [per year] at religious and other private schools.”
Added Lynn, “This voucher scheme undermines public education and church-state separation.”
K. Hollyn Hollman, General Counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, explains why the BJC opposes vouchers. “While we affirm the right of parents to choose a religious education for their children, we oppose using public funds to support religion. Religious teachings should be funded by voluntary contributions, not through compulsory taxation. Voucher programs that provide tuition to religious schools violate the freedom of conscience of taxpayers who have the right to insist that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.”
Hollman continues with a related point which many organizations overlook. “In addition, government funding of religious education tends to jeopardize the autonomy of religious schools, bringing regulations or political pressures that threaten the schools’ religious character.”

Won’t Someone Please Think of the Children?

Hollman points out another serious problem with the program. “[Both a GAO study and a private study mandated by Congress] found various problems and little evidence of improved education. Specifically, the studies found that the participants did not come from the schools that were most in need of improvement, many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.”
Is Speaker Boehner thinking of the children, or the voting blocs?

Home Rule?

When the program was created in 2004, it had the support of DC’s Democratic leadership. Today, DC’s Democratic mayor, and its non-voting Delegate in the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, speak vehemently against extending the failed subsidy instead of directing funds to DC’s beleaguered public schools.
“Home rule means nothing if the District of Columbia can still be a dumping ground for every pet idea and pet project of the majority,” Norton said.
President Obama released a statement Tuesday strongly opposing the D.C. voucher program and urging Representatives to vote against it. The White House memo cited the Department of Education-commissioned study — indicating that minimal improvement in student performance had been observed with the program — as evidence that the program was a failure.
Obama stopped short of threatening a veto, suggesting his characteristic willingness to compromise.
The bill will now head to the U.S. Senate. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is a sponsor, which effectively ensures it will pass the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs . . . chaired by Lieberman. Whether it will pass the full Senate remains to be seen.

More Information: The Studies

Evaluation of the Impact of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final Report (2010)
This is the report commissioned by the Department of Education.
Full report (PDF)
Executive Summary (PDF)
From the Executive Summary:

There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement. On average, after at least four years students who were offered (or used) scholarships had reading and math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not offered scholarships (figure ES-2). The same pattern of results holds for students who applied from schools in need of improvement (SINI), the group Congress designated as the highest priority for the Program. Although some other subgroups of students appeared to have higher levels of reading achievement if they were offered or used a scholarship, those findings could be due to chance. They should be interpreted with caution since the results were no longer significant after applying a statistical test to account for multiple comparisons of treatment and control group members across the subgroups.

The program also did raise graduation rates among those who received scholarships by 12%, but their competencies (as noted above) did not improve. They merely didn’t drop out. (Speculation on my part — Because Mom and Dad were now paying partial tuition, and motivated to keep Junior in school?)
Also, the program raised parents’, but NOT students’ ratings of school safety and satisfaction.
The report also covers reasons why scholarships were not used. Primarily, they were not used because there was inadequate space at the preferred private school or the child was accepted in a (public) charter school.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM (GAO, 2007)
Full report (PDF, 98 pages)
Highlights (PDF, 1 page)
From the Highlights:

We found that WSF did not adhere to its own procedures for making scholarship payments, and WSF’s use of OSP funds to pay tuition for students attending schools that do not normally charge students tuition is not in accordance with the Act. Additionally, on the basis of a lack of documentation about whether before-and-after care included academic support, GAO was unable to determine if use of OSP funds to pay these fees was in accordance with the Act.
Despite recruitment efforts and efforts to inform parents of their choices, WSF faced challenges recruiting students from schools designated as in need of improvement, ensuring private school quality and placement opportunities, and providing parents with accurate information regarding private schools. Students who were offered scholarships generally reported income consistent with OSP’s financial eligibility standards, but, among students offered scholarships, students from schools in need of improvement were underrepresented relative to their presence in the population of District students. Although most private schools in the District officially participated in the program, the schools varied widely in the number of openings available to scholarship students, and few openings were available at the secondary level. The characteristics of participating schools varied, and some schools did not meet basic requirements to operate in the District, but the information WSF provided to parents to help them choose schools for children was not always complete and correct.

Emphasis added.
Note: WSF (Washington Scholarship Fund) was the vendor selected to operate the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.
Related articles:

1. Taxpayer Tithes: House Speaker uses budget deal to fund religious schools with your tax dollars
2. Take Action: Tell Congress to stop Federal funding of religious schools
3. ACTION ALERT: Bill Seeks to Restore Voucher Scheme, Taxpayer Subsidy for Religious Schools
4. Americans United chastises U.S. House for vote in favor of $100 Million private school voucher scheme
5. D.C. school vouchers: President Obama urges House to vote no

Seeing without looking

 

During the motion discrimination task the test subjects had to fixate their gaze at the square in the middle while reporting the direction of movement in the red circle. Credit: Image: Courtesy of Lee Lovejoy, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Like a spotlight that illuminates an otherwise dark scene, attention brings to mind specific details of our environment while shutting others out. A new study by researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies shows that the superior colliculus, a brain structure that primarily had been known for its role in the control of eye and head movements, is crucial for moving the mind's spotlight.

Their findings, published in the Dec. 20, 2009, issue of the journal Nature Neuroscience, add new insight to our understanding of how attention is controlled by the brain. The results are closely related to a neurological disorder known as the neglect syndrome, and they may also shed light on the origins of other disorders associated with chronic attention problems, such as autism or attention deficit disorder.

"Our ability to survive in the world depends critically on our ability to respond to relevant pieces of information and ignore others," explains graduate student and first author Lee Lovejoy, who conducted the study together with Richard Krauzlis, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Salk's Systems Neurobiology Laboratory. "Our work shows that the superior colliculus is involved in the selection of things we will respond to, either by looking at them or by thinking about them."

As we focus on specific details in our environment, we usually shift our gaze along with our attention. "We often look directly at attended objects and the superior colliculus is a major component of the motor circuits that control how we orient our eyes and head toward something seen or heard," says Krauzlis.

But humans and other primates are particularly adept at looking at one thing while paying attention to another. As social beings, they very often have to process visual information without looking directly at each other, which could be interpreted as a threat. This requires the ability to attend covertly.

It had been known that the superior colliculus plays a role in deciding how to orient the eyes and head to interesting objects in the environment. But it was not clear whether it also had a say in covert attention.

In their current study, the Salk researchers specifically asked whether the superior colliculus is necessary for covert attention. To tease out the superior colliculus' role in covert attention, they designed a motion discrimination task that distinguished between control of gaze and control of attention.

The superior colliculus contains a topographic map of the visual space around us, just as conventional maps mirror geographical areas. Lovejoy and Krauzlis exploited this property to temporarily inactivate the part of the superior colliculus corresponding to the location of the cued stimulus on the computer screen. No longer aware of the relevant information right in front of them the subjects instead based all of their decision about the stimulus' movement on irrelevant information found elsewhere on the screen.

"The result is very similar to what happens in patients with neglect syndrome," explains Lovejoy, who is also a student in the Medical Scientist Training Program at UC San Diego. "Up to a half of acute right-hemisphere stroke patients demonstrate signs of spatial neglect, failing to be aware of objects or people to their left in extra-personal space." "Our results show that deciding what to attend to and what to ignore is not just accomplished with the neocortex and thalamus, but also depends on phylogenetically older structures in the brainstem," says Krauzlis. "Understanding how these newer and older parts of the circuit interact may be crucial for understanding what goes wrong in disorders of attention."

Arizona Becomes First State To Pass Birther Bill

by Frank James

Arizona continues to lead where so far few other states appear willing to follow.
The state's House of Representatives passed by a wide margin a birther bill Thursday requiring presidential candidates to provide proof they were born in the U.S., becoming the first state to do so. The bill now awaits Gov. Jan Brewer's signature.
It's unclear whether she will sign it, veto it or just let it sit on her desk, in which case it would become law after five days.
The legislation, HB2177, would require presidential candidates to submit proof of U.S. birth. Arizona secretary of state would determine if the submitted documents proved a candidate's citizenship.
  If the candidate failed to produce documentation that satisfied the secretary of state, that official could keep them off the state ballot.
I'm not the only one who wonders if the Arizona law may have a constitutional problem since it arguably runs counter to the "full faith and credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
If an Hawaiian official, say, says a certain person was indeed born in that state, then it would seem Arizona would have to accept that statement. The Constitution also says it's up to Congress to decide what the rules are whereby states recognize records from other states.
The Arizona Republic reports that:

Supporters of the bill said it had nothing to do with Obama but is a way to assure Arizona voters that presidential candidates meet federal requirements for the position.

The reporter doesn't tell us if said supporters said this with a straight face or not.

The Republic also has good quotes from a couple of Arizona state lawmakers.

"It's essential that we bring back the integrity to the office," Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, said during a recent debate on one of the so-called "birther" measures.

Yes, there really is a place called Skull Valley, an unincorporated rural place of ranches with a two-room schoolhouse.
Another lawmaker, an opponent of the legislation, took the opportunity to not only slam his own state but another that was minding its own business.

Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, voted against the bill and said he was embarrassed by his fellow lawmakers.

"Arizona is the first state to pass a birther bill. We look pretty much backward," Gallego said. "You might as well change Arizona to Alabama."

Ouch.

New Views

Blogger.com blogs (such as this one) may now be seen in a variety of dynamic layouts:

Flipcard
Mosaic
Sidebar
Snapshot
Timeslide

Since this blog is not photo-based, some of them aren't quite useful. sidebar or timeslide are my personal favorites.

Happy? Statisticians Aren't Buying It

By CARL BIALIK

Governments, academics and pollsters are hot on the trail of happiness.

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron has launched an initiative to measure the national mood in a way that isn't captured by traditional economic statistics. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German legislators are looking into similar programs. U.S. government researchers and Gallup pollsters are asking hundreds of thousands of Americans each year how satisfied they are with their lives.

Gauging the Well Being of Happiness Measures

But statisticians' efforts to measure happiness are ridden with uncertainty. Around the world, people tend to describe themselves as happy even when they express many specific complaints and doubts about their lives or their government. Some economists say that even if a reliable happiness test could be devised, it would be risky to craft policy based on a broad metric. Instead, they say, happiness is more reliably reflected in things that are objectively measured, such as income, health and living conditions.

Simon Chapple, senior economist with the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development's social-policy division, has doubts about whether it is possible to measure how happiness is influenced by public policy. "This is an academic field in an enormous state of flux," Dr. Chapple says. "Controversy is still out there."

But other economists see little downside in the efforts. Richard Layard, an economist at the London School of Economics, is an advocate of trying to track happiness as "a basic measure of the progress of a society." Its subjectivity isn't a problem, in his view: "The most important things in life are subjective."

The U.K.'s effort to gauge the national mood shows how nascent the science is. Under Mr. Cameron's direction, the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics is looking at how to assess well being by soliciting feedback on Facebook and Twitter and in more than 100 public meetings around the country. The agency also posted a poll on its website asking how the government might best measure the people's mood. A tweet Friday asked, "Do you like singing and dancing? Could music affect #ukwellbeing?"

The meetings end next month, and the agency hopes to issue a first set of well-being indicators, including self-reported happiness and more objective measures, by the end of 2011.

The U.K. researchers are hoping to produce a measure that would be comparable with other countries. But researchers aren't sure whether national differences reflect true variations in happiness or merely point to linguistic and cultural differences. They note, for example, that Latin American countries routinely score higher than would be expected based on variables such as income, while Asian countries score lower.

Some happiness-survey skeptics point out another potential problem: People are, by and large, fairly happy, or at least say they are when surveyed. For instance, since 2005 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's massive Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone survey has asked respondents, "In general, how satisfied are you with your life?" Each year, at least 92% of respondents have said they are satisfied or very satisfied. That might be good news for the national mood, but it is less helpful for researchers probing what changes to public policy will improve people's well being. If so many people profess to be as happy as possible, there is little room for improvement.

Meanwhile, since 2008 Gallup has been polling Americans nearly every day about their mood, for its Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Through two national elections, a recession, war and natural disasters, the American mood has been fairly stable—"actually one of our most stable items when tracked over time, another reason why you need to look at more than just this one metric," says Dan Witters, a research director at Gallup. The national mood hit a low in February 2009, when job losses were steep; in that month, 87% of Americans said they were happy "a lot of the day yesterday." The peak, in June 2010, was 89%.

Since broad questions about happiness don't appear to do a good job of tracking changes in the national mood, researchers have found other ways to zero in on people's feelings. Gallup finds that when it asks specific questions about enjoyment, stress and worry, a more complicated picture emerges.

Joseph Stiglitz, the Columbia University economist who has advised Mr. Sarkozy on happiness measures, says governments and other researchers would be better off collecting and monitoring a range of data, both objective and subjective. "One shouldn't be inspired to have a single number," Mr. Stiglitz says.