Saturday, November 26, 2016

US auto industry installed 135,000 robots and added 230,000 jobs







In the last six years, (2010–2015), according to the IFR (International Federation of Robotics), US industry has installed around 135,000 new industrial robots. The principal driver is automation in the car industry. During this same period, (2010–2015), the number of employees in the automotive sector increased by 230,000.




This news affirms the conclusions of a study conducted by the market research firm, Metra Martech, "Positive Impact of Industrial Robots on Employment," that there will be growth in robot use over the next five years resulting in the creation of one million high quality jobs around the world.  "Robots, in addition to the auto industry, will help to create jobs in some of the most critical industries of this century: consumer electronics, food, solar & wind power, and advanced battery manufacturing to name just a few."



“The rapid rise of robot use in the United States is impressive for several reasons,” said Jeff Burnstein, President of Robotic Industries Association.




  1. The industry's largest user, the automotive industry, has accelerated its purchases of robots and at the same time created more jobs in the manufacturing process.  

  2. There has been strong growth in the use of robots in general industry, as robots further penetrate industries such as life sciences, warehousing, and semiconductor and electronics manufacturing.

  3. The use of robots is rising in small and medium sized companies who see robotics as a key factor in improving productivity and product quality in order to stay globally competitive.  We expect these trends to continue well into the future.



According to the International Federation of Robotics, car manufacturers and component suppliers will continue to be heavy users of robots. In addition, more and more new companies specialized in electric or autonomous vehicles are starting up in the United States and are in need of modern and efficient production facilities. The electronics industry continues to be the fastest-growing emerging industry for industrial robots in the United States (2014-2015 = +41%). Increasing numbers of orders can also be expected from the metals and machinery industry, the rubber and plastics industry, the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry, and the food and beverage industry.


Read more

Overwatch's 1v1 Mode to Be Expanded, Blizzard Hoping to Reintroduce Support Heroes

Overwatch Lucio 555x328


Those of you who love the intense intimacy of Overwatch's 1v1 mode will be happy to hear that Blizzard are looking to expand the game type. According to Jeff Kaplan, the game's director, the current state of 1v1 is “just the first expression of what [Blizzard wants] to try in the 1v1 space.” He took to the Battle.net forums to reveal more of what's planned:


We have lots of ideas for other 1v1 modes. Mystery Duel was just the first expression of what we want to try in the 1v1 space.


Also, eventually in Custom Game you'll be able to do a 1v1 with your friends where you can select the hero pool (meaning the available pool of random heroes that Mystery Duel chooses from). This is a feature we're actively working on right now.


Kaplan also responded to fan queries regarding the removal of certain characters. Heroes that caused issues when moved into the 1v1 format had been made unavailable:


We removed Lucio because the battles (if played a certain way) would always end in a draw. Also, when we buffed Mercy, she ran into a similar situation.


We have some other ideas to solve these problems that we're going to try in future iterations. Hopefully, if those changes are successful, we can bring Lucio back.


Also, we just discovered a bug that causes Ana to almost never show up in a 1v1 match (well, she has shown up twice since we patched). That bug will be fixed soon so you'll be seeing more of Ana.


What do you make of these changes? Are you hoping that Lucio returns to dominate in 1v1?


In other Overwatch news, actor Terry Crews has expressed his desire to voice new character Doomfist. Also, the recent PS4 Pro patch was detailed, along with an update that the game's “First Strike” novel has been canned.


[Source: Battle.net (1) (2) via Power Up Gaming]


The post Overwatch's 1v1 Mode to Be Expanded, Blizzard Hoping to Reintroduce Support Heroes appeared first on PlayStation LifeStyle.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Judge Refuses To Block NY No-Selfie Ballot Law Because It Would 'Create Havoc To Not Enforce It'


Our long national nightmare that has been this election cycle is nearly over. Election day is approaching and early voting has begun, which means you've probably already seen your social media connections happily and proudly posting about their votes. This is a good thing for democracy, in my opinion, as celebrations of participation can only encourage others to participate as well. Yet not everyone is on board with this social media pride. We had already discussed New Hampshire's law against so-called ballot selfies, in which people post their completed voting ballots to social media. That law was struck down as unconstitutional, because of its restriction on the most important form of speech, political speech.



But, as you may know, New Hampshire isn't the only state to pass such a law -- in fact lots of states have them, including New York. As in other states, New York's is being challenged in federal court at present. Three voters sued in October to get enforcement of the law blocked. The judge in the case, however, has refused to issue such an order, claiming that to do so would sow confusion on election day.




U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote.




It's an odd bit of reasoning. What Castel is saying is that ordering non-enforcement of this law -- doing nothing, in other words -- would create more havoc than actually tasking law enforcement with enforcing it. How is that remotely possible? Doing nothing cannot possibly create more problems than doing something. Doing nothing is doing nothing, after all. What havoc could come from local law enforcement sitting idly by as people proudly share that they voted on social media?



When one takes into account that this is a matter of free political speech, so too does Castel's suggestion that the public benefit outweigh's those of the plaintiff's seem odd. The public is the one that would benefit from not enforcing a law that has had a similar version of it already declared unconstitutional in another state. Other states have had the courts all over the map on this question, with California also seeing a refusal to stop enforcement of its ballot selfie law, while states like Indiana and New Hampshire have had those laws struck down.



It seems this may be headed for the Supreme Court, where we'll hopefully have a full roster of justices ready to make a ruling on selfies at the ballot box.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Daily Deal: Windscribe VPN

Windscribe VPN is a VPN, desktop application and browser extension that work together to protect your online privacy, unblock websites, and remove ads and trackers that follow you across the websites you visit every day. $19 gets you one year of access with unlimited data and on unlimited devices (other subscription lengths are available in the store as well). Windscribe does not keep logs, and you can read their privacy policy for more information.



Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Adobe Asked Google To Censor Techdirt's Story On How Adobe's DRM Got Cracked

Another day, another example of copyright being a tool for censorship. MarkMonitor is one of the largest companies out there in the "IP protection" business -- and they also have a decently long history of filing bogus DMCA notices. And in one of its recent ones... they targeted a Techdirt news story. You see, three years ago, our own Tim Cushing wrote a little story about how Adobe launched its Creative Cloud subscription offering and had the DRM on it cracked within 24 hours. It was a fun (yet all too predictable) story.



And apparently Adobe/MarkMonitor would like it to disappear from the web. With copyright. Here's the actual DMCA notice filed by MarkMonitor on behalf of Adobe:



Google, thankfully, has a team who reviews these things and rejected the demand. Of course, Adobe/MarkMonitor isn't really trying to censor a story that makes fun of Adobe. That's just collateral damage for the shitty job they do in trying to "protect copyright" by running automated scans. Who knows what actually set this one off, but likely some sort of combination of "creative cloud" and "cracked" -- and then (unlike Google, who actually bothers to review this stuff), MarkMonitor just sent it off without any actual human review.



So, yes, any "censorship" that came out of this would likely have been accidental, but just because censorship is accidental, it doesn't mean that it's inconsequential. The fact that companies that hire MarkMonitor have been rushing around demanding more automated takedown systems, and ridiculous notions like "notice and staydown" that would have created even more harm should be a warning as to why those ideas are a dangerous path.



Oh, and coincidentally, just as this was happening, MarkMonitor had a PR person reach out to see if an exec could speak to me on an unrelated (and uninteresting) story. I've asked them for a comment on their use of copyright to try to censor one of our stories instead. If I hear back, I'll add an update here... Update: And... here's the response from MarkMonitor:

We would like to assure you that MarkMonitor in no way condones censorship, nor does it intentionally take any action that would result in same. Our actions focus on enforcing brand infringements on behalf of our clients and acting in their best interests. In this case, the site in question came into our result set erroneously but the process we have with the search engines ensured that it was not taken down and is still live now.

I like how they claim that it's MarkMonitor's process that stopped the site from being blocked, rather than Google staffers looking over MarkMonitor's bogus takedown notice and saying "nah."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Is Your Bigoted, Luddite Uncle Crafting Internet Policy In Europe?

A few weeks ago, we were greatly troubled to see the ridiculous copyright policy come out of the EU Commission. The whole thing seemed like a really bad joke. It was a law basically designed to destroy entrepreneurship and startups on the internet, and to basically forcibly take money from large internet companies and give them to failing legacy media companies that had refused to innovate. It seemed to go against what basically everyone (other than those legacy companies) had been telling the European Commission. And it seemed to directly violate what the European Commission itself had said about its plans. The inclusion of things like forcing any company to install filters, the plans to require specific business models at the regulatory level, and the idea that sites should have to pay those they link to are all ridiculous.



What almost everyone involved in the process made clear, was that this whole thing was driven by one guy: Gunther Oettinger a former tax lawyer who was appointed the European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society a few years ago, despite the fact that he's not a fan of the internet at all. If you pay any attention at all to EU politics, you may have heard the name Gunther Oettinger quite a bit lately. That's because he got caught making a series of remarks that were bigoted, racist, sexist and homophobic (he hit basically everything). He made fun of the Chinese, using racist terminology. He made fun of women in the government. He mocked gay marriage. He was on quite a roll.



Oh, and then he absolutely refused to apologize for a while:

Gunther Oettinger: Everything has been said. There is nothing to apologise for.



Euroactiv's James Crisp: But there is a big scandal.



Oettinger: There is no scandal.

Of course, as more and more publications around the globe started talking about it he finally was forced to release a statement with a carefully worded apology:

I had time to reflect on my speech, and I can now see that the words I used have created bad feelings and may even have hurt people. This was not my intention and I would like to apologise for any remark that was not as respectful as it should have been.

Of course, at this time, Politico has also released a big profile on what they refer to as Oettinger's "strange career." The article notes that this little bigoted outburst is not a surprise and considered no big deal to his supporters -- a columnist from his hometown describes it as "That's just how our Oetti is," in the same way you brush off your annoying bigot of an uncle at family gatherings with his horrible opinions. Except this bigoted uncle is setting serious policy issues across Europe -- and ones that can have a major, major impact on the internet and freedom of expression, despite an almost ridiculous ignorance of technology -- something he almost seems to take glee in not caring about.



From the article:

Back in 2014, Brussels didn't have high hopes for him when he shifted from energy to take over the digital economy portfolio. He could be curt, tearing up his notes if he deemed a subject unworthy of his attention. In the often pretentious world of Brussels officialdom, he came across as unintellectual and unserious - more likely to obsess over cars or football than trade deals or European Union directives.



To make matters worse, as a die-hard Luddite, he seemed uniquely unqualified for his new position. His more tech-savvy boss, Commission Vice President for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip, was at ease on social media or on the trendiest apps, like Pokemon Go.



Oettinger, as he told the crowd at his now-infamous Hamburg speech last week, preferred an old-fashioned newspaper to Twitter and document printouts to a tablet or iPhone. As he settled into his office, his aides rushed to install a computer and carry away piles of paper stacked precariously on every available surface.



In the 22 months since his appointment, Oettinger has changed little. He continues to express more interest in breakthroughs in the automotive industry than the more abstract areas of his portfolio, such as data flows or ICT standards. His home in Brussels, he told a group of reporters and tech lobbyists recently, is not set up for Wi-Fi - something he attributes to his long hours at the office. At home, he prefers “a nice bottle of Bordeaux” to a broadband connection, he added.

And yet... he's the guy in charge of crafting digital/internet and copyright policy in the EU. How does this make any sense at all? Now, there's something to be said for sometimes having an outsider's view on things, and no one's arguing that he needs to come from the internet industry or anything like that. But Oettinger not only seems to not understand and not care about the internet, but he also seems to have no problem playing political favoritism with old legacy industries where he has friends -- especially industries who have been impacted by innovation and failed to embrace the internet.


While Ansip has struggled to push forward his ambitious agenda centered around breaking down digital barriers, often referred to as geo-blocking, Oettinger has used his negotiating skills to deliver for his allies in industry, like the German publishing sector, a series of high-profile victories.



During the summer, he strong-armed his way into negotiations on boosting European startups, infuriating his more innovation-focused colleagues. Before that, he bulldozed past Vodafone to accept a plan that would keep some power over German copper network cables in the hands of giant Deutsche Telekom.



So we're left with your nutty, bigoted, luddite uncle... and put him effectively in charge of making policy choices that will impact the entire internet, and no one seems to care that he's more focused on delivering favors to his friends in the old, legacy industries that failed to adapt.



Doesn't that seem like a problem?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How A Feeble Joke At A Party Derailed Japan's Ratification Of TPP At The Last Moment


Since both US presidential candidates have said that they are against TPP -- whether they mean it, is another matter -- the Pacific trade deal has rather dropped off the political radar. But the US is not the only country that needs to ratify the deal: most of the other 11 countries participating need to do the same if it is to come into force. Because of the size of its economy, the critical one is Japan. But something rather strange has just happened: where it looked certain that country would ratify TPP this week, it has now been postponed. A story in The Japan Times explains the sequence of events that led up to this surprising twist:

While attending an Oct. 18 party organized by Tsutomu Sato, chairman of the Lower House Committee on Rules and Administration, [Japan's farm minister] Yamamoto had blurted out, "It's up to Mr. Sato to decide whether to forcibly pass the [TPP] bill."



Yamamoto's undemocratic suggestion that the TPP bill could be steamrolled through the Diet [Japan's bicameral legislature] immediately ignited the ire of opposition lawmakers, recalling an earlier blunder by a different LDP lawmaker who said in September that he wanted to realize the "forcible" passage of the bill.

As a result of Yamamoto's ill-advised comment, the special committee tasked with TPP deliberations did not adopt the relevant bill. That, in its turn, meant the bill could not be sent to to the ruling coalition-controlled Lower House plenary session on Friday for a last-minute approval before the US election. Here's why the Japanese government was so keen to make that deadline:
Tokyo was desperate to pass the bill through the Lower House plenary session before [US] Election Day. Such a decisive legislative step, the government hoped, would send a powerful message that Japan has no intention of accepting a request for renegotiations from the U.S. side.

Given the government majority, it seems likely that the TPP bill will finally pass at some point in the near future. But the fact that a rather unfunny joke was able to throw a spanner in the works even at this late stage shows that when it comes to trade deals, things aren't over until they are over, as the recent CETA saga also indicates.



Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story