RICK REA: Helping You Grow Through Online Marketing
  • Home
  • Blog
    • Social Media News
    • SEO Marketing News
    • Digital Trends News
    • Photography News
    • Mobile Marketing
    • Business News
    • Gadget News
    • Printing News
  • Contact
  • About
  • Subscribe

Gadget News

What an eight-year-old Neanderthal boy can tell us about how our extinct relatives developed

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 
http://ift.tt/2xqfGV5

What an eight-year-old Neanderthal boy can tell us about how our extinct relatives developed

http://ift.tt/2xqLpWm

A Neanderthal boy of around eight who died almost 50,000 years ago still has things to tell us: mainly that our extinct human relatives grew up at a pace similar to our own. Knowing that can give us clues to Neanderthal social structure, as well as how our hominid cousins raised their children.

The surprisingly well-preserved specimen, dubbed El Sidrón J1, was found in a Spanish cave of the same name in the 1990s, along with a dozen other family members. His bones — at least the ones we’ve found — are a mix of baby and adult teeth, several vertebrae, ribs, finger bones, leg bones, and parts of his skull. At about eight years of age, when the child died of unknown causes, his body had grown at a similar rate to the body of an eight-year-old modern human. There are just a few peculiar differences: his brain hadn’t stopped growing yet, and the vertebrae in his neck and torso looked like the vertebrae of a four- to six-year-old human kid, according to the new study, published today in Science.

Skeleton of the Neanderthal boy recovered from the El Sidrón cave in Spain. Photo: Paleoanthropology Group MNCN-CSIC

“It provides the most detailed snapshot of development in Neanderthals that we have,” says Chris Kuzawa, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University, who did not take part in the study. However, researchers caution that this is just one Neanderthal child — and because every person is different, with different brain sizes and different growth rates, it’s really hard to draw specific conclusions about the entirety of Neanderthals. “This is pulling one person, one Neanderthal individual, from all the people that lived at that time,” Kuzawa tells The Verge. “That’s definitely a big caveat.”

Still, the discovery suggests that, in terms of how they grew and developed after birth, Neanderthals were pretty similar to us. That’s important because it taps into how a species grows and develops, when it matures and reproduces, and ultimately how long it lives. (This is what scientists call a species’s life history.) We modern humans have a fairly slow life history compared to some other primates. Chimps, for example, usually have their first child at 14, and by six, that child can usually live independently. Of course, a six-year-old human child is hardly independent.

Our slow development matters: because kids take longer to mature, parents and others have to take care of them. Our brains don’t reach their full size until we’re about seven, which gives them more time to develop in interactions with our environment and our relatives, which is extra time for learning. “It creates a flexibility and plasticity behaviorally that’s really integral to the human strategy,” Kuzawa says. “There’s this whole constellation of human-like characteristics that likely co-evolved with this stretching of development.”

Neanderthal and modern humans shared a common ancestor roughly half a million years ago, says Tim Weaver, an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Davis. We then split and evolved in parallel, even breeding with each other, but eventually Neanderthals went extinct and we prevailed. “You can think of Neanderthals as a sort of another experiment in humanity,” says Weaver, who did not take part in the study.

Researchers working inside the El Sidrón cave. Photo: Paleoanthropology Group MNCN-CSIC

Neanderthals’ life history has been a matter of debate. Some studies that looked at Neanderthal teeth suggested that our human relatives developed a bit faster than us, says Christoph Zollikofer, an anthropologist at the University of Zurich. (Many studies focused on teeth because complete Neanderthal skeletons are hard to come by.) Other studies, however, suggested that Neanderthals had slower life histories than modern humans, because their brains were larger, but didn’t grow faster, Zollikofer writes in an email to The Verge.

Today’s study tries to answer this question by looking at different bones from the partial skeleton of the El Sidrón specimen. First, the researchers analyzed the teeth to determine age. During childhood, a new layer of enamel is laid down on our teeth every day, forming a sort of biological hard drive of our early life. “Teeth grow a little bit like the rings of the trees,” says study co-author Antonio Rosas, a paleobiologist at the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid, Spain. Rosas and his colleague counted these rings under the microscope and determined that El Sidrón J1 was 7.7 years old when he died. He didn’t have any major diseases or developmental problems.

“Teeth grow a little bit like the rings of the trees.”

The researchers then looked at the child’s bones and teeth, and compared them to the bones and teeth of modern human children. Most bones showed no difference in growth, but some vertebrae in the Neanderthal child’s neck and torso looked like they’d belong to a modern-day human around the ages of four to six. The form of the Neanderthal child’s skull suggests that his brain was still growing, while modern humans reach full brain size around age seven, Kuzawa says. The researchers estimated that the brain of El Sidrón J1 was roughly 87.5 percent of the size of an average adult Neanderthal brain.

“It uses comprehensive evidence from teeth, the brain, vertebrae and the rest of the skeleton to show that Neanderthals did not develop faster than humans,” says Zollikofer, who was not involved in the research. “This is important, because it was kind of ‘common wisdom’ for many years that they did.”

In this specimen, the brain seems to be developing even more slowly than in humans. If that’s true, it could mean that Neanderthals also had to take care and nurture their children for even longer than we do today. But there’s an important caveat: there’s variation among adult Neanderthal brains, says Zollikofer. If a lower value is used for “normal” brain growth, then El Sidrón is comparable to a normal human kid. Weaver agrees: “There’re definitely some statistical issues there.”

Antonio Rosas beside the Neanderthal child’s skeleton. Photo by Andrés Díaz-CSIC Communication

The El Sidrón specimen is also just one Neanderthal child, among many Neanderthals that all had their own specific traits and peculiarities. So it’s not wise to draw conclusions about all Neanderthal children based on this one brain. In order to settle the controversy on brain size conclusively, we’ll need more samples, so the scientists will keep digging.





Gadget News

via The Verge http://ift.tt/1jLudMg

September 21, 2017 at 01:07PM
0 Comments

The most energetic cosmic rays pelting Earth are coming from outside our galaxy

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 
http://ift.tt/2xqYBdN

The most energetic cosmic rays pelting Earth are coming from outside our galaxy

http://ift.tt/2wK5HGD

Astronomers have finally solved a long-standing mystery about the origins of cosmic rays, the highly energetic particles that zoom throughout space. For half a century, scientists haven’t been able to pin down where the most energetic rays in our Universe come from. But thanks to more than a decade of detecting cosmic rays from South America, astronomers have confirmed that these super energetic particles are coming from outside our galaxy.

Space is filled with cosmic rays — tiny fragments of atoms — all with varying amounts of energies. Many of the low- or medium-energy ones are thought to originate from within our galaxy, likely from supernovae, or exploding stars, which hurl high-speed particles out into space when they die. Then there are what are considered ultra high-energy cosmic rays: particles with energies millions of times greater than any particle ever observed on Earth. These types of rays are puzzling, mostly because no one is quite sure what is causing the particles to get so energetic. “We don’t know of a mechanism that can accelerate particles up to the energies we observe,” Greg Snow, a professor of physics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and one of the collaborators on this research, tells The Verge.

“This is solid evidence that they are not coming from our galaxy.”

Now, astronomers are significantly closer to getting an answer, thanks to new research detailed today in Science. International astronomers spent 12 years detecting cosmic rays at the Pierre Auger Observatory, a facility in Argentina specifically designed to pick up these particles when they reach Earth and pelt our atmosphere. After observing more than 30,000 of the most energetic particles, the researchers created a map of their distributions in the sky. Sure enough, they found that most of these particles seemed to come from a part of the sky away from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. “This is solid evidence that they are not coming from our galaxy,” David Nitz, a professor of physics at Michigan Tech University and another researcher on the study, tells The Verge.

It still doesn’t explain what is producing these particles, but the research does point scientists in the direction they need to look. The patch of sky that these rays seem to be coming from is known to have a large clustering of galaxies. It’s still unclear exactly which galaxies may be sending these energetic particles our way, but now researchers can start learning more about this general region of the Universe. “I predict there will be a flurry of papers now that this result has been confirmed where people try to correlate where the rays are coming from,” says Thomas Gaisser, a physics professor and cosmic ray researcher at the University of Delaware, who was not involved with the study.

Image: The Pierre Auger Obseravtory
One of the detectors at the Pierre Auger Observatory.

Figuring out the origins of cosmic rays is exactly what the Pierre Auger Observatory was built to do. The facility is home to 1,600 cosmic ray detectors that span an area of 1,200 square miles, all looking for traces of these particles when they mingle with our atmosphere. When the rays reach Earth, they slam into the gas molecules surrounding our planet, creating a whole bunch of secondary particles that then also collided with the molecules in our atmosphere. The results are called “air showers.” They’re made up of billions of little particles traveling at the speed of light that “rain” down on the Earth’s surface.

the observatory can pick up the most energetic particles, with energies greater than quintillions of electronvolts

To measure these showers, the observatory uses specialized water tanks instead of telescopes. Whenever the air showers reach the ground, they pass through the water in the detectors, creating electromagnetic shockwaves that produce a strange blue glow. This phenomena is then picked up by light-detecting tubes mounted on the tanks. By using this technique, the observatory can pick up signs of the most energetic particles, which hit the atmosphere with energies greater than quintillions of electronvolts — that’s 1 X 10^18. “If you have a particle that has an energy of that order, that’s a macroscopic amount of energy,” says Snow. “It could be compared to a professional tennis player serving a tennis ball at 100 miles per hour. That’s a lot of energy.”

Image: The Pierre Auger Observatory
A rendering of how the Pierre Auger detectors measure light produced by air showers.

Finding the origins of these particles took quite a while, since the highest energy rays don’t hit Earth very often. Just once a year, an area a little less than a square mile will get hit by such a particle. But after 12 years of observations, the researchers were able to plot the general distributions of these rays, finding they weren’t evenly distributed throughout the sky, but seemed to originate from one general direction.

Still, there are a lot of unknowns about these rays. For one, the researchers only have a general direction from which they originate, but even that has some uncertainty. When cosmic rays enter the Milky Way, they have to pass through our galaxy’s magnetic field, which bends their direction slightly. And it’s not clear how much their directions change when that happens. “Because of this unknown amount of bending ... we can’t say they’re coming from any one cluster of galaxies,” says Nitz.

Finally knowing that these super energetic rays don’t start as Milky Way residents is the first major step in figuring out what these particles are. “It’s something that people have long thought to be the case, but there was no proof of it,” says Gaisser. “It’s nice to have a real result that shows these particles are coming from outside our galaxy.”





Gadget News

via The Verge http://ift.tt/1jLudMg

September 21, 2017 at 01:07PM
0 Comments

Apple TV 4K won't play 4K YouTube videos because of missing Google codec

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 


Apple TV 4K won't play 4K YouTube videos because of missing Google codec

http://ift.tt/2yg14Fm

Article Image

While the Apple TV 4K can play 4K videos from sources like iTunes and Netflix, that support is conspicuously missing from one of the most popular tvOS apps, YouTube.



Gadget News

via AppleInsider - Frontpage News http://appleinsider.com

September 21, 2017 at 01:07PM
0 Comments

The universe's most energetic particles have traveled a long way

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 


The universe's most energetic particles have traveled a long way

http://ift.tt/2hl1Opv

The origin of cosmic rays has been a mystery to scientists since their detection over fifty years ago. One of the prevailing theories is that they come from the center of our galaxy. But now, a group of more than 400 scientists from eighteen different countries has confirmed that this high-energy radiation has its origins outside our galaxy. The results will be published tomorrow in the journal Science.

Over a period of twelve years, scientists used the Pierre Auger Observatory, which consists of telescopes and particle detectors deployed over an area in western Argentina larger than the state of Rhode Island, to collect readings on cosmic rays' origins. They discovered that most of the particles came from an direction that didn't correspond with the center of the Milky Way in relation to Earth. It was about 120 degrees off. "There have been other pieces of evidence, but I would say this paper really confirms that most of the highest energy cosmic ray particles are not coming from the Milky Way galaxy," said Gregory Snow, the outreach director for the Pierre Auger Observatory. Instead, the particles are likely extragalactic in nature.

This discovery is important for multiple reasons. First, cosmic rays are thought to be leftover energy from The Big Bang. Understanding more about them helps us to understand the universe and our place in it. "By understanding the origins of these particles, we hope to understand more about the origin of the Universe, the Big Bang, how galaxies and black holes formed and things like that," said Snow.

But there's also a more immediate concern. Cosmic rays have another name, galactic cosmic radiation, and it's a threat to any human that travels outside the barrier of Earth's magnetic field. If we want to travel to Mars and beyond, we need to figure out how to protect our astronauts from this deadly radiation. Discovering where it comes from gets us a small step closer to that goal.

Source: EurekAlert





Gadget News

via Engadget http://www.engadget.com

September 21, 2017 at 01:06PM
0 Comments

US music sales keep climbing thanks to streaming

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 


US music sales keep climbing thanks to streaming

http://ift.tt/2wBkwjM

Last year, streaming generated more money in the US for the music business than all other forms of distribution for the first time ever, and that trend is continuing in spades. In the first half of 2017, the industry raked in just under $4 billion, up 17 percent over the same period last year, with 62 percent of that coming from streaming. If the trend continues, the industry should easily surpass the $7.7 billion it earned in 2016, which was already the best year for music since 2009.

These stats are from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), an organization that has had a notoriously combative relationship with internet companies. Despite its objections (and continued demands for more money from YouTube and others), streaming generated $2.5 billion thanks to 30 million paid subscribers in the US.

Physical sales of music, surprisingly, are relatively flat, down just one percent. That's thanks in part to vinyl sales that went up by three percent, and a drop in old-school CD sales of just three percent, because you still haven't convinced your Mom to use Deezer yet.

What's not doing so well are individual song sales, which fell by a rather astonishing 24 percent. That probably impacts Apple more than any other firm, but don't feel too sorry for the Cupertino folks. The Apple Music subscriber base now stands at 27 million -- that's less than half of Spotify last we checked, but it's only been operating for just over two years.

If you want to get more granular on streaming, subscriber revenue stood at $1.7 billion in the first half of 2017, while ad-supported revenue brought in $273 million and digital radio generated $493 million. Those numbers are all big increases over last year.

Given the disparity between ad revenue (from YouTube, Spotify and others) and subscriptions, it's easy to see why the RIAA feels that the ad-supported versions of those services underpay artists. On the other hand, Spotify, YouTube and most others are still losing money thanks to an ongoing ad revenue crisis.

The RIAA has focused a lot of its ire on YouTube, saying it underpays artists. YouTube has countered that it paid out over a billion dollars last year (around the world, not just in the US) and actually pays higher royalties than Spotify and other streaming services.

Via: Recode

Source: RIAA (PDF)





Gadget News

via Engadget http://www.engadget.com

September 21, 2017 at 12:48PM
0 Comments

How Peggy Whitson stayed in shape for nine months aboard the ISS

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 
http://img.youtube.com/vi/mupWhk2cbT0/0.jpg

How Peggy Whitson stayed in shape for nine months aboard the ISS

http://ift.tt/2wJxJlR

Space is no place for battles of the bulge. That's why NASA insists on getting its astronauts into peak physical condition before sending them offworld. But aboard the ISS, in a living space the size of a football field, the human body will readily go to pot. So how did Peggy Whitson, the longest-orbiting astronaut in American history, manage an astonishing nine and a half months in microgravity without having her body and mind atrophy? She hit the astronaut gym. Yes, of course, there's a gym on the ISS -- just, no lap pool.

The human body, built as it is for terrestrial life on Earth, does not readily adapt to the rigors of microgravity. Half of all astronauts suffer from Space Adaptation Syndrome (SAS or, more commonly, "space sickness") for the first few hours their missions, at least until their vestibular systems readjust to the weightless environment.

Fluid redistribution is another common issue. Since there's no gravity for the body's blood pressure to fight against, fluid becomes more distributed throughout the body -- that is, it leeches out of our veins and cells. The human body can lose up to 22 percent of its plasma, the juice that carries our red blood cells through our circulatory system, and the results are not good. Especially when astronauts return to Earth. While still in space, the heart can begin to atrophy thanks to there being less blood to pump. This can lead to a condition known as "orthostatic intolerance".

KAZAKHSTAN-RUSSIA-US-ISS-SPACE

"When you lie down, stand up quickly, and feel light-headed, that's orthostatic intolerance," Don Hagan, director of exercise physiology at Johnson Space Center, said in a 2002 statement. "Your body tries to stop this from happening. It does so by increasing its heart rate and blood pressure to keep more blood returning to your heart." If not, down you go. But exercise can help prevent fainting by increasing blood volume and circulation.

Back on-planet, the astronauts' symptoms, unfortunately, will continue for a time. They may have difficulty standing for more than 10 minutes without fainting because all the leaked fluid will pool in their lower extremities (thanks, gravity), which results in orthostatic hypotension.

That fluid shift can cause other issues as well. It greatly increases the amount of intracranial pressure, flattening the eyeball to the point of potentially crushing the optic nerve. In fact, when NASA surveyed 300 former astronauts, 23 percent of the short-flight (sub-6 month) and 49 percent of the long-flight astronauts mentioned that both their near and distance vision had been impacted during their flights. And, for some, the issues continued for years after.

Astronaut Scott Kelly discussed his post-orbital symptoms at a recent NASA event:

After I got back, I've talked about just being really sore and stiff. My skin had not touched anything in 340 days except just your clothing. Anything it touched, it felt like it was on fire. I actually had some rashes and kind of discoloration anywhere I had contact. And then I kind of had flu-like symptoms for a few days. Had I not been in space for a year and I knew what this was, I would have gone to the emergency room and said, "Hey, I don't know what's wrong with me, but I'm not feeling that great."

Perhaps most alarming is the rate at which muscles and bones, not just the heart, degrade when deprived of Earth's gravitational attraction. "Among the biggest changes we see is in the skeletal system with bone loss, and the muscular system with muscle lost and strength lost," Dr. Richard Scheuring, a NASA flight surgeon, told Engadget. "Those are the two things that really persist. The cardiovascular deconditioning missing just because you're not working as hard. It seems to level off at about three weeks and we don't seem to really get any worse."

"We think there are also changes occurring that bone marrow that affect the production of red blood cells so you get what we call spaceflight anemia," he continued. "But it doesn't really have physiological or performance impacts and is pretty well tolerated among a healthy population."

What does have a psychological effect on astronauts aboard the ISS is the speed at which they orbit: roughly once every 90 minutes. That breaks the day into 45 minutes of light and 45 minutes of dark and can cause some wicked jet lag. To that end, NASA is working with Harvard to study how best to counter the station's insomniatic effects.

One such system, Scheuring explained, involves using ambient lighting of varying wavelengths. That is, the lighting will be further along the blue-green end of the spectrum to simulate bright morning sunshine which increases the astronauts' alertness. "That blue light is the equivalent to a cup of coffee," Scheuring explained. The wavelength then fades towards the red end of the spectrum in the afternoon to dusk hours to boost the body's melatonin production, which helps us sleep.

Despite the current two-and-a-half-hour-a-day workout regimen demanded by the agency, spending six months in space can see the average astronaut lose between 11 and 17 percent of their strength, around 10 percent of their endurance, and two to seven percent of their bone density.

Before NASA introduced these countermeasures, astronauts were losing one to three percent of their bone density per month, Scheuring explained. "To put that in perspective, a 55-year-old postmenopausal woman loses one to two percent of her bone density every year." What's more, that discarded calcium winds up in the kidneys, in turn greatly increasing the chance of the astronauts developing kidney stones.

But that's where the orbital gym comes in. Crews have access to three pieces of exercise equipment: a Cycle Ergometer (read: a stationary bike); an anchored treadmill equipped with a restraint system that enables astronauts to mimic the effects of gravity as they run; and the ARED (Advanced Resistance Exercise Device), a "weight lifting" system (to the extent something can exist in microgravity) that relies on flywheels and vacuum cylinders to generate resistance.

Thanks to these exercises, "our crews are coming back in much better shape, they recover much quicker," Scheuring said. "Generally, if our astronauts stick to our post-flight reconditioning program and they've worked hard in space, within 30 days of coming back from a six-month mission, we can have them at their baseline numbers for strength flexibility and stamina."

The ARED has been in service aboard the ISS since 2009 as the station's all-in-one strength trainer. It's flexible enough to accommodate every size of astronaut that's been aboard and can generate up to 600 pounds of resistance. That draw weight comes from a group of vacuum cylinders attached to a flywheel, which simulates the inertia you feel when lifting on Earth. With the ARED, astronauts can work out all of their major muscle groups, either following a preset routine or simply choosing the parts they want to work on that day. NASA also recently instituted additional abdominal and lumbar exercises to address astronauts' complaints of lower back pain.

But even with this state-of-the art equipment, NASA is working on ways to keep improving its crews' fitness. The agency is currently looking at the benefits of high-intensity, low-volume exercise using the ARED, dubbed the Integrated Resistance and Aerobic Training Study (SPRINT). Currently, astronauts aboard the ISS spend six days a week lifting but it's generally low intensity with lots of reps. SPRINT's research team has found that cutting back to three days a week but pushing more weights for fewer reps "better protects against loss of skeletal muscle mass and function" than the existing regimen, according to NASA.

The study also found that interval aerobic exercises were more effective than continuous exertion at maintaining cardiovascular function. As such, the researchers have settled on augmenting that high intensity lifting with continuous aerobic exercise and then performing interval aerobics on the off-days.

This information will prove invaluable as we reach further out into our solar system, sending astronauts first back to the moon and then eventually on to Mars. Just getting to the Red Planet will take at least half a year and the last thing you want to be when setting foot on a new planet is a pudgy, atrophied space explorer.





Gadget News

via Engadget http://www.engadget.com

September 21, 2017 at 12:36PM
0 Comments

The invention of AI gaydar could be the start of something much worse

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 
http://ift.tt/2febvlG

The invention of AI ‘gaydar’ could be the start of something much worse

http://ift.tt/2wBU8pP

Two weeks ago, a pair of researchers from Stanford University made a startling claim. Using hundreds of thousands of images taken from a dating website, they said they had trained a facial recognition system that could identify whether someone was straight or gay just by looking at them. The work was first covered by The Economist, and other publications soon followed suit, with headlines like “New AI can guess whether you're gay or straight from a photograph” and “AI Can Tell If You're Gay From a Photo, and It's Terrifying.”

As you might have guessed, it’s not as straightforward as that. (And to be clear, based on this work alone, AI can’t tell whether someone is gay or straight from a photo.) But the research captures common fears about artificial intelligence: that it will open up new avenues for surveillance and control, and could be particularly harmful for marginalized people. One of the paper’s authors, Dr Michal Kosinski, says his intent is to sound the alarm about the dangers of AI, and warns that facial recognition will soon be able to identify not only someone’s sexual orientation, but their political views, criminality, and even their IQ.

some warn we’re replacing the calipers of physiognomy with neural networks

With statements like these, some worry we’re reviving an old belief with a bad history: that you can intuit character from appearance. This pseudoscience, physiognomy, was fuel for the scientific racism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and gave moral cover to some of humanity’s worst impulses: to demonize, condemn, and exterminate fellow humans. Critics of Kosinski’s work accuse him of replacing the calipers of the 19th century with the neural networks of the 21st, while the professor himself says he is horrified by his findings, and happy to be proved wrong. “It’s a controversial and upsetting subject, and it’s also upsetting to us,” he tells The Verge.

But is it possible that pseudoscience is sneaking back into the world, disguised in new garb thanks to AI? Some people say machines are simply able to read more about us than we can ourselves, but what if we’re training them to carry out our prejudices, and, in doing so, giving new life to old ideas we rightly dismissed? How are we going to know the difference?

Can AI really spot sexual orientation?

First, we need to look at the study at the heart of the recent debate, written by Kosinski and his co-author Yilun Wang. Its results have been poorly reported, with a lot of the hype coming from misrepresentations of the system’s accuracy. The paper states: “Given a single facial image, [the software] could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81 percent of cases, and in 71 percent of cases for women.” These rates increase when the system is given five pictures of an individual: up to 91 percent for men, and 83 percent for women.

On the face of it, this sounds like “AI can tell if a man is gay or straight 81 percent of the time by looking at his photo.” (Thus the headlines.) But that’s not what the figures mean. The AI wasn’t 81 percent correct when being shown random photos: it was tested on a pair of photos, one of a gay person and one of a straight person, and then asked which individual was more likely to be gay. It guessed right 81 percent of the time for men and 71 percent of the time for women, but the structure of the test means it started with a baseline of 50 percent — that’s what it’d get guessing at random. And although it was significantly better than that, the results aren’t the same as saying it can identify anyone’s sexual orientation 81 percent of the time.

“People are scared of a situation where [you’re in a crowd] and a computer identifies whether you’re gay.”

As Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland who wrote a blog post critiquing the paper, told The Verge: “People are scared of a situation where you have a private life and your sexual orientation isn’t known, and you go to an airport or a sporting event and a computer scans the crowd and identifies whether you’re gay or straight. But there’s just not much evidence this technology can do that.”

Kosinski and Wang make this clear themselves toward the end of the paper when they test their system against 1,000 photographs instead of two. They ask the AI to pick out who is most likely to be gay in a dataset in which 7 percent of the photo subjects are gay, roughly reflecting the proportion of straight and gay men in the US population. When asked to select the 100 individuals most likely to be gay, the system gets only 47 out of 70 possible hits. The remaining 53 have been incorrectly identified. And when asked to identify a top 10, nine are right.

If you were a bad actor trying to use this system to identify gay people, you couldn’t know for sure you were getting correct answers. Although, if you used it against a large enough dataset, you might get mostly correct guesses. Is this dangerous? If the system is being used to target gay people, then yes, of course. But the rest of the study suggests the program has even further limitations.

What can computers really see that humans can’t?

It’s also not clear what factors the facial recognition system is using to make its judgements. Kosinski and Wang’s hypothesis is that it’s primarily identifying structural differences: feminine features in the faces of gay men and masculine features in the faces of gay women. But it’s possible that the AI is being confused by other stimuli — like facial expressions in the photos.

The AI might be identifying stereotypes, not biological differences

This is particularly relevant because the images used in the study were taken from a dating website. As Greggor Mattson, a professor of sociology at Oberlin College, pointed out in a blog post, this means that the images themselves are biased, as they were selected specifically to attract someone of a certain sexual orientation. They almost certainly play up to our cultural expectations of how gay and straight people should look, and, to further narrow their applicability, all the subjects were white, with no inclusion of bisexual or self-identified trans individuals. If a straight male chooses the most stereotypically “manly” picture of himself for a dating site, it says more about what he thinks society wants from him than a link between the shape of his jaw and his sexual orientation.

To try and ensure their system was looking at facial structure only, Kosinski and Wang used software called VGG-Face, which encodes faces as strings of numbers and has been used for tasks like spotting celebrity lookalikes in paintings. This program, they write, allows them to “minimize the role [of] transient features” like lighting, pose, and facial expression.

But researcher Tom White, who works on AI facial system, says VGG-Face is actually very good at picking up on these elements. White pointed this out on Twitter, and explained to The Verge over email how he’d tested the software and used it to successfully distinguish between faces with expressions like “neutral” and “happy,” as well as poses and background color.

Image: Kosinski and Wang
A figure from the paper showing the average faces of the participants, and the difference in facial structures that they identified between the two sets.

Speaking to The Verge, Kosinski says he and Wang have been explicit that things like facial hair and makeup could be a factor in the AI’s decision-making, but he maintains that facial structure is the most important. “If you look at the overall at properties of VGG-Face, it tends to put very little weight on transient facial features,” Kosinski says. “We also provide evidence that non-transient facial features seem to be predictive of sexual orientation.”

The problem is, we can’t know for sure. Kosinski and Wang haven’t released the program they created or the pictures they used to train it. They do test their AI on other picture sources, to see if it’s identifying some factor common to all gay and straight, but these tests were limited and also drew from a biased dataset — Facebook profile pictures from men who liked pages such as “I love being Gay,” and “Gay and Fabulous.”

Do men in these groups serve as reasonable proxies for all gay men? Probably not, and Kosinski says it’s possible his work is wrong. “Many more studies will need to be conducted to verify [this],” he says. But it’s tricky to say how one could completely eliminate selection bias to perform a conclusive test. Kosinski tells The Verge, “You don’t need to understand how the model works to test whether it’s correct or not.” However, it’s the acceptance of the opacity of algorithms that makes this sort of research so fraught.

If AI can’t show its working, can we trust it?

AI researchers can’t fully explain why their machines do the things they do. It’s a challenge that runs through the entire field, and is sometimes referred to as the “black box” problem. Because of the methods used to train AI, these programs can’t show their work in the same way normal software does, although researchers are working to amend this.

In the meantime, it leads to all sorts of problems. A common one is that sexist and racist biases are captured from humans in the training data and reproduced by the AI. In the case of Kosinski and Wang’s work, the “black box” allows them to make a particular scientific leap of faith. Because they’re confident their system is primarily analyzing facial structures, they say their research shows that facial structures predict sexual orientation. (“Study 1a showed that facial features extracted by a [neural network] can be used to accurately identify the sexual orientation of both men and women.")

“Biology’s a little bit more nuanced than we often give it credit for.”

Experts say this is a misleading claim that isn’t supported by the latest science. There may be a common cause for face shape and sexual orientation — the most probable cause is the balance of hormones in the womb — but that doesn’t mean face shape reliably predicts sexual orientation, says Qazi Rahman, an academic at King’s College London who studies the biology of sexual orientation. “Biology’s a little bit more nuanced than we often give it credit for,” he tells The Verge. “The issue here is the strength of the association.”

The idea that sexual orientation comes primarily from biology is itself controversial. Rahman, who believes that sexual orientation is mostly biological, praises Kosinski and Wang’s work. “It’s not junk science,” he says. “More like science someone doesn’t like.” But when it comes to predicting sexual orientation, he says there’s a whole package of “atypical gender behavior” that needs to be considered. “The issue for me is more that [the study] misses the point, and that’s behavior.”

Is there a gay gene? Or is sexuality equally shaped by society and culture?

Reducing the question of sexual orientation to a single, measurable factor in the body has a long and often inglorious history. As Matton writes in his blog post, approaches have ranged from “19th century measurements of lesbians’ clitorises and homosexual men’s hips, to late 20th century claims to have discovered ‘gay genes,’ ‘gay brains,’ ‘gay ring fingers,’ ‘lesbian ears,’ and ‘gay scalp hair.’” The impact of this work is mixed, but at its worst it’s a tool of oppression: it gives people who want to dehumanize and persecute sexual minorities a “scientific” pretext.

Jenny Davis, a lecturer in sociology at the Australian National University, describes it as a form of biological essentialism. This is the belief that things like sexual orientation are rooted in the body. This approach, she says, is double-edged. On the one hand, it “does a useful political thing: detaching blame from same-sex desire. But on the other hand, it reinforces the devalued position of that kind of desire,” setting up hetrosexuality as the norm and framing homosexuality as “less valuable … a sort of illness.”

And it’s when we consider Kosinski and Wang’s research in this context that AI-powered facial recognition takes on an even darker aspect — namely, say some critics, as part of a trend to the return of physiognomy, powered by AI.

Your character, as plain as the nose on your face

For centuries, people have believed that the face held the key to the character. The notion has its roots in ancient Greece, but was particularly influential in the 19th century. Proponents of physiognomy suggested that by measuring things like the angle of someone’s forehead or the shape of their nose, they could determine if a person was honest or a criminal. Last year in China, AI researchers claimed they could do the same thing using facial recognition.

Their research, published as “Automated Inference on Criminality Using Face Images,” caused a minor uproar in the AI community. Scientists pointed out flaws in the study, and concluded that that work was replicating human prejudices about what constitutes a “mean” or a “nice” face. In a widely shared rebuttal titled “Physiognomy’s New Clothes,” Google researcher Blaise Agüera y Arcas and two co-authors wrote that we should expect “more research in the coming years that has similar … false claims to scientific objectivity in order to ‘launder’ human prejudice and discrimination.” (Google declined to make Agüera y Arcas available to comment on this report.)

An illustration of physiognomy from Giambattista della Porta’s De humana physiognomonia

Kosinski and Wang’s paper clearly acknowledges the dangers of physiognomy, noting that the practice “is now universally, and rightly, rejected as a mix of superstition and racism disguised as science.” But, they continue, just because a subject is “taboo,” doesn’t mean it has no basis in truth. They say that because humans are able to read characteristics like personality in other people’s faces with “low accuracy,” machines should be able to do the same but more accurately.

Kosinski says his research isn’t physiognomy because it’s using rigorous scientific methods, and his paper cites a number of studies showing that we can deduce (with varying accuracy) traits about people by looking at them. “I was educated and made to believe that it’s absolutely impossible that the face contains any information about your intimate traits, because physiognomy and phrenology were just pseudosciences,” he says. “But the fact that they were claiming things without any basis in fact, that they were making stuff up, doesn’t mean that this stuff is not real.” He agrees that physiognomy is not science, but says there may be truth in its basic concepts that computers can reveal.

AI’s intelligence isn’t artificial: it’s human

For Davis, this sort of attitude comes from a widespread and mistaken belief in the neutrality and objectivity of AI. “Artificial intelligence is not in fact artificial,” she tells The Verge. “Machines learn like humans learn. We’re taught through culture and absorb the norms of social structure, and so does artificial intelligence. So it will re-create, amplify, and continue on the trajectories we’ve taught it, which are always going to reflect existing cultural norms.”

We’ve already created sexist and racist algorithms, and these sorts of cultural biases and physiognomy are really just two sides of the same coin: both rely on bad evidence to judge others. The work by the Chinese researchers is an extreme example, but it’s certainly not the only one. There’s at least one startup already active that claims it can spot terrorists and pedophiles using face recognition, and there are many others offering to analyze “emotional intelligence” and conduct AI-powered surveillance.

Facing up to what’s coming

But to return to the questions implied by those alarming headlines about Kosinski and Wang’s paper: is AI going to be used to persecute sexual minorities?

This system? No. A different one? Maybe.

Kosinski and Wang’s work is not invalid, but its results need serious qualifications and further testing. Without that, all we know about their system is that it can spot with some reliability the difference between self-identified gay and straight white people on one particular dating site. We don’t know that it’s spotted a biological difference common to all gay and straight people; we don’t know if it would work with a wider set of photos; and the work doesn’t show that sexual orientation can be deduced with nothing more than, say, a measurement of the jaw. It’s not decoded human sexuality any more than AI chatbots have decoded the art of a good conversation. (Nor do its authors make such a claim.)

Image: Faception
Startup Faception claims it can identify how likely people are to be terrorists just by looking at their face.

The research was published to warn people, say Kosinski, but he admits it’s an “unavoidable paradox” that to do so you have to explain how you did what you did. All the tools used in the paper are available for anyone to find and put together themselves. Writing at the deep learning education site Fast.ai, researcher Jeremy Howard concludes: “It is probably reasonably [sic] to assume that many organizations have already completed similar projects, but without publishing them in the academic literature.”

We’ve already mentioned startups working on this tech, and it’s not hard to find government regimes that would use it. In countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia homosexuality is still punishable by death; in many other countries, being gay means being hounded, imprisoned, and tortured by the state. Recent reports have spoken of the opening of concentration camps for gay men in the Chechen Republic, so what if someone there decides to make their own AI gaydar, and scan profile pictures from Russian social media?

Here, it becomes clear that the accuracy of systems like Kosinski and Wang’s isn’t really the point. If people believe AI can be used to determine sexual preference, they will use it. With that in mind, it’s more important than ever that we understand the limitations of artificial intelligence, to try and neutralize dangers before they start impacting people. Before we teach machines our prejudices, we need to first teach ourselves.





Gadget News

via The Verge http://ift.tt/1jLudMg

September 21, 2017 at 12:32PM
0 Comments

The Volvo XC40 is the fashionable SUV you can buy like a phone

9/21/2017

1 Comment

 
http://ift.tt/2hmP0eL

The Volvo XC40 is the fashionable SUV you can buy like a phone

http://ift.tt/2hiuvn3

The Volvo XC40 may be just another small SUV for people who wouldn’t be caught dead in a sedan these days, but the company’s approach to sharing and selling the car might be how they get potential customers to pay attention.

The XC40 will compete with cars like the Audi Q3, BMW X1 and Mini Countryman, as well as higher-end versions of the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. Volvo’s been on a bit of a hot streak lately, turning out strikingly cool cars, but the XC40 adds trendy stuff like a contrasting roof / body color scheme that the company says will be available in 17 different combinations.

When it reaches showrooms next year, the XC40 will be available with a 2.0-liter turbocharged gasoline four-cylinder engine with 250 horsepower. A plug-in hybrid will be offered later, Volvo officials said Thursday at the Milan event where the car was revealed. Also expect a fully electric model of this size from Volvo in the next couple of years.

Volvo is into screens these days, so all XC40s will come with a 12.3-inch TFT display behind the steering wheel, where conventional dials and gauges have lived. In the middle of the dash, there’s the 9-inch touchscreen that we liked a lot in the V90 Cross Country; it controls most of the audio, air, and vehicle settings. Qi wireless charging is now included as well — just in time for your most recent iPhone purchase.

The Swedes are big on safety, so all XC40s will get Volvo’s Pilot Assist semi-autonomous driving assistance that includes automatic emergency braking and pedestrian and cyclist detection. A 360-degree parking camera will also be offered.

Because this is Volvo’s smallest vehicle aimed at a more tech-aware and city-dwelling audience, the XC40 is being introduced with some new services. As part of the Volvo On Call app, you can now add trusted friends or family to use the car through the app. The app, like ones offered by a number of automakers, allows you to unlock and start the car, control the air conditioning or heating, and set the vehicle destination.

Volvo recently acquired pieces of Luxe to further its concierge services for things like fueling and service appointments, so expect that to be rolled into the XC40 once those programs are expanded outside of the San Francisco area.

Along with the full details of the XC40, Volvo also announced its Care By Volvo service, which will allow people who want to lease an XC40 to roll all of the costs associated with owning a car (aside from fuel) into one monthly payment. The price is non-negotiable, which is likely meant to dissuade those who enjoy haggling with car salespeople, but it makes for a less dramatic experience for those who wish buying a car were like buying a phone. What’s more, Volvo says you can get a new car every year under the plan.

Prices for Care By Volvo will be announced in November, but you can order an XC40 now. When it goes on sale early next year, the T5 all-wheel drive model will start at $35,200. A less-expensive and less-powerful T4 front-wheel drive version will be available starting summer 2018 for $33,200. Expect the plug-in hybrid model to cost at least $40,000 when it does become available.





Gadget News

via The Verge http://ift.tt/1jLudMg

September 21, 2017 at 12:25PM
1 Comment

What binge-watching bloody movies at TIFF taught us about the modern horror genre

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 
http://ift.tt/2w9nVln

What binge-watching bloody movies at TIFF taught us about the modern horror genre

http://ift.tt/2hlRB8P

Tasha Robinson and Bryan Bishop just spent more than a week at the Toronto International Film Festival, mainlining as many movies as they could manage. Here’s one set of reactions, based on a miniature horror festival they programmed for themselves at TIFF.

Tasha: TIFF traditionally has a wide slate of programming. Some of the year’s biggest upcoming prestige pictures premiere there, but they play alongside indies looking for distribution, international releases looking for attention, and the Midnight Madness slate of would-be cult hits. TIFF is one of those film festivals where you and three friends can each program your own viewing experience: you can all see the same number of movies, and you can each have a radically different experience. This year, if I wanted to specialize, I could have stuck entirely to inspirationally minded would-be Oscar contenders, or quirky magical-realist romantic indies, or hyper-stylized, hyper-violent action films. Instead, this year I saw a lot of horror movies, though not as many as you did, Bryan. And even working together, we didn’t quite catch all the horror films on offer. Am I wrong in feeling like there was a wider horror slate at TIFF this year?

Bryan: It certainly felt that way, didn’t it? My notes from the 2016 festival show a diverse set of unique horror films, but in the intervening year, many have faded from memory, overshadowed by the larger names that took up the attention. I’m thinking of movies like Adam Wingard’s Blair Witch, The Belko Experiment, or the grueling Raw; movies that sucked up a lot of the oxygen, even though I didn’t enjoy some of them as much as I enjoyed smaller features like Osgood Perkins’ eerie I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House. But outside that dynamic, there were undoubtedly more horror films this year. The count wasn’t even close. And aside from Sergio G. Sánchez’s Marrowbone, most of these films would be considered indies or foreign films that may never even make their way to a US theatrical release. This year, TIFF was an opportunity to see a lot of varied genre work in the one place it’s becoming harder and harder to see: the theater.

Courtesy of TIFF
Pyewacket

Tasha: And the variations ran the gamut from polished, expensive, prestige-y suspense to full-on gross-out gore. Watching so many horror films in such close proximity, though, I started to pick up some lessons that don’t fully come into focus when I’m just watching a single movie. So, I thought we should talk through some of the lessons we learned about horror at TIFF this year.

I’ll start with this: if you’re going to do jump scares, they should at least have a payoff. I’m reaching a point where I think the jump scare is the lamest, limpest form of horror. It is to real suspense what a day-old Big Mac on the warming chute is to real food. Anybody can make an audience flinch by ramping up the scary music and then having something lunge abruptly at the screen.

Here’s what brought it into sharp relief for me. Pyewacket, Adam MacDonald’s indie-horror follow-up to 2014’s Backcountry, follows Leah (Nicole Muñoz), a goth girl whose father recently died. When her mother sells their house and uproots her, she gets so angry that she summons a demon to kill her mother, and then has to deal with the fallout. Pyewacket is a slow-burn story that frustrated me in a lot of ways, but the primary one was the sheer cheapness of one of its jump scares, where a huge build-up comes to absolutely nothing except a loud sound effect designed to make viewers flinch at a perfectly ordinary cut to a perfectly ordinary scene. You were sitting next to me in the theater when I gave the movie the bird over that scene, so you know what I was feeling there. The sense of being narratively cheated and manipulated completely undercuts any scares in a movie. MacDonald went full boy-who-cried-wolf on me, and the scare that went nowhere actually kept me from feeling any tension for the rest of the film. My ramped-up adrenaline glands basically said “Eh, what’s the point?” and went to sleep.

Bryan: I don’t want to say your dual-fisted salute was my favorite moment of Pyewacket, but it was definitely a highlight. Here’s one way in which we differ, though: I am absolutely delighted by jump scares. Yes, they can be cheap. And yes, they’re purely an experiential construct that adds nothing to the narrative of a film. But great horror movies usually use all the audiovisual tools at their disposal, and I have zero gripes with a perfectly executed jump-scare. (I think of the that long hospital hallway shot in The Exorcist III, or even that one particular “Nope, she’s not dead!” moment from J.A. Bayona’s The Orphanage.)

Tasha: I have no problem with a great jump scare that has a payoff, like the two you’re referencing here, or with one that has an eventual payoff. There’s a classic one in Alien, where Harry Dean Stanton thinks he’s stalking the alien, but it’s just his ship’s cat — but the jump scare there has a twist, because it makes him drop his guard, and the scene does eventually go somewhere terrifying. I’m just saying, don’t substitute empty jump scares for actual action.

Courtesy of TIFF
The Ritual

Bryan: True, a movie does eventually need to go somewhere. Another film I thought suffered from that Pyewacket problem was David Bruckner’s The Ritual. Much like The Descent, it’s about a group of friends who go on an adventure while one wrestles with a form of survivor’s guilt — and then really bad things happen. The first two-thirds of the film were wonderfully creepy. The group gets lost in the woods, the atmosphere is unnerving, and there are plenty of Blair Witch-esque scares. (It’s better than Wingard’s Blair Witch, come to think of it.) As they get picked off one by one, it becomes clear that there’s some sort of real entity lurking in the trees just out of sight. The Ritual isn’t groundbreaking, but some formulas work for a reason.

In the third act, though, the film takes this bizarre turn into exploring the mythology of the creature, and (spoiler alert!) a cult that worships it. In a single scene, the film exchanges all the uneasy mystery for a group of weirdos that look like the mutants from The Hills Have Eyes. Now, I’m not saying a film can’t make a turn like this, but it struck me as a fundamental misread of why certain things in horror movies are scary. It’s often not because of the complex backstory or the convoluted mythology. We never really know how Pazuzu ended up in Georgetown to possess Regan in The Exorcist. It’s because an unanswered question becomes an opportunity for the audience to add any of their own secret, shivering fears. It’s actually one of the big secrets to being scary: don’t explain too much to the audience, because whatever the viewers read into a scene will almost always be more attuned to our own personal sense of dread. Did you run into any other movies that felt the need to give too much away — and fell flat as a result?

Courtesy of TIFF
Les Affames

Tasha: Not really! I think that’s a lesson a lot of horror creators have internalized: explaining where your monster came from just means you have to explain eight more things about it. Which is fine if your horror story has a scientific basis, or an arc where the characters are going to try to understand a creature or event in order to defeat it. But if you’re making a story about facing and fighting the unknown — if it’s about surviving a situation, not fixing it — you maybe don’t even need to address the mystery. I actually saw two films that handled this really well. Les Affames (which won TIFF’s Canada Goose Award for Best Canadian Feature Film) is a zombie horror story that never even addresses where the zombie plague came from. It’s affecting in a way most zombie stories aren’t because the zombies are still clearly living, breathing people, who cry out when bludgeoned and cling to some of the relics of their former lives. But the film just drops straight into what feels like a Walking Dead episode, with various survivors losing people they care about, then scrambling to band together while not trusting each other much. The filmmakers assume people know all the zombie tropes already, and don’t need to be told what a mysterious, covered bite wound means, or why some people make the wrong decisions when facing infected people they know. I’m not sure Les Affames does enough to distinguish itself from other zombie stories, but it’s effective and moving, because it’s so lean, efficient, and at times eerie, and the fact that it wastes no time on backstory means there’s more time for on-screen character development.

The same goes for one of my festival favorites, Mom and Dad, a horror-comedy where a sudden, unexplained event gives parents a sudden overwhelming, irresistible desire to murder their children. I interviewed writer-director Brian Taylor (of Neveldine and Taylor, the duo behind the Crank movies and Ghost Rider 2) about the film, and he specifically said the event was inspired by Night of the Living Dead, where no one really knows what caused zombies, but everyone still has to deal with them. Mom and Dad also reminded me of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening in that regard, but it’s a much better and more enjoyable movie, again because it doesn’t waste time on characters trying to suss out what’s going on and why. Instead, the stars (Nicolas Cage in a gloriously demented performance, and Selma Blair matching him beat for beat) take a moment to look back at how their ungrateful, annoying kids have stolen their youthful coolness and replaced it with unsatisfying adulthood. It’s a wild, crazy, hyper-violent joyride of a film, but it’s rooted in the real, recognizable human feelings of antipathy and resentment that people might not want to acknowledge feeling about their kids.

Courtesy of TIFF
The Killing of a Sacred Deer

That brings me to another thing that kept striking me about horror at TIFF: it’s important that audiences recognize some real human behavior in the characters. One of my biggest frustrations at the festival came from Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Killing of a Sacred Deer, where a couple (played by Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman) watch their children submitting to some sort of bizarre curse. It’s slow-creeping horror, based in dread, but Farrell’s character ultimately responds in a way that took me completely out of the film, and had me questioning everything about him. I lost all the built-up dread and suspense, and dropped into “Why would anyone behave that way?” mode. Did you run into that with any of TIFF’s horror movies?

Bryan: I wonder if that might be more of a Yorgos Lanthimos problem than a TIFF horror problem. But some of the films that stood out to me were definitely able to frame some familiar, timely human behavior within a horror context. One that’s continued to stand out in my mind is David Freyne’s zombie film The Cured. In that movie, a zombie plague strikes Ireland, but almost all the infected are healed and integrated back into society. The hook is that they still remember everything they did while they were flesh-eating zombies. Ellen Page plays a widowed mother who takes in her cured brother-in-law, and as normal society pushes back hard against letting these monsters back into daily life, the film is able to touch on themes of xenophobia, racism, PTSD, and even domestic terrorism.

Courtesy of TIFF
The Cured

It all works because the movie stays grounded in recognizable, personal stakes: Page’s grief over her husband’s death, or the anguish her brother-in-law feels when he’s shunned from ordinary society, and embraced only by the extremists on the pro-zombie side of the fence. In some ways, the movie is a little too resonant — it all maps cleanly to some of the major political conversations of the moment — but that’s what makes it unnerving not just as an experiential piece of filmmaking (it’s got some decent jump scares along the way), but also as an allegorical one. Genre movies, and horror specifically, are wonderful opportunities to explore larger themes and ideas within the guise of bloody entertainment. Did you run into any other films you thought really worked well in that regard?

Tasha: Mom and Dad was the big one for me in that regard — again, it isn’t a deep movie, but it acknowledges truths I haven’t seen outside weird experiences like We Need To Talk About Kevin. There’s a feeling deep within Mom and Dad that our kids come along and suck up our youth, take it as their natural due, and then replace us. There are reasons to quietly resent even the kids you adore, but I think most people sublimate or ignore that urge. Mom and Dad acknowledges it in full, and sends it screaming to a place of glorious bloody mayhem. I loved it.

Some of the more horror-inclined action movies I saw at TIFF didn’t work for me because it really didn’t seem to be about anything other than splattering blood on the screen, often in ridiculous amounts. Coralie Fargeat’s comedically over-the-top rape-revenge thriller Revenge was a good example — it’s pretty much just an exercise in stylish visual sadism, with three men attempting to murder a rape victim to keep her quiet, and her hunting them down in a gory spree that involves gunshots, graphic gashes, and a finale where she blows a hole in her stark-naked former lover, then chases him all over a house liberally painted with their blood.

Courtesy of TIFF
Let The Corpses Tan

Another French film at TIFF, Let The Corpses Tan, struck me in the same way, though it couldn’t be more different: Revenge is a glossy modern story with no compunctions about graphic male nudity or a man spending long minutes pawing around inside his slashed-open, heavily bleeding foot, trying to fish out the piece of glass that cut him. Let The Corpses Tan is an impressionistic retro film in the vein of 1970s European exploitation cinema, full of montages of guns, knives, and breasts. Torture, murder, and arty perversions pile up at the expense of any kind of story. For every memorable sequence — like the one where a young woman has an openly sexual fantasy about an attacker shooting off all her clothes — there are half a dozen thudding gunfights where you can barely tell who’s shooting who. Which takes me back to one of my old horror standby lessons: To really feel horror, you have to care about the characters. This is why slasher movies don’t have much of an impact on me: if the bodies piling up are largely interchangeable and anonymous, I can’t get concerned about who’s dying.

Courtesy of TIFF
Downrange

Bryan: I hear that. There’s a reason most slasher franchises focus on the killer continuing from movie to movie, rather than any survivors. I had that same kind of empty feeling when watching Ryuhei Kitamura’s Downrange at TIFF, actually. It’s a pretty exploitative setup: a group of kids are on a road trip to… somewhere utterly immaterial to the plot. They pull over to the side of the road after one of their tires blows out, but they soon find out that a mysterious sniper, hidden in some nearby trees, was the culprit. Said sniper then proceeds to take them out, one by one, for reasons unknown. For the first half hour, it worked for me as a purely wackadoo gorefest, but past a certain point, the characters were so thinly drawn that it became impossible to stay engaged. Conveniently, one character is a former army brat, and is able to dole out intimidating details about snipers that make this one sound terrifying. But other than that, the characters aren’t really even archetypes so much as a collection of random faces. I wound up just waiting for them to die so I could run into a different theater, where I’d hopefully run into some characters I could care about.

Thankfully, there was one film I saw during TIFF that really hit me on an emotional level while also unnerving me. Marrowbone is the feature directorial debut of Sergio G. Sánchez, who also wrote one of my favorite horror films of the last 10 years, The Orphanage. The movie centers around a group of four siblings traumatized by a violent past, and after losing their mother, they decide to keep living in their creepy family home so the outside world can’t separate them. It’s a wonderfully creepy film — the home is full of unnerving creaks and groans, and mirrors in particular are a real source of terror for the children. But the performances and the actors’ emotional connection sucked me into the film. George McKay (11.22.63) is the tortured Jack, a young man trying to be the family leader his younger siblings desperately need, even though he’s dealing with the same concerns and fears they are.

Mia Goth continues an impressive streak of recent performances as his haunted younger sister. Stranger Things’ Charlie Heaton and the young Matthew Stagg complete the quartet, and watching these children struggle in real time with the ramifications of their past is outright heartbreaking at times. Anya Taylor-Joy (The Witch) also appears as Jack’s emergent love interest, demonstrating yet again what a nuanced, empathetic actor she is. And did I mention it’s scary? Because without getting into spoilers, Marrowbone is scary as hell, and I loved it for many of the same reasons I loved The Orphanage.

Courtesy of TIFF

In a lot of ways, Marrowbone is my ideal TIFF horror film. Sánchez isn’t afraid to fall back on the basics of scary sound design and expertly crafted jump-scares. But at the same time, his film has depth and resonance. It’s an emotional story that leaves the audience caring as much about what happens to its characters after the credits roll as they care about what happens to them during its running time. Not every film needs to be that way — as we’ve discussed before, part of the wonder of film festivals is the variety of stories on display — but for me, this is the kind of horror movie that resonates the most. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the movie since I saw it, and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

Tasha: Marrowbone was a standout TIFF experience for me, too, and it didn’t just score high on my horror roster. It held up well against all of the other 27 films I saw at the festival this year. In addition to all the qualities you’ve cited, I was impressed by the lush production design, the beautiful cinematography, and the way the film builds tension over time. I’m hoping it gets picked up for American distribution soon, because at the moment, it’s one of my favorites of the year.

And that’s another lesson of TIFF: Horror has become a favorite genre among young filmmakers looking to break into cinema, because with a good script and the right cast, it’s easier to do horror well on a shoestring budget than it is to do most genres. As a result, I think it’s gotten pretty easy to not expect too much out of our horror movies, beyond some jumps and flinches, and maybe some giggles. But it’s worth remembering that the best horror is capable of getting under the audience’s skin, and sticking with them long after they leave the theater. It’s a potentially powerful and moving genre. As we head into the horror season of October, it’s worth seeking out the best horror movies on offer, the ones that make us think as well as cringe, and that give us lasting emotions. Great horror movies are hard to find in the crowded schedules of TIFF, and even more so in a crowded field of streaming choices. But they’re well worth the effort it takes to find them.





Gadget News

via The Verge http://ift.tt/1jLudMg

September 21, 2017 at 12:25PM
0 Comments

FTC lawsuit over D-Links lax router security just took a big hit

9/21/2017

0 Comments

 


FTC lawsuit over D-Link’s lax router security just took a big hit

http://ift.tt/2ygzs3h

In January, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took D-Link to court over its incredibly insufficient security. The FTC claimed that the company failed to protect its routers and IP cameras from unauthorized access, exposing them to use in botnet attacks or outside viewings of camera feeds. But this week, the FTC's case against D-Link took a hit as a judge dismissed three of the commission's six complaints.

As reported by Consumerist, the dismissal stems from the FTC's lack of proof to substantiate half of its claims. The counts in questions suggested that consumers were harmed by D-Link's security vulnerabilities, but the FTC didn't provide any evidence that consumers were indeed harmed.

In his decision, the California district judge said, "The FTC does not identify a single incident where a consumer's financial, medical or other sensitive personal information has been accessed, exposed or misused in any way, or whose IP camera has been compromised by unauthorized parties, or who has suffered any harm or even simple annoyance and inconvenience from the alleged security flaws in the DLS devices. The absence of any concrete facts makes it just as possible that DLS's devices are not likely to substantially harm consumers, and the FTC cannot rely on wholly conclusory allegations about potential injury to tilt the balance in its favor."

The FTC does have an opportunity to amend its complaint, which if it chooses to do so, must be filed by October 20th.

Via: Consumerist

Source: FTC, Consumerist





Gadget News

via Engadget http://www.engadget.com

September 21, 2017 at 12:18PM
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All

    Archives

    October 2020
    September 2020
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • Blog
    • Social Media News
    • SEO Marketing News
    • Digital Trends News
    • Photography News
    • Mobile Marketing
    • Business News
    • Gadget News
    • Printing News
  • Contact
  • About
  • Subscribe