TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

APPLE TV REVIEW

.
Editors' notes: This review has been updated to account for changes in the competitive landscape since it was first published in October 2015. Major changes include features added as part of tvOS version 9.2, new apps and comparisons to other products.
Also, please note that this review refers to the US version. Some details, in particular available video-streaming apps, will vary in different territories. Check out our separate review of the UK version for more details.

So what's new?

If you're familiar with Apple TV, you might want a simple list of the improvements and changes made since launch. Here ya go.

More apps, "more than 5,000" as of May 2016 according to Apple
Siri voice search enabled across more movie and TV apps, including PBS, Disney channels and Starz
Siri voice support for Apple Music and App Store
Live tune-in, to ask Siri to go directly to a live channel inside supported live TV apps like Watch ESPN and CBS All Access
Dictation to use voice to enter text on screen
Support for Bluetooth keyboards
Folder support for apps
Podcast app
iCloud Photo Library and Live Photos
Conference Room Display, to lock Apple TV in business and education environments
Additional Siri language support: Siri now understands Spanish in the US and French in Canada. If English is the language that you use for Siri and you live in Australia, Canada, the UK or the US, you can choose Australian English, UK English or US English.

One of the biggest gripes at launch was the difficulty of entering information into text boxes like Search on the app store, the search app itself, and worst of all, the usernames and passwords required to authenticate accounts on apps like Netflix, Hulu, Watch ESPN and the rest.
At first, the only option was to use the on-screen keyboard. I actually find it faster than most others, thanks to the swipe-friendly horizontal layout and snappy remote, and it often only requires a couple of letters before surfacing relevant results, but it does take some getting used to.

Apple TV OS 9.2 gets folders and voice dictation... See full gallery

1 - 5 of 7

Next Prev

With a March 2016 software update Apple has introduced some alternatives. My favorite for entering password info is to use the Remote app for iOS devices, which allows you to use your Apple phone or tablet's onscreen keyboard (Pro tip: copy and paste complex passwords from a locker like LastPass, or another source, to Remote). You can also connect a Bluetooth keyboard.
There's also the ability to dictate individual letters, numbers and even symbols into the mic. This feature sounds cool, but didn't really work well in my experience. No matter how clearly I spoke, the results always seemed to miss a letter or two, or it would otherwise misinterpret my dictation. I recommend sticking with the Remote app.
I go through and test many of the other improvements in the review below.

Same black brick, different feel altogether

Compared to the old device, Apple didn't break the physical mold. Glossy edges, rounded corners, a matte top with the requisite logo -- the two small black boxes look basically identical. The new one is 0.4 inch taller, weighs 5.4 ounces more, and felt like a solid brick when I pulled it out of the box.

In every important way however, the 2015 Apple TV feels better than the original to use. It starts with the remote. It has a touchpad, a few more buttons and a familiar mic icon to evoke Siri, the name for Apple's disembodied female voice assistant (DFVA). Unlike Siri on a phone (or Alexa, the DFVA on Amazon's Echo and Fire TV ) Siri has no actual voice on Apple TV. Her replies are limited to words and visuals that appear on the screen, but she usually responds accurately and can perform some useful tricks.

The remote's touchpad is sensitive and fast, with just the right amount of friction, and the perfect size for one-thumb operation. It took a second to realize I had to click it to select anything, rather than just tap, but immediately afterward I was blowing through menus, zooming across thumbnails, and navigating quicker than with any plodding, click-based control. The menus let you choose a tracking speed. As someone who loves living dangerously, I chose "fast."

And those menus are great. A clean, white canvas to fill with the app icons you know from your phone, the Apple TV home page allows nearly full customization. One of the first things I did after installing everything I wanted was to move Netflix, Hulu and HBO to the top row, along with Disney Junior for the kids, and move iTunes down a few rows since I don't buy many TV shows and movies from Apple. The top-row app you select expands above to show content within (as chosen by the app itself).
You can also group different apps into folders and name them anything you want. The process is quick and painless, especially if you use voice to name them. Just tap the mic button and speak.

The old Apple TV came with numerous screen savers which appear after a period of inactivity. On the new one, for now, you just have a choice of your own photos or something called Aerial (above). Trust me, you should go with Aerial. It's a stunning collection of cityscapes, landscapes and landmarks shot in slow motion, and looks so good you might feel reluctant to ever turn your TV off.

Exploring the app store on a 65-inch screen

To fill Apple TV's white canvas you'll head to the app store, which feels a lot like the store on an iPhone or iPad, with bigger icons. One issue with Apple's app stores is wrestling with the sheer number of apps, and the problem rears its head on the Apple TV too.

Apple has improved organization of the store since launch, adding the ability to search by voice for example, and it's relatively well-organized given how many apps are available. At the top is where you'll find the main tabs for browsing new apps.
TV-centric apps predominate in the Featured tab, but other categories are appearing all the time. Some are devoted to games, apps for kids, sports and news, and some get Apple's further approval in categories like "New Apps We Love" and "Games with Intuitive Controls."
The Top Charts tab is next, with the most popular Paid, Free and Grossing apps (the latter, sadly, refers to money made, not fart and burp apps). The Categories tab, similar to "Explore" on the mobile app store, breaks apps down into "Games," "Education" and "Entertainment."

The Purchased tab lists all of the apps you've installed on other devices that are also compatible with Apple TV. You download and install them individually, picking and choosing which ones you like (although I did wish for a big "Install all" button). In most cases, if you've already paid for the app or game, it will be available for free on the Apple TV too -- but the decision to grandfather earlier purchases or charge you again is left up to each app's publisher.
Finally, the Search tab shows trending apps and allows you to find more via keyword, whether typed in or via voice.

One-thumb gaming

The first thing to know about gaming on the Apple TV is that you can always use the included remote; you don't need to buy a separate controller. The second thing is that with many games, a controller simply works better.
Most of the titles I played worked fine with the included touchpad remote, and there's something to be said about gaming with one thumb. I easily could hold my infant son while I played Crossy Road, for example.

That addictive chicken-smasher, with its simple controls and graphics, played beautifully and looked great on the big screen. So did JetPack Joyride and Bandland, both of which mainly consist of timed jumping. Slightly more complex controls worked well at times, for example steering on Does Not Commute (tapping either side of the pad) or swinging a bat with Beat Sports (swiping to move a bit, and swinging the controller like a Nintendo Wii). Where the touchpad controller failed for me was with quick movements requiring precise directions, like flying the ship in Geometry Wars, or directing the character to move across the map or attack something in Oceanhorn and Transistor.

One of the titles with the most complex controls at launch is Galaxy on Fire: Manticore Rising (above). A space-based arcade shooter, it incorporates the remote's position as well as swipes and clicks on the touchpad. It played surprisingly well considering all that, and again, required just one hand.

Two of the driving games, Asphalt 8 and Beach Buggy Racing, required me to put down my kid and hold the controller horizontally, like a steering wheel. Both were pretty forgiving and fun, but I definitely missed the precision of the controller.
I tried most of those games with a compatible controller, the Steel Series Stratus XL, and in most cases I found it more precise and responsive. But for casual games and quick one-off entertainment jaunts, it's pretty great to just pick up the remote and click.

TECHNOLOGY TODAY....

Sunday, June 5, 2016

TECHNOLOGY IN U.S.A

THE United States came into being around the Age of Enlightenment (circa 1680 to 1800), an era in Western philosophy in which writers and thinkers, rejecting the perceived superstitions of the past, instead chose to emphasize the intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. Enlightenment philosophers envisioned a "republic of science," where ideas would be exchanged freely and useful knowledge would improve the lot of all citizens.
The United States Constitution itself reflects the desire to encourage scientific creativity. It gives the United States Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."^[1] This clause formed the basis for the U.S. patent and copyright systems, whereby creators of original art and technology would get a government granted monopoly, which after a limited period would become free to all citizens, thereby enriching the public domain.^[2]

Contents
Early North American science

Franklin, one of the first early American scientists.

In the early decades of its history, the United States was relatively isolated from Europe and also rather poor. At this stage America's scientific infrastructure was still quite primitive compared to the long-established societies, institutes, and universities in Europe.
Two of America's founding fathers were scientists of some repute. Benjamin Franklin conducted a series of experiments that deepened human understanding of electricity. Among other things, he proved what had been suspected but never before shown: that lightning is a form of electricity. Franklin also invented such conveniences as bifocal eyeglasses. Franklin also conceived the mid-room furnace, the "Franklin Stove." However, Franklin's design was flawed, in that his furnace vented the smoke from its base: because the furnace lacked a chimney to "draw" fresh air up through the central chamber, the fire would soon go out. It took David R. Rittenhouse, another hero of early Philadelphia, to improve Franklin's design by adding an L-shaped exhaust pipe that drew air through the furnace and vented its smoke up and along the ceiling, then into an intramural chimney and out of the house.^[3]
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), was among the most influential leaders in early America; during the American Revolutionary War (1775–83), Jefferson served in the Virginia legislature, the Continental Congress, was governor of Virginia, later serving as U.S. minister to France, U.S. secretary of state, vice president under John Adams (1735-1826), author of the Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. president. During Jefferson’s two terms in office (1801-1809), the U.S. purchased the Louisiana Territory and Lewis and Clark explored the vast new acquisition. After leaving office, he retired to his Virginia plantation, Monticello, and helped spearhead the University of Virginia.^[4] Jefferson was also a student of agriculture who introduced various types of rice, olive trees, and grasses into the New World. He stressed the scientific aspect of the Lewis and Clark expedition (1804–06),^[5] which explored the Pacific Northwest, and detailed, systematic information on the region's plants and animals was one of that expedition's legacies.^[6]
Like Franklin and Jefferson, most American scientists of the late 18th century were involved in the struggle to win American independence and forge a new nation. These scientists included the astronomer David Rittenhouse, the medical scientist Benjamin Rush, and the natural historian Charles Willson Peale.^[6]
During the American Revolution, Rittenhouse helped design the defenses of Philadelphia and built telescopes and navigation instruments for the United States' military services. After the war, Rittenhouse designed road and canal systems for the state of Pennsylvania. He later returned to studying the stars and planets and gained a worldwide reputation in that field.^[6]
As United States Surgeon General, Benjamin Rush saved countless lives of soldiers during the American Revolutionary War by promoting hygiene and public health practices. By introducing new medical treatments, he made the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia an example of medical enlightenment, and after his military service, Rush established the first free clinic in the United States.^[6]
Charles Willson Peale is best remembered as an artist, but he also was a natural historian, inventor, educator, and politician. He created the first major museum in the United States, the Peale Museum in Philadelphia, which housed the young nation's only collection of North American natural history specimens. Peale excavated the bones of an ancient mastodon near West Point, New York; he spent three months assembling the skeleton, and then displayed it in his museum. The Peale Museum started an American tradition of making the knowledge of science interesting and available to the general public.^[6]

Science immigration
American political leaders' enthusiasm for knowledge also helped ensure a warm welcome for scientists from other countries. A notable early immigrant was the British chemist Joseph Priestley, who was driven from his homeland because of his dissenting politics. Priestley, who went to the United States in 1794, was the first of thousands of talented scientists who emigrated in search of a free, creative environment.^[6]

Alexander Graham Bell placing the first New York to Chicago telephone call in 1892

Other scientists had come to the United States to take part in the nation's rapid growth. Alexander Graham Bell, who arrived from Scotland by way of Canada in 1872, developed and patented the telephone and related inventions. Charles Steinmetz, who came from Germany in 1889, developed new alternating-current electrical systems at General Electric Company,^[6] and Vladimir Zworykin, an immigrant from Russia in 1919 arrived in the States bringing his knowledge of x-rays and cathode ray tubes and later won his first patent on a television system he invented. The Serbian Nikola Tesla went to the United States in 1884, and would later adapted the principle of rotating magnetic field in the development of an alternating current induction motor and polyphase system for the generation, transmission, distribution and use of electrical power.^[7]
Into the early 1900s Europe remained the center of science research, notably in England and Germany. From the 1920s onwards, the tensions heralding the onset of World War II spurred sporadic but steady scientific emigration, or “Brain Drain”, in Europe. Many of these emigrants were Jewish scientists, fearing the repercussions of anti-Semitism, especially in Germany and Italy, and sought sanctuary in the United States.^[8] One of the first to do so was Albert Einstein in 1933. At his urging, and often with his support, a good percentage of Germany's theoretical physics community, previously the best in the world, left for the US. Enrico Fermi, came from Italy in 1938 and led the work that produced the world's first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Many other scientists of note moved to the US during this same emigration wave, including Niels Bohr, Victor Weisskopf, Otto Stern, and Eugene Wigner.^[9]
Indeed, several scientific and technological breakthroughs during the Atomic Age were the handiwork of such immigrants, who recognized the potential threats and uses of new technology. For instance, it was the German professor Einstein and his Hungarian colleague, Leó Szilárd, who took the initiative and convinced president Franklin D. Roosevelt to pursue the pivotal Manhattan Project.^[10] Many physicists instrumental to the project were also European immigrants, such as the Hungarian Edward Teller, “father of the hydrogen bomb,”^[11] and German Nobel laureate Hans Bethe. Their scientific contributions, combined with Allied resources and facilities helped establish the United States during World War II as an unrivaled scientific juggernaut. In fact, the Manhattan Project’s Operation Alsos and its components, while not designed to recruit European scientists, successfully collected and evaluated Axis military scientific research at the end of the war, especially that of the German nuclear energy project, only to conclude that it was years behind its American counterpart.^[12]
When World War II ended, the US, the UK and the Soviet Union were all intent on capitalizing on Nazi research and competed for the spoils of war. While President Harry S. Truman refused to provide sanctuary to ideologically committed members of the Nazi party, the Office of Strategic Services introduced Operation Paperclip, conducted under the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency. This program covertly offered otherwise ineligible intellectuals and technicians white-washed dossiers, biographies, and employment. Ex-Nazi scientists overseen by the JIOA had been employed by the US military since the defeat of the Nazi regime in Project Overcast, but Operation Paperclip ventured to systematically allocate German nuclear and aerospace research and scientists to military and civilian posts, beginning in August 1945. Until the program’s termination in 1990, Operation Paperclip was said to have recruited over 1,600 such employees in a variety of professions and disciplines.^[13]

Serbian-American inventor Nikola Tesla sitting in the Colorado Springs experimental station with his "Magnifying transmitter" generating millions of volts.

In the first phases of Operation Paperclip, these recruits mostly included aerospace engineers from the German V-2 combat rocket program, experts in aerospace medicine and synthetic fuels. Perhaps the most influential of these was Wernher Von Braun, who had worked on the Aggregate rockets (the first rocket program to reach outer space), and chief designer of the V-2 rocket program. Upon reaching US soil, Von Braun first worked on the U.S. Air Force ICBM program before his team was reassigned to NASA.^[14] Often credited as “The Father of Rocket Science,” his work on the Redstone rocket and the successful deployment of the Explorer 1 satellite as a response to Sputnik 1 marked the beginning of the American Space program, and therefore, of the Space Race. Von Braun’s subsequent development of the Saturn V booster for NASA in the mid-to late sixties resulted in the first manned moon landing, the Apollo 11 mission, in 1969.
In the post-war era the US was left in a position of unchallenged scientific leadership, being one of the few industrial countries not ravaged by war. Additionally, science and technology were seen to have greatly added to the Allied war victory, and were seen as absolutely crucial in the Cold War era. This enthusiasm simultaneously rejuvenated American industry, and celebrated Yankee ingenuity, instilling a zealous nationwide investment in "Big Science" and state-of-the-art government funded facilities and programs. This state patronage presented appealing careers to the intelligentsia, and further consolidated the scientific preeminence of the United States. As a result, the US government became, for the first time, the largest single supporter of basic and applied scientific research. By the mid-1950s the research facilities in the US were second to none, and scientists were drawn to the US for this reason alone. The changing pattern can be seen in the winners of the Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry. During the first half-century of Nobel Prizes – from 1901 to 1950 – American winners were in a distinct minority in the science categories. Since 1950, Americans have won approximately half of the Nobel Prizes awarded in the sciences.^[15] See the List of Nobel laureates by country.
The American Brain Gain continued throughout the Cold War, as tensions steadily escalated in the Eastern Bloc, resulting in a steady trickle of defectors, refugees and emigrants. The partition of Germany, for one, precipitated over three and a half million East Germans – the Republikflüchtling - to cross into West Berlin by 1961. Most of them were young, well-qualified, educated professionals or skilled workers^[16] - the intelligentsia - exacerbating human capital flight in the GDR to the benefit of Western countries, including the United States.

Further information: Brain drain

American applied science

Men of Progress, representing 19 contemporary American inventors, 1857

During the 19th century, Britain, France, and Germany were at the forefront of new ideas in science and mathematics. But if the United States lagged behind in the formulation of theory, it excelled in using theory to solve problems: applied science. This tradition had been born of necessity. Because Americans lived so far from the well-springs of Western science and manufacturing, they often had to figure out their own ways of doing things. When Americans combined theoretical knowledge with "Yankee ingenuity", the result was a flow of important inventions. The great American inventors include Robert Fulton (the steamboat); Samuel Morse (the telegraph); Eli Whitney (the cotton gin); Cyrus McCormick (the reaper); and Thomas Alva Edison, the most fertile of them all, with more than a thousand inventions credited to his name.
Edison was not always the first to devise a scientific application, but he was frequently the one to bring an idea to a practical finish. For example, the British engineer Joseph Swan built an incandescent electric lamp in 1860, almost 20 years before Edison. But Edison's light bulbs lasted much longer than Swan's, and they could be turned on and off individually, while Swan's bulbs could be used only in a system where several lights were turned on or off at the same time. Edison followed up his improvement of the light bulb with the development of electrical generating systems. Within 30 years, his inventions had introduced electric lighting into millions of homes.
Another landmark application of scientific ideas to practical uses was the innovation of the brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright. In the 1890s they became fascinated with accounts of German glider experiments and began their own investigation into the principles of flight. Combining scientific knowledge and mechanical skills, the Wright brothers built and flew several gliders. Then, on December 17, 1903, they successfully flew the first heavier-than-air, mechanically propelled airplane.
An American invention that was barely noticed in 1947 went on to usher in the Information Age. In that year John Bardeen, William Shockley, and Walter Brattain of Bell Laboratories drew upon highly sophisticated principles of quantum physics to invent the transistor, a small substitute for the bulky vacuum tube. This, and a device invented 10 years later, the integrated circuit, made it possible to package enormous amounts of electronics into tiny containers. As a result, book-sized computers of today can outperform room-sized computers of the 1960s, and there has been a revolution in the way people live – in how they work, study, conduct business, and engage in research.
Part of America's past and current preeminence in applied science has been due to its vast research and development budget, which at $401.6bn in 2009 was more than double that of China's $154.1bn and over 25% greater than the European Union's $297.9bn.^[17]

The Atomic Age and "Big Science"

The mushroom cloud from the Mike shot, developed by United States Atomic Energy Commission

One of the most spectacular – and controversial – accomplishments of US technology has been the harnessing of nuclear energy. The concepts that led to the splitting of the atom were developed by the scientists of many countries, but the conversion of these ideas into the reality of nuclear fission was accomplished in the United States in the early 1940s, both by many Americans but also aided tremendously by the influx of European intellectuals fleeing the growing conflagration sparked by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Europe.
During these crucial years, a number of the most prominent European scientists, especially physicists, immigrated to the United States, where they would do much of their most important work; these included Hans Bethe, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Leó Szilárd, Edward Teller, Felix Bloch, Emilio Segrè, and Eugene Wigner, among many, many others. American academics worked hard to find positions at laboratories and universities for their European colleagues.
After German physicists split a uranium nucleus in 1938, a number of scientists concluded that a nuclear chain reaction was feasible and possible. The Einstein–Szilárd letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned that this breakthrough would permit the construction of "extremely powerful bombs." This warning inspired an executive order towards the investigation of using uranium as a weapon, which later was superseded during World War II by the Manhattan Project the full Allied effort to be the first to build an atomic bomb. The project bore fruit when the first such bomb was exploded in New Mexico on July 16, 1945.
The development of the bomb and its use against Japan in August 1945 initiated the Atomic Age, a time of anxiety over weapons of mass destruction that has lasted through the Cold War and down to the anti-proliferation efforts of today. Even so, the Atomic Age has also been characterized by peaceful uses of nuclear power, as in the advances in nuclear power and nuclear medicine.
Along with the production of the atomic bomb, World War II also began an era known as "Big Science" with increased government patronage of scientific research. The advantage of a scientifically and technologically sophisticated country became all too apparent during wartime, and in the ideological Cold War to follow the importance of scientific strength in even peacetime applications became too much for the government to any more leave to philanthropy and private industry alone. This increased expenditure on scientific research and education propelled the United States to the forefront of the international scientific community—an amazing feat for a country which only a few decades before still had to send its most promising students to Europe for extensive scientific education.
The first US commercial nuclear power plant started operation in Illinois in 1956. At the time, the future for nuclear energy in the United States looked bright. But opponents criticized the safety of power plants and questioned whether safe disposal of nuclear waste could be assured. A 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania turned many Americans against nuclear power. The cost of building a nuclear power plant escalated, and other, more economical sources of power began to look more appealing. During the 1970s and 1980s, plans for several nuclear plants were cancelled, and the future of nuclear power remains in a state of uncertainty in the United States.
Meanwhile, American scientists have been experimenting with other renewable energy, including solar power. Although solar power generation is still not economical in much of the United States, recent developments might make it more affordable.

Telecom and technology
For the past 80 years, the United States has been integral in fundamental advances in telecommunications and technology. For example, AT&T's Bell Laboratories spearheaded the American technological revolution with a series of inventions including the first practical light emitted diode (LED), the transistor, the C programming language, and the UNIX computer operating system.^[18] SRI International and Xerox PARC in Silicon Valley helped give birth to the personal computer industry, while ARPA and NASA funded the development of the ARPANET and the Internet.^[19]
Herman Hollerith was just a twenty-year-old engineer when he realized the need for a better way for the U.S. government to conduct their Census and then proceeded to develope electromechanical tabulators for that purpose. The net effect of the many changes from the 1880 census: the larger population, the data items to be collected, the Census Bureau headcount, the scheduled publications, and the use of Hollerith's electromechanical tabulators, was to reduce the time required to process the census from eight years for the 1880 census to six years for the 1890 census.^[20] That kick started The Tabulating Machine Company. By the 1960s, the company name had been changed to International Business Machines, and IBM dominated business computing.^[21] IBM revolutionized the industry by bringing out the first comprehensive family of computers (the System/360). It caused many of their competitors to either merge or go bankrupt, leaving IBM in an even more dominant position.^[22] IBM is known for its many inventions like the floppy disk, introduced in 1971, supermarket checkout products, and introduced in 1973, the IBM 3614 Consumer Transaction Facility, an early form of today's Automatic Teller Machines.^[23]

The Space Age

The Space Shuttle takes off on a manned mission to space.

Running almost in tandem with the Atomic Age has been the Space Age. American Robert Goddard was one of the first scientists to experiment with rocket propulsion systems. In his small laboratory in Worcester, Massachusetts, Goddard worked with liquid oxygen and gasoline to propel rockets into the atmosphere, and in 1926 successfully fired the world's first liquid-fuel rocket which reached a height of 12.5 meters.^[24] Over the next 10 years, Goddard's rockets achieved modest altitudes of nearly two kilometers, and interest in rocketry increased in the United States, Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union.^[25] As Allied forces advanced during World War II, both the American and Russian forces searched for top German scientists who could be claimed as spoils for their country. The American effort to bring home German rocket technology in Operation Paperclip, and the bringing of German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun (who would later sit at the head of a NASA center) stand out in particular.
Expendable rockets provided the means for launching artificial satellites, as well as manned spacecraft. In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik I, and the United States followed with Explorer I in 1958. The first manned space flights were made in early 1961, first by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin and then by American astronaut Alan Shepard.
From those first tentative steps, to the 1969 Apollo program landing on the Moon and the partially reusable Space Shuttle, the American space program brought forth a breathtaking display of applied science. Communications satellites transmit computer data, telephone calls, and radio and television broadcasts. Weather satellites furnish the data necessary to provide early warnings of severe storms. Global positioning satellites were first developed in the US starting around 1972, and became fully operational by 1994. Interplanetary probes and space telescopes began a golden age of planetary science and advanced a wide variety of astronomical work.

Medicine and health care
As in physics and chemistry, Americans have dominated the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine since World War II. The private sector has been the focal point for biomedical research in the United States, and has played a key role in this achievement. As of 2000, for-profit industry funded 57%, non-profit private organizations such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute funded 7%, and the tax-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded 36% of medical research in the U.S.^[26] However, by 2003, the NIH funded only 28% of medical research funding; funding by private industry increased 102% from 1994 to 2003.^[27]
The NIH consists of 24 separate institutes in Bethesda, Maryland. The goal of NIH research is knowledge that helps prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability. At any given time, grants from the NIH support the research of about 35,000 principal investigators. Five Nobel Prize-winners have made their prize-winning discoveries in NIH laboratories.
NIH research has helped make possible numerous medical achievements. For example, mortality from heart disease, the number-one killer in the United States, dropped 41 percent between 1971 and 1991. The death rate for strokes decreased by 59 percent during the same period. Between 1991 and 1995, the cancer death rate fell by nearly 3 percent, the first sustained decline since national record-keeping began in the 1930s. And today more than 70 percent of children who get cancer are cured.
With the help of the NIH, molecular genetics and genomics research have revolutionized biomedical science. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers performed the first trial of gene therapy in humans and are now able to locate, identify, and describe the function of many genes in the human genome.
Research conducted by universities, hospitals, and corporations also contributes to improvement in diagnosis and treatment of disease. NIH funded the basic research on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), for example, but many of the drugs used to treat the disease have emerged from the laboratories of the American pharmaceutical industry; those drugs are being tested in research centers across the country.

technology today..

how much does a facebook agent earn per year ??

So perhaps it is unsurprising that Facebook pays its employees rather generously. According to new figures, a research scientist at the firm can expect to earn $172,705 per year. Meanwhile, the average network engineer will scoop $160,172 (their annual salary plus bonus)......

TECHNOLOGY TODAY

adidas vs nike in technology??

Nike and Adidas both have some clever trainer technology which they say can make all the difference to the way you run: Adidas has the Boost range or trainers, Nike has the Free. Both Nike and Adidas's offerings are loaded with tech buzzwords and potentially gimmicky bits of stitching. But do they work? We have spent about a month running in each, putting down plenty of miles and working closely with fitness experts to learn exactly how our running has changed, if at all.

The trainers

The shoes on test are the Adidas Energy Boost and the Nike Free 5.0. These are flagship products for Nike and Adidas when it comes to comfort and ease of use, intend to make running as smooth and easy as possible. The core concepts around each are slightly different.
Nike
We spoke to Tobie Hatfield, designer of the Nike Free 5.0, who said that the concept behind them was to free up your feet. Hatfield explained that we already had some brilliant "natural technology" in the form of our feet and that the Free was all about designing around that.
"We just needed to design to the natural motion of the foot. Back in 2001 athletes liked to barefoot train, so we thought, let's understand the foot first and then build for that," he said.

The result is a shoe which is as dynamic and flexible as Nike can make. It incorporates Flywire technology, which essentially turns the whole upper part of the trainer into a suspension bridge for your foot. You also get a thin sole divided into sections, which is where the flex comes from in the shoe.
Adidas
The Boost is a very different trainer compared to the Nike in terms of design. Rather than going for flexibility, the support and comfort all comes from the sole.
It features a set of capsules bonded together to make up the base of the shoe. It provides "the highest energy return in the running industry while combining usually conflicting performance benefits", says Marcus Wucherer, category manager running, at Adidas.

"With standard EVA material which is used in most running shoes, runners have to choose between soft and responsive cushioning. Boost changes this as it combines these performance needs into one incredible running experience."
Plenty of buzzwords to get the tech fan excited in both sets of shoes. The cynic in us however didn't quite believe either would do much for our running apart from just adding comfort. We ended up being very wrong, but for reasons we hadn't expected.

The track

The first thing we needed to do with the shoes was test them out at a running track. We brought personal trainer Turner Moyse along. A running expert, he would be able to provide tips on our technique as well as offer feedback as to what exactly the shoes were doing.
Nike
The first thing we learnt about the Free 5.0 was the potential they had to improve our running. Most people inherently run on their heel, with the back of their foot taking the majority of the impact at the start of each stride. Over time this can cause you all sorts of issues with your joints, so the trick is to try and change the way that you run.
Before we took the Free 5.0 for a spin, Turner had us running barefoot in an attempt to trick our brains into running on the toe and front part of our foot.

"You need to run barefoot to learn how to use the Free properly. It is all about toe then heel with the Nikes, but the opposite with Adidas." Turner explained.
A few laps of the track and we started to see exactly what he meant. Once you start to run on the front of your foot, the flex in the toe box of the Free 5.0 means you can get much more power in your stride, without your toes constantly being under pressure from the stiffness at the front of the shoe. It works brilliantly and made a noticeable difference to the muscle and joint pain you might feel after an intense few hours at the track.
We also noticed that the flexibility in the front of the shoe helped us get off the line quicker when doing sprint starts. This is an important fact to consider, especially for those planning to use the Free to do short sprint training or in sports that require increased flexibility in your feet.
Adidas
Any length of time spent in the Energy Boost around the track and it becomes immediately apparent just how well suited they are to long-distance running. They don't even come close to the Nike in terms of flexibility, but totally demolish it in the amount of support offered.
Using Usain Bolt as an example, Turner explained to us that his skill is in his foot speed. Bolt is a big guy who can run with the foot speed of a short person, all the while keeping the stride of someone taller. Mirror this and your running should get quicker. Practice comes from doing sprint starts and then gradually rising up, which the Nikes were ideally suited to.

The Adidas's benefit only became clear about 200 metres into a run. They really do add a boost to your stride, making you feel markedly faster than before. It's a much more impressive effect than you might imagine and initially meant we found the Adidas more impressive.
This changed once the run had finished. The amount of spring they put in your step meant we found they were putting increased strain on our calf muscles. After a 9km run and a warm down, our legs were in a fair amount of pain the next day. But we were quicker around the track by about 10-15 seconds.

Off road

Given the Adidas had performed so admirably around a running track, we wanted to find out how well they coped off the beaten path, where flexibility may offer more of an advantage.
As such, we did an identical set of laps at around 5km each on our usual off-road run, splitting them with a day between to let our muscles rest up.
Nike
As we suspected the Nikes performed better here. The added flex meant that running across uneven terrain was a bit easier. Each time your foot hits a rock, say, the shoe can bend around the shape of it, rather than hitting it dead on.
The load placed on our ankles and the ball of our feet was drastically reduced by the amount of give in the Nike. Because our foot could bend naturally to the contours of the run, we felt more stable when running and less prone to twisting ankles.

The Flywire found in the lacing system of the Nike is also there to help bring more support to your feet. While we never directly felt it in action, we did feel the whole shoe was wrapped tightly around our foot, never coming loose even after the bumpiest of runs.
Adidas
Without a completely flat surface, a lot of the extra spring that the Boost provided was gone. The shoe appears much stiffer, like a traditional trainer, when you are running off road. In fact, the lack of flex meant we much preferred the Nikes in the case, which is surprising as you would think the cushioning that Boost offers would help.

Instead it was almost like driving a sports car off road, with the spring in the shoe meaning they skitter around and never settle over bumps. Our feet felt more prone to impact and the longer run was less comfortable.

Verdict

Does all this trainer technology really work? In the case of the Adidas Boost trainers, they offer unparalleled levels of comfort and speed when running long distances. It really is amazing what sort of a difference they can make the first time you put them on and start running on a flat surface.
The flexibility of the Nike is also very impressive, although we can't help but feel that comes for the most part from the sole and little else. Having used a set of Nike Free Run +3 Shields over the winter, the sole is what really matters with the shoe. If you can learn to run on them correctly, they could also bring about a drop in the strain placed on joints and muscles when training, resulting in a shortened recovery time.
So yes, the trainer technology does work but in very different ways. Nike is all about flexibility and the Free 5.0 are perfectly suited to anyone who plays a sport that needs freedom of feet. Compared to the rest of the Nike Free range, they are also easily the best.
Adidas is on to something really special with Boost. Let's not forget these are the first version of the new trainer technology that the company has released. On the track, we loved them, but our muscles didn't quite as much afterwards. What we really want is a set of Boosts with the flexibility of the Nike Frees, then you will have a pair of trainers where the technology can utterly change the way you exercise.

technology today

TECHNOLOGY TODAY

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

APPLE TV REVIEW

So what's new?

Apple TV OS 9.2 gets folders and voice dictation... See full gallery

Same black brick, different feel altogether

Exploring the app store on a 65-inch screen

One-thumb gaming

Sunday, June 5, 2016

TECHNOLOGY IN U.S.A

Contents

Early North American science

Science immigration

American applied science

The Atomic Age and "Big Science"

Telecom and technology

The Space Age

Medicine and health care

how much does a facebook agent earn per year ??

adidas vs nike in technology??

Blog Archive

About Me