Darpa's Beady-Eyed Camera Spots the 'Non-Cooperative'

• By Katie Drummond
• May 27, 2010  |  
• 
  

Soon, keeping your head down won't be enough to stump high-tech security cameras, thanks to Pentagon-funded researchers developing mini-cameras that can nab threats by hunting down — and scanning — their eyeballs.

A team of electrical engineers at Southern Methodist University (SMU), led by Professor Marc Christensen, first created the cameras with funding from Darpa, the Pentagon's research agency. Called Panoptes, the devices use low-resolution sensors to create a high-res image that can be captured using a lightweight, ultra-slim camera. Because they don't use a lens, the cameras were originally designed for miniature drone sensors and troop helmet-cams.

Only a year later, the Pentagon is giving SMU another $1.6 million, to merge the cameras with active illumination and handheld Pico projection devices. This allows photos captured on small devices to be transformed for large-format viewing. Whereas the first goal of the program was to create slim cameras with the power of a lens, the latest technology "lets us do even more than what a lens could do," Christensen told Danger Room.

"This platform is really just the base, upon which we'll focus on different applications," Christensen said. "Now, we're enhancing resolution even more, so the images are a 3-D map with even better, more accurate details."

The new devices will yield a robust 3-D image that'll be useful for seeing in caves and dark urban areas, and for the creation of versatile "non-cooperative" iris-detection security cameras.

Smart-Iris, the name of the new Panoptes innovation, is being developed in conjunction with SMU Professor Delores Etter, who specializes in biometric identification. It'll eliminate problems like glare, eyelashes, dim lighting — and an unwillingness to stop and stare directly into a dedicated iris-detection camera. Instead, Panoptes devices will zero in on a face, no matter angle or movement, then narrow right into the iris. A long line of people, moving through a line, could be scanned by wall-mounted cameras and they wouldn't even notice it was happening.

And new algorithms are being developed by Etter and colleagues to identify individuals based on segments of their iris, rather than a full frontal scan.

"Ideally, when you walk down a hallway, no matter where your head is looking, the device can grab your eyeball and detect what it needs to," Christensen said. And where possible security and defense applications are concerned? "You can let your imagination fly with that one."

And with this latest development, Christensen also sees widespread civilian application, as part of "the cell phone of the future." He'd like to see the camera-projection device incorporated into phones, and says they'd be able to photograph the page of a book "down to the smallest lettering," or detect counterfeit cash by "picking up the texture of a $20 bill."

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/darpas-beady-eyed-camera-spots-the-non-cooperative/#ixzz0pMgVzjXS

The NYT trying to cover for Bambi again

The NYT thinks that by pushng the idea that Zero is against illegal
immigration even if his natural supporters are for it they can hide what
he is really doing about the issue. Sorry, Charlie, won't work. This
president is so untrustworthy that we can all see this policy coming for
the POS that it is and that he is.

May 28, 2010
A Potential Obama Ally Becomes an Outspoken Foe on Immigration
By JULIA PRESTON

WASHINGTON — Representative Luis V. Gutierrez was all set to be a friend
of the Obama administration, a point man for the White House among
Latinos. A nine-term Democrat, he had cut his political teeth in the
wards of Chicago, just as Barack Obama did, and the two knew each other
from their parallel early careers in Illinois.

But instead of a favorite ally, Mr. Gutierrez has become a noisy,
needling outsider — and not just in the halls of Congress. Saying he was
fed up with the president not leading an overhaul of immigration laws,
Mr. Gutierrez was arrested along with more than 30 other protesters on
May 1 after a sit-in in front of the White House.

Mr. Gutierrez's frustration was only deepened by the president's
announcement this week that he would send up to 1,200 more National
Guard troops to the border with Mexico, a move Mr. Gutierrez called
"sound-bite driven politics."

"There is 25 years of hard evidence that the president is wrong," said
Mr. Gutierrez, who is chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's
immigration task force. "Border security and immigration are not
one-dimensional problems that can be solved by more boots on the border."

Demonstrators plan to take to the streets again in several cities this
weekend — to protest Arizona's tough new immigration law, the
president's planned troop increase at the border, and the failure of
Congress to move an immigration overhaul bill including measures to give
legal status to millions of illegal immigrants.

In recent months Mr. Gutierrez has emerged as a national leader of
Latinos and immigrants favoring the overhaul, who up to now have largely
been organized into local community groups with no iconic faces.

"What began as a legislative campaign is transforming into a social
movement," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a
group here that lobbies for an overhaul bill that includes legalization.
"Luis is the closest thing we have to an Al Sharpton figure who has
instant credibility with the community he speaks for."

Allies say Mr. Gutierrez's tenacity and his following among Latinos have
helped keep the immigration overhaul alive in Washington at a time when
many administration officials wish it would go away, at least for now.
But even some of Mr. Gutierrez's friends say that his sometimes
intemperate broadsides and showy tactics have irritated the White House
and won him no friends among Republicans, some of whom would have to
sign on to any overhaul bill for it to pass.

Mr. Gutierrez, 56, said he believes he has a responsibility to point out
that Mr. Obama has not fulfilled a campaign pledge to pass overhaul
legislation, which is known to supporters as comprehensive immigration
reform.

"I'm not demeaning him," said Mr. Gutierrez, "I'm talking to him about
something he made a promise about. You shouldn't think you challenge
somebody simply because you wish them ill. What if you challenge them so
they can do better?"

In that spirit, Mr. Gutierrez points out that it is only because of Mr.
Obama that he is still in Congress.

In late 2006, after the House approved a bill he abhorred cracking down
on illegal immigrants, and with his wife, Soraida, struggling with
cancer, Mr. Gutierrez said he would not seek re-election in 2008.

He changed his mind the next year, when Mr. Obama declared his
presidential run and his wife's illness went into remission. He was
thrilled when Mr. Obama said he would take up immigration in his first
year as president. Now midterm elections are looming, and in the Senate
— where leaders in both houses agree the legislative effort has to begin
— there is not a bill, only a Democratic blueprint. (Mr. Gutierrez
presented a bill in the House in December.)

"Maybe next time you should put in a caveat," Mr. Gutierrez said in his
Capitol Hill office recently, imagining a debate with Mr. Obama. " 'Vote
for me, and I'm going to do immigration — unless A, B and C happen.'

"That's not what you said!" he said "You're sophisticated. You went to
Harvard. You knew the implications of what you were saying."

As an unusually talkative lawmaker, Mr. Gutierrez does not do pith or
detachment, Congressional aides and immigrant advocates said. Those who
have participated in closed-door immigration negotiations with him
recall Mr. Gutierrez weeping over stories of families sundered by
deportation, leaping to his feet in rage at setbacks and being elated by
small victories.

But for years, on immigration Mr. Gutierrez had been a more typical
dealmaker. In 2007, he crafted a bipartisan bill with Representative
Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, which included enforcement provisions
and a guest worker program that brought him criticism from Latino and
immigrant groups.

The proposal died that year along with an overhaul bill supported by
President George W. Bush that failed in the Senate.

Then, one month after Mr. Obama's inauguration, Mr. Gutierrez embarked
on a town-hall-meeting tour, called Familias Unidas (United Families),
that took him to 16 cities to raise support for an immigration overhaul.
Citizens and legal immigrants were invited to recount hardships they
faced because loved ones lacked legal status. Most meetings were held in
churches.

Mr. Gutierrez played to packed pews across the country. By the end of
the tour, he began to sound more like a preacher than a politician.

"He took immigration from a specialty policy issue to a Latino identity
litmus test: are you for or against us as Latinos?," said Tamar Jacoby,
a Republican who heads ImmigrationWorks USA, a business lobbying group.

It was an identity hard won. Born in Chicago to Puerto Rican parents,
Mr. Gutierrez has maintained his ties to the island. His civil
disobedience arrest this month was not his first; he was arrested in
2001 on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, in a protest over bombing
exercises by the United States Navy.

Latinos comprise 75 percent of his Chicago district. Most are of Mexican
origin. His support there has given him confidence to take on people in
high places. He has a history of friction with Rahm Emanuel, another
Chicagoan and Mr. Obama's chief of staff, which dates back to when Mr.
Emanuel was a Democratic leader in the House.

"I think he sees comprehensive immigration reform as something the
president does not need to prioritize," Mr. Gutierrez fumed.

Mr. Gutierrez said his turning point was the State of the Union address
in January, when the president made only passing mention of immigration.
At a rally before his May Day sit-in, Mr. Gutierrez ridiculed statements
by Mr. Obama that Congress might have too much on its plate to handle
immigration.

"Don't worry about us, Mr. President," he said. "We'll get up a little
earlier if necessary."

Even as his stature as a Latino leader is growing, he faces trouble at
home. In a series of articles, The Chicago Tribune has reported that Mr.
Gutierrez received a loan from a Chicago real estate developer, Calvin
Boender, who was convicted in March on bribery charges, in a case that
did not involve Mr. Gutierrez. Citing court records, The Tribune
reported that Mr. Gutierrez wrote a letter and met with city officials
on Mr. Boender's behalf over zoning issues.

While acknowledging the loan, Mr. Gutierrez adamantly denied any
wrongdoing. He produced financial records he said showed he had taken a
bridge loan that was repaid after six weeks, part of a routine payment
plan on a property he bought from Mr. Boender.

Other Hispanic lawmakers laud Mr. Gutierrez's commitment, though not
always his strategies. "I know the discomfort it causes the White House
and the party leadership," said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of
Arizona, another Democrat on the Hispanic caucus. "What he's doing is
necessary."

But Representative Nydia M. Velázquez, Democrat of New York, the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus leader, said the focus should be on
behind-the-scenes efforts to win over Republican legislators. But Mr.
Gutierrez remains focused on the president.

"This is the moment for him to act," Mr. Gutierrez said. "And if we
stumble, if somehow we fail, let's fail together. Let's fail fighting!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29gutierrez.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.jsonp&pagewanted=print

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Oklahome and Obamacare in November

Psst: Voters in Oklahoma and Other States to Vote on ObamaCare in November

Filed under: Economy, Health Care, Immigration, MSM Biz/Other Bias, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 11:20 am

Over the past two years, yours truly has noted how the economy in Oklahoma has with very little media attention outperformed most of the rest of the nation. The Sooner State’s much lower unemployment rate, higher GDP growth, and higher personal income growth have “strangely” coincided with the passage of a strict illegal immigration law-enforcement measure in 2007.

Now there’s another significant news item out of Oklahoma that the establishment press has also virtually ignored. In November, voters there are going to decide whether to opt out of the statist health care legislation passed by Congress in March, also known as ObamaCare, by passing a state constitutional amendment.

Oklahoma is not alone. Two larger states will also have state constitutional opt-outs on the November ballot.

Rush Limbaugh brought the Oklahoma news to his listeners’ attention yesterday, and linked to this LifeSiteNews.com story. If that seems an odd choice, it’s because press coverage in general has been either curt, dismissive, or non-existent.

Here are key paragraphs from Peter J. Smith’s LifeSite report:

Oklahoma Voters May Nullify Fed Health Care Law in November

Voters in Oklahoma will be given a chance in November to decide whether they want to reject the core of the recently-enacted national health care reform, which includes taxpayer-funded abortion and requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, thanks to a legislative action that bypassed the objections of pro-abortion Democrat Gov. Brad Henry.

The state’s House of Representatives approved Senate Joint Resolution 59 with a strong bipartisan majority of 88-9. SJR 59 allows citizens to vote up or down a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,” and allow individuals to pay directly for health services and carry private health insurance.

The House had waited to act on the Senate resolution, in hopes of overriding the governor’s veto of a resolution that would have enacted the ban via statute. However, after the veto override attempt failed last week, the House enacted the version putting the question to voters.

Because the SJR 59 is a referendum question, the decision will bypass the governor and go directly to the people on the November 2 state ballot. The measure is based on American Legislative Exchange Council’s model Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.

If enacted, Oklahoma will follow the lead of Virginia, Idaho, and Arizona in challenging President Barack Obama’s signature legislation on the basis of state law, but with a twist: the Virginia challenge to the health care bill is based on a state statute, while Oklahoma would up the ante with a constitutional amendment.

Voters in Florida and Arizona will also go to the polls in November to vote on constitutional amendments opting their states out of the national health care law.

The Associated Press’s coverage has been limited to a four-paragraph item that is not available in a search on “Oklahoma voters” (not in quotes), the first two words in the article, at its main site.

Despite the fact that an Oklahoma House resolution overrode Democratic Governor Brad Henry’s veto by 88-9, the Tulsa World’s Barbara Hoberock gave four of her report’s 13 paragraph to an opponent who argued that the “federal health-care reform law will provide access to health care for people in her district who do not have it.” As has been pointed out frequently, everyone has “access” by law, even if they don’t have insurance.

At the Oklahoman, Michael McNutt’s more balanced report contained a quote from the governor’s spokesperson that goes to the heart of an inevitiable federal government challenge:

Paul Sund, Henry’s spokesman, said passage of SJR 59 “just sets the stage for yet another lawsuit against the state and more unnecessary legal fees for Oklahoma taxpayers.”

“No state has the authority to selectively ignore federal laws of its choosing, and any attempt to do so will be ruled unconstitutional by the courts,” Sund said.

Someone should have asked Mr. Sund why we even bother having states if the federal government can pass any law it likes while imposing any mandates it pleases.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Comments [moderated] (2)


http://www.bizzyblog.com/2010/05/29/psst-voters-in-several-states-to-vote-on-health-care-mandate-in-november/

Here goes the AP up against Merkel - she is the head of Germany, not the EU after all

May 29, 4:42 PM EDT Germany's Angela Merkel goes from glory to disgrace over handling of Europe's financial crisis By KIRSTEN GRIESHABER Associated Press Writer

AP Photo/Markus Schreiber Advertisement Buy AP Photo Reprints Your Questions Answered AP answers your questions on the news, from boundaries in the Gulf to credit agency reports Interactive Berlin Wall: 20 Years Later BERLIN (AP) -- It was only nine months ago that Forbes magazine named German Chancellor Angela Merkel the world's most powerful woman for the fourth year in a row. She impressed Germans and foreigners alike with her ascent to power - an East German pastor's daughter who took control of the male-dominated conservative party and won elections in Europe's economic powerhouse, becoming Germany's first female chancellor in 2005. She was lauded for hosting the world's top leaders at the G-8 summit in Heiligendamm in 2007 with ease and professionalism. She repaired relations with the United States that were strained over the Iraq war, and she positioned herself as a political heavyweight on the continent. It seemed that no major political and economic decision could be made in Europe without Merkel's approval. But over the last few months, the German chancellor's handling of Europe's economic crisis has made her widely disliked at home and increasingly isolated and even reviled abroad. On the international stage, Merkel, 55, has been criticized for dragging her feet for months over a bailout package for Greece and being too focused on German national interests. "For months, Mrs. Merkel resisted all appeals - by other European leaders and Washington - to, well, be a European leader," The New York Times wrote in an editorial Wednesday. On the same day, EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso criticized Germany for its role in the euro currency crisis and said it would be "naive" to believe that EU treaties could be changed according to German wishes without other nations wanting amendments as well. Barroso was referring to Germany's insistence that European Union treaties be changed to allow tougher sanctions for countries that have excessive government debt. In an interview with the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Barroso said "our union needs Germany in a leading role" and added he wants to see Germany "speak up for Europe. Otherwise, we have a problem." Concerned about German state elections in North Rhine-Westphalia in early May, Merkel had tried to postpone a decision on the Greek bailout until after the election. In the end, her European partners pushed her into supporting the rescue package just days before the election - which Merkel's party then lost. "This (behavior) shows a fatal German inclination for isolationism that one had thought belonged to the past," German daily Tagesspiegel wrote in an editorial Saturday. "This does not only make our partners suspicious of us, but is also completely senseless in today's globally connected world." Now, like her colleagues in Greece, Spain, Britain, Portugal and Italy, Merkel is struggling to prepare a worried populace for budget cuts. The chancellor has already scrapped plans for promised tax cuts, but still faces a huge federal budget deficit. Her government is going to decide on spending cuts and, possibly, even on tax hikes within the next 10 days. "For weeks, you've tried to sit on the fence and not get involved," opposition leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the left-leaning Social Democrats scolded Merkel during a parliament debate about the Greek rescue package. "You've let things slide and now that everything is ablaze, you're calling for the firefighters to solve the problem." Domestic critics have noted repeatedly that her new coalition has accomplished little in the seven months since it took control. Her popularity among Germans has plummeted by 10 points to 48 percent - her worst showing since late 2006. Opposition lawmakers accuse the chancellor of lacking any vision or leadership when it comes to essential issues like an aging population, integrating immigrants into German society or tackling the question of whether to continue using nuclear energy. Merkel has not responded directly to the criticism and her office could not immediately be reached for comment Saturday. The chancellor's unilateral ban earlier this month on naked short-selling of eurozone government debt and shares of major financial companies received praise - but also criticism, because she made the decision without consulting the 15 other nations that share the euro currency with Germany. "Germany is still the most important economic power on the continent," Tagesspiegel wrote. "But while other powers used to look at Merkel for orientation ... today she seems to be confused and changing her position according to the influential powers around her." Of 1,000 people surveyed by Infratest dimap this week, 58 percent said they thought Merkel's previous coalition government of her conservatives and the center-left Social Democrats was better than the new coalition Merkel formed in October with the business-oriented Free Democrats. Only 34 percent said Merkel's government had made the right decisions to counter Europe's government debt crisis. "Merkel, the crisis-managing chancellor, has turned into a chancellor in crisis herself," the daily Welt newspaper wrote on Friday. © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy. Click here for copyright permissions! Copyright 2008 Associated Press

I got a question for one of the protesters who was interviewed

If you have been here 21 years trying to get legal, then why aren't you.  It can't be all that difficult since many who come from countries that don't even use our alphabet have managed to accomplish it.   It sounds really fishy to me.  And now you are using anchor babies to stay here?

May 29, 8:00 PM EDT

Immigration law opponents brave heat to march on Ariz. Capitol; supporters plan evening rally

By JONATHAN J. COOPER
Associated Press Writer

AP Photo/Paul Connors

Advertisement

Buy AP Photo Reprints

Your Questions Answered AP answers your questions on the news, from boundaries in the Gulf to credit agency reports

PHOENIX (AP) -- Thousands of people from around the country marched to the Arizona state Capitol on Saturday to protest the state's tough new crackdown on illegal immigration.

Marchers carrying signs, banners and flags from the United States and Mexico filled a five-mile stretch of central Phoenix. Dozens of police officers lined the route, and helicopters hovered overhead.

Police declined to estimate the size of the crowd, but it appeared at least 10,000 to 20,000 protesters braved temperatures that were forecast to reach 95 degrees by mid-afternoon. Organizers had said they expected the demonstration to bring as many as 50,000 people.

Opponents of the law suspended their boycott against Arizona and bused in protesters from around the country. Some used umbrellas or cardboard signs to protect their faces from the sun. Volunteers handed out water bottles from the beds of pickup trucks, and organizers set up three water stations along the route.

About 20 people were treated for heat or fatigue-related symptoms, and seven of them were taken to a hospital, said Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Tommy Thompson. There were no arrests or other incidents, he said.

The law's opponents also gathered elsewhere. About 300 people rallied at the Texas Capitol in Austin, and another 300 people protested at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City demanding legalization for undocumented Mexican workers in the United States.

"Many of us have relatives or friends in the U.S. and we must now stand up and speak out on their behalf," said Elvira Arellano, who gained international attention in 2007 when she was deported without her U.S. citizen son.

In San Francisco, groups planned to protest at the Arizona Diamondbacks' game against the Giants Saturday night.

Supporters of Arizona's law expect to draw thousands to a rally of their own Saturday evening at a baseball stadium in suburban Tempe, encouraging like-minded Americans to "buycott" Arizona by planning vacations in the state.

Critics of the law, set to take effect July 29, say it unfairly targets Hispanics and could lead to racial profiling. Its supporters say Arizona is trying to enforce immigration laws because the federal government has failed to do so.

The law requires that police conducting traffic stops or questioning people about possible legal violations ask them about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they're in the country illegally.

Supporters of the law insist racial profiling will not be tolerated, but civil rights leaders worry that officers will still assume illegal immigrants are Hispanic.

"I don't think that this law is American. I think it's discriminatory," said Chelsea Halstead, a 20-year-old college student from Flagstaff. "I'm offended by it because this is a nation founded by immigrants."

Some marchers chanted "si se puede," a phrase coined by Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez that roughly means "yes we can." Others took aim at President Barack Obama, demanding that he prioritize comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants now in the country.

"Obama, listen, we are in the fight," they chanted in Spanish. A handful of protesters also carried a massive banner that read: "Where's the change? Mr. President how can we trust you for re-election?"

Alfonso Martinez, a 38-year-old Phoenix carpenter and father of three children who are American citizens, said he's been living illegally in the United States for 21 years while trying to get legal status.

"If they stop me and they find my status, who's going to feed my kids? Who's going to keep working hard for them?" he said, keeping a careful eye on his 6-year-old daughter as his wife pushed their 4-year-old girl in a stroller. Their 13-year-old son walked ahead of them.

Some opponents of the law have encouraged people to cancel conventions in the state and avoid doing business with Arizona-based companies, hoping the economic pressure forces a repeal.

"The point was to be here for this march to show support for these folks, then we're out," said Jose Vargas, a union representative for New York City teachers. "We're not spending a dime here."

Supporters of the law sought to counteract the economic damage of boycotts by bringing supporters into the state.

"Arizona, we feel, is America's Alamo in the fight against illegal and dangerous entry into the United States," said Gina Loudon of St. Louis, who is organizing the "buycott."

"Our border guards and all of Arizona law enforcement are the undermanned, under-gunned, taxed-to-the-limit front-line defenders trying to hold back the invasion," she said.

---

Associated Press Writer Martha Mendoza in Mexico City contributed to this report.

---

Online:

http://www.altoarizona.com