Vast Majority Of Americans Reject Attack On Iran; Half Expect War “Within Few Years”

War with Iran remains a deeply unpopular prospect among the American people, but a new opinion poll conducted by Reuters and polling organization Ipsos found there’s not much optimism concerning the likelihood of getting entangled in a future conflict. The poll released Tuesday found that half of all Americans see the US and Iran being at war “within the next few years”. 

As of early this week it appeared the White House as well as Pentagon were firmly signaling the US has climbed down the escalation ladder, with statements claiming the US military build-up near the Persian Gulf of the past two weeks had forced Iran to put its planned actions against US troops “on hold” in order to “recalculate”. 

The USS Abraham Lincoln sails in the Arabian Sea near the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge. Image source: US Navy/AP

According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll:

While Americans are more concerned about Iran as a security threat to the United States now than they were last year, few would be in favor of a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian military. But if Iran attacked U.S. military forces first, four out of five believed the United States should respond militarily in a full or limited way, the May 17-20 poll showed.

The poll found that a mere 12% actually supported a pre-emptive US attack on Iran, with 53% of American adults still seeing Iran as a “serious” or “imminent” threat.

Only if the US were attacked did the data show popular support for war, with four out of five respondents saying Washington should respond militarily in a full or limited way.

Concerning Trump’s handling of Iran, which has dominated headlines for over two weeks  for which the US deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to the region along with a B-52 bomber group, the poll found the following: 

Nearly half – 49% – of all Americans disapprove of how Republican Trump is handling relations with Iran, the poll found, with 31% saying they strongly disapprove. Overall, 39% approve of Trump’s policy.

And crucially, the goal posts have been moved, with the last round of bellicose exchange of threats making a near-term future war more likely:

The survey showed that 51% of adults felt that the United States and Iran would go to war within the next few years, up 8 percentage points from a similar poll published last June. In this year’s poll, Democrats and Republicans were both more likely to see Iran as a threat and to say war was likely.

Since John Bolton’s May 5th statements citing “credible intelligence” of a heightened Iran threat which supposedly put US troops in the cross hairs there’s been next to nothing in terms of actual details, provable or disprovable. 

Instead the past two weeks has witnessed incessant blustering out of Washington, with daily threats that military action was looming against Iran. 

And on Tuesday, still with zero evidence that Iran was readying an attack, the Pentagon essentially declared victory following statements by Trump that he is not willing to escalate, but instead telling Iran’s leaders to “call me”. However, Tehran has rejected the idea of talks with Washington at this point, with President Hassan Rouhani saying, “No talks, only resistance.”

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2M68Mh6 Tyler Durden

Jussie Smollett Court Records To Be Unsealed, Judge Rules “No Right To Privacy”

A judge in Chicago ordered the file in Jussie Smollett’s criminal case unsealed Thursday, saying the actor’s actions did not appear to be those of someone seeking to maintain his privacy.

As a reminder, the “Empire” actor had been charged with 16 counts alleging he lied to police when reporting he’d been the victim of a racist, anti-gay attack in January. Police insist Smollett, who is black and gay, staged the incident because he was unhappy with his salary and wanted publicity.

Prosecutors dismissed all charges, though, with little explanation on March 26.

Smollett’s lawyers had argued that since the case was dropped, Smollett had “the right to be left alone.”

Judge Steven G. Watkins of the Circuit Court of Cook County disagreed.

Apparently hoisted by his own self-promoted pitard; as The New York Times reports, in explaining his ruling, Judge Watkins wrote that Mr. Smollett’s request for privacy was not a good enough reason to keep the records sealed, considering that Mr. Smollett willingly spoke about the situation in detail on national television and in other venues.

“After the March 26 dismissal, he voluntarily stood in front of cameras from numerous news organizations in the courthouse lobby and spoke about the case,” Judge Watkins wrote.

“These are not the actions of a person seeking to maintain his privacy or simply be let alone.”

As AP reports, Natalie Spears, an attorney representing media organizations that wanted the file unsealed, applauded Watkins’ decision Thursday.

“This is about transparency and trust in the system and we believe the public has a right to know what the government did and why,” she said after the hearing.

Speaking outside the courtroom on Thursday, Mr. Watson said that he was unsure whether he will appeal the judge’s decision and that he had to speak with Mr. Smollett before making any next steps.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X2fEgH Tyler Durden

Rubino: The Terrifying Truth About Negative Interest Rates

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

Pushing interest rates below zero is both an act of desperation and something that in theory should have a huge, immediate impact of the behavior of borrowers and savers. The fact that negative rates have become the new normal in big parts of the world but haven’t caused the expected behavior change should scare the hell out of everyone.

To understand why this is so, think of the rate of interest as the price of money. It’s what an individual or business has to pay to get credit with which to buy and invest. As with anything else, when the price of money is high, we tend to acquire less of it and when the price is low we acquire more. So making money not just cheap, not just free, but actually profitable to borrow, while making savings unprofitable to hold should, according to conventional Keynesian economics, create a scene in the credit markets reminiscent of those Black Friday Wal-Mart videos where fistfights break out over the last remaining Barbie Doll. Businesses in particular should be borrowing and investing like crazy, igniting an epic capital spending boom.

But that hasn’t happened. In Europe, for instance, negative rates have been in place for five years …

… and instead of a rip-roaring post-Great Recession recovery, the result has been the kind of anemic growth that conventional economics would predict for a tight-money environment. Business capital spending, the engine that in theory should be propelling Europe’s economy, looks like the opposite of a boom.

This translates into seriously boring GDP growth:

Why call such an uneventful situation terrifying? Because of what comes next.

Europe’s current sub-2% average growth rate is too slow to stop debt-to-GDP from rising. In other words, even with negative interest rates the Continent continues to dig itself ever-deeper into a financial hole. The same death spiral dynamic is in place in US, Japan and China.

To put the problem in more familiar terms, the world’s central banks have launched their version of tactical nukes at the problem of slow growth and soaring debt, and the dust has cleared to reveal the enemy unscathed and coming back for another go.

The next recession will begin with interest rates already at emergency levels, leaving central banks with no choice but to launch even bigger nukes. If interest rates are currently at -0.5%, then push them down to -5%. If buying up every investment-grade bond didn’t work last time around, then buy up junk bonds and equities, and maybe pay off everyone’s mortgage and student loans.

This will also fail, for reasons best explained by the unfortunately non-mainstream Austrian School of economics. The Austrians focus on a society’s balance sheet and observe that when low-quality (that is, speculative) debt exceeds certain levels, there’s nothing to be gained by encouraging more borrowing. So go ahead and cut interest rates to any crazy level you want. The inevitable, necessary result of too much bad debt is a crash that wipes that debt out. Or a hyperinflation that destroys the currency with which desperate governments flood the market in an attempt to stave off the debt implosion.

This explains why today’s negative interest rates haven’t ignited a boom (there’s already too much bad paper circulating), and also why the next round of monetary experiments will fail even more spectacularly than its predecessors.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2K0bKkG Tyler Durden

Amash Doubles Down: ‘Some of the President’s Actions Were Inherently Corrupt’

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) has doubled down on his assessment that President Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct, as detailed by the report from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

“Mueller’s report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk,” Amash writes at the beginning of a 20-tweet thread highlighting a number of incidents outlined in the Mueller report where Trump appears to have attempted to shut down the investigation.

Specifically, Amash points to Trump’s request to the FBI director that the bureau stop investigating Michael Flynn, Trump’s order that then–White House Counsel Don McGahn have Mueller removed from the investigation (a demand McGahn ignored), and Trump’s subsequent decision to tell McGahn to lie about the incident in public records.

“Some of the president’s actions were inherently corrupt,” Amash concludes. “Other actions were corrupt—and therefore impeachable—because the president took them to serve his own interests.”

On Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. In that statement, also posted to Twitter, the Michigan congressman blamed his fellow Republican legislators for choosing to defend the president rather than the Constitution in the wake of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report. He also warned that putting Trump’s interests ahead of the country’s would put the rule of law at risk.

The reactions from the president and his supporters have been instructive. Trump lashed out by calling Amash “a loser.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) went on television to declare that Amash “votes more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me,” which isn’t even close to being true. The House Freedom Caucus, which Amash co-founded, voted to condemn him for having the audacity to exercise his freedom to criticize the president. A Trump-supporting state representative announced plans to primary Amash in 2020.

Though it all, the libertarian-leaning congressman has maintained a level head. He’s turned down what are surely endless requests to appear on cable news, but he did take time to talk to a group of schoolchildren from Michigan who were visiting the Capitol this week.

He has behaved, in other words, like a dignified representative of the people who is thoughtfully approaching one of the most serious questions a member of Congress can consider: Should the sitting president be removed from office?

Whether or not you agree with Amash’s conclusions on that question, his demeanor over the course of this week—and his rational outline of his specific criticisms of Trump—stand in stark contrast to how most of Trump’s defenders and the president himself have reacted. That doesn’t mean Amash is right, of course, but it should give conservatives pause before they launch into another round of histrionics.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YL3Kby
via IFTTT

Hackers Now Demand $10k Per Day In Baltimore Cryptocurrency Ransomware Attack

Approximately 10,000 Baltimore City government computers remain crippled after a cryptocurrency ransomware attack locked officials out of critical servers, basically paralyzing the city for 14 days and counting.

We were one of the first to report the May 7th attack that brought Baltimore’s entire communication network to a standstill. Hackers wanted 13 bitcoins (about $100,000) on day one of the attacks but have since demanded $10,000 per day since city officials refused to pay the ransom late last week.

Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young has warned the attack continues to devastate the city, could take months to recover some servers.

“It’s extremely alarming,” said City Council President Brandon Scott.

Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins computer science professor and cybersecurity expert, told NPR the ransomware used in the attack is “unbreakable,” and so powerful that even government specialists cannot crack the code to unlock the city’s computer network.

“I don’t even think that the NSA would be able to break this algorithm,” Rubin said.

“It’s believed by the cryptographic community, both the theoreticians as well as the practitioners, to be unbreakable by today’s technologies.”

This is Baltimore’s second cyber attack in a little more than a year. Last March, a ransomware attack on the city’s emergency communications network forced dispatchers to relay addresses and other critical information to first responders via phone or text.

As the city remains paralyzed on Wednesday, numerous services provided by the local government are either offline or workarounds have been developed.

On the eighth day of the attack (May 15th), we reported the essential systems required for transacting real estate deals went offline, throwing the entire housing industry into chaos, which meant no homes could be bought or sold in the area. But it was only until yesterday, where officials launched a manual workaround for property sales.

Daniel Tobok, CEO of Cytelligence, whose company has advised 500 cities hit by ransomware attacks, told Fox News “he doesn’t necessarily advocate paying off cyber crooks, he believes that in some instances “you don’t have a choice, you have to make a business decision.”

“What’s frustrating with Baltimore is that it’s been quite a long time since the infection,” Tobok said. “If they aren’t fully operational by now, why are they still playing with this?”

Tobok warned if city officials don’t resolve the hack attack immediately, the economic damage to the city could be devastating.

“Baltimore is playing with time,” he said. “They are going to come to a point where they have two choices – A. The (ransom demands) are going to skyrocket or B. The hackers will shut down the account they have been using and move out.”

The FBI’s cyber team has been working for 10-days straight to help Baltimore resolve their issues.

Baltimore City’s Inspector General said the attack came about one week after a city employee was fired for downloading thousands of pictures of porn onto his work computer.

In the last month, separate cyber attacks have also affected Stuart City, Florida; municipality of Greenville, North Carolina; New York state; Cleveland Airport; Genesee County, Michigan; and Fisher County in Texas.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2HyHiMM Tyler Durden

Amash Doubles Down: ‘Some of the President’s Actions Were Inherently Corrupt’

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) has doubled down on his assessment that President Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct, as detailed by the report from Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

“Mueller’s report describes a consistent effort by the president to use his office to obstruct or otherwise corruptly impede the Russian election interference investigation because it put his interests at risk,” Amash writes at the beginning of a 20-tweet thread highlighting a number of incidents outlined in the Mueller report where Trump appears to have attempted to shut down the investigation.

Specifically, Amash points to Trump’s request to the FBI director that the bureau stop investigating Michael Flynn, Trump’s order that then–White House Counsel Don McGahn have Mueller removed from the investigation (a demand McGahn ignored), and Trump’s subsequent decision to tell McGahn to lie about the incident in public records.

“Some of the president’s actions were inherently corrupt,” Amash concludes. “Other actions were corrupt—and therefore impeachable—because the president took them to serve his own interests.”

On Saturday, Amash became the first Republican member of Congress to suggest that Trump should face impeachment proceedings for his attempts to interfere in the Mueller probe. In that statement, also posted to Twitter, the Michigan congressman blamed his fellow Republican legislators for choosing to defend the president rather than the Constitution in the wake of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s report. He also warned that putting Trump’s interests ahead of the country’s would put the rule of law at risk.

The reactions from the president and his supporters have been instructive. Trump lashed out by calling Amash “a loser.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) went on television to declare that Amash “votes more with Nancy Pelosi than he ever votes with me,” which isn’t even close to being true. The House Freedom Caucus, which Amash co-founded, voted to condemn him for having the audacity to exercise his freedom to criticize the president. A Trump-supporting state representative announced plans to primary Amash in 2020.

Though it all, the libertarian-leaning congressman has maintained a level head. He’s turned down what are surely endless requests to appear on cable news, but he did take time to talk to a group of schoolchildren from Michigan who were visiting the Capitol this week.

He has behaved, in other words, like a dignified representative of the people who is thoughtfully approaching one of the most serious questions a member of Congress can consider: Should the sitting president be removed from office?

Whether or not you agree with Amash’s conclusions on that question, his demeanor over the course of this week—and his rational outline of his specific criticisms of Trump—stand in stark contrast to how most of Trump’s defenders and the president himself have reacted. That doesn’t mean Amash is right, of course, but it should give conservatives pause before they launch into another round of histrionics.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2YL3Kby
via IFTTT

Illinois’ Top Court Blesses Chicago’s Cronyist Anti-Food-Truck Regulations

Don’t go to Chicago with your fancy food trucks. That was the message from the Illinois Supreme Court today as it upheld oppressive, protectionist regulations designed to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from mobile competitors.

Chicago forbids food trucks from parking within 200 feet of any establishment that serves food—including convenience stores. The city also requires food trucks to carry GPS devices so they can be tracked. Illinois’ top court ruled today that these restrictions pass constitutional muster.

Such regulations have essentially made it impossible to operate food trucks profitably in much of the Windy City. Indeed, they’ve made it basically impossible to park a truck and serve customers in 97 percent of the city’s major business district. Lawbreakers face fines of $1,000 to $2,000 for each violation.

The food-truck-appreciating and property-rights-loving attorneys of the Institute for Justice took on the city on behalf of Laura Pekarik, who attempted to start a cupcake-serving truck to raise money for cancer research. The Institute for Justice filed its suit in November 2012, arguing that the regulations violate the state constitution’s due process protections.

The regulations were clearly designed to protect restaurants from competition, though city representatives insisted that they merely wanted to protect the stability and economic growth of Chicago properties and the tax revenue they represent. Even if that is their motive, it’s a bad one: It suggests that a government’s recognition of our individual liberties is contingent on whether it correlates with city officials’ goals. Nevertheless, the top court bought the argument:

The City has a legitimate governmental interest in encouraging the long-term stability and economic growth of its neighborhoods. The 200-foot rule, which helps promote brick-and-mortar restaurants and, thus, neighborhood stability, is rationally related to this legitimate interest. Importantly, too,…[t]his section created a number of food truck stands, i.e., designated areas along the public way where food trucks are permitted to park without being subject to the 200-foot rule. Thus, the City has not entirely banned food trucks. Rather, it has created a regulatory scheme that attempts to balance the interests of food trucks with the need to promote neighborhood stability that is furthered by brick-and-mortar restaurants.

No, the city has not “entirely banned food trucks.” But Chicago’s food-truck industry has shrunk by 40 percent over the past six years, thanks to the city’s oppressive rules.

Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Robert Frommer expresses his disappointment with the court’s ruling:

Today’s ruling doesn’t protect public safety; instead, it protects brick-and-mortar restaurants from honest competition. A hallmark of America is robust competition, not hardball politics and backroom deals. Holding that Chicago may use public power for private gain breaks with over a century of precedent and weakens the constitutional rights of not just food truckers, but all Illinoisans.

Read the court’s ruling here, and then read more here from Baylen Linnekin about the trials and tribulations in other communities from people just trying to earn a living selling you delicious food from a truck.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2JzS5ZF
via IFTTT

10 Illustrated Truths About Investing & The Markets

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Over the last eighteen months, stocks have whipsawed within a massive trading range as “trade wars,” “tariffs,” and monetary policy actions from the Fed have lit up headlines. Despite the strong rally from the beginning of the year, investors are no better off today than they were at the beginning of 2018.

Does this mean the bull market is over? Or, is it just a pause before a continuation higher? Has the Federal Reserve figured out how to “end recessions?” Or, has the low interest rate environment over the last decade spurred another credit bubble?

Honestly, no one knows for sure where we are within the current cycle, but it is understood it will end.

As a portfolio manager, I must stay invested during rising markets as our clients need returns in order to meet their investment goals. However, I must also protect that capital from major drawdowns which inflict far greater damage to financial goals than temporary underperformance.

This is a point missed by most individuals who take on far greater risks than they realize when chasing markets higher. It is also why we spend the majority of our time pointing out the relevant risks to capital.

Pointing out risks, analyzing those risks, and developing an “odds based” approach based on those risks is what guides our asset protection strategies within our long-biased portfolios. While ignoring those risks may lead to great gains in the short-term, the long-term destruction of capital combined with lost time is irreparable.

This is why we write the way we do. It is our “homework” behind our investment management strategies. Here are ten thoughts about investing and markets to consider. (I have provided links to relevant articles for more in-depth explanations.)

1. Markets are cyclical.  Bull markets are a process. Bear markets are an event.

Read: A Different Way To Look At Market Cycles

2. Diversification has become less beneficial as markets have become highly correlated.

Read: I Bought It For The Dividend

3. Follow the trend of the market. Have a simple method to define the direction of the trend and follow it accordingly. Being a bull during a bearish trend doesn’t work well.

Read: Portfolio Strategies For The Long Run

4. We will all be wrong from time to time. Staying wrong is problematic.

Read: The Math Of Loss

5. There is no “law” that says you have to remain “fully invested” at all times. Sometimes, cash is the best hedge against uncertainty.

Read: Eternal Bullishness & Willful Blindness

Also Read: Valuations, Returns & The Real Value Of Cash

6. Understanding the real meaning of “risk” and how to control it always leads to better outcomes. Professional gamblers know when “not to bet” on a losing hand.

Read: 15-Risk Management Rules For Every Investor

7. No one is right all the time. However, there are basic investing rules. that if followed. tend to reduce the loss of capital associated with being wrong.

Read: An Investors Desktop Guide To Trading

8. The markets are driven by the “herd” mentality which swings from optimism to pessimism driven by headlines and narratives. Excess optimism and excess pessimism denote the points where the most money is lost or made.

Read: 5-Universal Laws Of Human (Investment) Stupidity

9. Valuations do matter.

Read: 7-Measures Suggests A Decade Of Low Returns

10. Understanding the importance of “time” is critical to investing success. While capital can always be regained, the loss of time cannot. 

Read: Strike Three: The Next Bear Market Ends The Game

These are just reminders to keep you grounded in the reality of how money, and investing, REALLY work over the long-term. While it is easy to get lost in the excitement of the moment, the brutal return to reality has always been a costly lesson to re-learn.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X0fVk8 Tyler Durden

Illinois’ Top Court Blesses Chicago’s Cronyist Anti-Food-Truck Regulations

Don’t go to Chicago with your fancy food trucks. That was the message from the Illinois Supreme Court today as it upheld oppressive, protectionist regulations designed to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants from mobile competitors.

Chicago forbids food trucks from parking within 200 feet of any establishment that serves food—including convenience stores. The city also requires food trucks to carry GPS devices so they can be tracked. Illinois’ top court ruled today that these restrictions pass constitutional muster.

Such regulations have essentially made it impossible to operate food trucks profitably in much of the Windy City. Indeed, they’ve made it basically impossible to park a truck and serve customers in 97 percent of the city’s major business district. Lawbreakers face fines of $1,000 to $2,000 for each violation.

The food-truck-appreciating and property-rights-loving attorneys of the Institute for Justice took on the city on behalf of Laura Pekarik, who attempted to start a cupcake-serving truck to raise money for cancer research. The Institute for Justice filed its suit in November 2012, arguing that the regulations violate the state constitution’s due process protections.

The regulations were clearly designed to protect restaurants from competition, though city representatives insisted that they merely wanted to protect the stability and economic growth of Chicago properties and the tax revenue they represent. Even if that is their motive, it’s a bad one: It suggests that a government’s recognition of our individual liberties is contingent on whether it correlates with city officials’ goals. Nevertheless, the top court bought the argument:

The City has a legitimate governmental interest in encouraging the long-term stability and economic growth of its neighborhoods. The 200-foot rule, which helps promote brick-and-mortar restaurants and, thus, neighborhood stability, is rationally related to this legitimate interest. Importantly, too,…[t]his section created a number of food truck stands, i.e., designated areas along the public way where food trucks are permitted to park without being subject to the 200-foot rule. Thus, the City has not entirely banned food trucks. Rather, it has created a regulatory scheme that attempts to balance the interests of food trucks with the need to promote neighborhood stability that is furthered by brick-and-mortar restaurants.

No, the city has not “entirely banned food trucks.” But Chicago’s food-truck industry has shrunk by 40 percent over the past six years, thanks to the city’s oppressive rules.

Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Robert Frommer expresses his disappointment with the court’s ruling:

Today’s ruling doesn’t protect public safety; instead, it protects brick-and-mortar restaurants from honest competition. A hallmark of America is robust competition, not hardball politics and backroom deals. Holding that Chicago may use public power for private gain breaks with over a century of precedent and weakens the constitutional rights of not just food truckers, but all Illinoisans.

Read the court’s ruling here, and then read more here from Baylen Linnekin about the trials and tribulations in other communities from people just trying to earn a living selling you delicious food from a truck.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2JzS5ZF
via IFTTT

Amazon Developing Device That Can Recognize Human Emotions

Amazon is developing a voice-activated gadget that can recognize human emotions. 

The wrist-worn device is described as a health and wellness product according to internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg, which is being developed in partnership with Lab126, the group behind Amazon’s Fire phone and Echo smart speaker. The Alexa voice software team is also involved. 

Designed to work with a smartphone app, the device has microphones paired with software that can discern the wearer’s emotional state from the sound of his or her voice, according to the documents and a person familiar with the program. Eventually the technology could be able to advise the wearer how to interact more effectively with others, the documents show. –Bloomberg

It is unknown how far along the project is, or if the device code-named “Dylan” will ever be brought to market – however work on the project was ongoing recently according to the documents as well as Bloomberg’s source. It is currently being beta tested, though “it’s unclear whether the trial includes prototype hardware, the emotion-detecting software, or both,” according to the report. 

Machines that can understand human emotion has been a longtime theme in science fiction – from Star Trek’s Data, to ‘Mike’ from Robert Heinlein’s 1966 The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. 

And now, once again, science fiction may become reality, as companies such as Microsoft, Google and IBM – and many others – are developing technologies to decipher emotional states from imagery, audio data and other inputs. Amazon, for example, has discussed a desire to build a more lifelike voice assistant – a technology which could help the company better serve health needs, and of course, better advertise. 

As Bloomberg noted last month, Amazon has a team of employees listening in on and annotating audio clips captured by the company’s popular Echo line of voice-activated products. 

A U.S. patent filed in 2017 describes a system in which voice software uses analysis of vocal patterns to determine how a user is feeling, discerning among “joy, anger, sorrow, sadness, fear, disgust, boredom, stress, or other emotional states.” The patent, made public last year, suggests Amazon could use knowledge of a user’s emotions to recommend products or otherwise tailor responses.

A diagram in the patent filing says the technology can detect an abnormal emotional condition and shows a sniffling woman telling Alexa she’s hungry. The digital assistant, picking up that she has a cold, asks the woman if she would like a recipe for chicken soup. –Bloomberg

Another patent granted to Amazon describes a system to distinguish the wearer’s speech from background noises, which will be able to be integrated in the wearable device. 

Amazon had tried making inroads into the world of smartphones to rival Apple and Google, however those efforts have thus far been unsuccessful. Instead, the company has ventured into other areas – such as wireless earbuds that are expected to integrate Alexa voice software, as well as a dashboard-mounted Echo Auto for which the company says they already have 1 million pre-orders.

Amazon has also been working on a domestic robot, Bloomberg reported last year. Codenamed “Vesta,” after the Roman goddess of the hearth, home and family, the bot could be a kind of mobile Alexa, according to people familiar with the project. Prototypes of the robot can navigate through homes like a self-driving car. –Bloomberg

Perhaps Amazon will team up with Japanese-owned Boston Dynamics down the road for attentive, emotion sensing robot butlers. Or assassins who feel guilt after servicing a target.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Qjdg2s Tyler Durden