This paper presents a multivariate functional data statistical approach, for spatiotemporal prediction of COVID-19 mortality counts. Specifically, spatial heterogeneous nonlinear parametric functional regression trend model fitting is first implemented. Classical and Bayesian infinite-dimensional log-Gaussian linear residual correlation analysis is then applied. The nonlinear regression predictor of the mortality risk is combined with the plug-in predictor of the multiplicative error term. An empirical model ranking, based on random K-fold validation, is established for COVID-19 mortality risk forecasting and assessment, involving Machine Learning (ML) models, and the adopted Classical and Bayesian semilinear estimation approach. This empirical analysis also determines the ML models favored by the spatial multivariate Functional Data Analysis (FDA) framework. The results could be extrapolated to other countries.

This is the rejoinder to the discussion by Kennedy, Balakrishnan and Wasserman on the paper "On nearly assumption-free tests of nominal confidence interval coverage for causal parameters estimated by machine learning" published in Statistical Science.

The move set off a wave of criticism from many Democratic and some Republican lawmakers, who said the decision undermined the pact. By ignoring a part of the agreement it finds inconvenient, they say, the Trump administration is encouraging other nations to do the same. And the sale of advanced armed drones could lead to the proliferation of the technology across the globe. The lawmakers are especially concerned about sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have used American-made weapons to carry out a devastating war in Yemen that has left thousands of civilians, many of them children, dead. "If we allow Trump to start selling drones, we set a dangerous precedent that allows and encourages other countries to sell missile technology and advanced drones to our adversaries," Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement on Wednesday.

Imagine the US is under attack. An enemy aircraft, loaded with warheads, is heading towards the coast, dipping in and out of radar. Fighter jets have been scrambled and there's a frantic effort to pinpoint the target. But the nation's best defence is not an aircraft carrier or a missile system. "Use the quantum computer," yells a general.

Republican and Democratic senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would block international sales of United States-made drones to countries that are not close US allies, mentioning Saudi Arabia in particular. Reuters broke the news in June that President Donald Trump's administration planned to reinterpret the Missile Technology Control Regime, a Cold War arms agreement between 35 nations, with the goal of allowing US defence contractors to sell more drones to an array of nations. Republican Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul, Democratic Senators Chris Murphy and Chris Coons, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, introduced the measure. It would amend the Arms Export Control Act to prohibit the export, transfer or trade of many advanced drones except to countries that are NATO members and to Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and Israel, they said in a news release. US lawmakers have tried before to rein in Trump administration plans for arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for use in the war in Yemen.

Industrial robots are now being used to assemble everything from airplanes to smartphones, using human-like arms to mechanically repeat the same processes over and over, thousands of times a day with nanometric precision. But according to a new report entitled "Rogue Automation," some robots have flaws that could make them vulnerable to advanced hackers, who could steal data or alter a robot's movements remotely, like a scene out of science fiction. "Attacks on industrial environments in these sectors could have serious consequences, including operational failure, physical damage, environmental harm and injury or loss of life," according to Federico Maggi, a researcher at Trend Micro Inc., and Marcello Pogliani, an information security researcher at Politecnico di Milano, in a research report reviewed by Bloomberg News. The report will be presented Wednesday at a virtual forum organized by Black Hat, which hosts cybersecurity events around the world. Robots are often connected to networks and run via software, according to the report, and previously unknown vulnerabilities could allow hackers to hide malicious code in them and other automated, programmable manufacturing machines.

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked an unprecedented economic crisis, during which more than 30 million Americans have relied on state and federal unemployment benefits as a lifeline. While states have delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to the jobless, almost everyone would admit that the process was something like a catamaran sailing during a hurricane. Millions of claimants had to wait weeks to receive their payments, and new benefits promised by the CARES Act to gig workers, students, and others typically ineligible for aid took weeks, even months, to set up and deliver. As a new data dashboard from the Century Foundation and New America makes clear, only 60 percent of unemployment claims submitted by mid-June were paid by June 30--better than in the spring, but still far below historical averages. While some of these claims were made by workers that may be eventually declared ineligible, for many more, it's been a purgatory of pending status.

In the cool, dark hours after midnight on June 20, 2012, Todd Humphreys made the final preparations for his attack on the Global Positioning System. He stood alone in the middle of White Sands Missile Range, in southern New Mexico, sixty miles north of Juárez. All around him were the glowing gypsum dunes of the Chihuahuan Desert. On a hill about a kilometre away, his team was gathered around a flat metal box the size of a carry-on suitcase. The electronic machinery inside the box was called a spoofer--a weapon by another name. Soon, a Hornet Mini, a drone-operated helicopter popular with law-enforcement and rescue agencies, was scheduled to appear forty feet above them.

Leading conservationists have emphasized that conservation's priority is the protection of species and populations, not the welfare of individual nonhuman animals (hereafter “animals”) ([ 1 ][1]–[ 3 ][2]). Although individual conservationists often harbor concern for animal welfare, conservation organizations and scientists frequently downplay or ignore the ethical implications of actions they promote that harm individual animals, from culling and sport hunting to the discontinuation of wildlife rescue from oil spills ([ 3 ][2]–[ 5 ][3]). A growing body of scientific evidence should prompt conservation organizations to reconsider their inattention to animal welfare. A wide variety of vertebrate species (and perhaps some invertebrates) are capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain, engaging in substantive relationships, and executing cognitively complex tasks ([ 6 ][4]–[ 8 ][5]), bolstering claims that animal well-being is morally significant and policy-relevant. Addressing animal welfare in conservation would be politically challenging, and given the central role of predation and competition in ecosystems, conservation science cannot altogether avoid difficult decisions; harming animals can be a necessary step toward a worthwhile goal. Despite these trade-offs, conservation organizations face a singular opportunity to reshape conservation into a discipline that promotes both the quantity of species and the quality of animal life. Although humans are exceptional in many ways, the once-popular belief that it is unscientific to ascribe emotions or thoughts to animals is now regarded as inconsistent with evolutionary theory, experimental evidence, and any reasonable burden of proof ([ 9 ][6], [ 10 ][7]). Commonalities in basic neural functioning across vertebrate species, ranging from fish to mammals, suggest similarities in experiential capacities ([ 9 ][6], [ 11 ][8]). Evidence indicates that the thalamocingulate division of the limbic system and the anterior cingulate cortex evolved prior to the radiation of mammals, with all studied mammals sharing seven basic emotional systems including joy, fear, grief, parental nurturance, and playfulness. Deep neurological similarities underpin the extensive use of mammalian models in medical research, including for depression and anxiety. Further, research indicates that convergent evolution of the mammalian cortex and avian pallium has led to similar neural architecture between birds and mammals ([ 12 ][9]), with birds exhibiting similar forms of some affective states, consciousness, and attachment-oriented behaviors. Recent research has also demonstrated that various animal species are cognitively sophisticated, with findings including tool use in diverse taxa; spontaneous insight and innovative behavior; self-recognition and metacognition; collaboration to solve unfamiliar tasks; planning for future events; political strategy; empathetic concern; and the ability to recognize hundreds of human words (see supplementary materials). The accumulating scientific evidence that animals have vibrant inner lives was anticipated by modern philosophers, the field of animal welfare science, and numerous world cultures that have accorded moral relevance to the quality of animal life. Yet with limited exceptions, the most prominent international conservation organizations do not attempt to promote animal welfare in their mission or vision statements or to safeguard animal welfare in their readily available public policies. This contrasts with often robust ethics policies on a range of other social and environmental issues. From one perspective, the omission of animal welfare is befuddling. Conservationists must believe that animals deserve protection from human-induced harm; by combating habitat destruction and poaching, conservation often already promotes wild animal welfare. Officially recognizing the imperative of protecting animals as individuals could broaden conservation's constituency. Whereas the public often finds the value of biodiversity to be abstract and unrelatable, many people are concerned when human actions unnecessarily violate the freedom and well-being of wild animals. Conservation organizations have realized this, often using stories of human-induced suffering of individual animals to generate empathy and raise funds. Yet, owing to the pervasiveness of activities that compromise animal welfare, many conservation organizations could face a variety of political risks and programmatic complications if they were to officially endorse the legitimacy of animal welfare concerns. Conservation organizations often depend on a diverse coalition of political interests, including groups that habitually harm animals. For instance, the U.S. government is one of the largest bilateral sources of funding for international conservation largely because the U.S. Congress's International Conservation Caucus is among the largest bipartisan caucuses in the legislature, with many participants being vocal supporters of recreational hunting and fishing. For conservation organizations to acknowledge that killing animals for recreation might have moral implications ([ 4 ][10]) could complicate these politically important relationships in both halls of power and remote settings globally. There are well-evidenced concerns for how wild animals, especially wide-ranging species like elephants, some cetaceans, and carnivores, fare in captivity, but zoos can also inspire considerable support for wildlife conservation. Finally, conservation organizations and conservationists themselves (like other environmentalists) often regularly purchase factory farm products even though factory farms pose serious concerns about human-induced animal suffering. For conservation organizations, officially acknowledging the moral significance of animal welfare could complicate how many conservationists see themselves and generally cause discontent within their communities. Furthermore, conservation programming takes place in complex socioecological systems that pose practical trade-offs between animal welfare and biodiversity conservation or even human rights. At its extreme, efforts to curtail hunting and fishing in the world's poor rural areas could unjustly harm communities that rely on bushmeat or wild fish for their nutrition and livelihoods. Conservation groups can be seen as elitist, out-of-touch, or culturally oppressive where they oppose the killing of dangerous animals like elephants or traditional practices like subsistence whaling—such conflicts could become more common if conservation organizations consistently prioritize the interests of individual animals. In settings where wildlife tourism is not profitable, prohibiting sport hunting could deprive organizations of funding to protect wildlife from poaching, perversely leading to an increase in the killing of wildlife. Additionally, there are many examples of direct trade-offs between animal welfare and traditional conservation objectives like preventing extinction and maintaining ecosystem function. Invasive mammals—like goats on the Galapagos or feral cats on remote islands—suffer during eradication campaigns, but there may be no other way to secure the future for endangered native species. Programs to cull white-tailed deer similarly might be necessary to ensure the regeneration of forests in the eastern United States. Ecological research and reintroduction programs can also involve duress for the animals involved. Despite challenges posed by these trade-offs, conservation science should adjust its priorities in response to the overwhelming evidence that animals think and feel. Only explicit consideration of animal welfare in decision-making can ensure that conservation organizations do not unnecessarily compromise the well-being of individual animals. As a community, conservation organizations should set in motion three processes to (i) develop consensus principles, (ii) build the evidence base to identify best practices, and (iii) develop advisory institutions that can advance best practices. Each of these should engage diverse voices, including representatives from different cultures, countries with diverse political realities, and researchers and practitioners from both animal welfare science and conservation. The process of developing consensus principles to bring animal welfare concerns into conservation science has already begun, with ideas coming from national regulatory bodies, nongovernmental organizations concerned with wild animal welfare, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums ([ 13 ][11]), animal welfare experts ([ 14 ][12], [ 15 ][13]), and the burgeoning compassionate conservation movement ([ 3 ][2], [ 4 ][10]). Conservation and animal welfare organizations should collaborate to systematically refine and select practically applicable ethical principles. Given the diverse cultural practices and economic systems that involve harm to animals, prohibitions on animal captivity, killing animals, and eating meat are unlikely to gain consensus support—but that need not prevent constructive discussions on minimizing human-induced suffering of animals, general agreement to minimize suffering during killing, and principles guiding the circumstances when killing animals might be acceptable. Animal welfare principles can alert conservationists to when the harm an activity causes to individual animals outweighs the benefits to biodiversity. Second, international conservation and animal welfare organizations should fund the development of an evidence base for how best to engage with wildlife in a way that minimizes avoidable suffering. Again, scientists have begun this process ([ 4 ][10], [ 13 ][11], [ 14 ][12])—but the evidence compiled must come from more diverse settings and situations and reflect practical limitations and trade-offs faced by conservation organizations in places where even human rights are not adequately realized. In addition to improving conservation practice, such evidence would help animal welfare organizations recognize where the protection of biodiversity, ecological function, and local communities might necessitate harming individual animals. This evidence review process would also highlight areas of research that could help resolve ethical dilemmas posed by conservation programming. International conservation bodies should also work with animal welfare scientists to establish advisory committees that review (voluntarily submitted) conservation project proposals to assess whether they satisfy principles of animal welfare. The process could be modeled as a voluntary version of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee that reviews animal research in the United States, working to promote best practices, build precedent, and collect real-life cases that can improve the evidence base. The committees' recommendations should provide a basis for informed debate about the trade-offs between wildlife conservation and animal welfare, helping better define whether the suffering of individual animals might be commensurate with conservation benefits ([ 14 ][12]). Over time, the cumulative experience of these committees should allow conservation organizations to recommend evidence-based animal welfare safeguards that can fit into the broader category of social and environmental safeguards, much like policies striving to minimize carbon emissions or protect human rights in conservation and development. Inevitably, these processes will take time. In the meanwhile, conservation organizations can take two steps toward building a better world for all animals: publicly commit to considering animal welfare in their decisions, and adopt policies against the purchase of factory farm meat where less harmful alternatives are available. Given the implications of factory farming not just for animal welfare but also for climate change and biodiversity, such action would further demonstrate the sincerity of conservation organizations' pursuit of a more just and sustainable planet. [science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6504/629/suppl/DC1][14] 1. [↵][15]1. M. E. Soule , Bioscience 35, 727 (1985). [OpenUrl][16][CrossRef][17][Web of Science][18] 2. 1. P. Kareiva, 2. M. Marvier , Bioscience 62, 962 (2012). [OpenUrl][19][CrossRef][20][Web of Science][21] 3. [↵][22]1. D. Ramp, 2. M. Bekoff , Bioscience 65, 323 (2015). [OpenUrl][23][CrossRef][24] 4. [↵][25]1. A. D. Wallach et al ., Conserv. Biol. 32, 1255 (2018). [OpenUrl][26] 5. [↵][27]1. P. Kareiva, 2. M. Marvier, 3. B. Silliman 1. J. A. Estes, 2. M. T. Tinker , in Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma, P. Kareiva, M. Marvier, B. Silliman, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2017), pp. 128–134. 6. [↵][28]1. V. A. Braithwaite, 2. P. Boulcott , Dis. Aquat. Organ. 75, 131 (2007). [OpenUrl][29][PubMed][30] 7. 1. I. B.-A. Bartal et al ., Science 334, 1427 (2011). [OpenUrl][31][Abstract/FREE Full Text][32] 8. [↵][33]1. N. S. Clayton, 2. A. Dickinson , Nature 395, 272 (1998). [OpenUrl][34][CrossRef][35][PubMed][36][Web of Science][37] 9. [↵][38]1. J. Panksepp , PLOS ONE 6, e21236 (2011). [OpenUrl][39][CrossRef][40][PubMed][41] 10. [↵][42]1. G. A. Mashour, 2. M. T. Alkire , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (suppl.2), 10357 (2013). [OpenUrl][43][Abstract/FREE Full Text][44] 11. [↵][45]1. T. E. Feinberg, 2. J. Mallatt , Front. Psychol. 4, 667 (2013). [OpenUrl][46][PubMed][47] 12. [↵][48]1. A. B. Butler, 2. R. M. J. Cotterill , Biol. Bull. 211, 106 (2006). [OpenUrl][49][CrossRef][50][PubMed][51][Web of Science][52] 13. [↵][53]1. D. J. Mellor et al ., Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy (WAZA Executive Office, 2015). 14. [↵][54]1. S. Dubois et al ., Conserv. Biol. 31, 753 (2017). [OpenUrl][55] 15. [↵][56]1. J. O. Hampton et al ., Conserv. Biol. 33, 751 (2019). [OpenUrl][57] Acknowledgments: We thank H. Telkänranta, N. Shah, S. Sekar, N. Mohapatra, D. Mistree, M.Malik, A.Lerner, K. Kolappa, S. Kishore, P. Hannam, G. Fricchione, M. Doshi, P. Chanchani, and four anonymous reviewers. This piece reflects the views of the authors and not the official positions of their organizations. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-3 [3]: #ref-5 [4]: #ref-6 [5]: #ref-8 [6]: #ref-9 [7]: #ref-10 [8]: #ref-11 [9]: #ref-12 [10]: #ref-4 [11]: #ref-13 [12]: #ref-14 [13]: #ref-15 [14]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6504/629/suppl/DC1 [15]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [16]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBioscience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2307%252F1310054%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [17]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/1310054&link_type=DOI [18]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1985AUV2000010&link_type=ISI [19]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBioscience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1525%252Fbio.2012.62.11.5%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [20]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5&link_type=DOI [21]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000311661000006&link_type=ISI [22]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [23]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBioscience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1093%252Fbiosci%252Fbiu223%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [24]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/biosci/biu223&link_type=DOI [25]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [26]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D32%26rft.spage%253D1255%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [27]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [28]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [29]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DDiseases%2Bof%2Baquatic%2Borganisms%26rft.stitle%253DDis%2BAquat%2BOrgan%26rft.aulast%253DBraithwaite%26rft.auinit1%253DV.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D75%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D131%26rft.epage%253D138%26rft.atitle%253DPain%2Bperception%252C%2Baversion%2Band%2Bfear%2Bin%2Bfish.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17578252%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [30]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17578252&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F369%2F6504%2F629.atom [31]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DBartal%26rft.auinit1%253DI.%2BB.-A.%26rft.volume%253D334%26rft.issue%253D6061%26rft.spage%253D1427%26rft.epage%253D1430%26rft.atitle%253DEmpathy%2Band%2BPro-Social%2BBehavior%2Bin%2BRats%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1210789%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22158823%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [32]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMzQvNjA2MS8xNDI3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzY5LzY1MDQvNjI5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [33]: #xref-ref-8-1 "View reference 8 in text" [34]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%26rft.stitle%253DNature%26rft.aulast%253DClayton%26rft.auinit1%253DN.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D395%26rft.issue%253D6699%26rft.spage%253D272%26rft.epage%253D274%26rft.atitle%253DEpisodic-like%2Bmemory%2Bduring%2Bcache%2Brecovery%2Bby%2Bscrub%2Bjays.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252F26216%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F9751053%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [35]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/26216&link_type=DOI [36]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=9751053&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F369%2F6504%2F629.atom [37]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000075974600049&link_type=ISI [38]: #xref-ref-9-1 "View reference 9 in text" [39]: {openurl}?query=rft.stitle%253DPLoS%2BONE%26rft.aulast%253DPanksepp%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D6%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253De21236%26rft.epage%253De21236%26rft.atitle%253DCross-species%2Baffective%2Bneuroscience%2Bdecoding%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bprimal%2Baffective%2Bexperiences%2Bof%2Bhumans%2Band%2Brelated%2Banimals.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0021236%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21915252%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [40]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0021236&link_type=DOI [41]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21915252&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F369%2F6504%2F629.atom [42]: #xref-ref-10-1 "View reference 10 in text" [43]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DProc.%2BNatl.%2BAcad.%2BSci.%2BU.S.A.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1073%252Fpnas.1301188110%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23754370%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [44]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMjoiMTEwL1N1cHBsZW1lbnRfMi8xMDM1NyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIyOiIvc2NpLzM2OS82NTA0LzYyOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30= [45]: #xref-ref-11-1 "View reference 11 in text" [46]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFront.%2BPsychol.%26rft.volume%253D4%26rft.spage%253D667%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24109460%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [47]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=24109460&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F369%2F6504%2F629.atom [48]: #xref-ref-12-1 "View reference 12 in text" [49]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BBiological%2BBulletin%26rft.stitle%253DBiol.%2BBull.%26rft.aulast%253DButler%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BB.%26rft.volume%253D211%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D106%26rft.epage%253D127%26rft.atitle%253DMammalian%2Band%2Bavian%2Bneuroanatomy%2Band%2Bthe%2Bquestion%2Bof%2Bconsciousness%2Bin%2Bbirds.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2307%252F4134586%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17062871%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [50]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/4134586&link_type=DOI [51]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17062871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F369%2F6504%2F629.atom [52]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241793700003&link_type=ISI [53]: #xref-ref-13-1 "View reference 13 in text" [54]: #xref-ref-14-1 "View reference 14 in text" [55]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D31%26rft.spage%253D753%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [56]: #xref-ref-15-1 "View reference 15 in text" [57]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.spage%253D751%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

First Thursday of the month, Sept. through Dec. 12–1 p.m. (live via Zoom) This webinar is for the business community, policymakers, attorneys, healthcare providers and other members of the public interested in learning about AI. Each topic will be followed by Q&A opportunities. Here is a flyer for distribution! Registration opens August 1, 2020: ai.umaine.edu/webinars/