Dan Cohen AUTHOR To motorists passing by the former Fort Monmouth on the New Jersey Shore, it’s easy to get the impression that reuse efforts are going slowly, with little visible progress to see more than four years after the post closed.But the truth is that momentum has been building through the efforts of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority, and more concrete signs of redevelopment are just around the corner, according to the LRA.“We really see next year as being the turning point for the redevelopment of the fort,” said David Nuse, the LRA’s director of real estate development. “They’ll see buildings being renovated, companies moving in, some tangible changes that will really set the table for what the fort is going to be in the next 10 years,” Nuse said, reported the Asbury Park Press.The redevelopment authority so far has obtained about 550 acres of the property from the Army and it plans to complete the purchase of another 550 acres by this coming spring, he said.One of the reuse project’s first major successes was attracting a new $146 million headquarters for Commvault on a 55-acre tract. The building, paid for by the technology firm, opened one year ago.At a forum sponsored by the Asbury Park Press, eight local business leaders last week proposed several ways for the reuse project to pick up speed:find more Commvaults — additional property sales would help fund efforts to spruce up the site and attract more businesses and residents;do a better job of opening up the site to the public;foster the growth of startups;improve the region’s commuter train service; andadd other missing pieces, such as a high-speed, fiber optic network and light rail service on the Jersey Shore.“I don’t want to have to move to Boston or Austin. I love it here. It’s a matter of putting the pieces in place that will create a self-organizing system, which will then create momentum,” said Jennifer Crews, the founder and CEO of Flock, a technology company in nearby Red Bank.
0 Media Streamers TV and Movies 50 Photos Now playing: Watch this: Share your voice The Cheapskate 0:52 Post a comment HBO’s His Dark Materials teaser offers glimpse at epic… 2019 TV shows you can’t miss Best laptops for college students: We’ve got an affordable laptop for every student. Best live TV streaming services: Ditch your cable company but keep the live channels and DVR. Tags CNET’s Cheapskate scours the web for great deals on tech products and much more. For the latest deals and updates, follow the Cheapskate on Facebook and Twitter. Questions about the Cheapskate blog? Find the answers on our FAQ page, and find more great buys on the CNET Deals page. HBO’s Recommended by Humans is your gateway to free streaming content — but it’s one of the weirdest gateways ever. HBO Trying to decide what to watch next? Netflix has algorithms for that, but HBO is trying a different approach: wetware. The channel’s new Recommended by Humans page offers real opinions from real people — and the chance to stream some 50 HBO shows, movies and documentaries for free.It’s super weird. Accessible only in a browser, RBH is a huge scrollable grid of tweets and videos from people gushing about various HBO originals. Once you’ve read or played a recommendation, you can then view the movie — or, if it’s a show, the first episode. But there’s no way to search the listings (good luck trying to find, say, Chernobyl), and if you’re using a mobile device, the videos annoyingly autoplay once you land on one. On desktop, the experience is even worse, because there’s no rhyme or reason to which direction you should click and drag. You feel like you’re in an endless sea of recommendation tiles.What’s the point of all this? HBO would seem to believe that when you read or hear a recommendation from a real person, you’ll give it more weight than you would a computer-generated one. Maybe — but the annoyance factor of bad UI may have the opposite effect.Of course, this first-one’s-free approach is nothing new. HBO hopes you’ll watch the first episode of, say, Barry, Big Little Lies or Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, then decide to subscribe so you can watch more.Here’s the full list of what’s available, followed by a viewing tip:A Black Lady Sketch ShowAnimalsBallersBig Little LiesBored to DeathCarnivaleChernobylCrashingCurb Your EnthusiasmDeadwoodDivorceEastbound & DownEnlightenedEuphoriaFlight of the ConchordsGame of ThronesGentleman JackGirlsGoing Clear: Scientology and the Prison of BeliefLast Week Tonight with John OliverLos EspookysMommy Dead and DearestMy Brilliant FriendRandom Acts of FlynessSally4EverSex and the CitySharp ObjectsSilicon ValleySix Feet UnderSuccessionThe ComebackThe DeuceThe Jinx: The Life and Death of Robert DurstThe Larry Sanders ShowThe LeftoversThe Night OfThe Normal HeartThe SopranosThe WireThe Young PopeThere’s Something Wrong with Aunt DianeTrue BloodTrue DetectiveVeepVice PrincipalsWestworldFound something you like? If it’s an older show, like Deadwood, Flight of the Conchords, Girls or Curb Your Enthusiasm, you might be able to watch some or all of the series as part of your Amazon Prime subscription.I’m all for free stuff, and HBO definitely has some of my favorite shows. I just wish the UI for this thing wasn’t so terrible. This might be Recommended by Humans, but it wasn’t designed for them. HBO
Potential gender bias against female researchers in peer review of research grants © 2018 Phys.org A team of researchers at the National Institutes of Health has found that women in biomedical sciences are just as successful as men in sustaining grant funding. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the group describes their study of grant approval rates for men and women in the biomedical sciences. Citation: Study suggests women in biomedical sciences have equal chance of success in sustaining grant funding (2018, July 17) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-07-women-biomedical-sciences-equal-chance.html Explore further Credit: CC0 Public Domain Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences More information: Lisa A. Hechtman et al. NIH funding longevity by gender, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115AbstractWomen have achieved parity with men among biomedical science degree holders but remain underrepresented in academic positions. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research—receives less than one-third of its new grant applications from women. Correspondingly, women compose less than one-third of NIH research grantees, even though they are as successful as men in obtaining first-time grants. Our study examined women’s and men’s NIH funding trajectories over time (n = 34,770), exploring whether women remain funded at the same rate as men after receiving their first major research grants. A survival analysis demonstrated a slightly lower funding longevity for women. We next examined gender differences in application, review, and funding outcomes. Women individually held fewer grants, submitted fewer applications, and were less successful in renewing grants—factors that could lead to gender differences in funding longevity. Finally, two adjusted survival models that account for initial investigator characteristics or subsequent application behavior showed no gender differences, suggesting that the small observed longevity differences are affected by both sets of factors. Overall, given men’s and women’s generally comparable funding longevities, the data contradict the common assumption that women experience accelerated attrition compared with men across all career stages. Women’s likelihood of sustaining NIH funding may be better than commonly perceived. This suggests a need to explore women’s underrepresentation among initial NIH grantees, as well as their lower rates of new and renewal application submissions. Prior research has shown that despite receiving approximately half of all advanced degrees in the biomedical sciences, women are still vastly underrepresented in tenured positions at major universities. It has been suggested by some in the field that part of the reason for this disparity is the view held by many women who pursue advanced degrees that they will have limited opportunities should they pursue an academic career path. The researchers note that such a path generally involves becoming successful at applying for grants to carry out research. The researchers further suggest that many women believe this path is biased against women and thus choose to pursue careers in the corporate world as a more viable alternative. But are such beliefs justified? That is what the researchers sought to learn.To find out, the researchers ran queries on databases maintained by NIH that hold information regarding grants for the years 1991 through 2010. In so doing, they compared rates of success for first-time applicants as well as for those who apply for and receive grants repeatedly. They found that male first-time applicants far outnumbered female first-time applicants. But they also found that the rates of success for women who applied for and received grants repeatedly were much closer. And when they compared success rates by age and amount of education, they found that the rates were nearly identical for the two genders. The researchers suggest that this indicates that the so-called “leaky pipeline” is not applicable to women in the biomedical sciences. They further suggest that there is a degree of misinformation surrounding opportunities for women in the biomedical sciences and that more needs to be done to counteract it. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.