DXPG

Total Pageviews

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Egyptian Activist Defends Anti-Israel Tweets

A video profile of Mona Seif explaining her nomination as a finalist for the 2013 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.

An Egyptian activist issued a defiant response Thursday to critics who argue that her anti-Israel stance should disqualify her from consideration for a major international award.

The activist, Mona Seif, was named a finalist for the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders last week, based on her work to end military trials for civilians in Egypt. Days later, U.N. Watch, an affiliate of the American Jewish Committee that monitors international organizations for bias against Israel and intolerance, called on members of the award’s jury to “cancel Ms. Seif’s nomination” based on a series of anti-Israel tweets the group characterized as “her public advocacy of violence against civilians, terrorism, and war crimes.”

In a statement posted on Facebook, Ms. Seif â€" a scientist and blogger who helped document and explain the protest movement that forced President Hosni Mubarak from office in 2011 on her popular @Monasosh Twitter feed and in interviews from Tahrir Square â€" defended Twitter comments in which she praised attacks on an Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel, cheered the burning of an Israeli flag pulled from the country’s besieged embassy in Cairo, and rejected criticism of armed Palestinian militants from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

“One of the rights that we, the young people of Egypt, have succeeded in seizing is the right to insult our own government and to insult anyone whose policies are bad for our people,” Ms Seif wrote Thursday. “We insist on this right.”

Later in the statement, Ms. Seif also insisted that she did not mean to endorse attacks on Israeli civilians in one of the tweets singled out by U.N. Watch, an angry reply to a message posted on Twitter by Amnesty International during Israel’s Gaza offensive in November.

Ms. Seif insisted on Thursday that her comment was simply a rejection of the rights group’s call for Palestinian militants to cease fire. “I have never called for nor celebrated attacks on civilians,” she wrote. “My position is very clear: I support people’s right to resist occupation and I resist all attempts at portraying the siege of a predominantly civilian population by the world’s fourth most powerful army as one of ‘equivalence.’”

She signed off with a pledge to not be distracted from her work by “vulgar slandering” from U.N. Watch and its supporters and an obscenity-laced call for ill-will towards the Jewish state to continue “until there’s justice for the Palestinians.”

One day earlier, Ms. Seif had responded in a similar vein to Twitter users who accused her of being a “radical anti-Semite” and a “Muslim terrorist.”

As U.N. Watch stressed in a press release, two less-prominent Egyptian bloggers, Maikel Nabil and Amr Bakly, have publicly opposed Ms. Seif’s nomination for the award.

At one stage in a Twitter conversation about the controversy, the two men accused the international rights groups that chose Ms. Seif as a finalist for the award of being “a front for the Egyptian General Intelligence, not human rights organizations.”

As The Lede explained in 2011, when Mr. Nabil was jailed for criticizing the military on his blog, many of the Egyptian activists who supported his right to freedom of expression, and demonstrated against his imprisonment, were strongly critical of his pro-Israel stance.

This week, supporters of Ms. Seif reminded Mr. Nabil, whose recent lecture in Israel was sponsored by U.N. Watch, that she had campaigned hard for his release, despite their political differences.

A number of leading Egyptian bloggers came to Ms. Seif’s defense. One, Wael Khalil, suggested that her adversaries had chosen someone unlikely to retreat.

Ms. Seif’s extended family includes several well-known rights activists. Her father, Ahmed Seif El-Islam Hamed, is a prominent lawyer and human rights activist who worked with the Cairo-based Hisham Mubarak Law Center during the Mubarak era, and was jailed for five years during the 1980s. Her mother, Laila Soueif, is an activist and a professor at Cairo University. Her brother, Alaa Abd El Fattah, is a leading blogger and activist who was imprisoned before and after the 2011 revolution for his writing and activism.

Mr. Abdel Fattah has repeatedly defended the use of violent resistance against the security forces of an unjust state. At the start of an address to the Personal Democracy Forum in New York in 2011, Mr. Fattah joked that the most important technology used by protesters to defend Tahrir Square from attacks by the authorities was “rocks.”

Ms. Seif’s aunt, Ahdaf Soueif, a novelist and cultural commentator, said the attack on her niece had come with “boring predictability.”

Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, was one member of the award jury to receive a letter from U.N. Watch this week urging him to cancel Ms. Seif’s nomination. Asked by The Lede for his response to the controversy, Mr. Roth replied in an e-mail:

HRW staff nominated two human rights defenders, and one made it through as a finalist (not Mona). Voting on the finalists will take place in October in a secret ballot by the 10 human rights groups on the jury, including HRW. HRW researchers speak on the videos about all three finalists - as do some other jury members.

HRW never takes a position on whether a country or rebel group should go to war or engage in “resistance.” Our focus is on how wars are fought, and we oppose any deliberate or indiscriminate attacks on civilians. I haven’t seen anything indicating that by “resistance” Mona means attacking civilians.



Tense Moments Described at Houston Airport Following Shooting

A shooting at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston produced tense scenes for travelers and a closure of one of the airport’s terminals on Thursday afternoon. One person was said to be shot and facing life-threatening injuries.

The Houston Police Department used its Facebook page to provide some details about the incident:

About 1:35 p.m. today, a report of shots fired at Bush Intercontinental Airport was received by HPD at Terminal B. A lone armed male has suffered at least one gunshot wound and has been transported to an area hospital with life threatening injuries. There are no other reports of injuries nor other persons involved. Further information will be posted as it is confirmed.


A subsequent comment from the police department added that the man “was near a ticket counter, pre-screening” when the shooting occurred.

Some travelers at the airport share their experiences on Twitter of the moment when the shooting occurred.

Rebecca McCormick, a traveler at the airport who described herself as a syndicated journalist on her Twitter profile, also interviewed some witnesses in Houston who heard the shooting and described what they saw:


.nytVideo, .nytVideo video, .youtubeVideo, .youtubeVideo iframe { background: none repeat scroll 0 0 #000000; } .youtubeVideo { position: relative; } .youtubeVideo, .youtubeVideo .thumb { height: 0; padding-bottom: 56.25%; } .youtubeVideo iframe { height: 100%; left: 0; position: absolute; top: 0; width: 100%; z-index: 1; } .youtubeVideo .playButton { border-radius: 10px 10px 10px 10px; height: 46px; left: 50%; margin: -23px 0 0 -35px; position: absolute; top: 50%; width: 70px; z-index: 2; background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(90deg, #6e0610, #ff0000); /* Safari 5.1+, Mobile Safari, Chrome 10+ */ background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(90deg, #6e0610, #ff0000); /* Firefox 3.6+ */ background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(90deg, #6e0610, #ff0000); /* IE 10+ */ background-image: -o-linear-gradient(90deg, #6e0610, #ff0000); /* Opera 11.10+ */ } .youtubeVideo .thumb { overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } .youtubeVideo .thumb img { height: auto; width: 100%; } .youtubeVideo:hover .thumb { cursor: pointer; } .youtubeVideo:hover .playButton { } .youtubeVideo .playButton .arrow { border-bottom: 10px solid transparent; border-left: 20px solid #FFFFFF; border-top: 10px solid transparent; height: 0; left: 28px; position: absolute; top: 13px; width: 0; } .clearfix:after { clear: both; content: "."; display: block; height: 0; visibility: hidden; }

The shooting incident prompted the airport to announce the indefinite closure of its Terminal B:

While no motive or chain of events leading to the shooting was offered by authorities, a news organization noted that the National Rifle Association will begin its three-day national convention in Houston on Friday.



Planning for Another 100 Million Web Sites

More than 20 years after the advent of the World Wide Web, some might argue that it has already yielded a surfeit of Web pages, mobile sites, and the digital equivalent of shiny time wasters.

Ha.

“There are maybe 100 million Web sites out there - that is not many, when you consider that there are billions of people,” said David Rusenko, the chief executive of Weebly, a service that enables relatively easy creation of Web sites.

On Thursday, Weebly is doing its modest best to resolve the deficit with a new site planner and creator that uses the HTML5 programming standard for creation of sites that will work correctly on different Web browsers.

The product will also automatically reformat a site for viewing on mobile devices, like smartphones and tablets, Mr. Rusenko said. It will also be possible to edit a site from a mobile device, and view changes before they are published. Prices for using the service vary, with a free elementary product and a high-end version that runs about $100 a year.

Weebly, which is privately held, says its tools have generated more than 15 million sites since its founding in 2006. These draw 100 million visitors a month, Mr. Rusenko said. It has been a nice business, profitable since 2009, he said, but recently the company wondered if it was really meeting the demand for site creation.

One reason for that is that while making Web sites used to be relatively straightforward, the advent of kinetic elements like video, or the need to build for mobile devices, had made things much tougher. “We did a survey, and found that while 60 percent of people didn’t trust a business without a Web site, 75 percent of people didn’t know it was possible to create their own site,” Mr. Rusenko said.

HTML5 is supposed to solve the problem of writing for different devices and browsers, but designers have found that the standard has its own complexities. Weebly claims to have overcome these by automating processes and adding tools to help newcomers plan their graphic expression. One tool is copying; on their own people get a kind of designer’s block, so Weebly offers templates to study, and an interactive guide with tutorials on things like organization and layout.

Besides helping ordinary businesses develop a Web presence, Weebly says uncertain employment and increasing number of freelancers in the modern economy means more individuals need to be mongering themselves on the Web. If so, it’s part of a trend that includes services like Elance, ODesk, and Freelancer.com, which try to match short-term jobs in things like design and programing with a global talent base. Similarly, Etsy encourages small business by allowing craftspeople a place to display their work.

Maybe the first 100 million sites were the hardest. If so, get ready for an explosion, from lots of people and places. And, in turn, even more competition for work.



Communicating in Another Language via Cellphone

A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket

Minh Uong/The New York Times

In Douglas Adams’s “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” the hero sticks a so-called Babel fish in his ear and can understand everything said to him in any language. Today’s apps for language translation try to accomplish the same thing. While not as accurate or instantaneous, they are nevertheless useful and greatly improved from just a couple of years ago. And you don’t have to put anything slimy in your ear.

The reason these kinds of apps have gotten so much better is simply that more people have been using them, said John Garofolo, a senior adviser at the National Institute of Standards and Technology who has studied and tested the software. The more a translation app is used, the more it learns to statistically make correct associations with sounds, text and meaning.

The latest translation apps incorporate voice-recognition software so you can speak as well as type in the word or phrase you want translated and then get both a text and audio response. While there are a bewildering number of translation apps, most use one of just three voice recognition programs (Google, Microsoft or Nuance) mixed with translation software (either Google or Microsoft) plus the app developer’s own tweaks. An exception is the app Jibbigo, which has its own system, developed by computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University.

The language apps differ markedly in price, user interface, added features and functionality offline. Accuracy seems to depend on your accent and dialectical proclivities as well as the range of words you use and how noisy the environment is where you say them. Some apps may be better at translating, say, curse words, while others might be better at culinary terms. Some may be super at French, but miserable at Hungarian.

But no matter which app you choose, you can’t use it for long and involved conversations. These apps work only when you speak very slowly and distinctly and in short sentences. Be prepared to rephrase when you get quizzical looks or uncomfortable giggles â€" as when asking in English for a baby’s “crib” in your hotel room and the app’s French translation intones that you need a “favor” in your hotel room. Mon Dieu!

After testing most of the voice-recognition translation apps available (and listening to more mechanical speech than a healthy person should), I found a few standouts in reliability and usability. The trials occurred over several days, in different noise environments, and involved at least three languages. Here are my picks:

GOOGLE TRANSLATE for iOS and Android: When Google Translate works, it’s fast and accurate. It has a way of seizing up at times, usually in loud places or when you give it a long sentence or multisyllabic word. After a long wait, you might get a message saying “Speech recognition not available.” Also, it’s not particularly good at recognizing proper names or names of cities.

Nevertheless, it’s probably the most widely used translation app and is powered by Google’s behemoth worldwide computing power and data sets. Indeed, the company used all available United Nations documents, each translated into six languages, to build its statistical translation system. That is in addition to countless Web documents and voice actors’ recordings plus feedback from the billion or more translations it delivers daily to users.

Like most Google products, the free translation app has a simple and uncluttered interface. It covers 63 languages (20 with voice-recognition and 43 with text to speech), including four dialects of Spanish and three for Chinese. This is good because trying to use a Mexican-Spanish translation when talking to a Salvadoran can be extremely frustrating.

Also, Google last month introduced 50 offline translation packages. You can download a particular language package to use when you aren’t near Wi-Fi and don’t want exorbitant roaming or data charges. Just know the offline translation service isn’t as comprehensive in terms of vocabulary as what you’d get online.

JIBBIGO for iOS and Android: The work of Carnegie Mellon computer scientists, Jibbigo is also free and a generally useful translator although it doesn’t recognize some seemingly simple and useful words like “corkscrew” and “cellphone” and it particularly has trouble deciphering thick accents like some heard in Oklahoma or Massachusetts.

The app covers 13 languages (including English dialects for the United States and Britain and Spanish dialects for Mexico and Spain), which are available online and offline for $5 each. Or you can buy languages in bulk; a European bundle, for $10, includes French, Italian, German and Spanish. You download them from the cloud only when you need them so you don’t take up too much of your mobile device’s memory.

Jibbigo has an intuitive interface. It keeps a history of your translations and also has a way for you to control the speed with which the translated words are spoken, which is helpful if you are trying to learn the language. Jibbigo also has a button for allowing explicit language. On other apps, you tend to get error messages or asterisks. Another nice feature is the ability to input a list of proper names (in text and voice) for it to readily recognize.

VOCRE for iOS and Android: Vocre, which costs $5 and covers 36 languages for Android and 66 for iOS, is a true hybrid of technologies. It uses Nuance’s voice recognition program and Microsoft’s translation program but rolls over to Google’s system when Microsoft gets stumped. The app also taps into a database of crowdsourced translations.

The voice recognition is excellent even when using proper names. The translation is good even when conveying more complex thoughts. And you can choose whether you want a male or female voice speaking the translation. The split-screen feature allows two participants in a conversation to use the app while facing each other. A big drawback is that there is no offline functionality.

ITRANSLATE for iOS and Android: This app also uses Nuance software for voice recognition and Microsoft and Google software for translation with some proprietary software in the mix. It will translate 36 languages with impressive accuracy even in noisy environments.

The cost is $5 but only for one year, and it will not automatically renew. There are less expensive versions of iTranslate, including a free version with annoying ads, but don’t waste your time or money. They are like getting just a few pieces of a larger puzzle you’re trying to solve, and it’s irritating.

The interface is user-friendly and seems to translate faster than the other apps. You can choose a female or male voice, as well as the speed at which it speaks. Also very useful are dictionary entries that pop up to show you various possible definitions. But like Vocre, you can’t use the app offline, which for international travelers is not good, bon, bueno, dobre, gut, buono, bra, goeie, jo or geras.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2013, on page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket.

Communicating in Another Language via Cellphone

A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket

Minh Uong/The New York Times

In Douglas Adams’s “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” the hero sticks a so-called Babel fish in his ear and can understand everything said to him in any language. Today’s apps for language translation try to accomplish the same thing. While not as accurate or instantaneous, they are nevertheless useful and greatly improved from just a couple of years ago. And you don’t have to put anything slimy in your ear.

The reason these kinds of apps have gotten so much better is simply that more people have been using them, said John Garofolo, a senior adviser at the National Institute of Standards and Technology who has studied and tested the software. The more a translation app is used, the more it learns to statistically make correct associations with sounds, text and meaning.

The latest translation apps incorporate voice-recognition software so you can speak as well as type in the word or phrase you want translated and then get both a text and audio response. While there are a bewildering number of translation apps, most use one of just three voice recognition programs (Google, Microsoft or Nuance) mixed with translation software (either Google or Microsoft) plus the app developer’s own tweaks. An exception is the app Jibbigo, which has its own system, developed by computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University.

The language apps differ markedly in price, user interface, added features and functionality offline. Accuracy seems to depend on your accent and dialectical proclivities as well as the range of words you use and how noisy the environment is where you say them. Some apps may be better at translating, say, curse words, while others might be better at culinary terms. Some may be super at French, but miserable at Hungarian.

But no matter which app you choose, you can’t use it for long and involved conversations. These apps work only when you speak very slowly and distinctly and in short sentences. Be prepared to rephrase when you get quizzical looks or uncomfortable giggles â€" as when asking in English for a baby’s “crib” in your hotel room and the app’s French translation intones that you need a “favor” in your hotel room. Mon Dieu!

After testing most of the voice-recognition translation apps available (and listening to more mechanical speech than a healthy person should), I found a few standouts in reliability and usability. The trials occurred over several days, in different noise environments, and involved at least three languages. Here are my picks:

GOOGLE TRANSLATE for iOS and Android: When Google Translate works, it’s fast and accurate. It has a way of seizing up at times, usually in loud places or when you give it a long sentence or multisyllabic word. After a long wait, you might get a message saying “Speech recognition not available.” Also, it’s not particularly good at recognizing proper names or names of cities.

Nevertheless, it’s probably the most widely used translation app and is powered by Google’s behemoth worldwide computing power and data sets. Indeed, the company used all available United Nations documents, each translated into six languages, to build its statistical translation system. That is in addition to countless Web documents and voice actors’ recordings plus feedback from the billion or more translations it delivers daily to users.

Like most Google products, the free translation app has a simple and uncluttered interface. It covers 63 languages (20 with voice-recognition and 43 with text to speech), including four dialects of Spanish and three for Chinese. This is good because trying to use a Mexican-Spanish translation when talking to a Salvadoran can be extremely frustrating.

Also, Google last month introduced 50 offline translation packages. You can download a particular language package to use when you aren’t near Wi-Fi and don’t want exorbitant roaming or data charges. Just know the offline translation service isn’t as comprehensive in terms of vocabulary as what you’d get online.

JIBBIGO for iOS and Android: The work of Carnegie Mellon computer scientists, Jibbigo is also free and a generally useful translator although it doesn’t recognize some seemingly simple and useful words like “corkscrew” and “cellphone” and it particularly has trouble deciphering thick accents like some heard in Oklahoma or Massachusetts.

The app covers 13 languages (including English dialects for the United States and Britain and Spanish dialects for Mexico and Spain), which are available online and offline for $5 each. Or you can buy languages in bulk; a European bundle, for $10, includes French, Italian, German and Spanish. You download them from the cloud only when you need them so you don’t take up too much of your mobile device’s memory.

Jibbigo has an intuitive interface. It keeps a history of your translations and also has a way for you to control the speed with which the translated words are spoken, which is helpful if you are trying to learn the language. Jibbigo also has a button for allowing explicit language. On other apps, you tend to get error messages or asterisks. Another nice feature is the ability to input a list of proper names (in text and voice) for it to readily recognize.

VOCRE for iOS and Android: Vocre, which costs $5 and covers 36 languages for Android and 66 for iOS, is a true hybrid of technologies. It uses Nuance’s voice recognition program and Microsoft’s translation program but rolls over to Google’s system when Microsoft gets stumped. The app also taps into a database of crowdsourced translations.

The voice recognition is excellent even when using proper names. The translation is good even when conveying more complex thoughts. And you can choose whether you want a male or female voice speaking the translation. The split-screen feature allows two participants in a conversation to use the app while facing each other. A big drawback is that there is no offline functionality.

ITRANSLATE for iOS and Android: This app also uses Nuance software for voice recognition and Microsoft and Google software for translation with some proprietary software in the mix. It will translate 36 languages with impressive accuracy even in noisy environments.

The cost is $5 but only for one year, and it will not automatically renew. There are less expensive versions of iTranslate, including a free version with annoying ads, but don’t waste your time or money. They are like getting just a few pieces of a larger puzzle you’re trying to solve, and it’s irritating.

The interface is user-friendly and seems to translate faster than the other apps. You can choose a female or male voice, as well as the speed at which it speaks. Also very useful are dictionary entries that pop up to show you various possible definitions. But like Vocre, you can’t use the app offline, which for international travelers is not good, bon, bueno, dobre, gut, buono, bra, goeie, jo or geras.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2013, on page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket.

Communicating in Another Language via Cellphone

A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket

Minh Uong/The New York Times

In Douglas Adams’s “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” the hero sticks a so-called Babel fish in his ear and can understand everything said to him in any language. Today’s apps for language translation try to accomplish the same thing. While not as accurate or instantaneous, they are nevertheless useful and greatly improved from just a couple of years ago. And you don’t have to put anything slimy in your ear.

The reason these kinds of apps have gotten so much better is simply that more people have been using them, said John Garofolo, a senior adviser at the National Institute of Standards and Technology who has studied and tested the software. The more a translation app is used, the more it learns to statistically make correct associations with sounds, text and meaning.

The latest translation apps incorporate voice-recognition software so you can speak as well as type in the word or phrase you want translated and then get both a text and audio response. While there are a bewildering number of translation apps, most use one of just three voice recognition programs (Google, Microsoft or Nuance) mixed with translation software (either Google or Microsoft) plus the app developer’s own tweaks. An exception is the app Jibbigo, which has its own system, developed by computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University.

The language apps differ markedly in price, user interface, added features and functionality offline. Accuracy seems to depend on your accent and dialectical proclivities as well as the range of words you use and how noisy the environment is where you say them. Some apps may be better at translating, say, curse words, while others might be better at culinary terms. Some may be super at French, but miserable at Hungarian.

But no matter which app you choose, you can’t use it for long and involved conversations. These apps work only when you speak very slowly and distinctly and in short sentences. Be prepared to rephrase when you get quizzical looks or uncomfortable giggles â€" as when asking in English for a baby’s “crib” in your hotel room and the app’s French translation intones that you need a “favor” in your hotel room. Mon Dieu!

After testing most of the voice-recognition translation apps available (and listening to more mechanical speech than a healthy person should), I found a few standouts in reliability and usability. The trials occurred over several days, in different noise environments, and involved at least three languages. Here are my picks:

GOOGLE TRANSLATE for iOS and Android: When Google Translate works, it’s fast and accurate. It has a way of seizing up at times, usually in loud places or when you give it a long sentence or multisyllabic word. After a long wait, you might get a message saying “Speech recognition not available.” Also, it’s not particularly good at recognizing proper names or names of cities.

Nevertheless, it’s probably the most widely used translation app and is powered by Google’s behemoth worldwide computing power and data sets. Indeed, the company used all available United Nations documents, each translated into six languages, to build its statistical translation system. That is in addition to countless Web documents and voice actors’ recordings plus feedback from the billion or more translations it delivers daily to users.

Like most Google products, the free translation app has a simple and uncluttered interface. It covers 63 languages (20 with voice-recognition and 43 with text to speech), including four dialects of Spanish and three for Chinese. This is good because trying to use a Mexican-Spanish translation when talking to a Salvadoran can be extremely frustrating.

Also, Google last month introduced 50 offline translation packages. You can download a particular language package to use when you aren’t near Wi-Fi and don’t want exorbitant roaming or data charges. Just know the offline translation service isn’t as comprehensive in terms of vocabulary as what you’d get online.

JIBBIGO for iOS and Android: The work of Carnegie Mellon computer scientists, Jibbigo is also free and a generally useful translator although it doesn’t recognize some seemingly simple and useful words like “corkscrew” and “cellphone” and it particularly has trouble deciphering thick accents like some heard in Oklahoma or Massachusetts.

The app covers 13 languages (including English dialects for the United States and Britain and Spanish dialects for Mexico and Spain), which are available online and offline for $5 each. Or you can buy languages in bulk; a European bundle, for $10, includes French, Italian, German and Spanish. You download them from the cloud only when you need them so you don’t take up too much of your mobile device’s memory.

Jibbigo has an intuitive interface. It keeps a history of your translations and also has a way for you to control the speed with which the translated words are spoken, which is helpful if you are trying to learn the language. Jibbigo also has a button for allowing explicit language. On other apps, you tend to get error messages or asterisks. Another nice feature is the ability to input a list of proper names (in text and voice) for it to readily recognize.

VOCRE for iOS and Android: Vocre, which costs $5 and covers 36 languages for Android and 66 for iOS, is a true hybrid of technologies. It uses Nuance’s voice recognition program and Microsoft’s translation program but rolls over to Google’s system when Microsoft gets stumped. The app also taps into a database of crowdsourced translations.

The voice recognition is excellent even when using proper names. The translation is good even when conveying more complex thoughts. And you can choose whether you want a male or female voice speaking the translation. The split-screen feature allows two participants in a conversation to use the app while facing each other. A big drawback is that there is no offline functionality.

ITRANSLATE for iOS and Android: This app also uses Nuance software for voice recognition and Microsoft and Google software for translation with some proprietary software in the mix. It will translate 36 languages with impressive accuracy even in noisy environments.

The cost is $5 but only for one year, and it will not automatically renew. There are less expensive versions of iTranslate, including a free version with annoying ads, but don’t waste your time or money. They are like getting just a few pieces of a larger puzzle you’re trying to solve, and it’s irritating.

The interface is user-friendly and seems to translate faster than the other apps. You can choose a female or male voice, as well as the speed at which it speaks. Also very useful are dictionary entries that pop up to show you various possible definitions. But like Vocre, you can’t use the app offline, which for international travelers is not good, bon, bueno, dobre, gut, buono, bra, goeie, jo or geras.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2013, on page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: A Score or More of Languages in Your Pocket.

A Night Flight Powered by the Sun

Cross-Country Solar Plane Expedition Set for Takeoff

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. â€" When Bertrand Piccard was growing up in Switzerland, heady discussions about the boundless potential for human endeavor were standard fare.

His grandfather, a physicist and friend of Albert Einstein and Marie Curie, had invented a special capsule so he and a partner could be first to reach the stratosphere in a balloon. His father, an engineer, helped design the submarine that made him and an American naval officer the first to plunge undersea to the earth’s crust.

“All the most incredible things seemed to be completely normal,” Mr. Piccard, a psychiatrist trained in hypnosis, said last week at Moffett Field at the NASA Ames Research Center here, preparing for his next expedition. “I thought this was the normal way to live and I was very disappointed to see that there are a lot of people who are afraid of the unknown, afraid of the doubts, afraid of the question marks.”

He went on to become part of the team that was first to circumnavigate the globe nonstop in a balloon. But when a propane shortage nearly ended his record-setting ride in 1999, he began dreaming of a way to fly day and night without fuel, an idea that has reached fruition in a featherweight solar airplane set for an initial voyage across the United States starting on Friday, weather permitting. His brainchild, the Solar Impulse, will not be the first sun-powered plane to fly; its chief distinction is its ability to go through the night.

Conceived of as a grand demonstration of what can be done with clean technologies â€" a Jules Verne-style adventure with a dash of P. T. Barnum thrown in â€" the project has more practical implications. While it could be decades, at least, before ordinary travelers line up to board solar electric planes, the technology is under consideration for drones, which risk damage each time they land to refuel.

Another venture’s solar electric plane, which seats two and could one day find a place in the sport aviation market, made its debut last week in Germany. The Sunseeker Duo from Solar Flight (founded by Eric Raymond, who also worked on the Solar Impulse project) can fly for about 12 hours at a time, said Eric Lentz-Gauthier, a pilot and spokesman for the company. And some of the technologies developed for Solar Impulse â€" which has a wingspan matching that of a 747 but the weight of a midsize car â€" are already set for commercial use, including the special batteries used to store the solar energy and the foam that insulates them.

The cockpit will fit only one, so Mr. Piccard will trade legs of the journey with his partner, André Borschberg, an engineer and entrepreneur who was a jet fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force, flying at about 45 miles per hour for 18 to 20 hours at a time. The aircraft could theoretically fly continuously, but the pilots â€" despite Mr. Piccard’s apparent skill at self-hypnosis and Mr. Borschberg’s explorations of yoga and meditation â€" cannot.

“We have a sustainable airplane; now we have to build a sustainable pilot,” said Mr. Borschberg at a presentation at Stanford University later that day. So flight legs are limited, since the plane’s extreme sensitivity to turbulence demands a pilot’s direct attention.

The men plan stops in Phoenix, Dallas, St. Louis and Washington before a final landing at Kennedy Airport in New York around the end of June. The voyage is a precursor to a planned trip around the globe in 2015 for which the team is building a second plane, adding adjustments like an autopilot and reclining seat, to help them fly for as many as five days straight.

The two first met after Mr. Piccard presented his idea for fuel-free flight to the Swiss Institute of Technology, which put Mr. Borschberg in charge of studying the project. He ended up overseeing the aircraft’s design and construction, including its nearly 12,000 solar cells. Mr. Piccard turned to raising the $140 million in financing and sponsorship to support it (“Like in every couple, I was bringing the money in and André was spending it.”).

Solar Impulse borrows technologies from industries like semiconductor and boat manufacturing, Mr. Borschberg said. Constructed of a carbon fiber frame, monocrystalline silicon solar panels and a sheer, silver carbon wrapping, the plane is tough enough to reach almost 30,000 feet but so fragile you could put a finger through it.

“Everything is so efficient that we can fly only with the sun that we collect in the airplane,” he said.

For Mr. Piccard, the project represents another genealogical milestone. Like his grandfather and father before him, he is driven to be a pioneer.

A version of this article appeared in print on May 2, 2013, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Solar Plane That Flies At Night.

Daily Report: Police Say Better Technology Is Needed to Cut Phone Thefts

Police officials say the cellphone industry has not done enough with technology to stanch the ever-rising numbers of handset thefts, Brian X. Chen and Malia Wollan report Thursday in The New York Times.

George Gascón, San Francisco’s district attorney, says handset makers like Apple should be exploring new technologies that could help prevent theft. In March, he said, he met with an Apple executive, Michael Foulkes, who handles its government relations, to discuss how the company could improve its antitheft technology. But he left the meeting, he said, with no promise that Apple was working to do so.

He added, “Unlike other types of crimes, this is a crime that could be easily fixed with a technological solution.” Apple declined to comment.

The cellphone market is hugely lucrative, with the sale of handsets bringing in $69 billion in the United States last year, according to IDC, the research firm. Yet, thefts of smartphones keep increasing, and victims keep replacing them.

In San Francisco last year, nearly half of all robberies involved a cellphone, up from 36 percent the year before; in Washington, cellphones were taken in 42 percent of robberies, a record. In New York, theft of iPhones and iPads last year accounted for 14 percent of all crimes.