Slashdot Mirror

Zothecula writes "Use digital technology long enough and you start to become dependent upon it for such mundane tasks as spell checking. That means when you pick up a garden variety ballpoint pen you're back in dictionary and 'I before E except after C' territory. The creators of the Lernstiftdigital pen hope to bring handwriting into the 21st century by having the pen vibrate to indicate when the writer makes spelling and grammatical errors or exhibits poor penmanship."

Michael Ross writes "Web designers, graphics artists, and others who create and edit digital images, have a number of commercial image-manipulation packages from which they can choose — such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Fireworks (originally developed by Macromedia). Yet there are also many alternatives in the open-source world, the most well-known being GNU Image Manipulation Program. GIMP is available for all major operating systems, and supports all commonly-used image formats. This powerful application is loaded with features, including plug-ins and scripting. Yet detractors criticize it as being complicated (as if Photoshop is intuitively obvious). Admittedly, anyone hoping to learn it could benefit from a comprehensive guide, such as The Book of GIMP." Keep reading for the rest of Michael's review. The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything author Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare pages 676 pages publisher No Starch Press rating 9/10 reviewer Michael J. Ross ISBN 978-1593273835 summary A comprehensive tutorial and reference to GIMP 2.8. Authored by Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare, The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything was published by No Starch Press on 22 January 2013, with the ISBN 978-1593273835. The publisher's page offers minimal information on the book and its authors, as well as a skimpy table of contents, and a free sample chapter (the fifth one, on composite photography). Lecarme has a companion website where visitors will find additional resources, including bonus filters, a forum (albeit almost empty), and a selection of the example images used in the book.

This title's 676 pages are organized into 22 chapters and six appendices. The first eight chapters compose "Part I — Learning GIMP"; the remaining chapters compose "Part II — Reference"; and the appendices compose the third part. In a brief but pleasant introduction, the authors encourage readers to follow along by installing GIMP on a local machine. Installation instructions can be found in Appendix E (which arguably should be the first appendix, to get readers started with a local installation). The book is based upon the most recent stable version of GIMP, namely 2.8, which reportedly introduced significant improvements over earlier versions.

As one might expect, the first chapter introduces the basics of the GIMP user interface, explaining how to find and open images, use the menu system in the main image dock, and perform basic editing operations, such as resizing and cropping. It also presents some essential concepts in GIMP — filters, layers, and drawing tools — and then discusses the use of a tablet in conjunction with GIMP. The next six chapters each focus on a major category of image work: photo retouching, drawing and illustration, logos and textures, composite photography, animation, and image preprocessing. The last chapter in the group covers utilizing GIMP for crafting the visual design of a website. The only problem I found in the narrative is the inconsistency in terminology, primarily the references to something as a "dock" on some occasions, and other times as a "window"; also, the "multi-dialog window" (page 4) is later called the "multi-docks window" (page 18). Nonetheless, the prose is straightforward and concise; there is a lot of information contained in each section. Consequently, anyone reading these tutorial chapters should take them at a modest pace, and frequently compare the authors' narrative and one's understanding of it with the screenshots and/or one's own results if following along (a practice I strongly recommend for this particular book, so one will better internalize the broad ideas as well as the details).

Each chapter concludes with a set of exercises, whose questions tend to be much more open-ended and difficult than those normally found in technical books. In fact, readers may be frustrated how some of the exercises challenge one to perform task completely unmentioned in the corresponding chapter. For instance, the very first one in the book, Exercise 1.1 (page 24), asks the reader to build a new dock with dialogs, even though at no point in the chapter was the reader told how to do anything remotely like this. Appendix B contains tips for a minority of the exercises.

The bulk of the book, "Part II — Reference," offers almost 400 pages of details on every aspect of GIMP: the user interface, its displays, layers, colors, selections, masks, drawing tools, transformation tools, filters, animation tools, scanning and printing images, image formats, scripts and plug-ins, and other methods of customizing the application — with each chapter starting with the basics. All of the information is terrific, but the thoughtful reader may wonder why the book begins with advanced topics — such as photo retouching, composite photography, animation, and website design — and later presents the detailed explanations of all the aforementioned aspects of using GIMP. It seems to me that it would have been better to present the Part II chapters first, and then present the advanced topics currently in Part I, except for what is now Chapter 1 ("Getting Started"), which would still be a fine way to begin the explication.

The third and final part contains half a dozen appendices, the first of which is a fascinating exploration of the science of human vision and the three main models of digital color representation. As noted earlier, the second appendix contains tips and hints for some of the chapter exercises. The third appendix is brief, but contains a wealth of online resources for anyone who would like to learn more about GIMP and its community. The next appendix contains a list of frequently asked questions and their answers, and is well worth reading. The fifth chapter explains how to install GIMP on computers running GNU/Linux, Unix, various Linux distros, Windows, and Mac OS X. The final appendix addresses batch processing of images, including the use of ImageMagick.

The production quality of this book is excellent (judging by the print copy kindly provided to me by No Starch Press for review). It was a smart choice on the part of the authors to request full-color images on every page, and the publisher's decision to do so, given the book's visual subject — even though it resulted in a heavier product (3.4 pounds).

Naturally, as a book discussing an image editor, this one makes extensive use of example photos and other images, which are extremely helpful to the reader. Only a few problems were evident; for instance, Figures 1.24 and 1.25 are so small that the cropping pointers are almost invisible. In some cases the descriptions or screenshots do not match what I saw when following along; for instance, on page 3, the author states that the three startup windows (Toolbox, Image, and multi-dialog) by default occupy the full width of the screen, which contradicts the screenshot in Figure 1.1, which shows the Image window at partial width.

The writing is generally clear and easy to follow, even though some of the phrasing is odd (e.g., "source text" to mean "source code"), perhaps because both authors are French. That could also account for the errata — for instance, "on [the] left" (page 15) and "its there" (page 22) — of which there were remarkably few for a book of this length.

If any reader is looking for a free and full-featured image-editing program, then by all means consider GIMP, as well as this outstanding tutorial and reference book.

Michael J. Ross is a freelance web developer and writer.

You can purchase The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Michael Ross writes "Web designers, graphics artists, and others who create and edit digital images, have a number of commercial image-manipulation packages from which they can choose — such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Fireworks (originally developed by Macromedia). Yet there are also many alternatives in the open-source world, the most well-known being GNU Image Manipulation Program. GIMP is available for all major operating systems, and supports all commonly-used image formats. This powerful application is loaded with features, including plug-ins and scripting. Yet detractors criticize it as being complicated (as if Photoshop is intuitively obvious). Admittedly, anyone hoping to learn it could benefit from a comprehensive guide, such as The Book of GIMP." Keep reading for the rest of Michael's review. The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything author Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare pages 676 pages publisher No Starch Press rating 9/10 reviewer Michael J. Ross ISBN 978-1593273835 summary A comprehensive tutorial and reference to GIMP 2.8. Authored by Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare, The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything was published by No Starch Press on 22 January 2013, with the ISBN 978-1593273835. The publisher's page offers minimal information on the book and its authors, as well as a skimpy table of contents, and a free sample chapter (the fifth one, on composite photography). Lecarme has a companion website where visitors will find additional resources, including bonus filters, a forum (albeit almost empty), and a selection of the example images used in the book.

This title's 676 pages are organized into 22 chapters and six appendices. The first eight chapters compose "Part I — Learning GIMP"; the remaining chapters compose "Part II — Reference"; and the appendices compose the third part. In a brief but pleasant introduction, the authors encourage readers to follow along by installing GIMP on a local machine. Installation instructions can be found in Appendix E (which arguably should be the first appendix, to get readers started with a local installation). The book is based upon the most recent stable version of GIMP, namely 2.8, which reportedly introduced significant improvements over earlier versions.

As one might expect, the first chapter introduces the basics of the GIMP user interface, explaining how to find and open images, use the menu system in the main image dock, and perform basic editing operations, such as resizing and cropping. It also presents some essential concepts in GIMP — filters, layers, and drawing tools — and then discusses the use of a tablet in conjunction with GIMP. The next six chapters each focus on a major category of image work: photo retouching, drawing and illustration, logos and textures, composite photography, animation, and image preprocessing. The last chapter in the group covers utilizing GIMP for crafting the visual design of a website. The only problem I found in the narrative is the inconsistency in terminology, primarily the references to something as a "dock" on some occasions, and other times as a "window"; also, the "multi-dialog window" (page 4) is later called the "multi-docks window" (page 18). Nonetheless, the prose is straightforward and concise; there is a lot of information contained in each section. Consequently, anyone reading these tutorial chapters should take them at a modest pace, and frequently compare the authors' narrative and one's understanding of it with the screenshots and/or one's own results if following along (a practice I strongly recommend for this particular book, so one will better internalize the broad ideas as well as the details).

Each chapter concludes with a set of exercises, whose questions tend to be much more open-ended and difficult than those normally found in technical books. In fact, readers may be frustrated how some of the exercises challenge one to perform task completely unmentioned in the corresponding chapter. For instance, the very first one in the book, Exercise 1.1 (page 24), asks the reader to build a new dock with dialogs, even though at no point in the chapter was the reader told how to do anything remotely like this. Appendix B contains tips for a minority of the exercises.

The bulk of the book, "Part II — Reference," offers almost 400 pages of details on every aspect of GIMP: the user interface, its displays, layers, colors, selections, masks, drawing tools, transformation tools, filters, animation tools, scanning and printing images, image formats, scripts and plug-ins, and other methods of customizing the application — with each chapter starting with the basics. All of the information is terrific, but the thoughtful reader may wonder why the book begins with advanced topics — such as photo retouching, composite photography, animation, and website design — and later presents the detailed explanations of all the aforementioned aspects of using GIMP. It seems to me that it would have been better to present the Part II chapters first, and then present the advanced topics currently in Part I, except for what is now Chapter 1 ("Getting Started"), which would still be a fine way to begin the explication.

The third and final part contains half a dozen appendices, the first of which is a fascinating exploration of the science of human vision and the three main models of digital color representation. As noted earlier, the second appendix contains tips and hints for some of the chapter exercises. The third appendix is brief, but contains a wealth of online resources for anyone who would like to learn more about GIMP and its community. The next appendix contains a list of frequently asked questions and their answers, and is well worth reading. The fifth chapter explains how to install GIMP on computers running GNU/Linux, Unix, various Linux distros, Windows, and Mac OS X. The final appendix addresses batch processing of images, including the use of ImageMagick.

The production quality of this book is excellent (judging by the print copy kindly provided to me by No Starch Press for review). It was a smart choice on the part of the authors to request full-color images on every page, and the publisher's decision to do so, given the book's visual subject — even though it resulted in a heavier product (3.4 pounds).

Naturally, as a book discussing an image editor, this one makes extensive use of example photos and other images, which are extremely helpful to the reader. Only a few problems were evident; for instance, Figures 1.24 and 1.25 are so small that the cropping pointers are almost invisible. In some cases the descriptions or screenshots do not match what I saw when following along; for instance, on page 3, the author states that the three startup windows (Toolbox, Image, and multi-dialog) by default occupy the full width of the screen, which contradicts the screenshot in Figure 1.1, which shows the Image window at partial width.

The writing is generally clear and easy to follow, even though some of the phrasing is odd (e.g., "source text" to mean "source code"), perhaps because both authors are French. That could also account for the errata — for instance, "on [the] left" (page 15) and "its there" (page 22) — of which there were remarkably few for a book of this length.

If any reader is looking for a free and full-featured image-editing program, then by all means consider GIMP, as well as this outstanding tutorial and reference book.

Michael J. Ross is a freelance web developer and writer.

You can purchase The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Software developer Jeff Cogswell is back with an extensive under-the-hood breakdown of Facebook's Graph Search, trying to see if peoples' privacy concerns about the social network's search engine are entirely justified. His conclusion? 'Some of the news articles I've read talk about how Graph Search will start small and slowly grow as it accumulates more information. This is wrong—Graph Search has been accumulating information since the day Facebook opened and the first connections were made in the internal graph structure,' he writes. 'People were nervous about Google storing their history, but it pales in comparison to the information Facebook already has on you, me, and roughly a billion other people.' There's much more at the link, including a handy breakdown of graph theory."

Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton is still thinking about prediction markets, and giving away money. He writes: "In an article last December I described a problem with prediction markets, where even markets with cap on betting limits could be manipulated by a single trader willing to spend a lot of money to distort the marketplace odds. So I offered a $100 cash prize to be split between readers who collectively came up with the best solution to the problem. Here's an idea that I think would work." Read on for the rest.

In November I wrote an article arguing that prediction markets like Intrade -- where users can bet on the odds of, say, Obama or Romney becoming president -- were a useful tool for aggregating the wisdom of crowds, but could be manipulated by someone placing a large bet in order to create the illusion that "the markets" were favoring their candidate. If the fake "market odds" were reported in the news, it could have the effect of causing more supporters to switch to that candidate, thus increasing the true odds of their victory and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy before the markets had the chance to correct themselves. The solution, I thought at first, was to have a cap on the amount that individual users could bet (which is one of the rules at the Iowa Electronic Markets), and make it illegal for a single mastermind to pay large numbers of third parties to make bets in order to circumvent the single-bettor limit.

As I admitted in a follow-up article, it turns out this regulation would not work after all. The problem is that as long as long as overseas betting markets like Intrade have no limit on wagers, a market manipulator could place a huge bet on Intrade to cause the odds to shift on that market -- for example, changing the odds of Obama-to-win from 4:1 to 6:1. Meanwhile, the odds in a domestic prediction market with a betting limit -- call it CappedEx -- would initially stay at their non-manipulated value of 4:1. But then "arbitrage players" could spot the difference in the odds being offered, and make opposing bets in the two markets in a way that would be guaranteed to make a net profit. (The details are spelled out in my last article, but basically, any time two markets are offering different odds of an event happening, you can pick appropriate amounts to bet in the two markets so that you're guaranteed a profit whether the event occurs or not.) These arbitrage players would continue making opposing bets in the two markets until the odds being offered in the two markets converged onto the same value -- at which point, the market manipulator has successfully manipulated the odds in the capped market, even without ever placing a bet there. Essentially, the market manipulator has hired all of those arbitrage players and paid them to make bets on his behalf, but done so indirectly to avoid violating laws against hiring an army of bet-placers.

I should be clear about the two different time frames being discussed here. If a manipulator places a large bet on Intrade, causing the odds on Intrade to diverse significantly from the odds on CappedEx, then the arbitrage players should cause the odds on the two markets to converge to the same value very rapidly -- plausibly in less than one minute. (Whoever spots the difference first, gets guaranteed free money. It would be easy to write a bot that could watch for any divergence in the odds in the two markets, and place guaranteed-profit bets as soon as a gap appeared.) Then, as political observers noticed that the odds have shifted (without any real-world event in the news that could plausibly explain the shift), another wave of bettors would take advantage of the distorted odds, to bet on the side of the event whose odds had been artificially lowered by the market manipulation. (The odds favor making such a bet, although it's not as good as a guaranteed profit.) As enough people made these opportunistic bets, the market odds would correct themselves to their original values. However, this second wave of betting would probably take a few hours, because it requires humans to think critically about the events. (One likely case of manipulation managed to shift the odds for a few minutes for just $20,000, so it's not unreasonable to think that a million dollars or two -- still small change by the standards of presidential candidates, especially when it's not subject to spending limits -- could distort the market for several hours.) The danger is that the market manipulation could cause the odds to shift in the capped market almost instantly, but the market correction would not take place until several hours later, and in that time the damage (in altering people's perceptions, and possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) would already be done.

It didn't seem like there was any obvious solution to this problem. The U.S. government could ban its citizens from betting on foreign uncapped markets, but it would be too easy for a U.S. citizen to coordinate with an overseas partner to place the arbitrage bets together and split the profits. Or the U.S. could try to ban prediction markets entirely (capped or uncapped), but many economists argue that they're a useful tool for assessing the wisdom of crowds to assess the odds of an event. You could ban media reporting on the odds given by prediction markets (to try and avoid the self-fulfilling-prophecy problem), but that would probably be unconstitutional in the U.S., and unenforceable anyway if people could get their news from overseas.

So in my last article I offered up to $100 to be split between readers who came up with the best arguments for how to stop prediction markets, even markets with individual betting limits, from being shifted by manipulators who place large bets on foreign markets and then count on arbitrage players to pass on the effects to the capped markets. (I've offered cash prizes to readers who submit winning ideas before, and it usually doesn't take this long to get to the follow-up and pay out the prizes. Some follow-up articles that I submitted got lost in the editors' spam filters, sigh, and then there were some other articles in the pipeline that had to go out first. If I offer prize money for ideas and you submit a winning idea, normally you'll get your money much faster.)

Before reading any further, you might want to stop and try to think of what you would consider to be the best solution to this problem (even if the prize money has already been allocated), and then compare it to what we came up with.

... And, welcome back. Here's what I think is the best answer so far: For each event that the capped markets allow users to bet on, the capped market should also be required to monitor the odds that any overseas uncapped markets are offering on the same event. Then if there has been any recent time period where the odds on the overseas markets differed significantly from the odds on the domestic market (significantly enough to indicate manipulation -- and, similarly, significantly enough that the difference probably motivated arbitrage players to place bets to close the gap), then the reported odds should appear with a disclaimer saying, "There was a recent divergence in the odds on capped vs. uncapped markets, so the odds displayed here may have been manipulated, and should be regarded skeptically." This would help to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy problem, if people are less likely to regard the manipulated odds as a reflection of reality.

The key assumption here is that if a real-world event happens that changes the probability of, say, an Obama victory, then the market odds in both the capped and uncapped markets should shift at about the same time to reflect that new probability. On the other hand, if the odds have shifted significantly in only one of those markets, that could be taken as a sign that that market was being manipulated. Arbitrage players would still be free to make opposing bets in the two markets to narrow the gap, so the odds in both the capped and uncapped marketplaces would still change in the short term, but in the regulated capped market, the odds would be reported with a disclaimer that they're not reliable. After a few more hours, opportunistic bettors would make bets taking advantage of the distorted odds, and the market would correct itself.

This idea did not come from any particular reader but came up as the result of the back-and-forth I had with several people.

A few readers also had interesting ideas for regulations that could fix the problem if they could be applied to all markets. For example, Nathan Dykman suggested that in order to wager larger amounts, you would have to wager that your candidate would win by a larger margin (e.g. if you can bet $1,000 that Romney would win by 1 million votes or more, or you could bet $10,000 that Romney would win by 10 million votes or more -- so that large "manipulative" bets would stand out more obviously). Andy Jobe suggested "staggering" bets so that high rollers could only bet large amounts by placing lots of small bets in sequence, paced slowly enough that the market would probably detect the manipulation attempt and start correcting for it, before all of your bets went through. Jonathan Pearson suggested mandating that markets report the number of people making particular bets as well as the market odds, so that single large manipulative bets could be easily spotted. Ben Griffin suggested simply requiring disclosure of large bets by certain people (as he put it, the headline "Saudi Prince believes that Romney will win the election. What does he know that we don't?!" contains more useful information than "Romney's odds of victory looking better at Intrade").

I think these points are all correct, but the problem with all of these ideas is that they only work if all of the relevant markets are regulated. And if you allow that assumption, then the problem becomes trivial -- because you can just require an individual betting cap in all of the markets. On the other hand, if there's at least one market anywhere in the world that is beyond the reach of your regulations, then they don't have to disclose any statistics about their bettors or follow any other rules that you make. Then when a manipulator places a large bet in that unregulated market, when the arbitrage players place their many small corresponding bets in your domestic regulated market, the detection mechanisms described above, won't do anything to stop that -- those bets in your regulated market look like real bets because they are real bets.

By contrast, if you require domestic capped markets to monitor the overseas uncapped markets, and disclose if the uncapped odds have diverged recently from the capped odds, this still works even if the regulations only apply to your domestic capped market. People can still place manipulative bets on foreign markets, but if the media reports the current "market odds" by looking at the capped market, those odds will be harder to manipulate without getting caught, because they'll run a disclaimer if manipulation has been detected recently. (Of course if the media gets their "odds" from the overseas uncapped market, and reports those odds as literal truth even when the domestic capped markets are running a disclaimer saying that those same odds have recently been manipulated, we can't do anything about that. The hope is that news agencies, no matter how lazy they may be, will at least choose to report accurate information if it takes the same effort as reporting inaccurate information, and thus would prefer getting their information from the domestic capped market, where they can easily check if there's a disclaimer saying the odds have been manipulated recently.)

Some interesting points made by other readers:

• Carl Pearson mentioned that if campaigns had to start diverting attention to prediction market manipulation in addition to all of their other business, this might hurt small third-party candidates more than big campaigns -- because smaller campaigns have fewer available resources to put towards handling new kinds of problems. (True, I think, but only if the markets can be manipulated. If they can't be manipulated, and they're just a barometer of what people are thinking will happen, then you don't need to waste campaign time fighting on that front.)

• Michael Mendenhall pointed out that even in a capped market, the cap should be high enough to create a high "signal-to-noise" ratio. If the cap is too low, the market odds will reflect the betting of more uninformed people who use the betting as a low-cost opportunity to cheer for what they think should happen instead of what they think will happen. (On the other hand, if the cap is too high, then the market is too easily to manipulate.)

• Marc Beaupré argued that prediction markets can probably never be stamped out anyway, because anonymous payment protocols like Bitcoin make it possible for crypto-anarchists to place best on unregulated darknets where they can ignore caps and disclosure requirements all they want. I'm not sure that's true (how do you place a bet in an anonymous peer-to-peer market -- who enforces the payment from the loser to the winner, depending on the outcome?) but it actually doesn't change the main thrust of my argument -- you can still have a regulated, capped domestic market, which is where the media could go for accurate information about the current market odds. So a manipulator could throw their Bitcoin money away on an unregulated peer-to-peer betting network, but it wouldn't do them any good.

Splitting the $100 in prize money, all 7 of the readers credited here get $15. There may be a simpler idea that we missed, or a different reason why this proposed idea would not work. Either way, I'm always grateful for the high quality of the comments that get emailed to me as part of these contests. Eventually I'd like to run some article contests for people to email ideas for a follow-up article, but without offering prize money, to see if that affects the quality of the submissions. It would be impossible to run a precisely controlled experiment (because you can't write a single article where half of your readers are eligible to submit ideas for prize money, and the other half are expected to submit ideas for free), but if we run contests for a large number of articles, and about half of those contests involve cash prizes while the other half offer only acknowledgement, it should eventually become clear if there's a difference in the quality of submissions. It may be that, unlike prediction markets, idea-improvement contests work just as well when there's no money involved.

Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton is still thinking about prediction markets, and giving away money. He writes: "In an article last December I described a problem with prediction markets, where even markets with cap on betting limits could be manipulated by a single trader willing to spend a lot of money to distort the marketplace odds. So I offered a $100 cash prize to be split between readers who collectively came up with the best solution to the problem. Here's an idea that I think would work." Read on for the rest.

In November I wrote an article arguing that prediction markets like Intrade -- where users can bet on the odds of, say, Obama or Romney becoming president -- were a useful tool for aggregating the wisdom of crowds, but could be manipulated by someone placing a large bet in order to create the illusion that "the markets" were favoring their candidate. If the fake "market odds" were reported in the news, it could have the effect of causing more supporters to switch to that candidate, thus increasing the true odds of their victory and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy before the markets had the chance to correct themselves. The solution, I thought at first, was to have a cap on the amount that individual users could bet (which is one of the rules at the Iowa Electronic Markets), and make it illegal for a single mastermind to pay large numbers of third parties to make bets in order to circumvent the single-bettor limit.

As I admitted in a follow-up article, it turns out this regulation would not work after all. The problem is that as long as long as overseas betting markets like Intrade have no limit on wagers, a market manipulator could place a huge bet on Intrade to cause the odds to shift on that market -- for example, changing the odds of Obama-to-win from 4:1 to 6:1. Meanwhile, the odds in a domestic prediction market with a betting limit -- call it CappedEx -- would initially stay at their non-manipulated value of 4:1. But then "arbitrage players" could spot the difference in the odds being offered, and make opposing bets in the two markets in a way that would be guaranteed to make a net profit. (The details are spelled out in my last article, but basically, any time two markets are offering different odds of an event happening, you can pick appropriate amounts to bet in the two markets so that you're guaranteed a profit whether the event occurs or not.) These arbitrage players would continue making opposing bets in the two markets until the odds being offered in the two markets converged onto the same value -- at which point, the market manipulator has successfully manipulated the odds in the capped market, even without ever placing a bet there. Essentially, the market manipulator has hired all of those arbitrage players and paid them to make bets on his behalf, but done so indirectly to avoid violating laws against hiring an army of bet-placers.

I should be clear about the two different time frames being discussed here. If a manipulator places a large bet on Intrade, causing the odds on Intrade to diverse significantly from the odds on CappedEx, then the arbitrage players should cause the odds on the two markets to converge to the same value very rapidly -- plausibly in less than one minute. (Whoever spots the difference first, gets guaranteed free money. It would be easy to write a bot that could watch for any divergence in the odds in the two markets, and place guaranteed-profit bets as soon as a gap appeared.) Then, as political observers noticed that the odds have shifted (without any real-world event in the news that could plausibly explain the shift), another wave of bettors would take advantage of the distorted odds, to bet on the side of the event whose odds had been artificially lowered by the market manipulation. (The odds favor making such a bet, although it's not as good as a guaranteed profit.) As enough people made these opportunistic bets, the market odds would correct themselves to their original values. However, this second wave of betting would probably take a few hours, because it requires humans to think critically about the events. (One likely case of manipulation managed to shift the odds for a few minutes for just $20,000, so it's not unreasonable to think that a million dollars or two -- still small change by the standards of presidential candidates, especially when it's not subject to spending limits -- could distort the market for several hours.) The danger is that the market manipulation could cause the odds to shift in the capped market almost instantly, but the market correction would not take place until several hours later, and in that time the damage (in altering people's perceptions, and possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) would already be done.

It didn't seem like there was any obvious solution to this problem. The U.S. government could ban its citizens from betting on foreign uncapped markets, but it would be too easy for a U.S. citizen to coordinate with an overseas partner to place the arbitrage bets together and split the profits. Or the U.S. could try to ban prediction markets entirely (capped or uncapped), but many economists argue that they're a useful tool for assessing the wisdom of crowds to assess the odds of an event. You could ban media reporting on the odds given by prediction markets (to try and avoid the self-fulfilling-prophecy problem), but that would probably be unconstitutional in the U.S., and unenforceable anyway if people could get their news from overseas.

So in my last article I offered up to $100 to be split between readers who came up with the best arguments for how to stop prediction markets, even markets with individual betting limits, from being shifted by manipulators who place large bets on foreign markets and then count on arbitrage players to pass on the effects to the capped markets. (I've offered cash prizes to readers who submit winning ideas before, and it usually doesn't take this long to get to the follow-up and pay out the prizes. Some follow-up articles that I submitted got lost in the editors' spam filters, sigh, and then there were some other articles in the pipeline that had to go out first. If I offer prize money for ideas and you submit a winning idea, normally you'll get your money much faster.)

Before reading any further, you might want to stop and try to think of what you would consider to be the best solution to this problem (even if the prize money has already been allocated), and then compare it to what we came up with.

... And, welcome back. Here's what I think is the best answer so far: For each event that the capped markets allow users to bet on, the capped market should also be required to monitor the odds that any overseas uncapped markets are offering on the same event. Then if there has been any recent time period where the odds on the overseas markets differed significantly from the odds on the domestic market (significantly enough to indicate manipulation -- and, similarly, significantly enough that the difference probably motivated arbitrage players to place bets to close the gap), then the reported odds should appear with a disclaimer saying, "There was a recent divergence in the odds on capped vs. uncapped markets, so the odds displayed here may have been manipulated, and should be regarded skeptically." This would help to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy problem, if people are less likely to regard the manipulated odds as a reflection of reality.

The key assumption here is that if a real-world event happens that changes the probability of, say, an Obama victory, then the market odds in both the capped and uncapped markets should shift at about the same time to reflect that new probability. On the other hand, if the odds have shifted significantly in only one of those markets, that could be taken as a sign that that market was being manipulated. Arbitrage players would still be free to make opposing bets in the two markets to narrow the gap, so the odds in both the capped and uncapped marketplaces would still change in the short term, but in the regulated capped market, the odds would be reported with a disclaimer that they're not reliable. After a few more hours, opportunistic bettors would make bets taking advantage of the distorted odds, and the market would correct itself.

This idea did not come from any particular reader but came up as the result of the back-and-forth I had with several people.

A few readers also had interesting ideas for regulations that could fix the problem if they could be applied to all markets. For example, Nathan Dykman suggested that in order to wager larger amounts, you would have to wager that your candidate would win by a larger margin (e.g. if you can bet $1,000 that Romney would win by 1 million votes or more, or you could bet $10,000 that Romney would win by 10 million votes or more -- so that large "manipulative" bets would stand out more obviously). Andy Jobe suggested "staggering" bets so that high rollers could only bet large amounts by placing lots of small bets in sequence, paced slowly enough that the market would probably detect the manipulation attempt and start correcting for it, before all of your bets went through. Jonathan Pearson suggested mandating that markets report the number of people making particular bets as well as the market odds, so that single large manipulative bets could be easily spotted. Ben Griffin suggested simply requiring disclosure of large bets by certain people (as he put it, the headline "Saudi Prince believes that Romney will win the election. What does he know that we don't?!" contains more useful information than "Romney's odds of victory looking better at Intrade").

I think these points are all correct, but the problem with all of these ideas is that they only work if all of the relevant markets are regulated. And if you allow that assumption, then the problem becomes trivial -- because you can just require an individual betting cap in all of the markets. On the other hand, if there's at least one market anywhere in the world that is beyond the reach of your regulations, then they don't have to disclose any statistics about their bettors or follow any other rules that you make. Then when a manipulator places a large bet in that unregulated market, when the arbitrage players place their many small corresponding bets in your domestic regulated market, the detection mechanisms described above, won't do anything to stop that -- those bets in your regulated market look like real bets because they are real bets.

By contrast, if you require domestic capped markets to monitor the overseas uncapped markets, and disclose if the uncapped odds have diverged recently from the capped odds, this still works even if the regulations only apply to your domestic capped market. People can still place manipulative bets on foreign markets, but if the media reports the current "market odds" by looking at the capped market, those odds will be harder to manipulate without getting caught, because they'll run a disclaimer if manipulation has been detected recently. (Of course if the media gets their "odds" from the overseas uncapped market, and reports those odds as literal truth even when the domestic capped markets are running a disclaimer saying that those same odds have recently been manipulated, we can't do anything about that. The hope is that news agencies, no matter how lazy they may be, will at least choose to report accurate information if it takes the same effort as reporting inaccurate information, and thus would prefer getting their information from the domestic capped market, where they can easily check if there's a disclaimer saying the odds have been manipulated recently.)

Some interesting points made by other readers:

• Carl Pearson mentioned that if campaigns had to start diverting attention to prediction market manipulation in addition to all of their other business, this might hurt small third-party candidates more than big campaigns -- because smaller campaigns have fewer available resources to put towards handling new kinds of problems. (True, I think, but only if the markets can be manipulated. If they can't be manipulated, and they're just a barometer of what people are thinking will happen, then you don't need to waste campaign time fighting on that front.)

• Michael Mendenhall pointed out that even in a capped market, the cap should be high enough to create a high "signal-to-noise" ratio. If the cap is too low, the market odds will reflect the betting of more uninformed people who use the betting as a low-cost opportunity to cheer for what they think should happen instead of what they think will happen. (On the other hand, if the cap is too high, then the market is too easily to manipulate.)

• Marc Beaupré argued that prediction markets can probably never be stamped out anyway, because anonymous payment protocols like Bitcoin make it possible for crypto-anarchists to place best on unregulated darknets where they can ignore caps and disclosure requirements all they want. I'm not sure that's true (how do you place a bet in an anonymous peer-to-peer market -- who enforces the payment from the loser to the winner, depending on the outcome?) but it actually doesn't change the main thrust of my argument -- you can still have a regulated, capped domestic market, which is where the media could go for accurate information about the current market odds. So a manipulator could throw their Bitcoin money away on an unregulated peer-to-peer betting network, but it wouldn't do them any good.

Splitting the $100 in prize money, all 7 of the readers credited here get $15. There may be a simpler idea that we missed, or a different reason why this proposed idea would not work. Either way, I'm always grateful for the high quality of the comments that get emailed to me as part of these contests. Eventually I'd like to run some article contests for people to email ideas for a follow-up article, but without offering prize money, to see if that affects the quality of the submissions. It would be impossible to run a precisely controlled experiment (because you can't write a single article where half of your readers are eligible to submit ideas for prize money, and the other half are expected to submit ideas for free), but if we run contests for a large number of articles, and about half of those contests involve cash prizes while the other half offer only acknowledgement, it should eventually become clear if there's a difference in the quality of submissions. It may be that, unlike prediction markets, idea-improvement contests work just as well when there's no money involved.

Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton is still thinking about prediction markets, and giving away money. He writes: "In an article last December I described a problem with prediction markets, where even markets with cap on betting limits could be manipulated by a single trader willing to spend a lot of money to distort the marketplace odds. So I offered a $100 cash prize to be split between readers who collectively came up with the best solution to the problem. Here's an idea that I think would work." Read on for the rest.

In November I wrote an article arguing that prediction markets like Intrade -- where users can bet on the odds of, say, Obama or Romney becoming president -- were a useful tool for aggregating the wisdom of crowds, but could be manipulated by someone placing a large bet in order to create the illusion that "the markets" were favoring their candidate. If the fake "market odds" were reported in the news, it could have the effect of causing more supporters to switch to that candidate, thus increasing the true odds of their victory and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy before the markets had the chance to correct themselves. The solution, I thought at first, was to have a cap on the amount that individual users could bet (which is one of the rules at the Iowa Electronic Markets), and make it illegal for a single mastermind to pay large numbers of third parties to make bets in order to circumvent the single-bettor limit.

As I admitted in a follow-up article, it turns out this regulation would not work after all. The problem is that as long as long as overseas betting markets like Intrade have no limit on wagers, a market manipulator could place a huge bet on Intrade to cause the odds to shift on that market -- for example, changing the odds of Obama-to-win from 4:1 to 6:1. Meanwhile, the odds in a domestic prediction market with a betting limit -- call it CappedEx -- would initially stay at their non-manipulated value of 4:1. But then "arbitrage players" could spot the difference in the odds being offered, and make opposing bets in the two markets in a way that would be guaranteed to make a net profit. (The details are spelled out in my last article, but basically, any time two markets are offering different odds of an event happening, you can pick appropriate amounts to bet in the two markets so that you're guaranteed a profit whether the event occurs or not.) These arbitrage players would continue making opposing bets in the two markets until the odds being offered in the two markets converged onto the same value -- at which point, the market manipulator has successfully manipulated the odds in the capped market, even without ever placing a bet there. Essentially, the market manipulator has hired all of those arbitrage players and paid them to make bets on his behalf, but done so indirectly to avoid violating laws against hiring an army of bet-placers.

I should be clear about the two different time frames being discussed here. If a manipulator places a large bet on Intrade, causing the odds on Intrade to diverse significantly from the odds on CappedEx, then the arbitrage players should cause the odds on the two markets to converge to the same value very rapidly -- plausibly in less than one minute. (Whoever spots the difference first, gets guaranteed free money. It would be easy to write a bot that could watch for any divergence in the odds in the two markets, and place guaranteed-profit bets as soon as a gap appeared.) Then, as political observers noticed that the odds have shifted (without any real-world event in the news that could plausibly explain the shift), another wave of bettors would take advantage of the distorted odds, to bet on the side of the event whose odds had been artificially lowered by the market manipulation. (The odds favor making such a bet, although it's not as good as a guaranteed profit.) As enough people made these opportunistic bets, the market odds would correct themselves to their original values. However, this second wave of betting would probably take a few hours, because it requires humans to think critically about the events. (One likely case of manipulation managed to shift the odds for a few minutes for just $20,000, so it's not unreasonable to think that a million dollars or two -- still small change by the standards of presidential candidates, especially when it's not subject to spending limits -- could distort the market for several hours.) The danger is that the market manipulation could cause the odds to shift in the capped market almost instantly, but the market correction would not take place until several hours later, and in that time the damage (in altering people's perceptions, and possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) would already be done.

It didn't seem like there was any obvious solution to this problem. The U.S. government could ban its citizens from betting on foreign uncapped markets, but it would be too easy for a U.S. citizen to coordinate with an overseas partner to place the arbitrage bets together and split the profits. Or the U.S. could try to ban prediction markets entirely (capped or uncapped), but many economists argue that they're a useful tool for assessing the wisdom of crowds to assess the odds of an event. You could ban media reporting on the odds given by prediction markets (to try and avoid the self-fulfilling-prophecy problem), but that would probably be unconstitutional in the U.S., and unenforceable anyway if people could get their news from overseas.

So in my last article I offered up to $100 to be split between readers who came up with the best arguments for how to stop prediction markets, even markets with individual betting limits, from being shifted by manipulators who place large bets on foreign markets and then count on arbitrage players to pass on the effects to the capped markets. (I've offered cash prizes to readers who submit winning ideas before, and it usually doesn't take this long to get to the follow-up and pay out the prizes. Some follow-up articles that I submitted got lost in the editors' spam filters, sigh, and then there were some other articles in the pipeline that had to go out first. If I offer prize money for ideas and you submit a winning idea, normally you'll get your money much faster.)

Before reading any further, you might want to stop and try to think of what you would consider to be the best solution to this problem (even if the prize money has already been allocated), and then compare it to what we came up with.

... And, welcome back. Here's what I think is the best answer so far: For each event that the capped markets allow users to bet on, the capped market should also be required to monitor the odds that any overseas uncapped markets are offering on the same event. Then if there has been any recent time period where the odds on the overseas markets differed significantly from the odds on the domestic market (significantly enough to indicate manipulation -- and, similarly, significantly enough that the difference probably motivated arbitrage players to place bets to close the gap), then the reported odds should appear with a disclaimer saying, "There was a recent divergence in the odds on capped vs. uncapped markets, so the odds displayed here may have been manipulated, and should be regarded skeptically." This would help to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy problem, if people are less likely to regard the manipulated odds as a reflection of reality.

The key assumption here is that if a real-world event happens that changes the probability of, say, an Obama victory, then the market odds in both the capped and uncapped markets should shift at about the same time to reflect that new probability. On the other hand, if the odds have shifted significantly in only one of those markets, that could be taken as a sign that that market was being manipulated. Arbitrage players would still be free to make opposing bets in the two markets to narrow the gap, so the odds in both the capped and uncapped marketplaces would still change in the short term, but in the regulated capped market, the odds would be reported with a disclaimer that they're not reliable. After a few more hours, opportunistic bettors would make bets taking advantage of the distorted odds, and the market would correct itself.

This idea did not come from any particular reader but came up as the result of the back-and-forth I had with several people.

A few readers also had interesting ideas for regulations that could fix the problem if they could be applied to all markets. For example, Nathan Dykman suggested that in order to wager larger amounts, you would have to wager that your candidate would win by a larger margin (e.g. if you can bet $1,000 that Romney would win by 1 million votes or more, or you could bet $10,000 that Romney would win by 10 million votes or more -- so that large "manipulative" bets would stand out more obviously). Andy Jobe suggested "staggering" bets so that high rollers could only bet large amounts by placing lots of small bets in sequence, paced slowly enough that the market would probably detect the manipulation attempt and start correcting for it, before all of your bets went through. Jonathan Pearson suggested mandating that markets report the number of people making particular bets as well as the market odds, so that single large manipulative bets could be easily spotted. Ben Griffin suggested simply requiring disclosure of large bets by certain people (as he put it, the headline "Saudi Prince believes that Romney will win the election. What does he know that we don't?!" contains more useful information than "Romney's odds of victory looking better at Intrade").

I think these points are all correct, but the problem with all of these ideas is that they only work if all of the relevant markets are regulated. And if you allow that assumption, then the problem becomes trivial -- because you can just require an individual betting cap in all of the markets. On the other hand, if there's at least one market anywhere in the world that is beyond the reach of your regulations, then they don't have to disclose any statistics about their bettors or follow any other rules that you make. Then when a manipulator places a large bet in that unregulated market, when the arbitrage players place their many small corresponding bets in your domestic regulated market, the detection mechanisms described above, won't do anything to stop that -- those bets in your regulated market look like real bets because they are real bets.

By contrast, if you require domestic capped markets to monitor the overseas uncapped markets, and disclose if the uncapped odds have diverged recently from the capped odds, this still works even if the regulations only apply to your domestic capped market. People can still place manipulative bets on foreign markets, but if the media reports the current "market odds" by looking at the capped market, those odds will be harder to manipulate without getting caught, because they'll run a disclaimer if manipulation has been detected recently. (Of course if the media gets their "odds" from the overseas uncapped market, and reports those odds as literal truth even when the domestic capped markets are running a disclaimer saying that those same odds have recently been manipulated, we can't do anything about that. The hope is that news agencies, no matter how lazy they may be, will at least choose to report accurate information if it takes the same effort as reporting inaccurate information, and thus would prefer getting their information from the domestic capped market, where they can easily check if there's a disclaimer saying the odds have been manipulated recently.)

Some interesting points made by other readers:

• Carl Pearson mentioned that if campaigns had to start diverting attention to prediction market manipulation in addition to all of their other business, this might hurt small third-party candidates more than big campaigns -- because smaller campaigns have fewer available resources to put towards handling new kinds of problems. (True, I think, but only if the markets can be manipulated. If they can't be manipulated, and they're just a barometer of what people are thinking will happen, then you don't need to waste campaign time fighting on that front.)

• Michael Mendenhall pointed out that even in a capped market, the cap should be high enough to create a high "signal-to-noise" ratio. If the cap is too low, the market odds will reflect the betting of more uninformed people who use the betting as a low-cost opportunity to cheer for what they think should happen instead of what they think will happen. (On the other hand, if the cap is too high, then the market is too easily to manipulate.)

• Marc Beaupré argued that prediction markets can probably never be stamped out anyway, because anonymous payment protocols like Bitcoin make it possible for crypto-anarchists to place best on unregulated darknets where they can ignore caps and disclosure requirements all they want. I'm not sure that's true (how do you place a bet in an anonymous peer-to-peer market -- who enforces the payment from the loser to the winner, depending on the outcome?) but it actually doesn't change the main thrust of my argument -- you can still have a regulated, capped domestic market, which is where the media could go for accurate information about the current market odds. So a manipulator could throw their Bitcoin money away on an unregulated peer-to-peer betting network, but it wouldn't do them any good.

Splitting the $100 in prize money, all 7 of the readers credited here get $15. There may be a simpler idea that we missed, or a different reason why this proposed idea would not work. Either way, I'm always grateful for the high quality of the comments that get emailed to me as part of these contests. Eventually I'd like to run some article contests for people to email ideas for a follow-up article, but without offering prize money, to see if that affects the quality of the submissions. It would be impossible to run a precisely controlled experiment (because you can't write a single article where half of your readers are eligible to submit ideas for prize money, and the other half are expected to submit ideas for free), but if we run contests for a large number of articles, and about half of those contests involve cash prizes while the other half offer only acknowledgement, it should eventually become clear if there's a difference in the quality of submissions. It may be that, unlike prediction markets, idea-improvement contests work just as well when there's no money involved.

Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton is still thinking about prediction markets, and giving away money. He writes: "In an article last December I described a problem with prediction markets, where even markets with cap on betting limits could be manipulated by a single trader willing to spend a lot of money to distort the marketplace odds. So I offered a $100 cash prize to be split between readers who collectively came up with the best solution to the problem. Here's an idea that I think would work." Read on for the rest.

In November I wrote an article arguing that prediction markets like Intrade -- where users can bet on the odds of, say, Obama or Romney becoming president -- were a useful tool for aggregating the wisdom of crowds, but could be manipulated by someone placing a large bet in order to create the illusion that "the markets" were favoring their candidate. If the fake "market odds" were reported in the news, it could have the effect of causing more supporters to switch to that candidate, thus increasing the true odds of their victory and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy before the markets had the chance to correct themselves. The solution, I thought at first, was to have a cap on the amount that individual users could bet (which is one of the rules at the Iowa Electronic Markets), and make it illegal for a single mastermind to pay large numbers of third parties to make bets in order to circumvent the single-bettor limit.

As I admitted in a follow-up article, it turns out this regulation would not work after all. The problem is that as long as long as overseas betting markets like Intrade have no limit on wagers, a market manipulator could place a huge bet on Intrade to cause the odds to shift on that market -- for example, changing the odds of Obama-to-win from 4:1 to 6:1. Meanwhile, the odds in a domestic prediction market with a betting limit -- call it CappedEx -- would initially stay at their non-manipulated value of 4:1. But then "arbitrage players" could spot the difference in the odds being offered, and make opposing bets in the two markets in a way that would be guaranteed to make a net profit. (The details are spelled out in my last article, but basically, any time two markets are offering different odds of an event happening, you can pick appropriate amounts to bet in the two markets so that you're guaranteed a profit whether the event occurs or not.) These arbitrage players would continue making opposing bets in the two markets until the odds being offered in the two markets converged onto the same value -- at which point, the market manipulator has successfully manipulated the odds in the capped market, even without ever placing a bet there. Essentially, the market manipulator has hired all of those arbitrage players and paid them to make bets on his behalf, but done so indirectly to avoid violating laws against hiring an army of bet-placers.

I should be clear about the two different time frames being discussed here. If a manipulator places a large bet on Intrade, causing the odds on Intrade to diverse significantly from the odds on CappedEx, then the arbitrage players should cause the odds on the two markets to converge to the same value very rapidly -- plausibly in less than one minute. (Whoever spots the difference first, gets guaranteed free money. It would be easy to write a bot that could watch for any divergence in the odds in the two markets, and place guaranteed-profit bets as soon as a gap appeared.) Then, as political observers noticed that the odds have shifted (without any real-world event in the news that could plausibly explain the shift), another wave of bettors would take advantage of the distorted odds, to bet on the side of the event whose odds had been artificially lowered by the market manipulation. (The odds favor making such a bet, although it's not as good as a guaranteed profit.) As enough people made these opportunistic bets, the market odds would correct themselves to their original values. However, this second wave of betting would probably take a few hours, because it requires humans to think critically about the events. (One likely case of manipulation managed to shift the odds for a few minutes for just $20,000, so it's not unreasonable to think that a million dollars or two -- still small change by the standards of presidential candidates, especially when it's not subject to spending limits -- could distort the market for several hours.) The danger is that the market manipulation could cause the odds to shift in the capped market almost instantly, but the market correction would not take place until several hours later, and in that time the damage (in altering people's perceptions, and possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) would already be done.

It didn't seem like there was any obvious solution to this problem. The U.S. government could ban its citizens from betting on foreign uncapped markets, but it would be too easy for a U.S. citizen to coordinate with an overseas partner to place the arbitrage bets together and split the profits. Or the U.S. could try to ban prediction markets entirely (capped or uncapped), but many economists argue that they're a useful tool for assessing the wisdom of crowds to assess the odds of an event. You could ban media reporting on the odds given by prediction markets (to try and avoid the self-fulfilling-prophecy problem), but that would probably be unconstitutional in the U.S., and unenforceable anyway if people could get their news from overseas.

So in my last article I offered up to $100 to be split between readers who came up with the best arguments for how to stop prediction markets, even markets with individual betting limits, from being shifted by manipulators who place large bets on foreign markets and then count on arbitrage players to pass on the effects to the capped markets. (I've offered cash prizes to readers who submit winning ideas before, and it usually doesn't take this long to get to the follow-up and pay out the prizes. Some follow-up articles that I submitted got lost in the editors' spam filters, sigh, and then there were some other articles in the pipeline that had to go out first. If I offer prize money for ideas and you submit a winning idea, normally you'll get your money much faster.)

Before reading any further, you might want to stop and try to think of what you would consider to be the best solution to this problem (even if the prize money has already been allocated), and then compare it to what we came up with.

... And, welcome back. Here's what I think is the best answer so far: For each event that the capped markets allow users to bet on, the capped market should also be required to monitor the odds that any overseas uncapped markets are offering on the same event. Then if there has been any recent time period where the odds on the overseas markets differed significantly from the odds on the domestic market (significantly enough to indicate manipulation -- and, similarly, significantly enough that the difference probably motivated arbitrage players to place bets to close the gap), then the reported odds should appear with a disclaimer saying, "There was a recent divergence in the odds on capped vs. uncapped markets, so the odds displayed here may have been manipulated, and should be regarded skeptically." This would help to avoid the self-fulfilling prophecy problem, if people are less likely to regard the manipulated odds as a reflection of reality.

The key assumption here is that if a real-world event happens that changes the probability of, say, an Obama victory, then the market odds in both the capped and uncapped markets should shift at about the same time to reflect that new probability. On the other hand, if the odds have shifted significantly in only one of those markets, that could be taken as a sign that that market was being manipulated. Arbitrage players would still be free to make opposing bets in the two markets to narrow the gap, so the odds in both the capped and uncapped marketplaces would still change in the short term, but in the regulated capped market, the odds would be reported with a disclaimer that they're not reliable. After a few more hours, opportunistic bettors would make bets taking advantage of the distorted odds, and the market would correct itself.

This idea did not come from any particular reader but came up as the result of the back-and-forth I had with several people.

A few readers also had interesting ideas for regulations that could fix the problem if they could be applied to all markets. For example, Nathan Dykman suggested that in order to wager larger amounts, you would have to wager that your candidate would win by a larger margin (e.g. if you can bet $1,000 that Romney would win by 1 million votes or more, or you could bet $10,000 that Romney would win by 10 million votes or more -- so that large "manipulative" bets would stand out more obviously). Andy Jobe suggested "staggering" bets so that high rollers could only bet large amounts by placing lots of small bets in sequence, paced slowly enough that the market would probably detect the manipulation attempt and start correcting for it, before all of your bets went through. Jonathan Pearson suggested mandating that markets report the number of people making particular bets as well as the market odds, so that single large manipulative bets could be easily spotted. Ben Griffin suggested simply requiring disclosure of large bets by certain people (as he put it, the headline "Saudi Prince believes that Romney will win the election. What does he know that we don't?!" contains more useful information than "Romney's odds of victory looking better at Intrade").

I think these points are all correct, but the problem with all of these ideas is that they only work if all of the relevant markets are regulated. And if you allow that assumption, then the problem becomes trivial -- because you can just require an individual betting cap in all of the markets. On the other hand, if there's at least one market anywhere in the world that is beyond the reach of your regulations, then they don't have to disclose any statistics about their bettors or follow any other rules that you make. Then when a manipulator places a large bet in that unregulated market, when the arbitrage players place their many small corresponding bets in your domestic regulated market, the detection mechanisms described above, won't do anything to stop that -- those bets in your regulated market look like real bets because they are real bets.

By contrast, if you require domestic capped markets to monitor the overseas uncapped markets, and disclose if the uncapped odds have diverged recently from the capped odds, this still works even if the regulations only apply to your domestic capped market. People can still place manipulative bets on foreign markets, but if the media reports the current "market odds" by looking at the capped market, those odds will be harder to manipulate without getting caught, because they'll run a disclaimer if manipulation has been detected recently. (Of course if the media gets their "odds" from the overseas uncapped market, and reports those odds as literal truth even when the domestic capped markets are running a disclaimer saying that those same odds have recently been manipulated, we can't do anything about that. The hope is that news agencies, no matter how lazy they may be, will at least choose to report accurate information if it takes the same effort as reporting inaccurate information, and thus would prefer getting their information from the domestic capped market, where they can easily check if there's a disclaimer saying the odds have been manipulated recently.)

Some interesting points made by other readers:

• Carl Pearson mentioned that if campaigns had to start diverting attention to prediction market manipulation in addition to all of their other business, this might hurt small third-party candidates more than big campaigns -- because smaller campaigns have fewer available resources to put towards handling new kinds of problems. (True, I think, but only if the markets can be manipulated. If they can't be manipulated, and they're just a barometer of what people are thinking will happen, then you don't need to waste campaign time fighting on that front.)

• Michael Mendenhall pointed out that even in a capped market, the cap should be high enough to create a high "signal-to-noise" ratio. If the cap is too low, the market odds will reflect the betting of more uninformed people who use the betting as a low-cost opportunity to cheer for what they think should happen instead of what they think will happen. (On the other hand, if the cap is too high, then the market is too easily to manipulate.)

• Marc Beaupré argued that prediction markets can probably never be stamped out anyway, because anonymous payment protocols like Bitcoin make it possible for crypto-anarchists to place best on unregulated darknets where they can ignore caps and disclosure requirements all they want. I'm not sure that's true (how do you place a bet in an anonymous peer-to-peer market -- who enforces the payment from the loser to the winner, depending on the outcome?) but it actually doesn't change the main thrust of my argument -- you can still have a regulated, capped domestic market, which is where the media could go for accurate information about the current market odds. So a manipulator could throw their Bitcoin money away on an unregulated peer-to-peer betting network, but it wouldn't do them any good.

Splitting the $100 in prize money, all 7 of the readers credited here get $15. There may be a simpler idea that we missed, or a different reason why this proposed idea would not work. Either way, I'm always grateful for the high quality of the comments that get emailed to me as part of these contests. Eventually I'd like to run some article contests for people to email ideas for a follow-up article, but without offering prize money, to see if that affects the quality of the submissions. It would be impossible to run a precisely controlled experiment (because you can't write a single article where half of your readers are eligible to submit ideas for prize money, and the other half are expected to submit ideas for free), but if we run contests for a large number of articles, and about half of those contests involve cash prizes while the other half offer only acknowledgement, it should eventually become clear if there's a difference in the quality of submissions. It may be that, unlike prediction markets, idea-improvement contests work just as well when there's no money involved.

DavidGilbert99 writes "A leaked video of the purported Google Chromebook Pixel laptop has stirred quite a lot of interest but whether or not the laptop in the video is real, Google needs to launch it in order to kickstart the Chrome OS platform." A high-res screen would be welcome, but Google seems to be doing alright with Chromebook sales right now. Warning: IB Times has ads with autoplaying videos and sound; you have been warned.

tad001 writes "CNET is reporting 'Discovered last night within a freshly jailbroken iPad: a set of buttons and code references for "radio," a feature found in iTunes on Macs and PCs, but not on the iPad or iPhone.' ... 'The buttons hint at Apple's much-rumored radio service, a product that will let people stream music much like they do on the popular Pandora service, but with deep ties to Apple's iTunes library.' ... 'The discovery follows a high-profile jailbreak of iOS 6.1, the updated system software Apple released just last week. A team of developers came up with a tool that gives users deep system-level access to do things like install applications from third-party app stores, change the look and feel of iOS, and add new software features.'"

MojoKid writes "Sony's next-generation PS4 unveil is just two weeks away, which means leaks concerning both it and Microsoft's next-generation Xbox Durango (sometimes referred to as the Xbox 720), are at an all-time high as well. Rumors continue to swirl that the next iteration of Xbox will lock out used games entirely and require a constant Internet connection. New games would come with a one-time activation code to play. Use the code, and the game is locked to the particular console or Xbox Live account it's loaded on. Physical games will still be sold (the Durango reportedly supports 50GB Blu-ray Discs), but the used game market? Kiboshed. If this is true, it's an ugly move on Microsoft's part. Not only does it annihilate the right of first sale, it'll eviscerate any game store or business that depends on video game rentals for revenue."

jfruh writes "The MPAA and other entertainment industry groups have been locked for years in a legal struggle against Newzbin2, a Usenet-indexing site. Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place. But a British court has rejected that argument."

An anonymous reader writes "According to an Al-Jazeera report, 'Charlottesville, Virginia is the first city in the United States to pass an anti-drone resolution. The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.' The finalized resolution is fairly weak, but it's a start. There is also some anti-drone legislation in the Oregon state Senate, and it has much bigger teeth. It defines public airspace as anything above your shoelaces, and the wording for 'drone' is broad enough to include RC helicopters and the like."

An anonymous reader writes "In a move likely to have major political implications, the University of Düsseldorf has revoked the doctoral degree of Germany's science and education minister, Annette Schavan. The committee investigating allegations of plagiarism came to the conclusion that she 'systematically and deliberately claimed as her own intellectual achievements which she had in fact not produced herself.' Schavan wants to appeal the decision in court and has not resigned from her post so far."

LordStormes writes "JJ Abrams, who apparently plans to direct every movie for the rest of time, is teaming with Gabe Newell and Valve to explore films for both the Half-Life and Portal franchises. 'Abrams and Newell made the surprise, succinct announcement at the end of their keynote speech, which took the form of a carefully rehearsed discussion between the two creatives about the strengths and weaknesses of games and movies as storytelling mediums. ... "Movies let you experience moments that you might not think are the point, but really are everything,” Abrams said, pointing to the early introduction of compressed air canisters in the opening scenes of the movie Jaws, which initially seem unimportant but prove consequential to the film’s ending. Newell pointed out that the “take your child to work” scene in Portal 2 accomplished the same thing, setting up important plot points in a way that made them initially seem like humorous throwaways.' No word on Half-Life 3, sadly..."

LordStormes writes "JJ Abrams, who apparently plans to direct every movie for the rest of time, is teaming with Gabe Newell and Valve to explore films for both the Half-Life and Portal franchises. 'Abrams and Newell made the surprise, succinct announcement at the end of their keynote speech, which took the form of a carefully rehearsed discussion between the two creatives about the strengths and weaknesses of games and movies as storytelling mediums. ... "Movies let you experience moments that you might not think are the point, but really are everything,” Abrams said, pointing to the early introduction of compressed air canisters in the opening scenes of the movie Jaws, which initially seem unimportant but prove consequential to the film’s ending. Newell pointed out that the “take your child to work” scene in Portal 2 accomplished the same thing, setting up important plot points in a way that made them initially seem like humorous throwaways.' No word on Half-Life 3, sadly..."

Nerval's Lobster writes "The man who designed the world's most energy-efficient supercomputer in 2011 has taken on a new task: improving how robo-bugs fly. Wu-chun Feng, an associate professor of computer science in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech, previously built Green Destiny, a 240-node supercomputer that consumed 3.2 kilowatts of power—the equivalent of a couple of hair dryers. That was before the Green500, a list that Feng and his team began compiling in 2005, which ranks the world's fastest supercomputers by performance per watt. On Feb. 5, the Air Force's Office of Scientific Research announced it had awarded Feng $3.5 million over three years, plus an option to add $2.5 million funding over an additional two years. The contract's goal: speed up how quickly a supercomputer can simulate the computational fluid dynamics of micro-air vehicles (MAVs), or unmanned aerial vehicles. MAVs can be as small as about five inches, with an aircraft close to insect size expected in the near future. While the robo-bugs can obviously be used for military purposes, they could also serve as scouts in rescue operations."

After many months of effort, today we've brought the new mobile site out of beta. Featuring an interface optimized for touch devices, we think it's a huge improvement over the old mobile interface. You'll find comments easier to navigate, the most popular stories highlighted at the top of the page, and a surprisingly pleasant interface for navigating old polls. We've also spiffed up user profiles, resurrecting and improving the friend/foe system in the process. And that's not all: we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts, so if you use Facebook or Google+ there's no excuse not to enjoy the benefits of being a registered user, without the hassle of creating yet another account. Our weblog has a few more details. As always, if you encounter any issues let us know by mailing feedback@slashdot.org.

After many months of effort, today we've brought the new mobile site out of beta. Featuring an interface optimized for touch devices, we think it's a huge improvement over the old mobile interface. You'll find comments easier to navigate, the most popular stories highlighted at the top of the page, and a surprisingly pleasant interface for navigating old polls. We've also spiffed up user profiles, resurrecting and improving the friend/foe system in the process. And that's not all: we're pleased to announce that you can login to Slashdot in general using various social media accounts, so if you use Facebook or Google+ there's no excuse not to enjoy the benefits of being a registered user, without the hassle of creating yet another account. Our weblog has a few more details. As always, if you encounter any issues let us know by mailing feedback@slashdot.org.

Layzej writes "Last summer a paper investigating the link between conspiratorial thinking and the rejection of climate science provoked a response on blogs skeptical of the scientific consensus that appeared to illustrate the very cognitive processes at the center of the research. This generated data for a new paper titled 'Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation (PDF).' The researchers reviewed the reactions for evidence of conspiratorial thinking, including the presumption of nefarious intent, perception of persecution, the tendency to detect meaning in random events, and the ability to interpret contrary evidence as evidence that the conspiracy is even greater in scope that was originally believed. Some of the hypotheses promoted to dismiss the findings of the original paper ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. It is not clear whether the response to this paper will itself provide data for further research, or how far down this recursion could progress. I fear the answer may be 'all the way.'"

We've talked in the past about what kind of questions should be asked of potential developer hires, and how being honest in exit interviews probably isn't worth the potential damage to your career. We're also familiar with the tricky questions some interviewers like to throw at people to test their thinking skills, and the questionable merits of gauging somebody's skillset through a pointlessly obtuse math problem. But there are also shady employers who conduct interviews to try to mine your knowledge and experience to find free solutions to their current problems. An actual job may or may not be on the table, but if they can get what they need from you before hiring, then at the very least your bargaining position will have gotten worse. Have you dealt with situations like this in the past? Since you can't know for sure the interviewer's intentions, it's tough to provide an answer demonstrating your abilities without solving their problem. "Before asking about the fixes they’ve tried, start by acknowledging the depth of the problem and find out whether the manager has the resources to solve it. Then, just like a consultant, use their answers to highlight your experience and explain the approach you’d take." You could also try explaining how you've solved similar problems, which won't necessarily help them, but will demonstrate your value. Of course, one of the biggest challenges is determining when somebody is getting a little too specific with their interview questions. What red flags should people keep an eye out for?

We've talked in the past about what kind of questions should be asked of potential developer hires, and how being honest in exit interviews probably isn't worth the potential damage to your career. We're also familiar with the tricky questions some interviewers like to throw at people to test their thinking skills, and the questionable merits of gauging somebody's skillset through a pointlessly obtuse math problem. But there are also shady employers who conduct interviews to try to mine your knowledge and experience to find free solutions to their current problems. An actual job may or may not be on the table, but if they can get what they need from you before hiring, then at the very least your bargaining position will have gotten worse. Have you dealt with situations like this in the past? Since you can't know for sure the interviewer's intentions, it's tough to provide an answer demonstrating your abilities without solving their problem. "Before asking about the fixes they’ve tried, start by acknowledging the depth of the problem and find out whether the manager has the resources to solve it. Then, just like a consultant, use their answers to highlight your experience and explain the approach you’d take." You could also try explaining how you've solved similar problems, which won't necessarily help them, but will demonstrate your value. Of course, one of the biggest challenges is determining when somebody is getting a little too specific with their interview questions. What red flags should people keep an eye out for?

With his trademark hat and beard, Dr. Robert Bakker is one of the most recognized paleontologists working today. Bakker was among the advisers for the movie Jurassic Park, and the character Dr. Robert Burke in the film The Lost World: Jurassic Park is based on him. He was one of the first to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers and were warm-blooded, and is credited with initiating the ongoing "dinosaur renaissance" in paleontology. Bakker is currently the curator of paleontology for the Houston Museum of Natural Science and the Director of the Morrison Natural History Museum in Colorado. He is also a Christian minister, who contends that there is no real conflict between religion and science, citing the writings and views of Saint Augustine as a guide on melding the two. Dr. Bakker has agreed to take some time from his writing and digging in order to answer your questions. As usual, ask as many questions as you'd like, but please, one question per post.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Dell is going private again, as the result of a $24.4 billion deal involving private-equity investors and Microsoft. The deal will close before the end of the second quarter of Dell's fiscal 2014, according to Reuters. Dell founder and namesake Michael Dell, who owns roughly 14 percent of the company's common shares, will continue to lead the newly privatized venture as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He will contribute his existing shares to the new company, on top of a 'substantial' additional cash investment. As with other hardware manufacturers in the space, Dell faces the specter of a softening PC market. And while Dell has made significant efforts to penetrate other markets—including the launch of a private cloud architecture based on the open-source OpenStack—that weakness has affected its bottom line: for its fiscal 2013 third quarter, the company reported an 11 percent decrease in revenue from the previous year; while it enjoyed an increase in revenue from its servers and services businesses, revenue from its Consumer division dipped 23 percent. Its Large Enterprise, Small and Medium Business, and Public revenue also declined." Another take at the New York Times.

First time accepted submitter jsmyth writes "MySQL 5.6.10 has been released, marking the General Availability of version 5.6 for production." Here's more on the features of 5.6. Of possible interest to MySQL users, too, is this look at how MySQL spinoff MariaDB (from Monty, one of the three creators of MySQL) is making inroads into the MySQL market, including (as we've mentioned before) as default database system in some Linux distributions.

Nerval's Lobster writes "Hewlett-Packard is the latest PC manufacturer to jump into the Chromebook game, whipping the curtain back from a 14-inch device loaded with Google's Chrome OS. Powered by a dual-core Intel Celeron processor, and touting roughly 4.25 hours of battery life, the HP Pavilion Chromebook follows in the footsteps of other Chromebooks released by Acer and Samsung over the past few months. While these manufacturers continue to produce devices loaded with Windows, the growth of Chrome OS could spark some worry among Microsoft executives, who have become used to their hardware partners operating as Windows-only shops. But is Chrome OS a true threat to Windows, or just a way for manufacturers to gain some additional leverage in negotiating with Microsoft over licensing fees and other matters?"

jfruh writes "U.S. Mobile companies are working hard to get customers on fancy high-speed LTE plans with expensive smartphones. But Verizon is shrewdly working to eke out profit from its older infrastructure as well. The company is offering no-contract pay-as-you-go 3G-only plans, which might appeal to those who don't use a lot of wireless data and who might want to take advantage of the glut of older Android and iOS phones available on the market." It's good to see prices dropping from one of the biggest names in the industry, but it seems there are some cheaper options already around, especially for unlocked phones or for people who don't need data.

jfruh writes "U.S. Mobile companies are working hard to get customers on fancy high-speed LTE plans with expensive smartphones. But Verizon is shrewdly working to eke out profit from its older infrastructure as well. The company is offering no-contract pay-as-you-go 3G-only plans, which might appeal to those who don't use a lot of wireless data and who might want to take advantage of the glut of older Android and iOS phones available on the market." It's good to see prices dropping from one of the biggest names in the industry, but it seems there are some cheaper options already around, especially for unlocked phones or for people who don't need data.

An anonymous reader writes in with news of the continuing saga of Java patches and exploits. "If you're a Mac user who suddenly can't access websites or run applications that rely on Java, you're not alone. For the second time in a month, Apple has silently blocked the latest version of Java 7 from running on OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard or higher via its XProtect anti-malware tool. Apple hasn't issued any official statements advising users of the change or its reasons, but it's a safe bet that the company has deemed Oracle's most recent update to Java insecure. That's why the company stealthily disabled Java on Macs back on Jan. 10, the same day a Java vulnerability was being exploited in the wild."

littlesparkvt writes "One of two official packages of photos of Iran's famed simian space traveler depicted the wrong monkey, but a primate really did fly into space and return safely to Earth, a senior Iranian space official confirmed Saturday. The two different monkeys shown in the photos released by Iran’s state media caused some international observers to wonder whether the monkey had died in space or that the launch didn’t go well."

Nerval's Lobster writes "Whatever your actual feelings about football and this weekend's Super Bowl, you have to admire Wolfram Alpha's willingness to crunch any dataset and see what it can find. The self-billed 'computational knowledge engine' has analyzed the historical data for both teams involved in this Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII. Its conclusion? The San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens are 'annoyingly similar' when it comes to numbers, although some players stand out as potential game changers — if the math plays out right."

gannebraemorr writes "U-T San Diego reports that the city has become 'the latest in a cadre of California cities turning their backs on red-light cameras — aloof intersection sentries that have prompted $490 tickets to be mailed to 20,000 motorists per year' there. 'Mayor Bob Filner announced his decision to take down the city's 21 cameras at a news conference set at the most prolific intersection for the tickets, North Harbor Drive and West Grape Street, near San Diego International Airport. A crew went to work immediately taking down "photo enforced" signs throughout the city. "Seems to me that such a program can only be justified if there are demonstrable facts that prove that they raise the safety awareness and decrease accidents in our city," Filner said of the cameras. "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."' I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program. I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"

tsu doh nimh writes "A sophisticated cyberattack targeted The Washington Post in an operation that resembled intrusions against other major American news organizations and that company officials suspect was the work of Chinese hackers, the publication acknowledged on Friday. The disclosure came just hours after a former Post employee shared information about the break-in with ex-Postie reporter Brian Krebs, and caps a week marked by similar stories from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Krebs cites a former Post tech worker saying that the publication gave one of its hacked servers to the National Security Agency for analysis, a claim that the Post's leadership denies. The story also notes that the Post relied on software from Symantec, the same security software that failed to detect intrusions at The New York Times for many months."

hypnosec writes "The Linux Foundation's UEFI secure boot pre-bootloader is still in the works, and has been modified substantially so that it allows any Linux version to boot through UEFI secure boot. The reason for modifying the pre-bootloader was that the current version of the loader wouldn't work with Gummiboot, which was designed to boot kernels using BootServices->LoadImage(). Further, the original pre-bootloader had been written using 'PE/Coff link loading to defeat the secure boot checks.' As it stands, anything run by the original pre-bootloader must also be link-loaded to defeat secure boot, and Gummiboot, which is not a link-loader, didn't work in this scenario. This is the reason a re-write of the pre-bootloader was required and now it supports booting of all versions of Linux." Also in UEFI news: Linus Torvalds announced today that the flaw which was bricking some Samsung laptops if booted into Linux has been dealt with.

theodp writes "Earlier this week, hackers gained access to Twitter's internal systems and stole information, compromising 250,000 Twitter accounts before the breach was stopped. Reporting the incident on the company's official blog, Twitter's manager of network security did not specify the method by which hackers penetrated its system, but mentioned vulnerabilities related to Java in Safari and Firefox, and echoed Homeland Security's advisory that users disable Java in their browsers. Sure, blame everything on Larry Ellison. Looks like bad things do happen in threes — Twitter's report comes on the heels of disclosures of hacking attacks on the WSJ and NY Times."

theodp writes "Earlier this week, hackers gained access to Twitter's internal systems and stole information, compromising 250,000 Twitter accounts before the breach was stopped. Reporting the incident on the company's official blog, Twitter's manager of network security did not specify the method by which hackers penetrated its system, but mentioned vulnerabilities related to Java in Safari and Firefox, and echoed Homeland Security's advisory that users disable Java in their browsers. Sure, blame everything on Larry Ellison. Looks like bad things do happen in threes — Twitter's report comes on the heels of disclosures of hacking attacks on the WSJ and NY Times."

theodp writes "Earlier this week, hackers gained access to Twitter's internal systems and stole information, compromising 250,000 Twitter accounts before the breach was stopped. Reporting the incident on the company's official blog, Twitter's manager of network security did not specify the method by which hackers penetrated its system, but mentioned vulnerabilities related to Java in Safari and Firefox, and echoed Homeland Security's advisory that users disable Java in their browsers. Sure, blame everything on Larry Ellison. Looks like bad things do happen in threes — Twitter's report comes on the heels of disclosures of hacking attacks on the WSJ and NY Times."

Nerval's Lobster writes "To give the Mars Rover Curiosity the brains she needs to operate took 5 million lines of code. And while the Mars Science Laboratory team froze the code a year before the roaming laboratory landed on August 5, they kept sending software updates to the spacecraft during its 253-day, 352 million-mile flight. In its belly, Curiosity has two computers, a primary and a backup. Fun fact: Apple's iPhone 5 has more processing power than this one-eyed explorer. 'You're carrying more processing power in your pocket than Curiosity,' Ben Cichy, chief flight software engineer, told an audience at this year's MacWorld."

concealment sends this excerpt from the NY Times: "Late last year, Zoe Keating, an independent musician from Northern California, provided an unusually detailed case in point. In voluminous spreadsheets posted to her Tumblr blog, she revealed the royalties she gets from various services, down to the ten-thousandth of a cent. Even for an under-the-radar artist like Ms. Keating, who describes her style as “avant cello,” the numbers painted a stark picture of what it is like to be a working musician these days. After her songs had been played more than 1.5 million times on Pandora over six months, she earned $1,652.74. On Spotify, 131,000 plays last year netted just $547.71, or an average of 0.42 cent a play. 'In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if this is going to be the only way people consume music,' Ms. Keating said. ... The question dogging the music industry is whether these micropayments can add up to anything substantial. 'No artist will be able to survive to be professionals except those who have a significant live business, and that’s very few,' said Hartwig Masuch, chief executive of BMG Rights Management."

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has brought back its photo Tag Suggestions feature to the U.S. after temporarily suspending it last year to make some technical improvements. Facebook says it has re-enabled it so that its users can use facial recognition 'to help them easily identify a friend in a photo and share that content with them.' Facebook first rolled out the face recognition feature across the U.S. in late 2010. The company eventually pushed photo Tag Suggestions to other countries in June 2011, but in the US there was quite a backlash. Yet Facebook doesn't appear to have made any privacy changes to the feature: it's still on by default."

pigrabbitbear writes "It always sounded like a hoax, didn't it? Silk Road: an Internet website where you can buy any drug in the world? Yeah, right. But it's real. It was almost two years ago that we first heard about the site, which hosts everything from Adderall to Ketamine, LSD to MDMA and tons and tons of weed. After it started to pick up a ton of press and exposure, we all thought that certainly the Silk Road would get shut down. It's super illegal to sell drugs or even to help people sell drugs. But it didn't. Silk Road survives to this day. However, with the arrival this week of the first conviction of a Silk Road-related crime, you have to wonder if Silk Road's days might be numbered after all. The trouble is brewing in Australia, where a guy named Paul Leslie Howard is facing as many as five years in prison for selling drugs on Silk Road. We're not talking millions of dollars worth of drugs, but we are talking about thousands of dollars worth. And just as Silk Road natives had feared, Howard was one of those Silk Road n00bs who read a newspaper article about the site and decided to try it out for himself."

Reducing various items to a fine powder in one of his blenders earned Blendtec CEO Tom Dickson a cult following. One of, if not the greatest viral marketing campaigns of all time, the "Will It Blend?" series has been watched almost 221,000,000 times on YouTube. In addition to receiving many marketing awards, Tom and his blenders have been featured on The Tonight Show and the History Channel series Modern Marvels. He has agreed to take a break from pureeing household objects and answer your questions. As usual, you're invited to ask as many questions as you'd like, but please divide them, one question per post.

Dangerous_Minds writes "On Wednesday, we discussed news that RIANZ convicted its first file-sharer under the New Zealand three strikes law. While the fine totaled $616.57, a New Zealand Herald report points out that in order to get that fine, RIANZ had to spend $250,000. Freezenet makes an interesting point that HADOPI (France's version of the three strikes law) faced similar problems when the Socialist party commented that 12 million euros was a lot of money to pay 60 agents to send out 1 million e-mails. The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue when the Copyright Alert System starts processing strike notices in the United States."

chicksdaddy writes "Veracode's blog has an interesting piece that looks at whether 'brogramming' — the testosterone- and booze-fueled coding culture depicted in movies like The Social Network — spells death for the 'engineering' part of 'software engineering.' From the post: 'The Social Network is a great movie. But, let's face it, the kind of "coding" you're doing when you're "wired in"... or drunk... isn't likely to be very careful or – need we say – secure. Whatever else it may have done, [brogramming's] focus on flashy, testosterone-fueled "competitive" coding divorces "writing software" – free form, creative, inspirational – from "software engineering," its older, more thoughtful and reliable cousin.' The article picks up on Leslie Lamport's recent piece in Wired: 'Why we should build software like we build houses' — also worth reading!"

An anonymous reader writes in about the latest fallout from CNET's parent company, CBS banning Dish Network's hopper from reviews and award lists. "The Consumer Electronics Association has not only today bestowed its Best in Show title upon the same Dish Network product that started this whole mess in the first place — in the same release, the group says it will no longer work with CNET. CES has enjoyed a long and productive partnership with CNET and the Best of CES awards,' said Karen Chupka, the CEA's senior vice president for events and conferences. "However, we are concerned the new review policy will have a negative impact on our brand should we continue the awards relationship as currently constructed. We look forward to receiving new ideas to recognize the 'best of the best' products introduced at the International CES.""

wiredmikey writes "The Wall Street Journal said Thursday its computers were hit by Chinese hackers, the latest U.S. media organization citing an effort to spy on its journalists covering China. The Journal made the announcement a day after The New York Times said hackers, possibly connected to China's military, had infiltrated its computers in response to its expose of the vast wealth amassed by a top leader's family. The Journal said in a news article that the attacks were 'for the apparent purpose of monitoring the newspaper's China coverage' and suggest that Chinese spying on U.S. media 'has become a widespread phenomenon.'"

Okian Warrior writes "As a followup to yesterday's article detailing 50 Million Potentially Vulnerable To UPnP Flaws, this video shows getting root access on a Belkin WeMo remote controlled wifi outlet. As the discussion notes, remotely turning someone's lamp on or off is not a big deal, but controlling a [dry] coffeepot or space heater might be dangerous. The attached discussion also points out that rapidly cycling something with a large inrush current (such as a motor) could damage the unit and possibly cause a fire." In the style of Bruce Schneier's movie-plot threat scenarios, what's the most nefarious use you can anticipate such remote outlet control being used for?

Nerval's Lobster writes "The company formerly known as Research In Motion—which decided to cut right to the proverbial chase and rename itself 'BlackBerry'—launched its much-anticipated BlackBerry 10 operating system at a high-profile event in New York City Jan. 30. Meanwhile, Microsoft is still dumping tons of money and effort into Windows Phone. But can either smartphone OS — or another player, for that matter — successfully challenge Apple iOS and Google Android, which one research firm estimated as running on 92 percent of smartphones shipped in the fourth quarter of 2012? What would it take for any company to launch that sort of successful effort?"

An anonymous reader writes "Ok, so the idea of opening all Wi-Fi networks in a misthought utopian vision didn't go over so well. But no one discussed the best part of open Wi-Fi networks: bonding different Wi-Fi and mobile carriers to get the best price and decent performance. We could save money and avoid lock in by bouncing to whoever gives us the best rate, and, when we need speed, jump on all of them at once for a network bonded boost."

An anonymous reader writes " Rob is a Time Warner Cable customer, and he's received two really interesting things from them lately. First, a 50% speed boost: they claim to have upgraded the speed of his home Internet connection. That's neat. Oh, and they've also cut his bill, from $45 to $30. Wow! What has prompted this amazing treatment? Years of loyalty and on-time payments? No, not exactly. Rob lives in Kansas City, pilot site for Google Fiber. Even though they have shut off people in other states for using too much bandwidth. Is Google making them show that it's not that hard to provide good service and bandwidth?"