Slashdot Mirror


Google Buys UK AI Startup Deep Mind

TechCrunch reports that Google has acquired London-based artificial intelligence firm Deep Mind. TechCrunch notes that the purchase price, as reported by The Information, was somewhere north of $500 million, while a report at PC World puts the purchase price lower, at mere $400 million. Whatever the price, the acquisition means that Google has beaten out Facebook, which reportedly was also interested in Deep Mind. Exactly what the startup will bring to Google isn't clear, though it seems to fit well with the emphasis on AI that the company underscored with its hiring of futurist Ray Kurzweil: "DeepMind's site currently only has a landing page, which says that it is 'a cutting edge artificial intelligence company' to build general-purpose learning algorithms for simulations, e-commerce, and games. As of December, the startup had about 75 employees, reports The Information. In 2012, Carnegie Mellon professor Larry Wasserman wrote that the 'startup is trying to build a system that thinks. This was the original dream of AI. As Shane [Legg] explained to me, there has been huge progress in both neuroscience and ML and their goal is to bring these things together. I thought it sounded crazy until he told me the list of famous billionaires who have invested in the company.'"

69 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Deep Thought... by MindPrison · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:Deep Thought... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Gotta have a towel to get there.

    2. Re:Deep Thought... by crutchy · · Score: 1
  2. Oh Yeah, Well by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny
    I think we all know how THIS turns out.

    If anyone needs me, I'll be in my underground bunker.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Oh Yeah, Well by qubex · · Score: 1

      **LOCATION INDEXED**

      --
      "Place me in the company of those who seek Truth, but deliver me from those who believe to have found it."
    2. Re:Oh Yeah, Well by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Google Street View car pulls up, guy takes a 360 degree picture of the entrance.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. Voice assistant by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since Google still seems to believe Glass has potential to be the "next big thing" and it's entirely voice controlled, it makes sense that they'd want a voice assistant that can respond more intelligently than "I don't have a clue what you're talking about, should I search the web?" Maybe this company's AI would be adaptable to something along those lines?

    Personally, I'm not a big fan of talking to machines. Yeah, it looks awesome in sci-fi, but in real life it just makes you look like a hipster douchebag when you're out in public talking to the little robotic voice inside your mobile device.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    1. Re:Voice assistant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it looks awesome in sci-fi, but in real life it just makes you look like a hipster douchebag when you're out in public talking to the little robotic voice inside your mobile device.

      Two suggestions for the hipster image problem:

      1. Stop using an iPhone
      2. Don't end every Siri command with "...but you've probably never heard of it."

    2. Re:Voice assistant by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Funny

      it just makes you look like a hipster douchebag when you're out in public talking to the little robotic voice inside your mobile device.

      Who are you calling a douche? I'm actually talking to the little robotic voice in my head, the mobile device is just there for camouflage.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    3. Re:Voice assistant by idji · · Score: 1

      That's what we said in the early 1990's when people were talking into mobile phones. Times change.

    4. Re:Voice assistant by Warbothong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since Google still seems to believe Glass has potential to be the "next big thing" and it's entirely voice controlled, it makes sense that they'd want a voice assistant that can respond more intelligently than "I don't have a clue what you're talking about, should I search the web?" Maybe this company's AI would be adaptable to something along those lines?

      Personally, I'm not a big fan of talking to machines. Yeah, it looks awesome in sci-fi, but in real life it just makes you look like a hipster douchebag when you're out in public talking to the little robotic voice inside your mobile device.

      I still find it amusing that command lines are seen as the least intuitive interface and voice control is seen as the second-most intuitive (after mind-controlled), even though voice control is just a command line over a noisy, ambiguous channel, where you can't even see the commands you're inputting.

    5. Re:Voice assistant by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I'd rather human augmentation than voice assistants.

      You may still need some sort of AI stuff to do that, but the focus is different. One path focuses on augmenting humans, allowing them to more directly be superhuman. The other path has humans requesting stuff from smarter and smarter AIs.

      If it were up to me, it'll be more about thought macros and more:
      http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
      http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

      --
    6. Re:Voice assistant by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      The reason talking to machines seems so awesome in sci-fi is that the machines can respond and argue back with human or almost human intelligence. When AI can do that there will be a surge in voice-controlled computers.

    7. Re:Voice assistant by baffled · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm not a big fan of talking to machines. Yeah, it looks awesome in sci-fi ..

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re:Voice assistant by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No they weren't. Cellphones were cool from the start. At least, around here anyway. Everyone wanted one. The problem with glass is the same with bluetooth headsets. People ware them even when they're not using them... which makes you look like a douche. Once Google has these embedded in regular glasses this will stop being an issue.

    9. Re:Voice assistant by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The kind of voice control Google is after (as in "the second-most intuitive interface") is hardly the same as the kind of voice control that is available today. The first would be able to interpret your intent as well as a human could, possibly better (filtering out noise, asking to clarify ambiguities rather than making assumptions). And it's nothing like the command line, which does no interpreting, refining or clarification at all; it just executes a limited set of commands exactly as entered, with no room for so much as a misplaced comma.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    10. Re:Voice assistant by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      The problem is the command line is incredibly unintuitive in that one must learn / memorise a special language to make use of it.

      The ``Outland'' interface would be ideal --- but I don't see much progress on it.

      Where are the general-purpose natural language command languages and parsers?

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    11. Re:Voice assistant by Warbothong · · Score: 4, Informative

      The kind of voice control Google is after (as in "the second-most intuitive interface") is hardly the same as the kind of voice control that is available today. The first would be able to interpret your intent as well as a human could, possibly better (filtering out noise, asking to clarify ambiguities rather than making assumptions). And it's nothing like the command line, which does no interpreting, refining or clarification at all; it just executes a limited set of commands exactly as entered, with no room for so much as a misplaced comma.

      It's exactly like a commandline, which have been attempting to interpret their input for decades (most famously with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... ).

      The two reasons modern commandlines don't do this are 1) lack of effort and 2) that it's often a very bad thing. According to http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Pa... one of the motivating factors for defining Common LISP was to stop DARPA from rolling out INTERLISP, and therefore DWIM, across all their projects.

      As for clarification, I run into this all the time when typing non-existant commands (thanks to the "command not found" program) or using undefined variables (thanks to GHC).

    12. Re:Voice assistant by Warbothong · · Score: 2

      Where are the general-purpose natural language command languages and parsers?

      They're sat in the middle of whatever voice-command pipeline you're imagining, between the speech-recognition layer and the voice synthesiser. The advantage of the CLI is that you don't need to recognise speech or synthesise a voice.

    13. Re:Voice assistant by Speare · · Score: 1

      And it's nothing like the command line, which does no interpreting, refining or clarification at all; it just executes a limited set of commands exactly as entered, with no room for so much as a misplaced comma.

      ZORK I (1979):

      > unlock grating with key
      Which key do you mean, the skeleton key or the rusty key?

      > skeleton
      Unlocked.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    14. Re:Voice assistant by Maow · · Score: 1

      No they weren't. Cellphones were cool from the start. At least, around here anyway. Everyone wanted one. The problem with glass is the same with bluetooth headsets. People ware them even when they're not using them... which makes you look like a douche. Once Google has these embedded in regular glasses this will stop being an issue.

      Agree with the first part, but on BlueTooth headsets - what's one supposed to do with them, take them off and pocket them? That risks losing them. I leave mine in place, even when turned off, when I'm out and about. 'Cause I know I'd lose it otherwise.

      Maybe it helps that I grew up in a household where hearing aids were worn by a family member, so having something in the ear was normal. On the other hand, I hated wearing ear buds for the longest time, 'til I recognized the usefulness of them.

  4. Look at the upsides by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Sorry, I cannot open the pod bay doors" does sound better in a British accent.

    1. Re:Look at the upsides by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

      ^agreed

  5. Money can't buy you intelligence by narcc · · Score: 2

    I thought it sounded crazy until he told me the list of famous billionaires who have invested in the company.

    I'd like a copy of that list. It'll be like mining for gold in Fort Knox.

    1. Re:Money can't buy you intelligence by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's funny how people can latch onto a flawed metric like that.

      Here's a fun idea - let's take this current list and cross-reference it against the list of excited tech luminaries that told us "Ginger" was going to revolutionize our lives...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Money can't buy you intelligence by Traksius+Egas · · Score: 1

      Well, I do not know about "Ginger" but Mary Ann sure revolutionized my life!

    3. Re:Money can't buy you intelligence by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Go read about the founders of DeepMind. These are not kooks, they are people with publication lists a mile long coming out of academia.

      You know how industry always gets things later than academia? Well guess what academia's been working on for the past decade or so...

  6. Billionaires by umdesch4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I thought it sounded crazy until he told me the list of famous billionaires who have invested in the company." "Then I realized it was actually a money laundering scheme."

    1. Re:Billionaires by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Right those guys are good at exactly one thing for the most part, buzzword BINGO. They get in before the institutional folks do, and get out as they in turn enter. Those guys are good at following the billionaire "smart money" and knowing how to get at as the second tier and retail folks buy in. Then the music stops

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Billionaires by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or an elaborate get-rich-quick scheme.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. We will never be free.. by anti-todo · · Score: 1

    Until the last technocrat is strangled by the wiring of the last transhumanist.

  8. Let's see what Marvin Minsky has to say about this by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Well? Has he said anything about them? If not, why not?

  9. Re: I knew it! by crutchy · · Score: 1

    their AI would be more inclined to sell us something than to kill us off

    they give me results for "Terminator in Sarah Connor" instead

    along with ads for "terminator" vibrators

    http://www.dinodirect.com/indu...

  10. Re:No matter which "Deep Thought" ... by crutchy · · Score: 1

    if money=power (as everyone knows it does), then Google eclipses the NSA... it's more likely the NSA is working for Google.

  11. Re:Google pushing fantasy of AI by Boronx · · Score: 2

    I used to think that all the hillbillies fearing on the census takers were nuts until I found out that Sherman used the census to plan his march through Georgia almost a year before he did it.

  12. Re:No matter which "Deep Thought" ... by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As Snowden already hinted, it's highly likely that NSA and large US companies actually exist in symbiotic relationship in reality, in spite of all the angry public outbursts. NSA likely shares the intelligence data on things like business secrets with US companies, especially when competition is involved.

  13. Re:i would have got first post... by davester666 · · Score: 1

    And you'll keep taking it, until you pass!

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  14. Re:No matter which "Deep Thought" ... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    Likely? Boeing were taken to court for it (Boeing vs Airbus ~2000) so it's been proved in reality.

  15. Re:Google pushing fantasy of AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I used to think that all the hillbillies fearing on the census takers were nuts until I found out that Sherman used the census to plan his march through Georgia almost a year before he did it.

    Interesting GIS project,
        http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/educ02/pap5001/p5001.htm

  16. Strong AI is Inevitable by gox · · Score: 1

    As a human, I might value myself or my loved ones, and might want to reduce suffering and increase happiness for all, but at the grandest level, I don't know why I should value "the human" and "humanity" as models.

    The transition does not need to be oppressive in nature, especially if what comes next is much brighter. They will be the normative continuation of us, so they might even want to keep some of us as pets.

    I think the worry comes from the belief that there really is no reason to care for humans. But then why do we? It's best we figure this out sooner than later.

  17. Re:Google pushing fantasy of AI by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Whoa, don't stop there. I need to find out if they all lived happily ever after.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. Re:strong AI is pointless by Maritz · · Score: 3

    If we create an intelligent system from scratch, we get to decide its preferences. There's no a-priori reason to conclude that it will thirst for power, our hunger for power comes from our social mammalian heritage. If on the other hand, we just build an artificial version of human intelligence e.g. by mimicking the brain, then yeah I expect this could be an issue and there could be ethical implications.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  19. Legg by Warbothong · · Score: 5, Informative

    Shane Legg's research is pretty cool, since it deals with very sci-fi-like problems in a pretty rigorous way. For example, his PhD dissertation "Machine Superintelligence" approaches intelligence in a non-anthropocentric way, from the perspective of computability http://www.vetta.org/documents...

    More recently he's tried to define an IQ-like metric for comparing different AI projects and measure progress in the field http://www.vetta.org/2011/11/a...

    1. Re:Legg by gweihir · · Score: 2

      His thesis looks more like an elaborate Survey-Paper that only marginally adds to the existing research. (May still be enough for a PhD, I am not criticizing that, adding "marginally" to complex theory is an accomplishment and worthwhile doing.) Certainly no break-through in there.

      I also found it badly structured. For example, at my institution, a chapter "contributions of this thesis" is mandatory for acceptance.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Legg by demachina · · Score: 1

      This is one of DeepMind's recent papers, Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning [PDF]

      --
      @de_machina
  20. Peanuts by arcite · · Score: 1

    Boeing is back on top again, Crashbus only snagged about half the contracts as Boeing in 2013.

  21. smart move by StripedCow · · Score: 2

    If Deep Mind really has the knowledge and capability to form strong AI, then this is a smart move.
    Deep Mind could have become the next Google.

    However, I find it unacceptable that big mega-corps just go out and buy companies with talent.
    Just imagine what the world would have looked like when Microsoft had bought Google when it was in its infancy...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:smart move by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing doesn't happen, because the kind of startup that looks attractive to an existing megacorporation

      DEC could have bought Google in the time (as they already had developed and marketed Altavista).
      It would not have been unrealistic.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:smart move by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      If Deep Mind really has the knowledge and capability to form strong AI, then this is a smart move.
      Deep Mind could have become the next Google.

      However, I find it unacceptable that big mega-corps just go out and buy companies with talent.
      Just imagine what the world would have looked like when Microsoft had bought Google when it was in its infancy...

      I'm sure by now Microsoft would be dealing with teenage rebellion; "No Dad, I'm not going to be a hypocrite like you and force my vendors to bundle my software -- I'm going to data mine my customers and make my money and advertising like a 2 dollar whore. Just like Mom!"

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:smart move by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. It's only whether the larger company has the ability to identify talent.

      The can be lucky -- it isn't always a; "Time Warner buy AOL right near the end of dial up."

      If companies keep getting wealthier and more profits, they can just hedge their bets, because money is nothing to them and dear to others. It's more of a problem of pooled capital than it is anything else.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  22. Re:strong AI is pointless by Maritz · · Score: 2

    It's tempting to anthropomorphise strong AI. But if we get to dictate all of its preferences then we get to decide what it wants. Changes in goal do not count as improvements in intelligence. If we decide that it doesn't want independence from humans, then it doesn't. Whether that makes it naive or 'stupid' from a human perspective is irrelevant.

    What would indeed be stupid is creating an AI with a drive to dominate and then attempt to stop it from doing so, especially if it deals with information in a qualitatively different way to humans or if it can recursively improve itself. That's the 'skynet' scenario.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  23. Re:strong AI is pointless by baffled · · Score: 1

    Start with a machine designed for survival - situational awareness, means of defense, mobility. Now add in your 'preferences' - don't injure humans, be nice, don't lie. Mass produce a few million of these and distribute into the population. Along comes a reason the manufacturer or government finds to deactivate them all, mix in a little human attachment and hacker mentality.. Survival of the fittest. If these things are smart enough to build/engineer themselves..

  24. onward, to the Optimal Satisfaction of Values by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    (through Friendship and Ponies)

  25. Paired with Glass by koan · · Score: 1

    And you have quite a surveillance platform.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  26. "Famous billionaires" as scientific justification? by gweihir · · Score: 2

    WTF? I mean, seriously, these people have zero qualifications and are know to invest in things they have not researched. I predict this is just a colossal waste of money as they cannot succeed at this time. There is not even any credible theory how true AI could be implemented, nobody can promise they have a real chance of doing it at this time without either lying through their teeth or being grossly incompetent.

    Incidentally, Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack. Google did itself no favor by hiring him. This person has grand visions but zero understanding of actual reality.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  27. Re:Let's see what Marvin Minsky has to say about t by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Marvin "no intelligence" Minsky? Why do you even care?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  28. Re:"Famous billionaires" as scientific justificati by hllclmbr · · Score: 1

    Surely you've submitted your resume to Google to be a replacement for their head of engineering (Kurzweil's current gig). Incidentally, you don't even know who these billionaires are, so how can you possibly comment on their qualifications?

  29. Re:"Famous billionaires" as scientific justificati by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Google doesn't care about building an artificial human. Google wants algorithms that can better predict what ads will work on you. And that CAN be done at this time. The field of machine learning has come a long way in the last five years.

  30. Re:Chokepoint is telling the AI whats right and wr by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Not really. Good modern machine learning algorithms, like the ones Google already uses, take a vast amount of unlabelled data and extract features from it. Then a small set of labelled data is used at the end. Somebody has to go through a few videos and label the cats, but the program goes through hundreds of thousands learning to recognize things, including cats. That's the same way we learn - a baby doesn't only benefit from experiences where adults point at something and say "cat."

    In other cases, the metric can be completely automatic. The program has chosen correctly when you click on that ad, for example.

  31. Re:"Famous billionaires" as scientific justificati by gweihir · · Score: 1

    >> Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack.
    True. Google must have wanted him as a PR figurehead type role in re. the mainstream media, as his hack-status is well known in sci/tech circles..

    Most likely, yes.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  32. Re:"Famous billionaires" as scientific justificati by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Ad hominem is for those that have nothing worthwhile to say. You seem to qualify.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. Re:"Famous billionaires" as scientific justificati by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I do know very well what Google wants. But that is not what the story implied.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  34. Re:Google pushing fantasy of AI by mordjah · · Score: 1
    Lol it just goes to show you that when you allow these fruitcakes to rant it seldom takes long before they are red faced and foaming at the mouth.. But, i'm bored so i'll feed the troll..

    Google makes databases of images to help navigate.. Wow, thats insightful..

    OMG driverless tanks! Uhm.. yeah, no shit. Thats how we fight in the US.. We expend money and machines wholesale in order to preserve (our) lives.

    We all know that even if Google != u.s. government the data is all shared.. So, yeah, we will be using that to build training sets.. I mean, really, have you not heard of DARPA? Jesus we've been begging for even weak ai for decades.. Of course we will be using the data from the company who's stated goal is to index everything

    And then his religion falls out and starts getting all over the rug.. You really cannot take some people out in public. If you wish to troll effectively you must save the really good frothing at the mouth until after you have succesfully engaged someone in a dialog.

    --
    "A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
  35. "Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack"? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

    Incidentally, Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack. Google did itself no favor by hiring him. This person has grand visions but zero understanding of actual reality.

    Oh, really? A quick visit to Wikipedia finds:

    Kurzweil was the principal inventor of the first CCD flatbed scanner, the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first commercial text-to-speech synthesizer, the first music synthesizer Kurzweil K250 capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition. Kurzweil received the 1999 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, America's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. He was the recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize for 2001, the world's largest for innovation. And in 2002 he was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office.

    I wish everyone was 1/10 that much of an "incompetent hack." If he thought Deep Mind was worth buying, that's the way I'd bet.

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:"Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack"? by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Kurzweil is obviously a smart guy. However, although his name seems synonymous with AI these days, I don't see many references to how he's innovated in this field? What has he actually achieved in the realm of AI, apart from co-opting the term Singularity from Vernor Vinge?

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    2. Re:"Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack"? by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      There's "narrow" AI, where Kurzweil has major achievements: e.g. speech recognition. Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a whole 'nother ball game. The field is largely speculative, because it doesn't really exist yet. So it's not unfair to say Kurzweil is big in AI, even though we don't yet have AGI.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    3. Re:"Ray Kurzweil is an incompetent hack"? by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      I guess my definition of AI has been narrow because I haven't considered narrow AI :-)

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  36. Voice needs context by mangu · · Score: 1

    Voice interface is one of the hardest things to implement well in AI because there are so many sentences that sound similar, understanding depends so much on context.

    Without understanding the context of the conversation, a voice interface will not be able to know if you are talking about sodas or sawdust, robots or row boats, new displays or nudist plays.

  37. Re:Snowden is a rube by crutchy · · Score: 1

    Snowden should have dumped the data into the public immediately and in one huge batch to show the extent of the perversion of our freedoms and rights

    one problem with that... you're assuming the public would even care let alone know what to make of it