I'd thought the money was in trading them, not owning them. There's a book called "Where are the Customer's Yachts" that talks about all this.
Active traders who get lucky make big money. Those who don't lose big money. For the typical investor it's better to buy a diverse basket, anchored by blue chips, and just accept the 10-12% average annual return -- with occasional periods of much better results and occasional periods of much worse results.
Ultimately, this appears to be a contract. Children cannot agree to contracts, and the school can't enter them into a contract without parental consent. So, kids, do whatever you want with your Google doodles, they are yours.
If nothing else, copyright applies.
IANAL, but I don't let that stop me.
I don't think this is a contract. Google isn't giving them something (permission to use the activity?) in exchange for agreement not to violate Google's trademarks. Google is giving them permission to use Google's trademark in a limited way. There's no exchange of value here, just a unidirectional, limited grant. Kids who, say, make an incredibly-attractive and artistic doodle and then sell thousands of copies of it haven't violated any agreement with Google, they've violated trademark law.
If nothing else, copyright applies.
Certainly copyright applies, but copyrights are orthogonal to trademarks. Because of the kid's copyright, Google couldn't use the kid's doodle for commercial purposes without permission (and the kid's inability to enter into a legal contract likely makes it impossible to get that permission via some activity EULA, because that would be a contract), but the copyright doesn't give the kid a right to infringe Google's trademark. Except, of course, in the way that Google gave the kid permission.
This is all kind of silly, of course. No kid is going to create a doodle that is commercially useful in a way that would bother Google. Unfortunately, trademark law requires that trademark holders take reasonable action to protect their trademarks. Failing to include the relevant caveat while directing kids to make variations of the logo could possibly be interpreted as blanket permission for unrestricted use. It's unlikely, but this sort of thing theoretically could cause a company to lose control of its name and logo.
I'm not sure the boldface is necessary, though. But, as I said at the top, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?
I concur. Weather will be what might stop further development of driverless cars. Working in snow weather, rural areas, and severe weather will not help LIDAR-based and camera/laser-based tech. Snow and rain molecules along with EM interference from lightning will make driverless cars stop on the side of the road... if it can find it.
EM interference doesn't affect cameras, LIDAR or radar. And the combination of those three sensor types will provide driverless cars with much greater ability to "see" in bad weather than any human has. Waymo is just beginning to work on severe weather driving issues, because it made more sense to address the common case first, but they have started working on it, and I expect we'll see good results in two or three years.
Maybe this is where human truckers make a living for a while, getting self-driving trucks through major snowstorms.
Probably not. When the weather gets really bad, truckers pull over and wait it out. If you've driven I-84 across Wyoming in a blizzard (or high winds), or I-70 westbound from Denver in a snow storm or I-80 from Salt Lake to Park City, you've seen long lines of trucks pulled off the side of the road, idling, waiting it out.
Although no one has yet really focused on building the tech for driving in severe weather conditions, because they've been solving the good-conditions problems first, it seems clear to me that self-driving vehicles ultimately have a tremendous advantage over humans in situations of limited visibility. It's much easier to deice and defog small sensor windows than a whole windshield, and sensors aren't limited to using visible light.
It's not necessary to speak with someone in detail about a topic to know what matters. It's enough to know their work on similar projects and -- most importantly -- their values. If the design and implementation work is begin done by people who would quit on principle and blow the whistle if they thought anyone were doing anything funny, then you can be pretty sure that either nothing funny is going on, or else if it is, it's incredibly subtle.
But that wasn't actually the part I was asking if you read. I was asking if you read:
Remote management tools make sense, but it should be possible for end users to disable them, or to take ownership of them and use them for their own ends. The details of exactly how they work, including their source code, should be published. Indeed, I think government should mandate the publication of low-level system management tools and firmware. We need a lot more academic research into the security and operation of these systems.
Pretty sure this came up in a year when Nokia took a massive write-off or something.
Agreed, smaller players are not taking year-on-year losses and staying in the game. It's just more nonsense click-bait headlines that turned into "truth" once again.
Yep. As always, though, the clickbait-based post is at +5, while mine is probably going to be downmodded.
If that is really the case, when why not compute the hash locally on the user's machine, and upload only the hash?
Cool. I hate CNN's fake news. I'm going to write a script that takes every image from every CNN story and uploads the hashes. Sharing of CNN stories on Facebook is going to be shut down.
s/CNN/whatever you hate/
The obvious corollary here is that Facebook needs not just the hashes but also the original image, so they can determine whether it's a real nude photo. Algorithms can do that pretty well, so Facebook may be able to arrange that no human ever needs to see the image... but there's no way for the uploader to be certain that's what they're doing.
Also, the "hash" probably needs to be something a bit more image-focused than, say, SHA256. Otherwise any trivial modification of the image would change the hash. So it's got to be something that survives scaling, cropping, resolution changes, watermarking, etc. Which means that if the exact algorithm leaks, people can reverse engineer it to figure out how to work around it. That's another reason they need to do the hashing on their end.
I"d say at the least the onus is on them to guarantee that it will never create an accident in a situation that I, as an individual, would be able to deal with. And that should go for anyone buying an automated vehicle.
What about all of the situations in which you would have an accident, but the automated system would avoid it? Suppose that there are a thousand of those for every one where you'd succeed and the system would fail. That would fail your requirement as stated. Do you really think that makes sense?
Let's call this what it is: A variation of the "clipper chip" like the government tried to do years ago, except this is more powerful and way worse.
That's a mischaracterization so egregious it could be called a lie.
The ME (and AMD's analogous PSP) have nothing to do with government, and nothing to do with cryptography (though they make heavy use of it). Clipper was about enforcing a standardized encryption mechanism with a built-in backdoor specifically for law enforcement. Completely different thing.
ME and PSP are remote system management tools. Their purpose is to enable enterprises to remotely administer systems, including not only being able to remotely install a new operating system, but to strongly verify the installation from the running OS. The reason it's in all systems, not just systems targeted at enterprise use, is that it's more economical to have a single solution
That said... you are absolutely correct that these tools *could* be used by malicious parties, whether for corporate espionage, government intrusion or anything else, and they are incredibly powerful, and not understood nearly well enough outside of the teams at Intel and AMD who build them. I know some of the people at Intel who work on this stuff and I'm pretty confident that they're doing good work, and doing the right things... but the lack of transparency makes me really nervous.
Remote management tools make sense, but it should be possible for end users to disable them, or to take ownership of them and use them for their own ends. The details of exactly how they work, including their source code, should be published. Indeed, I think government should mandate the publication of low-level system management tools and firmware. We need a lot more academic research into the security and operation of these systems.
In the Smartphone market, two players make more than 100% of the profit (meaning all the rest together make a collective loss).
Cite? I often see this claim on slashdot, and I've been seeing it for years. I find it hard to believe that all of those other smartphone makers have stayed in a market in which they lose money every year.
LOL... You're so naive. I bet you've never even tried to write an elected representative, and then never gotten a response of any kind. Once that happens then you'll start to understand what a lack of accountability is.
I've written to all of my representatives in at the federal level regularly, for decades, in two states. I nearly always get a response.
For example, you could be REQUIRED to pay taxes, but be allowed some degree of say-so in how those taxes were spent.
That's what calls and letters to your elected representatives are for. And your vote, of course. And if you really want to increase your influence, add some campaign donations. Donating a tiny fraction of what you pay in taxes can actually go a very long way toward making your tax money go the directions you want it to. Under the current system you actually have *more* influence on how the budget is spent than if everyone voted directly on budget allocations, because so few voters express their will directly. Politicians assume that for every voter who writes/calls, there are a few thousand who feel the same way but couldn't be bothered. And the ratio is even larger for those who donate.
If that's not enough influence for you, take the next step: pick one of the major parties and participate in local caucus meetings. The direction of national politics is really set at that level.
But if you're a hipster, the vinyl record becoming mainstream is a problem for you since the whole point is to not be mainstream.
Either that or the hipsters have realized that vinyl sucks in a host of ways and are looking to move to a less fragile and more manageable medium, so they're more or less just following the same path history took, for the same reasons.
At least it appears they've been smart enough to skip 8 track.
A stellar day is the same thing as a sidereal day, and neither are the basis of our normal day/night cycle, which is the solar day. The solar day is not constant, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. The sidereal or stellar day is constant, because the Earth's rotation does not vary. Oh, it's very gradually slowing, but not enough to make any difference in our everyday timekeeping.
The actual day is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds
It's blindingly obvious that this cannot be true. Think about it. Our clocks measure 24-hour days. If the solar day (the time between when the sun is directly overhead) were actually almost four minutes shorter than 24 hours, noon would shift by two hours every month. Sunrise and sunset would shift by even more.
The figure you mention is correct if you're judging completion of a day by watching far-distant stars (sidereal day). If you're judging it by looking at the sun, which is what's useful for human schedules, the mean length of a day is 24 hours and 0.002 seconds (solar day).
The difference is that the apparent motion of distant stars is caused only by the Earth's rotation. The apparent motion of the sun is caused by the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbital motion about the sun. Because the orbit is elliptical, the length of a solar day actually changes throughout the course of the year. But the mean length is ever so slightly more than 24 hours
Begin "ready" and being willing to drop whatever else you're doing and take up arms are two entirely different things. You really should study the history of how ISIS developed. The drought was a crucial piece.
My whole point is that arguing about one energy source vs another is stupid and irrelevant. Put a financial incentive in place to emit less CO2 and people will emit less CO2. If the low-hanging fruit is replacing coal with gas, fine. That will move the needle. In the long run it's still strongly carbon-positive and we'll need something better. Solar (in any of its many incarnations), wind, waves, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear... whatever, let the cheapest source (all costs internalized) win.
We've been subsidizing wind and solar for decades now.
Sure, stop that. Just penalize greenhouse gas emissions and beyond that let the market figure it out.
And imagine the new powers the government will need to do these things, and the way that the people in the government will abuse the shit out of them to deliberately harm us. Look what just happened with the Democratic Party, its chairman came right out and confessed to corruption you'd see in a tinpot third-world "democracy". And you want to give these people power? WTF, these people would have fucking Cabinet positions if the Democrats had won.
So you're saying you support carbon taxes now, right? To avoid giving the government all these new powers?
(Aside: you seem to be assuming that I'm a Democrat. To be clear, I'm not. I've never voted for a Democrat in a state or national-level election.)
I know that's an unfair question as it can imply a motive but honestly, do we really need to add an economic incentive when one already exists?
The economic incentive *doesn't* already exist. Right now, in most cases it's cheaper to burn fossil fuels than to use non-emitting alternatives. That's why we continue doing it.
I recall that it's something like 1/3rd of American households have nothing saved for retirement and/or are living paycheck to paycheck
This is something of an aside, but living paycheck-to-paycheck has nothing to do with being poor. Plenty of people with high incomes live paycheck to paycheck, and many people with very low incomes save effectively. Living paycheck-to-paycheck isn't a sign of insufficient income, it's a sign of poor financial management. This is obvious if you think about it: What are the odds that your income exactly matches your needs? Pretty low.
When the disproportionate burden a carbon tax imposes on the poor is brought up a common response is to create some sort of "revenue neutral" tax credit for the poor to offset this.
Actually, maybe the carbon tax is a good way to start a Basic Income scheme, which I think we're going to need in the next few decades anyway. Distribute the tax revenue in equal shares to every person in the country. The poor will still see a net benefit (in general; in any scheme there are outlying cases that don't follow the general rule) and the rich will still see a net cost.
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.......and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
So, you're saying that if Clinton had won they wouldn't have published it? I think that's unlikely. I think it was published when it was finished, and that would have happened regardless of who was in the Oval Office.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd thought the money was in trading them, not owning them. There's a book called "Where are the Customer's Yachts" that talks about all this.
Active traders who get lucky make big money. Those who don't lose big money. For the typical investor it's better to buy a diverse basket, anchored by blue chips, and just accept the 10-12% average annual return -- with occasional periods of much better results and occasional periods of much worse results.
Ultimately, this appears to be a contract. Children cannot agree to contracts, and the school can't enter them into a contract without parental consent. So, kids, do whatever you want with your Google doodles, they are yours.
If nothing else, copyright applies.
IANAL, but I don't let that stop me.
I don't think this is a contract. Google isn't giving them something (permission to use the activity?) in exchange for agreement not to violate Google's trademarks. Google is giving them permission to use Google's trademark in a limited way. There's no exchange of value here, just a unidirectional, limited grant. Kids who, say, make an incredibly-attractive and artistic doodle and then sell thousands of copies of it haven't violated any agreement with Google, they've violated trademark law.
If nothing else, copyright applies.
Certainly copyright applies, but copyrights are orthogonal to trademarks. Because of the kid's copyright, Google couldn't use the kid's doodle for commercial purposes without permission (and the kid's inability to enter into a legal contract likely makes it impossible to get that permission via some activity EULA, because that would be a contract), but the copyright doesn't give the kid a right to infringe Google's trademark. Except, of course, in the way that Google gave the kid permission.
This is all kind of silly, of course. No kid is going to create a doodle that is commercially useful in a way that would bother Google. Unfortunately, trademark law requires that trademark holders take reasonable action to protect their trademarks. Failing to include the relevant caveat while directing kids to make variations of the logo could possibly be interpreted as blanket permission for unrestricted use. It's unlikely, but this sort of thing theoretically could cause a company to lose control of its name and logo.
I'm not sure the boldface is necessary, though. But, as I said at the top, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?
I concur. Weather will be what might stop further development of driverless cars. Working in snow weather, rural areas, and severe weather will not help LIDAR-based and camera/laser-based tech. Snow and rain molecules along with EM interference from lightning will make driverless cars stop on the side of the road... if it can find it.
EM interference doesn't affect cameras, LIDAR or radar. And the combination of those three sensor types will provide driverless cars with much greater ability to "see" in bad weather than any human has. Waymo is just beginning to work on severe weather driving issues, because it made more sense to address the common case first, but they have started working on it, and I expect we'll see good results in two or three years.
Maybe this is where human truckers make a living for a while, getting self-driving trucks through major snowstorms.
Probably not. When the weather gets really bad, truckers pull over and wait it out. If you've driven I-84 across Wyoming in a blizzard (or high winds), or I-70 westbound from Denver in a snow storm or I-80 from Salt Lake to Park City, you've seen long lines of trucks pulled off the side of the road, idling, waiting it out.
Although no one has yet really focused on building the tech for driving in severe weather conditions, because they've been solving the good-conditions problems first, it seems clear to me that self-driving vehicles ultimately have a tremendous advantage over humans in situations of limited visibility. It's much easier to deice and defog small sensor windows than a whole windshield, and sensors aren't limited to using visible light.
It's not necessary to speak with someone in detail about a topic to know what matters. It's enough to know their work on similar projects and -- most importantly -- their values. If the design and implementation work is begin done by people who would quit on principle and blow the whistle if they thought anyone were doing anything funny, then you can be pretty sure that either nothing funny is going on, or else if it is, it's incredibly subtle.
But that wasn't actually the part I was asking if you read. I was asking if you read:
Pretty sure this came up in a year when Nokia took a massive write-off or something.
Agreed, smaller players are not taking year-on-year losses and staying in the game. It's just more nonsense click-bait headlines that turned into "truth" once again.
Yep. As always, though, the clickbait-based post is at +5, while mine is probably going to be downmodded.
If that is really the case, when why not compute the hash locally on the user's machine, and upload only the hash?
Cool. I hate CNN's fake news. I'm going to write a script that takes every image from every CNN story and uploads the hashes. Sharing of CNN stories on Facebook is going to be shut down.
s/CNN/whatever you hate/
The obvious corollary here is that Facebook needs not just the hashes but also the original image, so they can determine whether it's a real nude photo. Algorithms can do that pretty well, so Facebook may be able to arrange that no human ever needs to see the image... but there's no way for the uploader to be certain that's what they're doing.
Also, the "hash" probably needs to be something a bit more image-focused than, say, SHA256. Otherwise any trivial modification of the image would change the hash. So it's got to be something that survives scaling, cropping, resolution changes, watermarking, etc. Which means that if the exact algorithm leaks, people can reverse engineer it to figure out how to work around it. That's another reason they need to do the hashing on their end.
Toyota is not the only one deliberating skipping L3 and go directly to L4. Volvo intends to to the same, as well as some of the German vendors.
Google (now, Waymo) also decided years ago that L3 is a bad idea.
I"d say at the least the onus is on them to guarantee that it will never create an accident in a situation that I, as an individual, would be able to deal with. And that should go for anyone buying an automated vehicle.
What about all of the situations in which you would have an accident, but the automated system would avoid it? Suppose that there are a thousand of those for every one where you'd succeed and the system would fail. That would fail your requirement as stated. Do you really think that makes sense?
I don't think you read the post you replied to.
Did you read my post?
Let's call this what it is: A variation of the "clipper chip" like the government tried to do years ago, except this is more powerful and way worse.
That's a mischaracterization so egregious it could be called a lie.
The ME (and AMD's analogous PSP) have nothing to do with government, and nothing to do with cryptography (though they make heavy use of it). Clipper was about enforcing a standardized encryption mechanism with a built-in backdoor specifically for law enforcement. Completely different thing.
ME and PSP are remote system management tools. Their purpose is to enable enterprises to remotely administer systems, including not only being able to remotely install a new operating system, but to strongly verify the installation from the running OS. The reason it's in all systems, not just systems targeted at enterprise use, is that it's more economical to have a single solution
That said... you are absolutely correct that these tools *could* be used by malicious parties, whether for corporate espionage, government intrusion or anything else, and they are incredibly powerful, and not understood nearly well enough outside of the teams at Intel and AMD who build them. I know some of the people at Intel who work on this stuff and I'm pretty confident that they're doing good work, and doing the right things... but the lack of transparency makes me really nervous.
Remote management tools make sense, but it should be possible for end users to disable them, or to take ownership of them and use them for their own ends. The details of exactly how they work, including their source code, should be published. Indeed, I think government should mandate the publication of low-level system management tools and firmware. We need a lot more academic research into the security and operation of these systems.
In the Smartphone market, two players make more than 100% of the profit (meaning all the rest together make a collective loss).
Cite? I often see this claim on slashdot, and I've been seeing it for years. I find it hard to believe that all of those other smartphone makers have stayed in a market in which they lose money every year.
LOL... You're so naive. I bet you've never even tried to write an elected representative, and then never gotten a response of any kind. Once that happens then you'll start to understand what a lack of accountability is.
I've written to all of my representatives in at the federal level regularly, for decades, in two states. I nearly always get a response.
For example, you could be REQUIRED to pay taxes, but be allowed some degree of say-so in how those taxes were spent.
That's what calls and letters to your elected representatives are for. And your vote, of course. And if you really want to increase your influence, add some campaign donations. Donating a tiny fraction of what you pay in taxes can actually go a very long way toward making your tax money go the directions you want it to. Under the current system you actually have *more* influence on how the budget is spent than if everyone voted directly on budget allocations, because so few voters express their will directly. Politicians assume that for every voter who writes/calls, there are a few thousand who feel the same way but couldn't be bothered. And the ratio is even larger for those who donate.
If that's not enough influence for you, take the next step: pick one of the major parties and participate in local caucus meetings. The direction of national politics is really set at that level.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to steal your technology.
OTOH, we may want to position ourselves to steal their technology in the near future.
But if you're a hipster, the vinyl record becoming mainstream is a problem for you since the whole point is to not be mainstream.
Either that or the hipsters have realized that vinyl sucks in a host of ways and are looking to move to a less fragile and more manageable medium, so they're more or less just following the same path history took, for the same reasons.
At least it appears they've been smart enough to skip 8 track.
Actually he is correct. Though, the rotation isn't constant. It's called a stellar day. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
A stellar day is the same thing as a sidereal day, and neither are the basis of our normal day/night cycle, which is the solar day. The solar day is not constant, due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. The sidereal or stellar day is constant, because the Earth's rotation does not vary. Oh, it's very gradually slowing, but not enough to make any difference in our everyday timekeeping.
The actual day is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds
It's blindingly obvious that this cannot be true. Think about it. Our clocks measure 24-hour days. If the solar day (the time between when the sun is directly overhead) were actually almost four minutes shorter than 24 hours, noon would shift by two hours every month. Sunrise and sunset would shift by even more.
The figure you mention is correct if you're judging completion of a day by watching far-distant stars (sidereal day). If you're judging it by looking at the sun, which is what's useful for human schedules, the mean length of a day is 24 hours and 0.002 seconds (solar day).
The difference is that the apparent motion of distant stars is caused only by the Earth's rotation. The apparent motion of the sun is caused by the Earth's rotation and the Earth's orbital motion about the sun. Because the orbit is elliptical, the length of a solar day actually changes throughout the course of the year. But the mean length is ever so slightly more than 24 hours
Begin "ready" and being willing to drop whatever else you're doing and take up arms are two entirely different things. You really should study the history of how ISIS developed. The drought was a crucial piece.
ISIS is mainly a result of the Iraq war desaster.
Wouldn't have happened without the ready supply of cannon fodder for the Caliphate, which was caused by climactic conditions.
We've been subsidizing wind and solar for decades now.
Sure, stop that. Just penalize greenhouse gas emissions and beyond that let the market figure it out.
And imagine the new powers the government will need to do these things, and the way that the people in the government will abuse the shit out of them to deliberately harm us. Look what just happened with the Democratic Party, its chairman came right out and confessed to corruption you'd see in a tinpot third-world "democracy". And you want to give these people power? WTF, these people would have fucking Cabinet positions if the Democrats had won.
So you're saying you support carbon taxes now, right? To avoid giving the government all these new powers?
(Aside: you seem to be assuming that I'm a Democrat. To be clear, I'm not. I've never voted for a Democrat in a state or national-level election.)
I know that's an unfair question as it can imply a motive but honestly, do we really need to add an economic incentive when one already exists?
The economic incentive *doesn't* already exist. Right now, in most cases it's cheaper to burn fossil fuels than to use non-emitting alternatives. That's why we continue doing it.
I recall that it's something like 1/3rd of American households have nothing saved for retirement and/or are living paycheck to paycheck
This is something of an aside, but living paycheck-to-paycheck has nothing to do with being poor. Plenty of people with high incomes live paycheck to paycheck, and many people with very low incomes save effectively. Living paycheck-to-paycheck isn't a sign of insufficient income, it's a sign of poor financial management. This is obvious if you think about it: What are the odds that your income exactly matches your needs? Pretty low.
When the disproportionate burden a carbon tax imposes on the poor is brought up a common response is to create some sort of "revenue neutral" tax credit for the poor to offset this.
Actually, maybe the carbon tax is a good way to start a Basic Income scheme, which I think we're going to need in the next few decades anyway. Distribute the tax revenue in equal shares to every person in the country. The poor will still see a net benefit (in general; in any scheme there are outlying cases that don't follow the general rule) and the rich will still see a net cost.
This report was issued as the collaborative work of hundreds of serious scientists over years of work.... ...and is really intended as a giant "fuck you" to President Trump.
So, you're saying that if Clinton had won they wouldn't have published it? I think that's unlikely. I think it was published when it was finished, and that would have happened regardless of who was in the Oval Office.