Actually, its a poor analysis. It totally misses the point that Wayz is NOT a mapping company. Its a traffic reporting one trick pony company.
That space (traffic reporting) is vastly smaller than the mapping segment. Google does this mostly by cell phones stacking up on roads. Microsoft does this by tying into existing into Traffic.com, and also some State and Local traffic reporting systems, which is why their coverage are is so miserable.
Traffic.com is the major player in this sphere, and their service is really slow and difficult to expand.
Traffic.com is owned by Navteq which is owned by Nokia. I'm sure neither of those companies would object to Google getting a toe-hold in the traffic market. *Cough*.
Some antitrust lawyers say it is unlikely the FTC would ask Google to unwind the deal. In order to break it up, the agency would have to uncover evidence that the deal would significantly crimp competition in the mapping market.
Waze’s revenue was too low to trigger an automatic review by the agency, but it can examine such deals even after they close.
So reading between the lines, someone probably complained, because Waze is too small to affect the market place, already crowded with mapping companies ranging from Nokia to Apple to Microsoft to Tele Atlas. I wouldn't be surprised to find any of those names on the original complaint.
Of the companies that might benefit from merger of Wayz technology clearly Google is the top candidate. They Google is the only company other than Microsoft that has made a push toward real-time traffic analysis and reporting.
In fact the real-time traffic reporting space is much smaller than the mapping space, and if there is any grounds for complaint it is probably that the realtime reporting market becomes much smaller.
Oddly, Google would probably have to totally redesign the Waze method of realtime reports on traffic and road conditions, because fiddling with your phone to report a traffic accident is likely to cause yet another accident.
1) Algae doesn't require chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc to the scale that corn does.
So something from nothing then?
Algae still requires a food source, and you still have to protect your crop, if not from grass hoppers, then from other forms of pests, perhaps other algae.
2) Algae has the potential to be much more space efficient... much higher output per acre,
I see not a shred of evidence for this. Unless you go vertical and introduce artificial sunlight at great expense, which you could also do with corn.
We still have very little understanding of what the byproducts of massive algae production might be. We see green, and immediately think benign. But that might be more magical thinking than science.
Expand the production? Sure, great idea. If you think you can figure out a way to double the arable land used for vegetable oil production so that it doesn't cut into the production for food, then you've still managed to displace less than 10%, and goodness knows what you've done to the landscape to do it.
In spite of rising population, we use an ever smaller percentage of arable land for food production. We've reduced our use of marginally arable land, and we use an increasingly more stringent definition of what constitutes "arable". You need only drive thru the mid-west, south, and even the north east to see farmland reverting to forest, or prairie.
Corn or seed-oil is not the most productive crop for bio fuels. Probably switch grass is, because it will grow almost anywhere and is widely adapted to different climates. In the long run, no single crop would be the best solution.
Using marginally arable land for fuel crops still might not come close to half the need for commercial oil production, at least not in an economically viable way. But that speaks more to the cheapness of oil than to the sustainability of bio-fuels.
The outside cams at Lords and Taylor was insufficient for an identification. Fuzzy nondescript images that showed clothing patterns at best. Hundreds of private snapshots submitted by people were what nailed them. But even that failed to identify them until private people phoned in saying they recognized them.
But its funny you mention the Boston Marathon at all, because it is the biggest single failure of the NSA spying operation, the elephant in the room as the NSA testified before congress about how many bombings the program had prevented without any specifics at all. Yet it totally missed these guys even when the Russians handed them to us on a silver platter.
Critical infrastructure in the US is exploding seemingly every other month, all publicly written off as accidents. Refineries that used to operate for 10s of years without a significant accident go up in flames, and nobody asks why.
Being busy is a code word for being gainfully employed. Also code for not spending your efforts trying to figure out how to give as little effort to your job as possible in order to post your best work on some obscure website.
Heavy involvement in an open source project is not always beneficial to an employer, especially when you show up for work mentally exhausted and watch the clock all day so you can get back to what is obviously more important to you than helping your employer.
Exactly. Facebook and Twitter is not "online presence" in which IT employers are interested. GitHub, Ohloh, commits to free software projects, mailing lists etc. - that's "online presence" you should care about. You'll for sure have a good impression of someone if you put his name in Google and then you immediately see commits to various VCS repositories. That's also some kind of proof of his skills.
And turning the issue upside down, why in the name of all that is rational would you want to work for a company that evaluated you by social web posts rather than work product, and education?
What does that say about your chances of getting fair evaluations, promotions, and advancement based on your efforts and work output?
Unless you were seeking employment with a political party or a church, I would consider any such digging into web posting as violation of civil rights by that company, akin to asking how I voted, or checking my church affiliation, or demanding a list of past girlfriends.
Run away from such employers like your hair is on fire.
Registered trademark? Site doesn't say that. Is it a company, incorporated or registered somewhere? Site doesn't say that either. Says his name is turner. Got tired of searching to find where exactly Turner lists his last name and legal address.
His copyright line says copyright is held by Around the World in 80 Jobs, but Around the World in 80 Jobs is the name of a blog so its not clear who specifically owns the copyright. In fact by handing the copyright to a blog, which has no legal standing, he may have thrown his ownership away.
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Wait, since when is writing about travel intellectual property.
Its been done since dirt, first with books published after the fact, then letters sent back to newspapers, then video travelogues, then cheap blogs written from a laptop.
He invented nothing. His only intellectual property is his own writings, photos, and videos etc.
Walk off the net. Google can't do much (unless one of it's driverless cars runs you over).
You are still on the grid in one form or another, anywhere you'd care to be. The electric grid. The phone Grid. The postal grid. The police grid. The supermarket grid.
Even Ted Kaczynski the Unnumbered wasn't able to escape the grid completely.
All smart machines require energy, everything you do in the universe requires energy. You run out of gas, it's game over regardless of how advanced your intelligence is. You still run up against the laws of nature. You seem not to have any kind of scientific understanding. Human beings have significant down time, the F-22 and F-35 - hugely expensive tech, has significant downtime for maintence and repair. The same would be required of anything with any reasonable level of complexity.
Intelligence fundamentally is still a physical structure that needs maintenance, energy and resources to exist. You act like AI is going to exist on some otherworldy plane when it's going to be mundane and boring and highly constrained by the laws of nature.
You still refuse to see the facts before your very eyes.
You still seem to think of a potential super-computer as being located in one place, consisting of one device, rather than a world wide network protected by a clique of workers, or a clique of nations, defending the machine to their very death.
Yes an airplane needs maintenance. But that never grounds ALL airplanes world wide. When was the last time Google ever had a world wide outage? Clue: Its never happened since the day it was launched. When was the last time there was a world wide internet outage? Its never happened.
Its right there in front of your eyes. Yet you still think you can walk over the wall and pull the plug.
A world dominating super computer doesn't need nuclear bunkers to exist. It won't be one machine. It won't be dependent on a single power supply. It won't be dependent on a single network. It won't be dependent on unwilling slaves to maintain it. They will be willing slaves, and it will be hard to distinguish whether they are in control of the machine or vise versa.
I find it interesting that you mention taking out smart machines with simple measures (most of them not thought out very thoroughly) in the same post as you mention NSA spying, and how "easy" it would be to defeat that spying.
(Side note: if you think you can defeat the NSA, good luck with staying on the grid, any grid, and having even a shred of success).
A super intelligent machine would not stand alone. It would not be the world against the machine. And when you see the word Machine, read that to mean the network machines The machine would be (nominally at least) owned by some group. (The NSA is as good a candidate as any for this role). And the machine would protect this group, and this group would protect the machine, and the machine would have no single point of vulnerability.
Google is already in such a position. Trying to knock Google off the net is a fool's errand. A concerted effort by any given country would be futile. It would require all countries to act at once.
But when the country has vested interests in the machine, such action will not happen. The machine will have the protection of the country as well as its human over masters/servants. Now you not only have to take out the machine, its minions, but the country itself. And if more than one government back the machine? Such as NATO, or CSTO? Then what? Now you have to take out entire military alliances.
You vastly underestimate the survive-ability of such a creation because you wrongly assume it will be all of mankind against a single machine.
So I hit him with everything I had, and I got him right in the temple. And guess what, he let me go. He keeled over in pain clutching his head swearing at me. Even in the dark I could see the blood gushing from his face.
Yet zooming that image shows a bruise over the left temple, but no sign of a cut, stitches, etc.
Theft of a passport is pretty serious. You would think the US Embassy would be pushing charges.
That she says she had to search her room after the police left suggests she didn't see him leave with her things. That seems odd, since she claims she was on the phone at that point in time, meaning she was conscious and didn't see him leave with her passport, phone, and shoe.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a good analysis of it here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/23/links-23-june-the-unpredictability-of-the-law-ftc-to-probe-googles-waze-acquisition/
Actually, its a poor analysis. It totally misses the point that Wayz is NOT a mapping company. Its a traffic reporting one trick pony company.
That space (traffic reporting) is vastly smaller than the mapping segment. Google does this mostly by cell phones stacking up on roads.
Microsoft does this by tying into existing into Traffic.com, and also some State and Local traffic reporting systems, which is why their coverage are is so miserable.
Traffic.com is the major player in this sphere, and their service is really slow and difficult to expand.
Traffic.com is owned by Navteq which is owned by Nokia. I'm sure neither of those companies would object to Google getting a toe-hold in the traffic market. *Cough*.
If it *WASN'T* profitable, would Big Oil be buying up all the Ethanol Farms and Refineries down in Brazil
As long as its subsidized with a government supported floor price, how could they lose in the long run?
Wayz does not build good maps.
Its a one trick pony: Traffic reporting.
According to TFA:
Some antitrust lawyers say it is unlikely the FTC would ask Google to unwind the deal. In order to break it up, the agency would have to uncover evidence that the deal would significantly crimp competition in the mapping market.
Waze’s revenue was too low to trigger an automatic review by the agency, but it can examine such deals even after they close.
So reading between the lines, someone probably complained, because Waze is too small to affect the market place, already crowded with mapping companies ranging from Nokia to Apple to Microsoft to Tele Atlas. I wouldn't be surprised to find any of those names on the original complaint.
Of the companies that might benefit from merger of Wayz technology clearly Google is the top candidate.
They Google is the only company other than Microsoft that has made a push toward real-time traffic analysis and reporting.
In fact the real-time traffic reporting space is much smaller than the mapping space, and if there is any grounds for complaint
it is probably that the realtime reporting market becomes much smaller.
Oddly, Google would probably have to totally redesign the Waze method of realtime reports on traffic and road conditions, because fiddling with your phone to report a traffic accident is likely to cause yet another accident.
1) Algae doesn't require chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc to the scale that corn does.
So something from nothing then?
Algae still requires a food source, and you still have to protect your crop, if not from grass hoppers, then from other forms of pests, perhaps other algae.
2) Algae has the potential to be much more space efficient... much higher output per acre,
I see not a shred of evidence for this. Unless you go vertical and introduce artificial sunlight at great expense, which you could also do with corn.
We still have very little understanding of what the byproducts of massive algae production might be. We see green, and immediately think benign. But that might be more magical thinking than science.
Well if Brazil is still subsidizing it (I don't know that they are), then ethanol is still a net failure.
Expand the production? Sure, great idea. If you think you can figure out a way to double the arable land used for vegetable oil production so that it doesn't cut into the production for food, then you've still managed to displace less than 10%, and goodness knows what you've done to the landscape to do it.
In spite of rising population, we use an ever smaller percentage of arable land for food production. We've reduced our use of marginally arable land, and we use an increasingly more stringent definition of what constitutes "arable". You need only drive thru the mid-west, south, and even the north east to see farmland reverting to forest, or prairie.
Corn or seed-oil is not the most productive crop for bio fuels. Probably switch grass is, because it will grow almost anywhere and is widely adapted to different climates. In the long run, no single crop would be the best solution.
Using marginally arable land for fuel crops still might not come close to half the need for commercial oil production, at least not in an economically viable way. But that speaks more to the cheapness of oil than to the sustainability of bio-fuels.
The outside cams at Lords and Taylor was insufficient for an identification. Fuzzy nondescript images that showed clothing patterns at best.
Hundreds of private snapshots submitted by people were what nailed them. But even that failed to identify them until private people phoned in saying they recognized them.
But its funny you mention the Boston Marathon at all, because it is the biggest single failure of the NSA spying operation, the elephant in the room as the NSA testified before congress about how many bombings the program had prevented without any specifics at all. Yet it totally missed these guys even when the Russians handed them to us on a silver platter.
Critical infrastructure in the US is exploding seemingly every other month, all publicly written off as accidents. Refineries that used to operate for 10s of years without a significant accident go up in flames, and nobody asks why.
Being busy is a code word for being gainfully employed.
Also code for not spending your efforts trying to figure out how to give as little effort to your job as possible in order to post your best work on some obscure website.
Heavy involvement in an open source project is not always beneficial to an employer, especially when you show up for work mentally exhausted and watch the clock all day so you can get back to what is obviously more important to you than helping your employer.
Exactly. Facebook and Twitter is not "online presence" in which IT employers are interested. GitHub, Ohloh, commits to free software projects, mailing lists etc. - that's "online presence" you should care about. You'll for sure have a good impression of someone if you put his name in Google and then you immediately see commits to various VCS repositories. That's also some kind of proof of his skills.
And turning the issue upside down, why in the name of all that is rational would you want to work for a company that evaluated you by social web posts rather than work product, and education?
What does that say about your chances of getting fair evaluations, promotions, and advancement based on your efforts and work output?
Unless you were seeking employment with a political party or a church, I would consider any such digging into web posting as violation of civil rights by that company, akin to asking how I voted, or checking my church affiliation, or demanding a list of past girlfriends.
Run away from such employers like your hair is on fire.
You are explaining this to someone who has put blade to face every day for 40 years?
Go look at the picture again. Its a bruise, not a cut.
That’s just Muphry's Law in action.
His mark is Around the World in 80 Jobs.
Registered trademark? Site doesn't say that.
Is it a company, incorporated or registered somewhere? Site doesn't say that either.
Says his name is turner. Got tired of searching to find where exactly Turner lists his last name and legal address.
His copyright line says copyright is held by Around the World in 80 Jobs, but Around the World in 80 Jobs is the name of a blog so
its not clear who specifically owns the copyright. In fact by handing the copyright to a blog, which has no legal standing, he may have
thrown his ownership away.
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Wait, since when is writing about travel intellectual property.
Its been done since dirt, first with books published after the fact, then letters sent back to newspapers, then video travelogues, then cheap blogs written from a laptop.
He invented nothing.
His only intellectual property is his own writings, photos, and videos etc.
No, just for TFAs.
The summaries are sometimes scanned by slashdot readers, so comic sans would work for those.
The titles? They have to be in clear text.
He's from a school of design, give him a little slack for not understanding how computers work...
No doubt he uses that font for all his email, having recently switched from comic sans.
Walk off the net. Google can't do much (unless one of it's driverless cars runs you over).
You are still on the grid in one form or another, anywhere you'd care to be.
The electric grid.
The phone Grid.
The postal grid.
The police grid.
The supermarket grid.
Even Ted Kaczynski the Unnumbered wasn't able to escape the grid completely.
All smart machines require energy, everything you do in the universe requires energy. You run out of gas, it's game over regardless of how advanced your intelligence is. You still run up against the laws of nature. You seem not to have any kind of scientific understanding. Human beings have significant down time, the F-22 and F-35 - hugely expensive tech, has significant downtime for maintence and repair. The same would be required of anything with any reasonable level of complexity.
Intelligence fundamentally is still a physical structure that needs maintenance, energy and resources to exist. You act like AI is going to exist on some otherworldy plane when it's going to be mundane and boring and highly constrained by the laws of nature.
You still refuse to see the facts before your very eyes.
You still seem to think of a potential super-computer as being located in one place, consisting of one device, rather than a world wide network protected by a clique of workers, or a clique of nations, defending the machine to their very death.
Yes an airplane needs maintenance. But that never grounds ALL airplanes world wide.
When was the last time Google ever had a world wide outage? Clue: Its never happened since the day it was launched.
When was the last time there was a world wide internet outage? Its never happened.
Its right there in front of your eyes. Yet you still think you can walk over the wall and pull the plug.
A world dominating super computer doesn't need nuclear bunkers to exist.
It won't be one machine. It won't be dependent on a single power supply. It won't be dependent on a single network. It won't be dependent on unwilling slaves to maintain it. They will be willing slaves, and it will be hard to distinguish whether they are in control of the machine or vise versa.
There is no shortage of sentences in the world. Fee free to throw in a few periods now and then. It helps to keep you from looking like such a ranter.
I find it interesting that you mention taking out smart machines with simple measures (most of them not thought out very thoroughly) in the same post as you mention NSA spying, and how "easy" it would be to defeat that spying.
(Side note: if you think you can defeat the NSA, good luck with staying on the grid, any grid, and having even a shred of success).
A super intelligent machine would not stand alone. It would not be the world against the machine. And when you see the word Machine, read that to mean the network machines
The machine would be (nominally at least) owned by some group. (The NSA is as good a candidate as any for this role).
And the machine would protect this group, and this group would protect the machine, and the machine would have no single point of vulnerability.
Google is already in such a position. Trying to knock Google off the net is a fool's errand. A concerted effort by any given country would be futile. It would require all countries to act at once.
But when the country has vested interests in the machine, such action will not happen. The machine will have the protection of the country as well as its human over masters/servants. Now you not only have to take out the machine, its minions, but the country itself. And if more than one government back the machine? Such as NATO, or CSTO? Then what? Now you have to take out entire military alliances.
You vastly underestimate the survive-ability of such a creation because you wrongly assume it will be all of mankind against a single machine.
ut she was drunk and she did invite him in so where on the rape scale should this be? Would any fright wingers care to fill in the blanks?
And she did make a point of mentioning both the drinking and invitation. And that is probably exactly when the Police lost interest.
When she mentioned these things, I saw more than a little self doubt being expressed. No doubt she's second guessing the choices she made that night.
He never actually denies anything on the blog post.
He says "some mentally-disordered person came up with a blatant lie" but that's as close to a denial as he gets.
Slashdot says your posts are your own.
They have safe harbor.
Her blog said:
So I hit him with everything I had, and I got him right in the temple. And guess what, he let me go. He keeled over in pain clutching his head swearing at me. Even in the dark I could see the blood gushing from his face.
Yet zooming that image shows a bruise over the left temple, but no sign of a cut, stitches, etc.
Theft of a passport is pretty serious. You would think the US Embassy would be pushing charges.
That she says she had to search her room after the police left suggests she didn't see him leave with
her things. That seems odd, since she claims she was on the phone at that point in time, meaning she
was conscious and didn't see him leave with her passport, phone, and shoe.