The real genius here is that after people accept this business model, Google can charge a premium to advertisers to "break through" to the user... I'm sure it's in the fine print already... you can pay to ignore "standard" tier advertisements, but it says nothing of Premium tier.
That sounds like a 0th world problem...
It's almost like the system was BUILT TO BE GAMED.
What kind of effort do you think it will take to get Disney to certify my content as authentic?
Once you understand the principles of relativity... it's trivial to post a comment before your competitors.
The trouble with this, is that it assigns all risk to the inventor... and a _relatively_ low value even if they succeed. What happens if someone solves fusion, but decides, that a 10B prize plus royalties is actually LESS money than just producing and licensing the technology privately... Then one corporation or nation-state has patentable control over the tech and will make 100BGv* a year.
*BGI = Bill Gates' value
Vote with your boots. Either kick ass or walk away or both. If you can sue, do so. Find out what your legal remedies are per the contract you signed. I presume that's why there was a contract rather than a handshake. Make it clear to your sales rep that you will not be renewing your contract unless the issue is resolved in a specific amount of time. Business isn't for friendships, and sometimes you have to burn some bridges.
It's only Obama's administration for a few more years. Then it will be someone else's administration. But the distrust will remain. I maintain that NOBODY trusts the government, it's just that they stop complaining about it when their darling is in office.
I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or if you actually buy your own bullshit, but just in case it's the latter, I'm going to bust your chops a little here:
I think most Americans would be accepting of a dual key system as you have described above if they were able to trust the escrow... the problem really comes down to this: NOBODY trusts the US gov'ment to actually hang on to that crap. It's just too easy to exploit. You might think that hey, if only the FBI has access to this, it's cool. But in no time, you've got a US marshal that gets a warrant, and then asks the FBI for the key... then you've got a state general attorney that asks for the key, then a detective... and pretty soon, the FBI is a rubber stamp committee that just doles them out to any person who asks. Now a day doesn't go by that I don't see a story in the news about a corrupt local cop, a corrupt AG (hell we've got two in a row here in Utah), or a corrupt marshal. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE PEOPLE TOO, and that means there will be abusers of the system. They will use their access to this system to abuse it, and the whole point of the fourth amendment was to prevent searches that were not pursuant to a specific instance of probable cause.
I have yet to see a case in the news that validates the idea that encryption hinders investigations... because in every case, there was some other probable cause that allowed them to look at the encrypted device in the first place. In those cases where law enforcement gets a warrant, if the suspect refuses, they can hold the suspect in contempt indefinitely. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen a case where a child was in eminent danger, and quick decryption of a suspect's data provided the key to saving that child.
I blame Jack Bauer for this. People watch too much TV and think, oh, it sure would be nice if cops could punch bad guys until they give up the location of the nuke, when in fact that is the opposite of what does happen. These things are either spotted and stopped well in advance, or we fail to stop them.
You would've preferred square tires?
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
I came here to say this... +1!
Haha... same here. Last weekend my wife and I set out to test drive the brand new Sequoia. We made a bet before we got out of the car... I bet we wouldn't be able to walk from our car to the new car before being assailed by a hungry salesman, she bet that we wouldn't even see a salesman. She won the bet, and we were ignored for 30 minutes while we poked and prodded the SUV, and then we walked back to our car and drove away without a test drive since nobody gave two shits about us. The dealership model is dead.
My understanding is that gravity irregularities (caused by the lobular shape, as opposed to a spherical shape) are going to be one of the biggest challenges. How do you calculate the correct amount of thrust when gravity decreases as you get closer to your landing spot? All these things need to be accounted for, and there are plenty of unknowns still.
Shame we can't watch it real-time... that would be a popcorn moment no doubt.
Unfortunately, with fraternal twins, there are two umbilical cords and two placentas... so there can be variance in nutrition and oxygen... heck, even with identical twins oxygen levels can vary. Still, it WOULD be an interesting study.