Physics is not AI
Business is not AI
Electric cars are only tangentially related to AI.
would you get bill gates to fix your car? i mean he's a really good businessman so he must be a great mechanic! hell if you need open heart surgery i'm sure Elon would be a great choice!
Which one hurts more when dropped on you: a pound of iron, or a pound of feathers?
In their defense, it is because eEconomics perfectly follows t his Douglas Adams quote:
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
As soon as an algorithm is created that can accurately predict the market, investors will start using it, thus altering the market so the algorithm no longer works.
This kind of economic theory is really attaching a name and a measurement system to a phenomena that is already understood. To say the Q-value predicts bubbles is a bit backwards since the Q-value is defined in terms of bubbles. So it really isn't a predictor of anything, any more than a ruler is a predictor of the length of an object or a scale is a predictor of the weight of an object.
.. the best way to address that problem would be for the EU to define the standards and the process to be followed...
This, absolutely this. In order to force someone to turn over information, I have to have a valid subpoena issued by a court with jurisdiction. The fact that they just punted this to "you figure it out" means Google is given arbitrary discretion on how they can fulfil this, and the recourse to disagreeing is to take them to court and sue them again.
If you're going to give someone a right enforced by the government, then you should provide the necessary process to issue a "strike-records decree"...
BTW, Google still tells employees not to talk about this stuff in public, because Google has to so carefully watch its steps. (Disclaimer, I used to be a Google employee this year)
The problem is also the consent decree that says "anything that Google says, it has to actually be doing"... which can end up really nitpicky if lawyers want to be... and "my various governments" are all looking to catch Google for something, anything... so, they are being a bit nitpicky...
I'm reading... but it is like reading a patch file for a language I don't understand, when I don't have the file that is being patched.
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “an order” and inserting “an order or emergency production”; and
That might as well be:
Go to line 57 and insert "else break;"
It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.
Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."
I would come here more often if orasio wrote the summaries.
The problem with the summary is that it assumes the reader is already familiar with the device. Your summary does not suffer from that problem. For instance "prototype eight-terminal device consisting of a magnetic matrix with micro-antennas to excite and detect the spin waves." WHAT spin waves? What is a terminal in this context and why is the a key thing in the summary? The summary already presupposes too much, even for a technical news site.
On the flip side, it would be nice if you didn't also insult the person who asked for clarification. The summary is indeed confusing.
+1 for insightful explanation.
-1 for being an asshat about it.
Before this new version of Firefox, the DRM was delivered via Silverlight. Either way, you are running a closed-source binary blob that handles DRM.
DRM = encryption + key obfuscation.
If DRM was merely encryption that would be great. Then we could save the encrypted streams to our hard disk, then play them while on vacation. Or we could copy those encrypted streams for time shifting. We could decrypt them, then re-encode them into another format for playing on another device. Or take fair-use protected clips from them.
The goal of DRM is to prevent the the end-user from doing the things listed above. But encryption alone isn't enough to do that. You need a way to give the key to the user, but obfuscate the key so that they can only use it limited circumstances. It's infuriating to the user.