4,035 karma · joined August 13, 2014
I would not be surprised to see someone argue for a new class of property rights for owners, surrounding the reproduction of a scene or location where the reproduction has commercial value. What happens if Facebook bootlegs the Mall of America for Oculus? Does that lower the value of a similar venture by the mall's owners?
Can someone wearing a few cameras walk through a building and digitise it completely without getting the owner's permission? Here in Australia, "copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast," for instance. (Copyright Act 1968 §66)
I suppose doing it with ultrasound is a little simpler, and avoids problems if we have to duck into a different room due to a schedule conflict.
(https://twitter.com/Merman_Melville/status/10885276937573498...)
The evidence that things are moving away from us is that as the universe expands, the wavelength of any light travelling through it also expands, shifting it towards the red end of the spectrum: redshift. (Think of the wavelength of a wavy line drawn on a piece of rubber that's then stretched out.) We've known for nearly 100 years that the universe is expanding. (Edit: not just that the objects in it are moving apart but that space itself is expanding.)
The evidence of accelerating expansion is that based on the redshift of nearby objects, we would expect distant objects to have a higher redshift than they actually do. That means they were moving away from us slower in the past, so something must be accelerating them.
We use the brightness of Type Ia supernovae to measure distance. Even though supernovae aren't identically bright, their brightness follows a curve which lets us calculate their peak brightness (they are standardizable).
This paper argues that the calculations cosmologists use to standardize supernovae brightness fail to take into account the age of the progenitor stars, as far as I can tell. If true, this means our distance measurements are inaccurate and these stars are actually closer than we thought, enough to restore to linear relationship between distance and redshift that one would expect in a universe expanding at a constant rate.
In other words, their redshift is lower not because the expansion rate of space was lower in the past, but because they're not as far away as we thought they were.
[0] https://blog.google/products/chrome/better-password-protecti...
Hook it up to RSS and away you go.
• I want to send my password (44) to Google but don't want them to know it's 44. So I multiply it by 37 (Kc) and send 1628.
• I also tell Google that the password is between 40 and 50. (Equivalent to sending three characters of cleartext.)
• Google multiplies 1628 by 78 (Kg) and sends me the result, 126984.
• Google also sends me every number between 40 and 50, multiplied by 78.
• I divide 126984 by Kc and get 3432. I see that 3432 is in the set of other numbers Google sent me (44x78). So I can infer that my password is in Google's set of breached passwords.
Is there resin on the side of the liner that's plugging the lateral? In other words, you may still get odors if the thing that's doing the plugging is releasing chemicals on its exterior.
It's the same point Stoller is trying to make: Financiers "find big markets and then dump capital into one player in such a market who can underprice until he becomes the dominant remaining actor."