Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Robust integration and API capabilities
Advanced security and compliance
Various collaboration tools
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Extensive support
How Do I Save Electronic Signature in Word
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Our user reviews speak for themselves
Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple. Explore probably the most customer-friendly knowledge of airSlate SignNow. Handle your complete record finalizing and discussing method electronically. Range from portable, document-based and erroneous workflows to programmed, electronic and faultless. You can actually produce, provide and sign any papers on any device anywhere. Be sure that your essential business instances don't fall over the top.
Discover how to Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple. Keep to the straightforward guideline to begin:
- Design your airSlate SignNow profile in clicks or log in together with your Facebook or Google bank account.
- Take pleasure in the 30-day time trial offer or go with a pricing prepare that's great for you.
- Get any legal format, create on-line fillable types and talk about them firmly.
- Use advanced functions to Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple.
- Indicator, customize putting your signature on get and gather in-particular person signatures ten times faster.
- Establish intelligent reminders and receive notifications at each and every stage.
Shifting your duties into airSlate SignNow is simple. What comes after is an easy method to Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple, along with suggestions to help keep your fellow workers and associates for better alliance. Inspire your workers together with the best resources to remain on the top of company functions. Enhance productivity and range your business quicker.
How it works
Rate your experience
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
How does bitcoin work? Who actually pays for the mining done?
Approximately once every 10 minutes since January 3, 2009 at 18:15:05 UTC, one miner in the world has found/will find a valid Bitcoin block that meets the current difficulty requirements. When that happens, the block reward and the transaction fees will be distributed to the wallet(s) configured by that miner in that block. These two sources make up all of a miner’s income.Block rewards are the only way that new Bitcoins are min[t]ed. The block reward started at 50 BTC/block and halves every 210,000 blocks. This is why the current block reward is 12.5 BTC/block as of Sept 2017.Transaction fees for a block are the sum of the fees paid for all new transactions included in that block. For example, I might send you .5 BTC and specify a fee of .00004 BTC as incentive for miners to include that transaction in their block. The first miner to include that transaction in an accepted block will then earn that .00004 BTC in addition to the block reward and fees from other included transactions.Early on, transaction fees were a negligible source of miner income since there were very few transactions and the block reward was high. However, as the block reward diminishes and the number of transactions grows this trend will reverse and block rewards will become negligible and transaction fees will dominate earnings.Mining pools are another layer on top of this. Instead of the reward and fees going to a single miner, they instead have a number of miners pooling their efforts and splitting the rewards based on that pool's rules. In this way, if it would normally take you 10,000 years on average to find a block by yourself, you can instead join a mining pool and get small fractions of a block reward regularly based on your mining contribution and the pool's rules.Compare that to solo mining without a mining pool, where until you find a valid block you won't get a single Satoshi.
-
What is the syllabus for first semester in IIT Dhanbad?
Detail Syllabus of First and Second SemesterAMC 11101Mathematics I 3–1–0Calculus-Iuccessive differentiation of one variable and Leibnitz theorem, Taylor’s and Maclaurin’s expansion of functions of single variable, Functions of several variables, partial derivatives, Euler’s theorem, derivatives of composite and implicit functions, total derivatives, Jacobian’s, Taylor’s and Maclaurin’s expansion of functions of several variables, Maxima and minima of functions of several variables, Lagrange’s method of undetermined multipliers, Curvature and asymptotes, concavity, convexity and point of inflection, Curve tracing.Calculus-II: Improper integrals, convergence of improper integrals, test of convergence, Beta and Gamma functions and its properties, Differentiation under integral sign, differentiation of integrals with constant and variable limits, Leibinitz rule. Evaluation of double integrals, Change of order of integrations, change of coordinates, evaluation of area using double integrals, Evaluation of triple integrals, change of coordinates, evaluation of volumes of solids and curved surfaces using double and triple integrals. Mass, center of gravity, moment of inertia and product of inertia of two and three-dimensional bodies and principal axes.Trigonometry of Complex Number, 3D Geometry and Algebra: Function of complex arguments, Hyperbolic functions and summation of trigonometrical series.3D Geometry: Cones, cylinders and conicoids, Central conicoids, normals and conjugate diameters.Algebra: Convergency and divergency of Infinite series. Comparison test, D’ Alembert’s Ratio test, Raabe’s test, logarithmic test, Cauchy’s root test, Alternating series, Leibinitz test, absolute and conditional convergence, power series, uniform convergence.AMC 12101Mathematics I I 3–1–0Vector Calculus: Scalar and vector fields, Level surfaces, differentiation of vectors, Directionalderivatives, gradient, divergence and curl and their physical meaning, vector operators and expansion formulae, Line, surface and volume integrations, Theorems of Green, Stokes and Gauss, Application of vector calculus in engineering problems, orthogonal curvilinear coordinates, expressions of gradient, divergence and curl in curvilinear coordinates.Fourier Series: Periodic functions, Euler’s formulae, Dirichlet’s conditions, expansion of even and odd functions, half range Fourier series, Perseval’s formula, complex form of Fourier series.Matrix Theory: Orthogonal, Hermitian, skew- Hermitian and unitary matrices, Elementary row and column transformations, rank and consistency conditions and solution of simultaneous equations, linear dependence and consistency conditions and solution of simultaneous equations, linear dependence and independence of vectors, Linear and orthogonal transformations, Eigen values and Eigen vectors, properties of Eigen values, Cayley-Hamilton theorem, reduction to normal forms, quadratic forms, reduction of quadratic forms to canonical forms, index, signature,Matrix calculus & its applications in solving differential equations.Differential Equations: Differential Equations of first order and higher degree, Linear independence and dependence of functions. Higher order differential equations with constant coefficient, Rules of finding C.F. and P.I., Method of variation of parameter Cauchy and Legendre’s linear equations, Simultaneous linear equations with constant coefficients, Linear differential equations of second order with variable coefficients; Removal of first derivative (Normal form), Change of independent varaiable, Applications of higher order differential equations in solution of engineering problems.Partial Differential equations: Formation of P.D.E, Equations solvable by direct integration,Linear and non-linear equations of first order, Lagrange’s equations, and Charpit’s method,Homogeneous and non-homogeneous linear P.D.E. with constant coefficients, Rules for finding C.F. & P.I.AP Physics 3–1–0Thermal physics: Concepts of distribution of molecular velocities, Distribution laws and statistics MB, FD and BE, mean free path; Transport phenomena-viscosity, diffusion; thermal conductivity, measurement of thermal conductivity; periodic and a periodic flow of heat; Wiedemann-Franz law. Heat radiation, black body and black body radiation, Planck’s distribution law and its application to classical distribution (Rayleigh-Jeans and Wiens) and total radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann) laws.Modern Physics: Brief idea of molecular spectra, Rigid rotator, spectra of simple molecules, rotation and rotationvibration spectra, Brief idea of wave pocket and wave function, Shrodinger equation, Particle in a Box, Free electron theory; qualitative idea of band theory of solids and Hall effect, Laser and laser systems (He-Ne and Ruby Lasers).Electromagnetics : Maxwell’s field equation, Equation of electromagnetic field, Propagation of electromagnetic waves in different isotropic media, energy of electromagnetic waves, Poynting’s theorem & Poynting’s vector, Rocks and minerals as dielectrics, electrical conductivity and electrical phenomena in rocks, Piezo-, ferro-, tribo-, and pyro-electricity.AC Chemistry 3–1–0Phase Rule and phase equilibrium diagram: Phase rule; degree of freedom, one and two component systems, temperature and composition diagrams, liquid-liquid and liquid-solid phase diagramsElectrochemistry: Electric potentials at interfaces, electrodes, batteries, electrochemical cells and their applications.Organic Chemistry: Basis Organic Chemistry , Isomerism and Stereomers , Name ReactionsInorganic Chemistry: Coordination Compounds and Isomerism , SpectroscopyME Engineering Graphics 1–3–0Drawing instruments and their uses, Indian standards for drawing, Lettering, Types of lines used in engineering graphics: full lines hidden lines, dimension lines, centerlines, section lines construction lines etc.Scales: representative fractions, reducing and enlarging scales, plain scales, diagonal scales and vernier scales. Curves used in engineering practice: conic sections, ellipse, parabola, hyperbola, cycloid, epicycloids, hypocycloid, involutes and spiral.Orthographic projections: First angle and third angle projections, conventions used, orthographic projections of simple solids; Conversion of three-dimensional views to orthographic views.Isometric projections: of simple solids, isometric views, conversion of orthographic views to isometric views; free hand sketching.MME Manufacturing Process 1–3–0Forging: Introduction to Forging, types of tools and their uses, colour representations of different temperature levels, recrystallisation, workability of metals at elevated temperature, safety rules.Casting: Introduction to foundry, Pattern making, types of casting processes, purpose of runner & riser, applications of casting, defects in casting.Fitting: Introduction to fitting jobs, fitting tools and their uses, safety rules.Welding: Welding types, accessories, weldments, safety rules.Machine Tools: Types of tools, Types of Machine Tools and their specifications, safety rules.Measurement: Use of vernier etc for product measurement.EE Electrical Technology 3–1–0Network Theorems (KCL, KVL, Thevenin, Norton, Maximum power transfer) applied to steadystate DC circuit, Single-phase AC circuits and phasor diagrams,series and parallel resonance, Three-phase AC circuits with balanced and unbalanced loads, phasor presentation, measurement of three-phase power by two-wattmeter method.Single-phase transformer: Construction, types, EMF equation, equivalent circuit, phasor diagram, regulation, efficiency, OC and SC tests.DC Machines: Construction, types, principle of operation, EMF and torque equation.DC generator: OCC and external characteristic curves and efficiency.DC motors: speed-torque characteristics, starting, 3- point starter, speed control and efficiency.Three-phase induction motor: Construction, types, principle of operation, torque-slip characteristics,starting methods. Introduction to three-phase synchoronous motor.EAI Electronics Engineering 3–1–0Semiconductorodes and Applications – Introduction Characteristics, dc and ac resistances of a Diode. Half wave and Full wave Rectification. Zener Diodes and then use as regulators, Clippers and Clampers.Bipolar junction Transistor - Introduction, Transistor Operator CB, CE and CC configuration, dc biasing, Operating point, Fixed biased Circuit, Emitter –Stablized Bias Circuit, Voltage Divider Bias.BJT Transistor – Amplification in ac domain, Equivalent transistor model. Hybrid Equivalent model, RC coupled amplifier and its frequency response.Operational Amplifiers – introduction, Differential and Common Mode Operation, OPAMP Basics, Practical OPMAP Circuits. Introduction to field effect transistors and their applications.Digital Electronics – Review of Basic Gates and Boolean algebra, Introduction to Combinational Logic Design, Standard Representations of Logical functions and their Simplification, Combinational Logic Design, Half Adder and Full Adders.Sequential Circuits – Flip flops S-R, J-K and D Application in Ripple Counters.MEMME Engineering Mechanics 3–1–0Fundamentals of Mechanics: Equivalent force system, Equation of equilibrium, Introduction to Structural Mechanics: Force analysis of Frames, Trusses, Shear force, Bending moment analysis of Beams.Friction force analysis: Laws, Sliding and Rolling friction, Screw Jack, Wedge, Belt friction, Collar frictionProperties of surfaces: First moment of area and the centroid, Second moment and product of area, Transfer theorem, Polar moment of inertia.Kinematics of particles: Velocity and acceleration calculations, Relative motion.Particle dynamics: Rectilinear translation, Rectangular and cylindrical coordinates.Linear momentum and moment of momentum: Impulse and momentum relations for a particle, Moment of momentum equation for a single particle and for a system of particles.Introduction to kinematics and kinetics of rigid bodies. Mechanical vibration of single degree of freedom system.HSS11101 English for Science and Technology 3–1–0Language Resource Development: Using appropriate grammatical lexical forms to express meaning-accuracy, range and appropriacy grammatical lexical exercises. Reading, Interpreting and Using Written, and Graphic Information : Using (reading and writing) academic texts, articles in technical journals, instruction manuals/laboratory instruction sheets, safety manuals and regulations, and reports; Using maps, graphs, plan diagrams, flow-charts, sketches, tabulated and statistical data.Writing Appropriately in a Range of Rhetorical Styles i.e. Formal and Informal: Writing instructions, describing objects and processes; defining, narrating, classifying exemplifying, comparing, contrasting, hypothesizing, predicting, concluding, generalizing restating, and reporting; Note making (from books/journals); Writing assignments; summarizing, expanding, paraphrasing; Answering examination questions; Correspondence skills; Interpreting, expressing and negotiating meaning; Creating coherent written tests according to the conventions. Receiving and Interpreting the Spoken Word : Listening to lectures and speeches, listening to discussions and explanations in tutorials; Note taking (from lectures); Interacting orally in academic, professional and social situation; Understanding interlocutor, creating coherent discourse, and taking appropriate turns in conversation; Negotiating meanings with others (in class room, workshop, laboratory, seminar, conference, discussion, interview etc.)AGL & CME Earth System Science 3–0–0AGL ( 2 0 0 )Space Science: Solar System, Age of the Earth, Origin Of Solar System. Meteors and Meteorites.Earth Dynamics : Interior of the Earth, Composition of the Earth, Seismic Waves, Seismograph,Plate Tectonics, Basics of Earthquake, Landslides, Volcanoes. Geological Oceanography : Sea waves, Tides, Ocean Current, Geological Work of seas and Oceans, Tsunami and its Causes, Warning system and mitigationHydrogeology : Water table, Aquifer, Groundwater fluctuation and groundwater composition.Practicals:AP Physics 0–0–3Measurement of thermal conductivity of bad conductors, Optical experiments on Diffractionusing diffracting grating. Experiments on Semi-conductors – measurement of band gap and Halleffect Experiments using He-Ne Laser – Diffraction Experiments to measure Brewster’s angle &find refractive index.AC Chemistry 0–0–3List of Experiments1. Standards of HCl by Standard Sodium Carbonate solution.2. Determination of Temporary Hardness of Tap Water.3. Estimation of Total Hardness of water.4. Determination of Iron in Ferrous Ammonium Sulphate solution (Redox titration).5. Determination of Copper in crystallized Copper Sulphate.6. Estimation of available Chlorine in Bleaching Powder.7. Determination of Molecular Weight of Organic Acid by Titration method.8. Estimation of Sodium Carbonate and bicarbonate in a mixture.9. To determine the saponification number of an oil.1210. To determine the rate of hydrolysis of methyl/ ethyl acetate.11. To prepare Chrome Alum.EE Electrical Technology 0–0–3Experiments on Thevenin’s theorem, R-L-C Series circuit, Single phase power measurement,Characteristics of fluorescent lamp and incandescent lamp, OC and SC tests of single phasetransformer, Open-circuit characteristics of DC separately excited generator, externalcharacteristics of separately excited DC generator, 3 point starter of DC shunt motor, Speedcontrol of DC motor.EAI Electronics Engineering 0–0–31. Study of Electronic Equipment & Components.2. Study of diode characteristics.3. Study of regulated power supply.4. Study of BJT characteristics.5. Study of op-amp characteristics.6. Implementation of Boolean algebra using Logic gates.7. Adder Circuits
-
Is the F-35 an uncompetitive fifth generation fighter plane?
QUESTION DUBBED F - 35 AS AN ‘UN COMPETATIVE 5.0 GEN JET’I will make an attempt to write an unbiased review of F - 35 , Which covers its Evolution, Exceptional advanced Systems - yet what’s written by critics.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^A generation of Airmen seems to have forgotten a simple lesson from history:‘It was leadership, not fancy equipment, that made the difference.’__________________________________________________________________________INTROCUTIONCurrently 5.0 th generation jet fighters are the most Advanced fighter jets in the wo...
-
How is Harvard Business School so out of touch with Apple Pay?
“Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.”-Dionysius Lardner, Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London, 1830It hurts my heart to see an esteemed university publish such a regrettable article. It is also shocking that there was no empirical based insight published, just agenda ladened conjecture. In some ways I am not surprised. Academia has misunderstood the payments industry for over 50 years and I have tried and have been successful to help quite a number of well known professors understand the details. However, if one were to go by the postulations some Professors have presented over the years, the payments industry should not exist. There is much to learn from these insights and surprisingly many of them were adopted by some payment startups, advisors, board members and VCs. I will address the idle conjecture from this article, section by section:Apple Pay’s Technology Adoption ProblemApple wants to convert your iPhone into a digital wallet with Apple Pay. Professors Benjamin Edelman and Willy Shih assess its chances for success and wonder if consumers have a compelling reason to make the switch.This is a mostly correct insight. It may turn out to be ironic wording on the part of the author. To be clear, no one needs to “switch”.On the eve of debuting its digital payment system, Apple Pay, two Harvard Business School professors think the Cupertino company will have trouble coming up with an equally compelling message to drive sales of a service that allows you to pay at the retail counter with a swipe of an iPhone.No iPhones are “swiped” during a transaction, they are held at short distance for a few seconds in front of a customer facing terminal. "What does it do for me as a consumer?" asks Associate Professor Benjamin Edelman. “Why would I want to trade for something that already works [e.g. credit and debit cards], something that doesn't complain when it gets wet in the rain, something that doesn't complain when I launder my pants?"Why would I want to trade in an iPod, for something that already works, the Sony Walkman and use the cassette tapes that already work. This is a comment that shows a professor that truly does not understand the history of technology. Especially, he adds, when those cards give users and additional 1 or 2 percent off the purchase price. “I think Apple has its work ahead in convincing thoughtful and potentially skeptical customers," says Edelman.There is little that one can draw from this passage. There is no loss of 1 or 2 percent if the cards offered them before, they will be offered in the exact same manner via Apple Pay. ON WITH THE SHOWReports say Apple will roll out the digital payment service later this week, with perhaps more details coming at a press conference Thursday. But will it catch on, especially when several other similar services with big name sponsors such as Google have failed to gain much traction?The element that was overlooked by this professor is the fact that very little is similar to the business processes and business relationships Apple used in relationship to Google. Apple choose wisely to work with every element of the existing payments ecosystem. History will show, and likely this university will teach, that this was the primary premise that made Apple Pay the largest change since the invention of the magnetic stripe. Apple has a chicken-and-egg game to solve. Consumers won't use the service unless they are in use at a compelling number of stores. But merchants won’t install the expensive near field communications readers used by Apple Pay unless consumer demand is high.First off, Apple must convince merchants to adopt its service, says Willy Shih, the Robert and Jane Cizik Professor of Management Practice.“I THINK APPLE HAS ITS WORK AHEAD IN CONVINCING THOUGHTFUL AND POTENTIALLY SKEPTICAL CUSTOMERS”Only about 10 percent of retailers use NFC readers, and at least one retailer—Best Buy—stopped using them because they were too expensive. Officials with both Best Buy and Walmart have said the retailers have no plans, at least right now, of accepting the new payments technology in their stores.There will always be a “Chicken / Egg” issue with any system that would require equipment upgrades. However this article assumes over 200,000 of the most popular businesses in the US is not “a compelling number of stores”. It took 30 years for Visa and MasterCard to have over 200,000 businesses. It took over 5 years for Discover to have over 200,000 business locations. The professors did not even do a single empirical study to gain insights about the number of actual businesses and the demand to upgrade. I am performing these studies and can say that early results point of almost 300,000 locations and a demand that has shot up by over 3,000% and growing among small to large businesses.Thus Apple will not have “work” to convince merchants, the huge drive is coming from merchants and banks wanting to implement the service.Best Buy stopped using NFC for only one reason, they were not paying PIN based debit rates for these transactions and Apple is on the way to get these types of cards to be confirmed using biometric PINs. Shih believes merchants who consider adopting Apple Pay will naturally wonder: What do we get out of this? And they will specifically want to know if they will be asked to pay higher fees than credit card companies are charging?The data that Professor Shih has is invalid. The merchant is paying the exact same rate as with any other credit card. What they get out of it is manifold but no one can argue that the increase in speed is one foundational benefit. "Consumers might be motivated to do it, but if I don't have the merchant side in place, it doesn't matter," Shih says. "The merchants certainly aren't going to be motivated if the economic model is less favorable than today. It’s a complicated puzzle."The data that Professor Shih has is invalid. The economic model is not a “complicated puzzle to anyone other then Professor Shih.Apple has touted that Apple Pay will be supported by several leading retailers, including Bloomingdale's, McDonald's, and Macy's—and that it will work at about 220,000 merchant locations across the United States that have enabled contactless payments. But some analysts believe that's a small number compared with the nine million US merchants that currently accept credit cards. In short, Apple has a long way to go to knock off the established credit card system, Shih says.There is some valid information here. However 80% of the dollar volume in retail payment card sales come from 20% of merchants. Apple will have coverage of about 70% of these merchants by year end. My research suggests that a tremendous number of smaller merchants will fill in these numbers as 2015 winds out. "Ecosystems are very delicately balanced, and the current payment system represents a balance that has resulted from 40 years of evolution. There's a lot of inertia around that," Shih says. "You can have great technology, but you really have to line up the complementary assets so all the pieces play with you and they are motivated to make it work. At the end of the day, Apple is going to have to make the economics work for everybody. That is a hard job.”Professor Shih is still functioning on invalid data about the “economics”. The economics are exactly the same.DO CUSTOMERS CARE?Which brings us to the customer side of the chicken-and-egg conundrum. Millions of shoppers have used cards for years, with little hassle. Edelman points out that people will continue to carry cards even if digital payments gain some traction, so the barrier to overcome for mass acceptance is even higher.Millions of people used payment cards every day at Starbucks. But somehow 6 million weekly transactions in the U.S a full 15% of transactions made at the U.S. Starbucks-operated stores are made on the Starbucks wallet. The barriers these users overcome are huge, they have to buy credits using a payment card to even operate the wallet, yet this barrier is overcome 6 million times per week.Edelman has studied Bitcoin, a software-based online payment system, and he sees similarities between technology adoption roadblocks Bitcoin has encountered and issues Apple Pay is likely to face."Apple Pay has the same problems as Bitcoin: There's no reason for the regular consumer to use it," he says. “Why would a consumer want to make a $100 purchase with Bitcoin when the consumer can pay with a credit card and get 2 percent cash back?"There is absolutely no comparison to Apple Pay and Bitcoin. Professor Edelman is also operating on invalid data. The payment card that pays 2% back will continue to pay 2% back with Apple Pay.In addition to the limited number of merchants, Apple Pay appears to be limited to users of the latest iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, and Apple Watch—which leaves out many consumers with older iPhones or Android models.“Apple might be hamstrung by an incompatibility issue that the company intentionally introduced," Edelman says.The system works on iPhone 6 series phones. There is no doubt that there will be similar Android initiatives. The picture is very clear, if you have an iPhone 6 series phone, it works. This is not an incompatibility issue. Shih agrees that selling technology is tricky in a market full of incompatible products.Yes, yes it is."We're in a period now where you see this design competition with competing offerings, and on top of that, you have a platform competition where everyone has their network effects," he said. "It's like PlayStation versus Xbox. The technology convergence has brought us to a place where people are scrambling to come up with a new platform and trying to become the new dominant design.”Great insight about video game platforms. However they have no analogy with the subject of Apple Pay.Other companies that have attempted mobile payments have run into similar problems. Google Wallet was limited by its compatibility with different types of phones and cellular networks. And Softcard, which was backed by major wireless carriers, has seen little traction with its mobile wallet for similar reasons.This is correct. This is one of the most accurate insights from these professors. The destiny of Google Wallet was never in the hands of Google and thus it contributed to the failure of the system. This is not the case with Apple Pay. PITCHING SECURITYOne marketing pitch Apple is sure to try out with potential users is security, especially after notable bsignNowes at Home Depot and Target. When a customer pays with an iPhone, cashiers won't see the consumer's name, credit card number or security code because Apple uses a fingerprint reader on its recent iPhones to confirm identities. And when consumers add a credit or debit card with Apple Pay, the card number is not stored by Apple—instead, Apple provides a unique device account number for each transaction. In addition, the company says it won’t collect consumers' purchase history.Very accurate assertion.Edelman questions whether addressing security and privacy will be enough of a carrot to wean consumers off of their beloved plastic. Hesays other companies have tried to market the security angle, including the RevolutionCard, a PIN-based credit card that had no name, signature, or account number on it so that if it got lost or stolen, it couldn't be used unless the PIN was known. "It was stillborn," Edelman says. "It didn't work as a feature set. No one cared.”Professor Edelman is partly correct about the failure of Steve Case’s Gratis Card and The Revolution Money Card. However the professor is operating on invalid data. Apple Pay is not a card replacement. Apple Pay is a security wrapped around the existing payment card issuer relationship.“APPLE PAY HAS THE SAME PROBLEMS AS BITCOIN. THERE’S NO REASON FOR THE REGULAR CONSUMER TO USE IT”Even recent high-profile data bsignNowes have not led consumers to abandon credit cards in signNow numbers. "Security doesn't work for the thoughtful consumer," Edelman says. "(Data bsignNowes) mostly mean inconvenience for the consumer because the losses are really borne by banks, merchants, and credit cards, not by consumers."Besides, Shih wonders whether data will be any safer with the Apple Pay system.I think Professor Shih may need to conduct a study on how the Target bsignNow impacted consumers. I have not conducted a deep study but can state clearly that some consumers had their bank account zeroed out in the early days of the bsignNow and the banks were not crediting back the transaction that appeared “valid” from debit card bsignNowes. I know of a case where a single mom had missed rent and food because of the missing funds in her checking account for days. Although this is anecdotal, there are many examples vetted by the media. I would also ask Professor Shih to speak with any merchant that has been a victim of a major bsignNow about how systems like Apple Pay would have saved them millions of dollars in fines and replacement costs to card holders. "The fingerprint reader generating a unique code is pretty smart," he acknowledges. "But it electronically seems to do the same thing as a PIN code. And to the extent that the code goes into the existing payment network that's still not secure, have we really accomplished anything?"TouchID is far and away more secure then a 4 digit PIN code. The math is quite simple. But just the logic, it take very little time to guess a PIN number. It takes a great deal of time to try to fake a finger print that is acceptable to TouchID. In many cases it is impossible to fake a fingerprint unless you have intimate access to the target. Thus a faster way to steal money is a PIN number and not a finger print. CAN YOU PAY ME NOW?Other technical questions remain. Edelman wants to know whether Apple Pay will work if the phone isn’t charged, or in areas with poor cell reception?This would be better addressed by studying the technology and not using a a guessing game. Apple Pay will work with zero cell or WiFi reception. Apple Pay will work with a low battery. Apple Pay will stop working if there is no way to power on the iPhone. Apple may release more details tomorrow, so time will tell whether the company will address some of the system's potential shortcomings—and perhaps more important, whether regardless of any shortcomings, merchants and consumers will embrace this new mode of payment. Either way, even if Apple stumbles with its mobile wallet, the company will likely survive the reputation hit.Yes, they addressed the shortcomings. Apple announced that instead of 7 banks supporting Apple Pay payment cards, there are now over 500."Any failure Apple experiences here will be more than offset by the legions of fans that like their other stuff," Edelman said. “I'm not losing any sleep for Apple."I think Professor Edelman can sleep soundly. He has articulated how some academics, even notable academics are all too human. We are fallible. I hope that history is kind with these Professors.
-
Are all the other universes connected to each other? If yes, how?
Cosmic Variance : Everything is ConnectedThey do things differently over in Britain. For one thing, their idea of a fun and entertaining night out includes going to listen to a lecture/demonstration on quantum mechanics and the laws of physics. Of course, it helps when the lecture is given by someone as charismatic as Brian Cox, and the front row seats are filled with celebrities. (And yes I know, there are people here in the US who would find that entertaining as well — I’m one of them.) In particular, this snippet about harmonics and QM has gotten a lot of well-deserved play on the intertubes.More recently, though, another excerpt from this lecture has been passed around, this one about ramifications of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. (Headline at io9: “Brian Cox explains the interconnectedness of the universe, explodes your brain.”)The problem is that, in this video, the proffered mind-bending consequences of quantum mechanics aren’t actually correct. Some people pointed this out, including Tom Swanson in a somewhat intemperately-worded blog post, to which I pointed in a tweet. Which led to some tiresome sniping on Twitter, which you can dig up if you’re really fascinated. Much more interesting to me is getting the physics right.One thing should be clear: getting the physics right isn’t easy. For one thing, going from simple quantum problems of a single particle in a textbook to the messy real world is often a complicated and confusing process. For another, the measurement process in quantum mechanics is famously confusing and not completely settled, even among professional physicists.And finally, when one translates from the relative clarity of the equations to a natural-language description in order to signNow a broad audience, it’s always possible to quibble about the best way to translate. It’s completely unfair in these situations to declare a certain popular exposition “wrong” just because it isn’t the way you would have done it, or even because it assumes certain technical details that the presenter did not fully footnote. It’s a popular lecture, not a scholarly tome. In this kind of format, there are two relevant questions: (1) is there an interpretation of what’s being said that matches the informal description onto a correct formal statement within the mathematical formulation of the theory?; and (2) has the formalism been translated in such a way that a non-expert listener will come away with an understanding that is reasonably close to reality? We should be charitable interpreters, in other words.In the video, Cox displays a piece of diamond, in order to illustrate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The exclusion principle says that no two fermions — “matter” particles in quantum mechanics, as contrasted with the boson “force” particles — can exist in exactly the same quantum state. This principle is why chemistry is interesting, because electrons have to have increasingly baroque-looking orbitals in order to be bound to the same atom. It’s also why matter (like diamond) is solid, because atoms can’t all be squeezed into the same place. So far, so good.But then he tries to draw a more profound conclusion: that interacting with the diamond right here instantaneously affects every electron in the universe. Here’s the quote:So here’s the amazing thing: the exclusion principle still applies, so none of the electrons in the universe can sit in precisely the same energy level. But that must mean something very odd. See, let me take this diamond, and let me just heat it up a bit between my hands. Just gently warming it up, and put a bit of energy into it, so I’m shifting the electrons around. Some of the electrons are jumping into different energy levels. But this shift of the electron configuration inside the diamond has consequences, because the sum total of all the electrons in the universe must respect Pauli. Therefore, every electron around every atom in the universe must be shifted as I heat the diamond up to make sure that none of them end up in the same energy level. When I heat this diamond up all the electrons across the universe instantly but imperceptibly change their energy levels.(Minor quibble: I don’t think that rubbing the diamond causes any “jumping” of electrons; the heating comes from exciting vibrational modes of the atoms in the crystal. But maybe I’m wrong about that? And in any event it’s irrelevant to this particular discussion.)At face value, there’s no question that what he says here lies somewhere between misleading and wrong. It seems quite plain (that’s the problem with being a clear speaker) that he’s saying that the energy levels of electrons throughout the universe must change because we’ve changed the energy levels of some electrons here in the diamond, and the Pauli exclusion principle says that two electrons can’t be in the same energy level. But the exclusion principle doesn’t say that; it says that no two identical particles can be in the same quantum state. The energy is part of a quantum state, but doesn’t define it completely; we need to include other things like the position, or the spin. (The ground state of a helium atom, for example, has two electrons with precisely the same energy, just different spins.)Consider a box with non-interacting fermions, all in distinct quantum states (as they must be). Take just one of them and zap it to move it into a different quantum state, one unoccupied by any other particle. What happens to the other particles in the box? Precisely nothing. Of course if you zap it into a quantum state that is already occupied by another particle, that particle gets bumped somewhere else — but in the real universe there are vastly more unoccupied states than occupied ones, so that can’t be what’s going on. Taken literally as a consequence of the exclusion principle, the statement is wrong.But it’s possible that there is a more carefully-worded version of the statement that relies on other physics and is correct. And we might learn some physics by thinking about it, so it’s worth a bit of effort. I think it’s possible to come up with interpretations of the statement that make it correct, but in doing so the implications become so completely different from what the audience actually heard that I don’t think we can give it a pass.The two possibilities for additional physics (over and above the exclusion principle) that could be taken into account to make the statement true are (1) electromagnetic interactions of the electrons, and (2) quantum entanglement and collapse of the wave function. Let’s look at each in turn.The first possibility, and the one I actually think is lurking behind Cox’s explanation, is that electrons aren’t simply non-interacting fermions; they have an electric field, which means they can interact with other electrons, not to mention protons and other charged particles. If we change the ambient electric field — e.g., by moving the diamond around — it changes the wave function of the electrons, because the energy changes. Physicists would say the we changed the Hamiltonian, the expression for the energy of the system.There is an interesting and important point to be made here: in quantum mechanics, the wave function for a particle will generically be spread out all over the universe, not confined to a small region. In practice, the overwhelming majority of the wave function might be localized to one particular place, but in principle there’s a very tiny bit of it at almost every point in space. (At some points it might be precisely zero, but those will be relatively rare.) Consequently, when I change the electric field anywhere in the universe, in principle the wave function of every electron changes just a little bit. I suspect that is the physical effect that Cox is relying on in his explanation.But there are serious problems in accepting this as an interpretation of what he actually said. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the exclusion principle; bosons (who can happily pile on top of each other in the same quantum state) would be affected just as much as fermions. More importantly, it fails as a job of translation, by giving people a completely incorrect idea of what is going on.The point of this last statement is that when you say “When I heat this diamond up all the electrons across the universe instantly but imperceptibly change their energy levels,” people are naturally going to believe that something has changed about electrons very far away. But that’s not true, in the most accurate meaning we can attach to those words. In particular, imagine there is some physicist located in the Andromeda galaxy, doing experiments on the energy levels of electrons. This is a really good experimenter, with lots of electrons available and the ability to measure energies to arbitrarily good precision. When we rub the diamond here on Earth, is there any change at all in what that experimenter would measure?Of course the answer is “none whatsoever.” Not just in practice, but in principle. The Hamiltonian of the universe will change when we heat up the diamond, which changes the instantaneous time-independent solutions to the Schoedinger equation throughout space, so in principle the energy levels of all the electrons in the universe do change. But that change is completely invisible to the far-off experimenter; there will be a change, but it won’t happen until the change in the electromagnetic field itself has had time to propagate out to Andromeda, which is at the speed of light. Another way of saying it is that “energy levels” are static, unchanging states, and what really happens is that we poke the electron into a non-static state that gradually evolves. (If it were any other way, we could send signals faster than light using this technique.)Verdict: if this is what’s going on, there is an interpretation under which Cox’s statement is correct, except that it has nothing to do with the exclusion principle, and more importantly it gives a quite false impression to anyone who might be listening.The other possibly relevant bit of physics is quantum entanglement and wave function collapse. This is usually the topic where people start talking about instantaneous changes throughout space, and we get mired in interpretive messes. Again, these concepts weren’t mentioned in this part of the lecture, and aren’t directly tied to the exclusion principle, but it’s worth discussing them.There is something amazing and magical about quantum mechanics that is worth emphasizing over and over again. To wit: unlike in classical mechanics, there are not separate states for every particle in the universe. There is only one state, describing all the particles; modest people call it the “many-particle wave function,” while visionaries call it the “wave function of the universe.” But the point is that you can’t necessarily describe (or measure) what one particle is doing without also having implications for what other particles are doing — even “instantaneously” throughout space (although in ways that have to be carefully parsed).Imagine we have a situation with two electrons, each in a separate atom, with different energy levels in each atom. Quantum mechanics tells us that it’s possible for the system to be in the following kind of state: each electron is either in energy level 1 or energy level 2, and we don’t know which one (more carefully, they are in a superposition), but we do know that they are in different energy levels. So if we measure the first electron and find it in level 1, we know for sure that the other electron is in level 2, and vice-versa. This is true even if the two electrons are a jillion miles away from each other.As far as I can tell, this isn’t at all what Brian Cox was talking about; he discusses heating up the electrons in a diamond by rubbing on it, not measuring their energies by observing them and then drawing conclusions about entangled electrons very far away. (In a real-world context it’s very unlikely that distant electrons are entangled in any noticeable way, although strictly speaking you could argue that everything is slightly entangled with everything else.) But there is some underlying moral similarity — this is, as mentioned, the context in which people traditionally talk about instantaneous changed in quantum mechanics.So let’s go back to our observer in Andromeda. Imagine that we have such a situation with two electrons in two atoms, in a mutually entangled state. We measure our electron to be in energy level 1. Is it true that we instantly know that our far-away friend will measure their electron to be in energy level 2? Yes, absolutely true.But consider the same experiment from the point of view of our far-away friend. They know what the state of the electrons is, so they know that when they observe their electron it will be either in level 1 or level 2, and ours will be in the other one. And let’s say they even know that we are going to make a measurement at some particular moment in time. What changes about any measurement they could make on their electron, before and after we measure ours?Absolutely nothing. Before we made our measurement, they didn’t know the energy level of their electron, and would give 50/50 chances for finding it in level 1 or 2. After we made our measurement, it’s in some particular state, but they don’t know what that state is. So again they would give a 50/50 chance for getting either result. From their point of view, nothing has changed.It has to work out this way, of course. Otherwise we could indeed use quantum entanglement to send signals faster than light (which we can’t). Indeed, note that we had to refer to “time” in some particular reference frame, stretching across millions of light-years. In some other frame, relativity teaches us that the order of measurements could be completely different. So it can’t actually matter. It’s possible to say that the wave function of the universe changes instantaneously throughout space when we make a measurement; but that statement has no consequences. It’s just one of an infinite number of legitimate descriptions of the situation, corresponding to different choices of how we define “time.”Verdict: I don’t think this is what Cox was talking about. He doesn’t mention entanglement, or collapse of the wave function, or anything like that. But even if he had, I would personally judge it extremely misleading to tell people that the energy of very far-away electrons suddenly changed because I was rubbing a diamond here in this room.Just to complicate things a bit more, Brian in a tweet refers to this discussion of the double-well potential as some quantitative justification for what he’s getting at in the lecture. These notes are a bit confusing, but I’ve had a go at them.The reason they are confusing is because they start off talking about the exclusion principle and indistinguishable particles, but when it comes time to look at equations they only consider single-particle quantum mechanics. They have a situation with two “potential wells” — think of two atoms, perhaps quite far away, in which an electron might find itself. They then consider the wave function for a single electron, ψ(x). And they show, perfectly correctly, that the lowest energy states of this system have nearly identical energies, and have the feature that the electron has an equal probability of being in either of the two atoms.Which, as far as it goes, is completely fine. It illustrates an interesting example where the lowest-energy state of the electron can be really spread out in space, rather than being localized on a single atom. In particular, the very existence of the other atom far away has a tiny but (in principle) perceptible effect on the shape of the wave function in the vicinity of the nearby atom.But this says very little about what we purportedly care about, which is the Pauli exclusion principle, something that only makes sense when we have more than one electron. (It says that no two electrons can be in the same state; it has nothing interesting to say about what one electron can do.) It’s almost as if the notes cut off before they could be finished. If we wanted to think about the exclusion principle, we would need to think about two electrons, with positions let’s say x1 and x2, and a joint quantum wave function ψ(x1, x2). Then we would note that fermions have the property that such a wave function must be “odd” in its arguments: ψ(x1, x2) = -ψ(x2, x1). Physically, we’re saying that the wave function goes to minus itself when we exchange the two particles. But if the two particles were in exactly the same state, the wave function would necessarily be unchanged when we exchanged the particles. And a function that is both equal to another function and equal to minus that function is necessarily zero. So that’s the exclusion principle: given that minus sign under exchange, two particles can never be in precisely the same quantum state.The notes don’t say any of that, however; they just talk about the two lowest energy levels in a double-well potential for a single electron. They don’t demonstrate anything interesting about the exclusion principle. The analysis does imply, correctly, that changing the Hamiltonian of a particle somewhere far away (e.g. by altering the shape of one of the wells) changes, even if by just a little bit, the energy of the wave function defined over all space. That’s connected to the first possible interpretation of Cox’s lecture above, that heating up the diamond changes the Hamiltonian of the universe and therefore affects the wave function of every electron. Which also has nothing to do with the exclusion principle, so at least it’s consistent.In terms of explaining the mysteries of quantum mechanics to a wide audience, which is the point here, I think the bottom line is this: rubbing a diamond here in this room does not have any instantaneous effect whatsoever on experiments being done on electrons very far away. There are two very interesting and conceptually central points worth making: that the Pauli exclusion principle helps explain the stability of matter, and that quantum mechanics says there is a single state for the whole universe rather than separate states for each individual particle. But in this case these became mixed up a bit, and I suspect that this part of the lecture wasn’t the most edifying for the audience. (The rest of the lecture still remains pretty awesome.)Update: I added this as a comment, but I’m promoting it to the body of the post because hopefully it makes things clearer for people who like a bit more technical precision in their quantum mechanics. [Note the mid-update extra update.]Consider the double-well potential talked about in the notes I linked to near the end of the post. Think of this as representing two hydrogen nuclei, very far away. And imagine two electrons in this background, close to their ground states.To start, think of the electrons as free particles, not interacting with each other. (That’s a very bad approximation in this case, contrary to what is said in the notes, but we can fix it later.) As the notes correctly state, for any single electron there will be two low-lying states, one that is even E(x) and one that is odd O(x). When we now add the other electron in, they can’t both be in the same lowest-lying state (the even one), because that would violate Pauli. So you are tempted to put one in E(x1) and the other in O(2).But that’s not right, because they’re indistinguishable fermions. The two-particle wave function needs to obey ψ(x1, x2) = -ψ(x2, x1). So the correct state is the antisymmetric product: ψ(x1, x2) = E(x1) O(x2) – O(x1) E(x2).That means that neither electron is really in an energy level; they are both part of an entangled superposition. If you zap one of them into a completely different energy, nothing whatsoever happens to the other one. It would now be possible for the other one to decay to be purely in the ground state, rather than a superposition of E and O, but that would require some interaction to allow the decay. (All this is ignoring spins. If we allow for spin, they could both be in the ground-state energy level, just with opposite spins. When we zapped one, what happens to the other is again precisely nothing. That’s what you get for considering non-interacting particles.)[Second update: the below two italicized paragraphs are wrong, my bad. It’s actually quite a good approximation (although still an approximation) to ignore the electromagnetic interactions of the electrons, because after antisymmetrization you will almost always find precisely one electron in each well. If electrons were bosons, you’d get a similar quantum state because the interactions would be important, but for fermions the exclusion principle does the job. Final paragraph is still okay.]But of course it’s a very bad approximation to ignore the interaction between the two electrons, precisely because of the above analysis; it’s not true that one is here and one is far away, they both are equally distributed between being here and being far away, and can interact noticeably.Since electrons repel, the true ground state is one in which the wave function for one is strongly concentrated one one hydrogen atom, and the wave function for the other is strongly concentrated on the other. Of course it’s the antisymmetrized product of those two possibilities, because they are identical fermions. The energies of both are identical.Now when you zap one electron to change its energy, you do change the energy of the other one, in principle. But it has nothing to do with the exclusion principle; it’s just because you’ve changed the amount of electrostatic repulsion by changing the spatial wave function of one of the electrons.Furthermore, while you instantaneously change “the energy levels” available to the far-away electron by jiggling the one nearby, you don’t actually change the position-space wave function in the far-away region at all. As I said in the post, you’ve poked the other electron into a superposition rather than being in an energy eigenstate. Its wave function (to the extent that we can talk about it, e.g. by integrating out the other particles) is now a function of time. And the place where it’s actually evolving is completely inside your light cone, not infinitely far away. So there is literally nothing someone could do, in principle as well as practice, to detect any change as a far-away observer.Scientists find first evidence that many universes existThe signatures of a bubble collision: A collision (top left) induces a temperature modulation in the CMB temperature map (top right). The “blob” associated with the collision is identified by a large needlet response (bottom left).By looking far out into space and observing what’s going on there, scientists have been led to theorize that it all started with a Big Bang, immediately followed by a brief period of super-accelerated expansion called inflation. Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org e-Print archive, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.“The conclusive non-detection of a bubble collision can be used to place stringent limits on theories giving rise to eternal inflation; however, if a bubble collision is verified by future data, then we will gain an insight not only into our own universebut a multiverse beyond,” the researchers write in their study.This is the second study in the past month that has used CMB data to search for what could have occurred before the Big Bang. In the first study, Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with lower-than-average temperature variation in the CMB, which could be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over.
-
What are the causes of climate change?
Red Grape at the Jones House:[more on this red grape below - first a review of the basics of global warming]The Basics: Gases in the atmosphere allow sunshine in and trap the heat long enough to warm the atmosphere. Humans for the last 6,000 years have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These have been moved from safe storage buried deep as fossils in the ground - dug up, processed and burned or combusted into the atmosphere.Here's a history of one of the three main greenhouse gases, Carbon Dioxide:Note in this 10,000 year graph, CO2 starts slowly rising around 6,000 years ago (very early coal), but then shoots straight up at the very recent time in the graph.In our Industrial Age, we humans moved from fires, candles and horses to gas powered heat, coal powered electricity, petrol powered automobiles. Average CO2 has moved from a natural range of 180–280, to an unnatural, manmade level over 400. Click here to see today’s CO2 level: The Keeling CurveThis morning at breakfast my sons and I were playing with a laser pointer. This one is a cat’s toy:As we shot the laser at different objects in the room, I noticed how objects like lightbulbs, human fingers and grapes all caught the light and diffused the light, filling the objects, really lighting them up. The laser goes in, light bounces, slows down, and is trapped for a time by the skin of the grape. The neighbor grapes are unaffected, because as the light finally bounces out of the grape, it is too slow to enter the adjacent grape.I thought, that's probably a lot like sunlight. Comes in through the skin of the atmosphere and then bounces around Earth inside the atmosphere warming up the world.Then I thought, if the skin of the grape went from a thickness of three to four, the warming light would be trapped, not for a count of 3 but for a count of 4. Heating longer.kind of like increasing the cook time on the microwave oven from 2:48 to 4:05 minutes. The sun’s heat is trapped longer and warms us a bit longer.Atmospheric CO2 has moved from the year 1750 when it was under 280ppm to the year 2017 - today over 409ppm. This is making the atmosphere, our planetary skin, thicker, and it traps warming light for a longer period of time.It's basic chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, geophysics.That thicker skin of the atmosphere traps more heat and that's the reason for global warming.
-
What is GamerGate (2014)? How did it blow up into such a giant conspiracy?
Long story, short: when proof of lacking ethics in major gaming publications was uncovered, a wall of false SJW victimhood was quickly constructed in order to hide behind and deflect any questions focusing on their corruption.Games were never cheap but their prices have gone up substantially recently. A complete game, which used to cost $40 in 2004 (or $53.50, if inflation corrected for 2018), today, by the time all the DLCs’ and Season Passes’ dust settles, will have set you back at least $150-$180. If the game is good, it could still offer you from 40 to over 100 hours of fun. If it is not good, however, this creates a real problem because returning a game is close to impossible. That is why accurate and honest game reviews are so important. And we always knew that something was not right with professional game reviews.It is not by mistake that so many big publisher games receive a far greater Metacritic score from professional reviewers than from actual gamers (while indie games receive the opposite treatment). In 2014 there was finally a smoking gun: professional gaming journalists and reviewers were caught in bed with game developers and their PR people. Both figuratively and literally. So, in order to cover up the stink, the spin-masters of the multi-Billion dollars industry quickly tried to masquerade this into a sexist harassment issue as a way to keep people from paying attention to the facts and, instead, focus on the staged “outrage”.PULLING ON A SMALL THREAD ENDS UP RIPPING THE CURTAIN:It all started with a female game developer having a string of affairs with some game journalists and publishers, which, of course would be no one’s business but their own. Oldest story in the world, anyone not directly involved would pay exactly zero attention. Only her (now former) boyfriend called them out very loudly and very publicly, by posting proof online. This made some people to take notice and realize that this was not just another case of serial infidelity but, in fact, it looked very much like the exchange of sexual favors in order to (allegedly) secure journalistic exposure and favorable reviews.The fuse was lit and the flame was starting eating its path towards the bomb. The Pied Pipers of the gaming Industry quickly realized that the mice were about to wake up on them. And they collectively tried to change their tune.THE PANIC DANCE AROUND THE LOOT PILE:The professional gaming press has cornered a very profitable niche market. And, besides direct advertising, it depends largely on early access and swag: all-paid trips to gaming conventions and press events with overly generous per diem; exclusive developing studio tours; special and collector’s editions of gaming paraphernalia as gifts that can be sold later at great profit; and, of course pre-release access to new games, because the early review gets the worm. If my competitors have access to the latest over-hyped games and I don’t, my readers will switch over in order to read their reviews on the latest triple-A title. And they will stay there. And if these incentives are not enough, good ol’ bribes rarely fail to deliver the desired reviews.Game publishers and developers have been known to secure favorable reviews for their products by reducing or closing the flow of the above. And they sure get their way: ten years ago, the Evil incArnate of the gaming industry (also known as EA) even had at least one gaming journalist fired for giving one of its games less than an enthusiastic review.So the lack of ethics was painfully real, the profits from such practices were very substantial and so any threat to them was decided to be met with an asymmetric response. As a first salvo, the most entrenched gaming press unleashed a coordinated name-calling attack against anyone who would dare question their “integrity”. It is never a good idea to indiscriminately insult your own audience but they did not stop there. Because next they called in a Rodeo Clown.It has been estimated that the money pile Jocker had amassed from Gotham City’s organized crime syndicates comprised of 6.3 Billion dollars. Well, the Gaming Industry brings in twenty times that amount every year, a growing market second only to China in size.FOLLOW THE CLOWN. FORGET THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN:Anita Sarkeesian is a professional feminist who, since 2007, kept raising thousands of dollars in order to produce SJW videos on YouTube, videos whose production value could be easily matched by 15 year olds on an allowance budget. She psignNowes her controversial politics to a very small, fringe minority and that is why most of her videos have both the comments and voting options disabled. Which is her prerogative, of course. In order to keep the funding coming, however, she kept inviting, instigating and fanning controversy as a way to receive free publicity which, then, tries to turn into more funding - and, when no such reaction could be elicited, she has even been accused of creating it herself. So, even though completely irrelevant to the GamerGate scandal, she was connivingly inserted into the mix.Admittedly she was never good at anything she tried her hand at except stirring up anger in anyone unlucky enough to be exposed to her intentionally inflammatory drivel. Yet that “talent” and her gender was exactly what the gaming press spin-doctors needed in order to change the narrative. By first cultivating and harvesting the angry backlash and then focusing solely on the unethical game developer’s and Sarkeesian’s gender, they tried to turn a story about a severe lack of journalistic ethics into a story of “two poor women under attack by the bad male gamers”. It was a ridiculous smoke screen. But they were not going to be alone in blowing it.THE LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS ARE UP TO BAT:It is no secret that the mainstream media suffer a severe pro-SJW bias. Even on issues they do understand, they tend to focus on the leftist regressive aspects of them - let alone on issues, such as gaming journalism, they care and know very little about. So, even if it was besides the point and it ignored 99% of the GamerGate story, from all of Kotaku’s sister sites (Gizmondo, LifeHacker, i09, Jalopnik, Gawker, Jezebel) to Network news and the Colbert Report (not to mention the Grade-A certified SoyBoy Canadian PM), the purple-haired crowd was triggered to come out en mass to reproduce a false narrative, and, in the process, managed to obfuscate the real issue threatening to be exposed: that gaming journalism is as corrupt as the political one.Now, the people generating the fake outrage may have never been gamers but a lot of women actually are. And they strongly objected to their gender been used so shamelessly to hide dishonest business practices behind - and that is how the secondary #NotYourShield movement got started.Ever since 2014 I have deleted my bookmarks of Polygon, Gamasutra, EuroGamer and, of course, Kotaku (and all its GAWKER tentacles) and never gave them a second thought. Not only are they totally unreliable sources of gaming (or any) information, but their problematic ethics will stop at nothing in order for them to keep getting away with it.
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Related searches to Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
How to create electronic signature image?
How to sign a pdf using wondershare?
Get more for Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple
- Can I Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- Can I Electronic signature Texas Police PDF
- How To Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- How Do I Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- Help Me With Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- How Can I Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- Can I Electronic signature Texas Police Word
- How To Electronic signature Texas Police Word
Find out other Draw Electronic signature Presentation Simple
- Kansas backroadstouring org form
- Mobi ks application kansasaap form
- Insurance department state of kansas pharmacy ksinsurance form
- Kansas hazardous waste transporter registration kdheks form
- Brownfields targeted assessment application package kdheks form
- Arkansas chiropractic society membership form
- Application for registration to access the electronic application submission interface easi arkansas automobile insurance plan form
- Application for new school arkansas state board of massage form
- Consolidated plan amendment form
- Program information arkansas department of human services humanservices arkansas
- Child application arkansas department of human services humanservices arkansas form
- Geology earth science undergraduate scholarship application geosciences uark form
- Ua id legal name iao uark form
- Moving from listing reports to visual reports using sasgraph maps elizabeth ceranowski sas cary nc abstract listing reports form
- Section 3 data model considerations projects at harvard projects iq harvard form
- A definition at last but what does it all mean newspaper are berkeley form
- Compost sample submittal form
- Child safety seat registration form for your child39s transportation nebraska
- Form 123 physician39s initial report of work injury or occupational laborcommission utah
- Form 1099 patr 1099 fire