January 8, 2003Archive intern Malcolm Sutherland gathered these images of ancient petroglyphs during a hike in the desert surrounding Arcosanti. [Photos: Malcolm Sutherland & text: sa]
French commercial broadcaster M6 Group will tomorrow launch four online TV channels on its 6play app.The four new channels on 6play are Styles, focusing on fashion and beauty, Stories, comprising television movies, Comic, a comedy channel and Crazy Kitchen, covering cooking.Valéry Gerfaud, CEO of M6 Web, said that the ambition for 6play is to give TV viewers the possibility of consuming the huge amount TV content available online and outside the existing seven-day catch-up window.Contnet on the channels has previously appeared on M6 Group channels M6, W9 and 6ter.The channels will be free to view and financed by advertising. Gerfaud said that the group would market the fact that it is delivering a premium audience within a branded environment.6play attracts 10 million unique users a month. M6 said it could add more new channels in the future.
You may have also noticed that both gold and silver rallied at the 8:20 a.m. EST Comex open in New York, but at 9:10 a.m., 50 minutes later, both rallies ran into the usual sellers of last resort. For the day, Kitco recorded the loses as follows: gold down 1.12%, silver down 1.85%, platinum down 1.95% and palladium down 2.19%. The dollar index opened at 80.84 on Sunday evening, and within a few hours had “rallied” to its 80.91 high of the day. After that it was a long, slow slide into the 80.58 low which came at precisely 10 a.m. in New York, which just happened to coincide with the London p.m. gold fix. The subsequent rally topped out at 80.79 around 12:40 p.m. in New York, and then chopped sideways into the close. The index closed at 80.73, which was down 11 basis points from Friday’s close. The 12:40 p.m. high in the dollar coincided precisely with the low ticks in gold and silver during the Comex trading session. Not surprisingly, the gold stocks opened lower and continued to decline until their low tick, which came minutes after 3:30 p.m. A smallish rally into the close cut the HUI’s loss to only 2.01%. And as you already know, JPMorgan et al didn’t spare platinum and palladium, either. Here are the charts. This engineered price decline may not be done until December goes off the board Gold was under selling pressure right from the 6 p.m. EST New York open on Sunday night. Ten bucks got sliced off the price between then and 11:30 a.m. EST on Monday morning. Then the HFT boyz took another ten spot off the price in a bit over an hour. The low came around 12:35 p.m. in New York, the dollar index high, and the subsequent rally attempt gained back about six bucks or so. The CME recorded the low tick at $1,269.20 in the December contract. The high was the Friday afternoon EST close. Gold finished the Monday trading session at $1,276.00 spot, down $14.40 on the day. Net volume was not overly heavy at a hair under 99,000 contracts. The non-eventful November delivery month continues to live up to its advance billing, as zero gold and one lonely silver contract were posted for delivery tomorrow. There was another withdrawal from GLD, as an authorized participant withdrew 38,594 troy ounces. And as of 10:04 p.m. yesterday evening, there were no reported changes in SLV. Since yesterday was Monday, there was a sales report from the U.S. Mint. They sold 6,000 ounces of gold eagles; 1,000 one-ounce 24K gold buffaloes; and 361,000 silver eagles. Over at the Comex-approved depositories on Friday, they reported receiving 32,026 troy ounces, and shipped out a smallish 1,171 troy ounces. The link to that activity is here. For a change, there was very little in/out activity in silver. Nothing was reported received, and only 10,180 troy ounces were shipped out the door. The link to that movement is here. I don’t have all that many stories today, and I hope you find some in here that interest you. I see little reason why silver and gold should move in constant lockstep. More individual patterns in silver and gold, from exchange warehouse stock levels and movements, to ETF inflows and outflows, to production and consumption statistics and to the fact that central banks own, buy and sell gold and not silver, argue that price action shouldn’t be joined at the hip. The question becomes what is causing gold and silver prices to move in tandem, or more broadly, causing most absolute price movement? The answer is almost undeniable – electronic trading on the Comex. Gold and silver prices rarely move on real world supply/demand considerations; prices usually move when the commercials are zooming the technical funds in some way; rigging prices to induce tech fund buying or selling. Because I believe the price of silver is much more controlled and artificial than is the price of gold, when that artificial control is lifted, silver will climb much higher than gold on a percentage basis. – Silver analyst Ted Butler: 16 November 2013 Despite, or maybe because of, the low volume, JPMorgan et al had their way with all four precious metals again yesterday, at it was another day where “da boyz” took a big slice out of the salami, as Ted Butler is wont to say from time to time. We hit new lows for this move down in silver, and platinum and palladium as well. But not in gold. Here are the six-month charts for all four precious metals. Celebrate Thanksgiving with Sprott Money’s Thanksgiving Sale! For 2 weeks only (November 15 – 28), enjoy FREE shipping & insurance when you buy $4,999 or more at Sprott Money! Owned and managed by Eric Sprott, Sprott Money Ltd. is a leading precious metals dealer selling gold, silver and platinum coins and bullion bars online and over the phone. Don’t miss your chance! Place your order now at http://store.sprottmoney.com/ or call us at 1-888-861-0775! No coupon code required. Since its inception, Sprott Money has prided itself on superior customer relations, providing its clients with only the highest quality bullion products in addition to delivering them discreetly and on time. Sprott Money also offers allocated, segregated, private and non-bank storage services in the US and in Canada. “In the sea of financial assets and currencies that are being decimated the world over, the one true safe haven continues to be gold.” – Eric Sprott As I said sometime last week, this engineered price decline may not be done until December goes off the board at the end of this month. But that’s just speculation on my part. However, with December being a big delivery month in both gold and silver, it’s a good bet that this may be the final washout as the month winds down into First Notice Day. But it’s what happens after that, that really counts. Once JPMorgan and the raptors have finished doing the dirty to the downside, will they go short/sell longs into the next rally? That, and that alone, will determine how high we go in price, and how fast we get there. Nothing else matters. As you’ve seen over the years, and even the last six months, it’s always the same pattern, with JPMorgan and friends capping all rallies as short buyers/long sellers of last resort. Will they be there this time when they allow the tide to turn? Since today is Tuesday, it’s also the cut-off for this Friday’s Commitment of Traders Report. Any and all volume/price data up until the 1:30 p.m. EST Comex close should be in that report, and I’m certainly interested in how the HFT boyz spin prices today. As I write this paragraph, London has been open about six minutes. Gold hasn’t been doing much price wise, and no new lows were set in Far East trading. The price is back to unchanged from Monday’s close, but the day is young. I’m sure you’ve carefully noted the fact that silver set a new low price tick down about 11:30 a.m. Hong Kong time on their Tuesday, but is almost back to unchanged as well. The same goes for platinum and palladium. Gold volume is pretty light, and most of it is of the HFT variety. But silver volume is much heavier, and a large chunk of that is roll-overs out of December. And, not that it matters, but the dollar index is doing nothing. And as I hit the send button at 5:15 a.m. EST, the smallish rallies in all four precious metals got turned aside right at the London open, and all are trading at or below their respective Monday afternoon closes in New York. Gold volume is a bit under “average”, but is still all HFT. Silver’s volume is high, and although there was some decent roll-over volume earlier, most of the volume now is of the HFT variety as well. The dollar index is still chopping sideways, and basically unchanged. That’s all I have for you today, and I’ll see you here tomorrow. Sponsor Advertisement Nick Laird’s Intraday Silver Sentiment Index chart looks similar, except the silver equities closed down 2.62%. The silver price action was almost a carbon copy of what happened in gold, except the New York low came in a spike down just minutes after 3 p.m. in electronic trading. The subsequent recovery off that low wasn’t allowed to amount to much. The CME high and lows ticks were recorded as $20.80 and $20.29 in the December contract. Silver closed on Monday at $20.395 spot, down 38.5 cents from Friday’s close. Net volume was only 21,500 contracts, and over half of yesterday’s total volume was roll-overs out of the December delivery month. In comparison, the roll-overs out of gold were only a small fraction of the total volume.
Disabled people will only be protected from online abuse when they have “equal and fair” hate crime laws, a leading disabled campaigner has told MPs.Anne Novis, chair of Inclusion London, told the Commons petitions committee that the abuse targeted at disabled people online was “just an echo” of what they experienced on the streets.And she said that the law fails to protect them in both cases.She was speaking to the committee as part of its investigation into online abuse of disabled people, which was launched following a petition set up by former model Katie Price which was signed by more than 220,000 people.Price’s petition called on the government to create a new criminal offence covering online abuse, and to set up a register of offenders.She set up the petition following years of disablist and racist abuse targeted at her teenage son, Harvey, who met members of the committee before the evidence session.But Novis (pictured), who is an adviser on hate crime to the Metropolitan police, the Crown Prosecution Service and British Transport Police, said she did not want to see a separate offence for online abuse or the creation of a register of online offenders.Instead, she said, disabled people just needed “an equal and fair hate crime law”.There is currently no stand-alone offence of disability hate crime, as there is with race hate crime, she said, and disabled people are excluded from offences that protect other groups from the incitement of hatred against them.This means disabled people are not protected from posts on social media that would be breaking the law if they targeted people on the basis of their ethnicity.Novis told the committee: “We desperately need government to take on board that we need an equal and fair hate crime law.”She added: “We know that none of these people will get prosecuted unless they lay hands on us, then they can be arrested for violence and get an aggravated sentence because it’s hate crime.“But apart from that they can be as rude and vitriolic [as they like] and spit in my face, they can target me [for having a] blue badge, they can target me online as much as they like, and they will not get charged with a crime. That is our reality.”She warned that online stalking of disabled people can, and has, led to crimes of serious violence, including torture and even murder.Novis told the committee: “We need that justice and we need you to take it very seriously and understand that people feel they have permission to be horrible to disabled people.”She said many people had “jumped on the bandwagon of welfare reform and the rhetoric around scroungers”.She said: “It’s normal for me to be called a scrounger and assume that I don’t work.“I have an MBE for my efforts but it’s assumed I don’t do anything, that I’m a waste of space, and a burden on society, and the man and the woman on the street, and online, picks up those messages and distorts them.”Novis said she had never had a successful response to reporting online abuse to social media providers.And she said that other countries, such as Germany, were much “firmer” with the owners of social media services like Facebook and Twitter.Price, whose mother also gave evidence about the abuse, had told the committee that the problems faced by her son had grown “worse and worse” over the last few years, with online abuse targeting his skin colour, his size and his impairments.Although two of those responsible were eventually arrested and questioned by police, they never faced court proceedings because there were no appropriate offences to charge them with.She said her son was seen as “an easy target” and she added: “At least I have a voice to speak. People who mock Harvey, they know he hasn’t got a voice back.”Among those who have targeted her son are the comedian Frankie Boyle, who once joked on Channel Four that Harvey was going to rape her.She said: “Frankie Boyle, the disgusting things he said, he said that Harvey was going to rape me.“I complained to Channel Four because they were advertising for the Paralympics and then after the ad break they would have Frankie Boyle on talking about Harvey raping me.”She said that neither Boyle nor Channel Four had apologised.She added: “There’s so many people that have got love for Harvey but then there’s so many people that just find him a good excuse to pick on.”Amy Clarke, a digital assistant for the charity Mencap, also gave evidence to the committee.She said that online abuse “affects people a lot” and she called for stronger laws.She described how she had joined an online Dr Who forum but had to leave it because someone called her “nasty names, such as retard”.She said: “It was aggressive, and I felt very shocked. It made me leave the forum and I reported the person.”She said that police need “to take it seriously. Believing people is really important and not seeing the disability, see the person.”Clarke said there should be “a big button to report abuse online”, which should be “accessible and easy to use”.She said it would also be useful to be able to have a live online chat with a member of staff from the social media provider to make it easier to report abuse.Helen Jones, chair of the committee, said after the evidence session: “What Katie and her family have experienced is extreme and shocking, and other families of people with disabilities can tell similar stories.“Many people suffer online abuse, but the evidence today shows the government must not ignore the particular needs of disabled people in drawing up plans to tackle it.“We will be hearing from more disabled people, their families and other experts as the inquiry continues.”The committee is likely to produce a report on its investigation, and demand a government response, before holding a Commons debate on the issue.
Once the Sender makes a decision about whether to rotate the block, they send ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the Receiver’s brain by concentrating on the corresponding light,”Linxing Preston Jiang, Study First Author and Student in the Allen School’s combined bachelor’s/master’s degree program The Senders wore electroencephalography caps that picked up electrical activity in their brains. The lights’ different flashing patterns trigger unique types of activity in the brain, which the caps can pick up. So, as the Senders stared at the light for their corresponding selection, the cap picked up those signals, and the computer provided real-time feedback by displaying a cursor on the screen that moved toward their desired choice. The selections were then translated into a “Yes” or “No” answer that could be sent over the internet to the Receiver.Related StoriesStudy provides new insight into longitudinal decline in brain network integrity associated with agingComputers, games, crafting keep the aging brain sharpWearing a hearing aid may mitigate dementia risk”To deliver the message to the Receiver, we used a cable that ends with a wand that looks like a tiny racket behind the Receiver’s head. This coil stimulates the part of the brain that translates signals from the eyes,” said co-author Andrea Stocco, a UW assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, or I-LABS. “We essentially ‘trick’ the neurons in the back of the brain to spread around the message that they have received signals from the eyes. Then participants have the sensation that bright arcs or objects suddenly appear in front of their eyes.”If the answer was, “Yes, rotate the block,” then the Receiver would see the bright flash. If the answer was “No,” then the Receiver wouldn’t see anything. The Receiver received input from both Senders before making a decision about whether to rotate the block. Because the Receiver also wore an electroencephalography cap, they used the same method as the Senders to select yes or no.The Senders got a chance to review the Receiver’s decision and send corrections if they disagreed. Then, once the Receiver sent a second decision, everyone in the group found out if they cleared the line. On average, each group successfully cleared the line 81% of the time, or for 13 out of 16 trials.The researchers wanted to know if the Receiver would learn over time to trust one Sender over the other based on their reliability. The team purposely picked one of the Senders to be a “bad Sender” and flipped their responses in 10 out of the 16 trials — so that a “Yes, rotate the block” suggestion would be given to the Receiver as “No, don’t rotate the block,” and vice versa. Over time, the Receiver switched from being relatively neutral about both Senders to strongly preferring the information from the “good Sender.”The team hopes that these results pave the way for future brain-to-brain interfaces that allow people to collaborate to solve tough problems that one brain alone couldn’t solve. The researchers also believe this is an appropriate time to start to have a larger conversation about the ethics of this kind of brain augmentation research and developing protocols to ensure that people’s privacy is respected as the technology improves. The group is working with the Neuroethics team at the Center for Neurotechnology to address these types of issues.”But for now, this is just a baby step. Our equipment is still expensive and very bulky and the task is a game,” Rao said. “We’re in the ‘Kitty Hawk’ days of brain interface technologies: We’re just getting off the ground.” Source:University of WashingtonJournal reference:Jiang, L. et al. (2019) BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains. Scientific Reports. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41895-7 . Reviewed by Alina Shrourou, B.Sc. (Editor)Jul 2 2019Telepathic communication might be one step closer to reality thanks to new research from the University of Washington. A team created a method that allows three people to work together to solve a problem using only their minds.In BrainNet, three people play a Tetris-like game using a brain-to-brain interface. This is the first demonstration of two things: a brain-to-brain network of more than two people, and a person being able to both receive and send information to others using only their brain. The team published its results April 16 in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, though this research previously attracted media attention after the researchers posted it September to the preprint site arXiv.”Humans are social beings who communicate with each other to cooperate and solve problems that none of us can solve on our own,” said corresponding author Rajesh Rao, the CJ and Elizabeth Hwang professor in the UW’s Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering and a co-director of the Center for Neurotechnology. “We wanted to know if a group of people could collaborate using only their brains. That’s how we came up with the idea of BrainNet: where two people help a third person solve a task.”As in Tetris, the game shows a block at the top of the screen and a line that needs to be completed at the bottom. Two people, the Senders, can see both the block and the line but can’t control the game. The third person, the Receiver, can see only the block but can tell the game whether to rotate the block to successfully complete the line. Each Sender decides whether the block needs to be rotated and then passes that information from their brain, through the internet and to the brain of the Receiver. Then the Receiver processes that information and sends a command — to rotate or not rotate the block — to the game directly from their brain, hopefully completing and clearing the line.The team asked five groups of participants to play 16 rounds of the game. For each group, all three participants were in different rooms and couldn’t see, hear or speak to one another.The Senders each could see the game displayed on a computer screen. The screen also showed the word “Yes” on one side and the word “No” on the other side. Beneath the “Yes” option, an LED flashed 17 times per second. Beneath the “No” option, an LED flashed 15 times a second.