If Apple adds a better screen, better camera, better CPU/GPU, and more RAM, why should that cause Qualcomm to get more money for one of the chips?
Apple takes a 30% cut (AFAIK) for all apps sold on the Apple Store. No matter whether the app costs $0.99 or $9.99. Why does Apple set a rate based on the final price and not a fixed price per license? The same (once again: AFAIK) for music, videos, books, news papers etc. sold through Apple. Why should Apple get more money per issue sold from a high-price high-quality news paper than from a cheap rag? The service that Apple provides for both is basically the same.
As long as the percentage that Qualcomm asks for per unit isn't unreasonably high and as long as the percentage is the same for all customers of Qualcomm (taking into account the question of whether the customer themselves has patents that are part of the standard) I don't see how Qualcomm violates the FRAND rules.
Please point us to the part in the definition of FRAND that says that you cannot set the license fee based on the price of the final product. I read the definitions of FRAND several times and I just can't find that part.
It's still better than the current solution, where data might be cached in RAM to be written unto the flash driver later. So this change is an improvement.
As somebody who spent half of his life in a socialist country (East Germany) and now lives in a capitalist country with social democratic leanings I can assure you: You are wrong and GP is right.
The VPN is ad free, the browser isn't. I was happy with Opera Mobile for a while, until an upgrade put a "News" Screen that I couldn't disable.
Well, I've been using Opera Mobile forever, and I had no problem deactivating the "Nesw" screen.
The only thing that bugs me a little is that with every other update of the app they add one or more sponsored links to the speed dial. But removing them doesn't take long.
So far the EU has hit Google with about $9.3 billion in fines over the last 3 years.
Seems to be working SOOO well...
The three fines where for behaviour from the last 10 years or so. The fines were not about the exact same thing. We may find out if the fines are working over the next few years.
It is ALSO true it was enough of a problem when Obama was president, the FCC should have been doing something at that point.
If you had watched the Last Week Tonight episode you would know that under Obama the FCC tried to block robocalls. Current FCC chair Pai was on the FCC back then and voted against it. What a surprise.
I'm not sure if you're joking or if you don't understand how this works.
If we're only removing one of the two the clock will move forwards (or backwards) an hour in each of the 5 years, resulting in watches being completly out of sync with the sun, the rest of the world and, well, everything.
"Both of which"? I listed three things, so you should specify which two you are talking about (probably somethng you have and something you are).
My comment didn't make any statement about the usefullness or security of WebAuthn but was only meant to point out that ACs comment was based in misrepresentation.
So instead of something you have / know / are - choose any two - it's now "Something you have."
WebAuthn is not a replacement for 2FA, but for password logins. So where before you only had "something you know" you can now chose between "something you have (FIDO key) / know (password) / are (biometrics)".
If I buy a button to buy X and they ship me Y, they're committing fraud
Sure and if pigs had wheels they would be a wagon. WTF does that have to do with a button for X makes them ship you X?
Maybe you should educate yourself about the things you're commenting about before doing that. If I have a Dash button for a specific product, and the product is out, Amazon reserves the right to send me a similar product instead. If the proce for the product rose between the time when I bought the Dash button and the time I press it to order the product, Amazon will charge me the new (potentially higher) price.
Both of these things break German consumer protection laws.
Last I checked the democracies at least in western Europe work pretty well.
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, election irregularities, fixing the courts with partisan judges, the administration calling the fourth estate the enemies of the people -- all stuff that's undermining democracies, and all stuff that the US is currently known for.
(To be fair: Some of those problems do exist in a few eastern European countries.)
In the UK pedestrians make up 22% of road traffic deaths. In the US it's 12%. Maybe the UK should think about passing some jaywalking laws.
Or one could first check what other differences there are between US and UK traffic and only then, if it is established that jaywalking laws are really the main difference between the two, the UK might consider jaywalking laws.
Personally, I guess that there are other differences like the average number of cars per household, the number of miles people walk on average, the relation of rural roads vs. city roads and more.
OK, if a user has that app installed, inform the user that all apps downloaded from the Play Store will be removed in 48 hours as Android only supports one App store. Then nuke all the apps the users actually need. And they'll crawl back. They could say something that is real. That it's a security issue as all apps in the play store are scanned and Google will not allow third party apps from risking users privacy.
So... Google should react to one court ruling they probably don't like by doing something that will spawn other courts ruling against Google? If Google throws a tantrum and removes apps from my phone that's in violation of a bunch of laws in any sane country. Google runs the Play Store, but that doesn't mean that they can do what they want.
To chose a winner here you have to look at where each party stands on the issue at hand. Saying that FB is horrible in general and that the EU is even worse in general doesn't help in regards to this specific case.
The EU wants FB to follow the law of the land when doing business in the EU. FB doesn't want to change it's TOS to conform to the law. The laws in question strengthen consumer rights and consumer protections.
So for me, the winner in this case is clearly the EU.
So you are saying tht the exact same numbers of malware and virus exist for Linux and PC, and that Windows is just as secure?
I don't see that statement in QPs comment. So... you like putting words in other peoples mouths to make a point?
Silly AC - this is not a tit for tat, where you point out a Linux problem as if it were teh equal of a Windows problem. Sorry, but we are talking about a body of work, and Windows is lapping the field several timas regarding it's abysmal security.
Is it not true that Linux is used on many millions of IoT and network devices? Is it not true that oftentimes the makers of these devices do not provide any meaningful support after the release of the devices? Is it not true that over and over again such devices are found to have fixed passwords, gaping security holes ore are using libraries with known security problems?
That doesn't make the problems with Windows any better, but it shows that the Linux world has it's own set of problems. Neither party has any right to look down upon the other one.
Another thing to note is that people who walked from place to place may be tempted to take public transit.
This is bad for transit (higher crowding) and bad for the city (less street-side commerce, higher centralization of commerce, less vibrant street).
Your argument doesn't hold up. Within the city of Tallin, public transport was already free. It doesn't seem to have caused the problems you describe. And I doubt your argument applies outside of Tallin, as Villages and Towns usually are not really in walking distance.
If you're required to edit plaintext on other people's computers - I feel sorry for you.
Not needed for linux setups - you ssh in (or sshmount their fs) and do all work from your own office/computer. No getting used to their keyboard setup or whatever.
Well, it's great if that works in your setup. But you don't always have complete control.
We have some 10.000 Linux server appliances running within our customers networks. We don't have direct access to most of those. So if we need to troubleshoot anything, we need to ask our customers to grant us access to their local network via TeamViewer or such like and then connect with putty (as practically everyone uses Windows).
Also, embedding some JavaScript into your website will probably not help, anyway. If your website logs the IP address of every visitor, you've logged the IP of every EU citizen visiting your site, even with this JavaScript active.
Also, any account data of EU citizens that registered with your service prior to GDPR doesn't magically disappear. So you store data from EU citizen and fall under the GDPR, but since you're now blocking those people from accessing your page you stop them from contacting you about that data.
1) Since when did French trademark law have jurisdiction over American domain names? 2) Doesn't trademark law require you actively defend your own trademarks? 24 years of doing nothing about france.com is not very active.
It seems that France didn't have a trademark for "France", so they had no reason to defend anything. But once France.com applied for this trademark, the country of France had to object to this trademark. The idea that some company controls the trademark "France" and can decide who can use "France" in a commercial setting is just ridiculous.
Can you please explain why they shouldn't be able to trademark the name that they have been using for hundreds of years commercially? And why some US company should be able to trademark it, even though France has been using "France" commercially for hundreds of years longer than that company has?
The moral appears to be don't register domains with companies that are going to voluntarily transfer domains without putting up a fight.
I'd say the moral is: Don't apply for a trademark for "France" when there is a country that has been using that name long before your company France.com was around. Otherwise you loose that trademark to the country called France which then has every right to demand your domain France.com from you.
France.com wanted to much and lost everything. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apple adds a better screen, better camera, better CPU/GPU, and more RAM, why should that cause Qualcomm to get more money for one of the chips?
Apple takes a 30% cut (AFAIK) for all apps sold on the Apple Store. No matter whether the app costs $0.99 or $9.99. Why does Apple set a rate based on the final price and not a fixed price per license?
The same (once again: AFAIK) for music, videos, books, news papers etc. sold through Apple. Why should Apple get more money per issue sold from a high-price high-quality news paper than from a cheap rag? The service that Apple provides for both is basically the same.
As long as the percentage that Qualcomm asks for per unit isn't unreasonably high and as long as the percentage is the same for all customers of Qualcomm (taking into account the question of whether the customer themselves has patents that are part of the standard) I don't see how Qualcomm violates the FRAND rules.
Please point us to the part in the definition of FRAND that says that you cannot set the license fee based on the price of the final product. I read the definitions of FRAND several times and I just can't find that part.
It's still better than the current solution, where data might be cached in RAM to be written unto the flash driver later.
So this change is an improvement.
As somebody who spent half of his life in a socialist country (East Germany) and now lives in a capitalist country with social democratic leanings I can assure you: You are wrong and GP is right.
The VPN is ad free, the browser isn't. I was happy with Opera Mobile for a while, until an upgrade put a "News" Screen that I couldn't disable.
Well, I've been using Opera Mobile forever, and I had no problem deactivating the "Nesw" screen.
The only thing that bugs me a little is that with every other update of the app they add one or more sponsored links to the speed dial. But removing them doesn't take long.
So far the EU has hit Google with about $9.3 billion in fines over the last 3 years.
Seems to be working SOOO well...
The three fines where for behaviour from the last 10 years or so. The fines were not about the exact same thing.
We may find out if the fines are working over the next few years.
It is ALSO true it was enough of a problem when Obama was president, the FCC should have been doing something at that point.
If you had watched the Last Week Tonight episode you would know that under Obama the FCC tried to block robocalls. Current FCC chair Pai was on the FCC back then and voted against it. What a surprise.
I'm not sure if you're joking or if you don't understand how this works.
If we're only removing one of the two the clock will move forwards (or backwards) an hour in each of the 5 years, resulting in watches being completly out of sync with the sun, the rest of the world and, well, everything.
"Both of which"? I listed three things, so you should specify which two you are talking about (probably somethng you have and something you are).
My comment didn't make any statement about the usefullness or security of WebAuthn but was only meant to point out that ACs comment was based in misrepresentation.
So instead of something you have / know / are - choose any two - it's now "Something you have."
WebAuthn is not a replacement for 2FA, but for password logins. So where before you only had "something you know" you can now chose between "something you have (FIDO key) / know (password) / are (biometrics)".
If I buy a button to buy X and they ship me Y, they're committing fraud
Sure and if pigs had wheels they would be a wagon. WTF does that have to do with a button for X makes them ship you X?
Maybe you should educate yourself about the things you're commenting about before doing that.
If I have a Dash button for a specific product, and the product is out, Amazon reserves the right to send me a similar product instead.
If the proce for the product rose between the time when I bought the Dash button and the time I press it to order the product, Amazon will charge me the new (potentially higher) price.
Both of these things break German consumer protection laws.
Last I checked the democracies at least in western Europe work pretty well.
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, election irregularities, fixing the courts with partisan judges, the administration calling the fourth estate the enemies of the people -- all stuff that's undermining democracies, and all stuff that the US is currently known for.
(To be fair: Some of those problems do exist in a few eastern European countries.)
In the UK pedestrians make up 22% of road traffic deaths. In the US it's 12%. Maybe the UK should think about passing some jaywalking laws.
Or one could first check what other differences there are between US and UK traffic and only then, if it is established that jaywalking laws are really the main difference between the two, the UK might consider jaywalking laws.
Personally, I guess that there are other differences like the average number of cars per household, the number of miles people walk on average, the relation of rural roads vs. city roads and more.
Always invert.
OK, if a user has that app installed, inform the user that all apps downloaded from the Play Store will be removed in 48 hours as Android only supports one App store. Then nuke all the apps the users actually need. And they'll crawl back. They could say something that is real. That it's a security issue as all apps in the play store are scanned and Google will not allow third party apps from risking users privacy.
So... Google should react to one court ruling they probably don't like by doing something that will spawn other courts ruling against Google? If Google throws a tantrum and removes apps from my phone that's in violation of a bunch of laws in any sane country. Google runs the Play Store, but that doesn't mean that they can do what they want.
When the laws are arbitrary and simply meant as cash grabs, or punishments for the "crime" of being US-based?
[...]
So please don't try to paint me as a "'Murica Fuck Yeah!" idiot.
We don't have to. You clearly are doing it yourself.
Sorry? Did you have an actual argument?
Do you have an actual argument?
To chose a winner here you have to look at where each party stands on the issue at hand. Saying that FB is horrible in general and that the EU is even worse in general doesn't help in regards to this specific case.
The EU wants FB to follow the law of the land when doing business in the EU. FB doesn't want to change it's TOS to conform to the law.
The laws in question strengthen consumer rights and consumer protections.
So for me, the winner in this case is clearly the EU.
Right, that's why monasteries were known to be places where monks working as scribes duplicated scrolls and books.
So you are saying tht the exact same numbers of malware and virus exist for Linux and PC, and that Windows is just as secure?
I don't see that statement in QPs comment.
So... you like putting words in other peoples mouths to make a point?
Silly AC - this is not a tit for tat, where you point out a Linux problem as if it were teh equal of a Windows problem. Sorry, but we are talking about a body of work, and Windows is lapping the field several timas regarding it's abysmal security.
Is it not true that Linux is used on many millions of IoT and network devices? Is it not true that oftentimes the makers of these devices do not provide any meaningful support after the release of the devices? Is it not true that over and over again such devices are found to have fixed passwords, gaping security holes ore are using libraries with known security problems?
That doesn't make the problems with Windows any better, but it shows that the Linux world has it's own set of problems. Neither party has any right to look down upon the other one.
Another thing to note is that people who walked from place to place may be tempted to take public transit.
This is bad for transit (higher crowding) and bad for the city (less street-side commerce, higher centralization of commerce, less vibrant street).
Your argument doesn't hold up.
Within the city of Tallin, public transport was already free. It doesn't seem to have caused the problems you describe.
And I doubt your argument applies outside of Tallin, as Villages and Towns usually are not really in walking distance.
If you're required to edit plaintext on other people's computers - I feel sorry for you.
Not needed for linux setups - you ssh in (or sshmount their fs) and do all work from your own office/computer. No getting used to their keyboard setup or whatever.
Well, it's great if that works in your setup. But you don't always have complete control.
We have some 10.000 Linux server appliances running within our customers networks. We don't have direct access to most of those. So if we need to troubleshoot anything, we need to ask our customers to grant us access to their local network via TeamViewer or such like and then connect with putty (as practically everyone uses Windows).
Also, embedding some JavaScript into your website will probably not help, anyway. If your website logs the IP address of every visitor, you've logged the IP of every EU citizen visiting your site, even with this JavaScript active.
Also, any account data of EU citizens that registered with your service prior to GDPR doesn't magically disappear. So you store data from EU citizen and fall under the GDPR, but since you're now blocking those people from accessing your page you stop them from contacting you about that data.
1) Since when did French trademark law have jurisdiction over American domain names?
2) Doesn't trademark law require you actively defend your own trademarks? 24 years of doing nothing about france.com is not very active.
It seems that France didn't have a trademark for "France", so they had no reason to defend anything.
But once France.com applied for this trademark, the country of France had to object to this trademark. The idea that some company controls the trademark "France" and can decide who can use "France" in a commercial setting is just ridiculous.
France can trademark its own name?!
Can you please explain why they shouldn't be able to trademark the name that they have been using for hundreds of years commercially?
And why some US company should be able to trademark it, even though France has been using "France" commercially for hundreds of years longer than that company has?
The moral appears to be don't register domains with companies that are going to voluntarily transfer domains without putting up a fight.
I'd say the moral is: Don't apply for a trademark for "France" when there is a country that has been using that name long before your company France.com was around. Otherwise you loose that trademark to the country called France which then has every right to demand your domain France.com from you.
France.com wanted to much and lost everything. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
You already have a right to not be listed in the phone book.
What probably will change is that phone companies no longer can charge extra for this
Here in Germany, the option of not being listed in the phone book is free. And (and least for some phone companies) the default.