I have no clue why the EU would agree to this in treaty form anyways. Really, are you people nuts, or just stroking anti-American sentiment to hide your own stupid decisions?
"Now look what you made me do, you made me hit you again. It's your fault for staying with me you know. Any sensible person would have left me a long time ago." The fact that we in the EU keep hammering out these agreements is proof of the absence of anti-American sentiment.
I have no clue why the BFDI didn't even bother to at least tell the citizen/gov member what data was handed over. After all, they or some EU member agency handed it over to the US, so they know *what* data was handed over. They don't need the US to inform the citizen of that.
That's not true the US is getting its data from SWIFT, a private company. It's probably illegal under EU law for them to posses the banking information of a citizen without proper warrants and you wouldn't want to alert them because presumably they are under investigation because of criminal or terrorist activity. Now the EU gives SWIFT the permission to let the US access data directly based on a request. Not only is the request to vague (this is the BFDI's shortcoming) but after the fact the US apparently doesn't want to tell who has accessed the data or why (this is in violation of the agreement.)
It's an important market but not their primary target. Consider how they always roll out products in the US first then in Europe. The iPhone didn't come to the whole of Europe at once they rolled it out country by country up to a couple of years after the original iPhone release across the US. Other examples : most of Europe still can't buy movies or tv shows from iTunes, a lot of countries can't buy the AppleTV 2 , etc.
Sure it is, you just have to keep the landlords in check or eventually they become tyrants. This is relevant to the AC's point because he claimed that Adam Smith would say that the fact Zuckerberg has a lot of money means he is right while it according the the quote it could just as well mean he has "reaped where he didn't sow" in other words he's taking advantage of people and the system to enrich himself without producing anything of merit.
But they flatter themselves to think anybody really cares if they hold out or not. Think Firewire.
This is my point, it's exactly why it makes no sense for them so come out with the technology first. Better to wait until there is a clear solution by people actually in the payment service business and then try to make the best version possible of that. Maybe participate in the process in the meantime to try and guide it in a favorable direction.
There is no disadvantage to being right and safe except that you don't have the dubious privilege of using Facebook. I can live with that.
Ah good ol' Pascal's wager, I haven't seen a version yet where the likelihood of the 'hell' outcome isn't vastly exaggerated. In this case if you look at the "detrimental scenario" there may be risk but how likely is that risk to lead to actual problems ? Looking at the real world we see a lot of identity theft to be sure but it's comparatively rare when compared to the whole internet population of users that are uninformed about privacy issues. Your table simply isn't correctly weighted.
Just because other countries aren't there doesn't mean that this isn't very real technology being used in sizable markets.
That'd be part of the "no industrial standard" problem: different trials and different systems in different countries. Who says they can be made compatible and who's going to make the development effort and test it, Apple ? They've always targeted the US market first and foremost so I can't see them having much interest in project of any scale here in europe.
Facebook is an untrusted channel used to catalog information for present and future adversaries. its use in any form is unwise. If you think you're never going to want to keep something from someone for a legitimate reason, think again.
What a utterly depressing worldview. Personally I think the whole "information is power" thing is on its way out. As we move into the information society the amount of data on everything will be so huge and passed around so quickly that it'll lose its value.
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
US style "free market capitalism" is to capitalism as Scientology is to religion.
Don't limit art to Michelangelo or Titian either. Art is also things like spinart, installations like "my bed" and art by any definition that includes them should include plenty of games as well.
Read only I think, and only to read data off of stickers and such not as a payment system. Look, aticles like this one claim "Mobile payment could be rolled out massively in Spain in the next 3-5 years." That's with the support of Visa, a major operator in the payment systems business. Neither Apple nor Google are going to roll into town and create a widely used system by themselves in a hurry. And having extra hardware in their phone for functionality that now can be had by using bluetooth or QR codes while waiting 3-5 years is very unlike Apple.
At current levels of exponential growth, renewable energy will supply all our power in twenty years. Why should this exponetial growth stop before then?
Maybe the nuclear power plants providing the power to make all those green power providing technologies will be closed before then ? We need a stable power supply until we get to the point where we've fully bootstrapped greener technologies. Apart from that the amount of land suitable for exploitation of solar and wind is also limited which might put a brake on growth at some point.
And since Nokia was the market leader at that time it became wildly successful and the de facto standard and now everyone uses it... oh wait that didn't happen. Maybe this offers a clue to why Apple don't want to jump the gun here.
Oh! So Apple just wants to find another revenue stream from their own proprietary "solution"..... got it! It has nothing to do with "industry standards", it has to do with trying to create and force a "standard".
Keep in mind you're commenting on rumors by "sources." The hit rate of anonymous sources on Apple rumors is very (very!) low. AFAIK Apple hasn't officially commented on this.
Google couldn't do it alone either. All it would take is for a major bank or credit card company to back a different horse and you'd have a generation of cellphones with an obsolete payment system embedded in it. This is one of these things that requires extensive dealings behind the scenes to ensure everyone is on the same page first, which hopefully Apple (and maybe Google, who knows) are doing right now.
But is it a "paper standard" without real world implementations ? Suppose Apple put NFC in the iPhone, then a Google pulls a WebM and decides to go a different route or a major bank implements a version of it but in an incompatible way. Best to wait then until there is an accepted standard that is also defacto accepted everywhere. Apple is big but it hasn't got the clout to push a payment system on retailers everywhere.
That's bull. For one mp4 is the established standard so it would rather be Google trying to start a standards war by throwing webm into the mix. For another Apple have at various times strongly come out in support of standards. The best example of this recently is HTML5, which they helped define as a member of WHATWG since 2004 (well before the iPhone.)
Yes and we already have a lot of real world laws that are perfectly applicable in case of abuse: - someone reposts an unflattering picture of you : copyright - someone libels you : "right to respond" and libel law - in the EU if you make a request a website (or another company) is obliged to send you the personal information they have on you and allow you to modify it as you wish.
The only thing I see that might be problematic is maybe when you make a statement online which later you no longer support, say for example a former neo-nazi wants to disavow statements he made on a discussion board. Posting the message implies agreement to publish but you could argue for a sort of "right to respond" after the fact by having the right to append a statement to your original message. Intentionally "forgetting" data seems like a bad idea to me though.
This. A lot of iPad owners also own an Apple laptop and have first hand knowledge of how crappy flash is. Just the other day I was talking to a college who had installed Flashblock because flash cut his (Apple) laptop's battery time in half. You don't even need to go to a site that uses flash, just the flash ads are enough. At this point, personally, I wouldn't install flash on my iPad if Adobe paid me. If there are multitudes of Apple users clamoring for Flash on iOS devices I sure haven't met them.
Yeah unfortunately they've implemented this feature in a typically annoying Google way : you have to go there and come back to Google in order to block the site. So have fun visiting all those malicious sites before you can block them. Google needs to hire some competent UI experts.
The only reason libraries are tolerated by the state is their abject passivism.
Turn libraries into bastions of activism and they'll be regulated/budget-cut out of existence, just like all other activist spaces that achieve some sort of legitimacy are eventually regulated out of existence or have rents raised beyond reasonable levels.
If our society really held the values that people give lip service to when they talk about libraries, they would already be bastions of activism. Complaints in this very thread about them being "daytime shelters for the homeless" reveal exactly the opposite: what people want is a "free bookstore, but keep those other people out, please." Values of community, shared investment in education and the future and all that jazz, that necessarily implies open to all, including those nasty poor people.
"Chetham's Library in Manchester, England is the oldest free public reference library in the United Kingdom.[1] Chetham's Hospital, which contains both the library and Chetham's School of Music, was established in 1653 under the will of Humphrey Chetham (1580–1653), for the education of "the sons of honest, industrious and painful parents",[1] and a library for the use of scholars. The library has been in continuous use since 1653. It operates as an independent charity, open to readers and visitors free of charge.
[...]
Chetham's was the meeting place of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels when Marx visited Manchester. The economics books Marx was reading at the time can be seen on a shelf in the library, as can the window seat where Marx and Engels would meet."
We can't even agree on a definition of consciousness let alone separate "true" and "simulated" consciousness from each other. I think it's telling that the Turing test doesn't measure the AI directly but rather the human's response to the AI. Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference for all intents and purposes IS consciousness.
With robots, you always know it's fake. No matter how good the emulation, that's just always going to be in the back of your mind in dealing with a robot (unless you don't actually know it's a robot).
Tell that to the people convinced their PC hates them ( 93.300.000 results) Humans anthropomorphize *everything*.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no clue why the EU would agree to this in treaty form anyways. Really, are you people nuts, or just stroking anti-American sentiment to hide your own stupid decisions?
"Now look what you made me do, you made me hit you again. It's your fault for staying with me you know. Any sensible person would have left me a long time ago."
The fact that we in the EU keep hammering out these agreements is proof of the absence of anti-American sentiment.
I have no clue why the BFDI didn't even bother to at least tell the citizen/gov member what data was handed over. After all, they or some EU member agency handed it over to the US, so they know *what* data was handed over. They don't need the US to inform the citizen of that.
That's not true the US is getting its data from SWIFT, a private company. It's probably illegal under EU law for them to posses the banking information of a citizen without proper warrants and you wouldn't want to alert them because presumably they are under investigation because of criminal or terrorist activity. Now the EU gives SWIFT the permission to let the US access data directly based on a request. Not only is the request to vague (this is the BFDI's shortcoming) but after the fact the US apparently doesn't want to tell who has accessed the data or why (this is in violation of the agreement.)
It's an important market but not their primary target. Consider how they always roll out products in the US first then in Europe. The iPhone didn't come to the whole of Europe at once they rolled it out country by country up to a couple of years after the original iPhone release across the US. Other examples : most of Europe still can't buy movies or tv shows from iTunes, a lot of countries can't buy the AppleTV 2 , etc.
Sure it is, you just have to keep the landlords in check or eventually they become tyrants. This is relevant to the AC's point because he claimed that Adam Smith would say that the fact Zuckerberg has a lot of money means he is right while it according the the quote it could just as well mean he has "reaped where he didn't sow" in other words he's taking advantage of people and the system to enrich himself without producing anything of merit.
But they flatter themselves to think anybody really cares if they hold out or not. Think Firewire.
This is my point, it's exactly why it makes no sense for them so come out with the technology first. Better to wait until there is a clear solution by people actually in the payment service business and then try to make the best version possible of that. Maybe participate in the process in the meantime to try and guide it in a favorable direction.
Now tell me: Which scenario is best to avoid?
There is no disadvantage to being right and safe except that you don't have the dubious privilege of using Facebook. I can live with that.
Ah good ol' Pascal's wager, I haven't seen a version yet where the likelihood of the 'hell' outcome isn't vastly exaggerated. In this case if you look at the "detrimental scenario" there may be risk but how likely is that risk to lead to actual problems ? Looking at the real world we see a lot of identity theft to be sure but it's comparatively rare when compared to the whole internet population of users that are uninformed about privacy issues. Your table simply isn't correctly weighted.
Just because other countries aren't there doesn't mean that this isn't very real technology being used in sizable markets.
That'd be part of the "no industrial standard" problem: different trials and different systems in different countries. Who says they can be made compatible and who's going to make the development effort and test it, Apple ? They've always targeted the US market first and foremost so I can't see them having much interest in project of any scale here in europe.
Facebook is an untrusted channel used to catalog information for present and future adversaries. its use in any form is unwise. If you think you're never going to want to keep something from someone for a legitimate reason, think again.
What a utterly depressing worldview. Personally I think the whole "information is power" thing is on its way out. As we move into the information society the amount of data on everything will be so huge and passed around so quickly that it'll lose its value.
Here's a little of the real Adam Smith for you :
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
US style "free market capitalism" is to capitalism as Scientology is to religion.
Don't limit art to Michelangelo or Titian either. Art is also things like spinart, installations like "my bed" and art by any definition that includes them should include plenty of games as well.
Read only I think, and only to read data off of stickers and such not as a payment system. Look, aticles like this one claim "Mobile payment could be rolled out massively in Spain in the next 3-5 years." That's with the support of Visa, a major operator in the payment systems business. Neither Apple nor Google are going to roll into town and create a widely used system by themselves in a hurry. And having extra hardware in their phone for functionality that now can be had by using bluetooth or QR codes while waiting 3-5 years is very unlike Apple.
At current levels of exponential growth, renewable energy will supply all our power in twenty years. Why should this exponetial growth stop before then?
Maybe the nuclear power plants providing the power to make all those green power providing technologies will be closed before then ? We need a stable power supply until we get to the point where we've fully bootstrapped greener technologies. Apart from that the amount of land suitable for exploitation of solar and wind is also limited which might put a brake on growth at some point.
And since Nokia was the market leader at that time it became wildly successful and the de facto standard and now everyone uses it ... oh wait that didn't happen. Maybe this offers a clue to why Apple don't want to jump the gun here.
Apple is not the industry leader in payment systems nor in cellphones for that matter (they lead in profit not in units shipped.)
Oh! So Apple just wants to find another revenue stream from their own proprietary "solution"..... got it! It has nothing to do with "industry standards", it has to do with trying to create and force a "standard".
Keep in mind you're commenting on rumors by "sources." The hit rate of anonymous sources on Apple rumors is very (very!) low. AFAIK Apple hasn't officially commented on this.
Google couldn't do it alone either. All it would take is for a major bank or credit card company to back a different horse and you'd have a generation of cellphones with an obsolete payment system embedded in it. This is one of these things that requires extensive dealings behind the scenes to ensure everyone is on the same page first, which hopefully Apple (and maybe Google, who knows) are doing right now.
But is it a "paper standard" without real world implementations ? Suppose Apple put NFC in the iPhone, then a Google pulls a WebM and decides to go a different route or a major bank implements a version of it but in an incompatible way. Best to wait then until there is an accepted standard that is also defacto accepted everywhere. Apple is big but it hasn't got the clout to push a payment system on retailers everywhere.
That's bull. For one mp4 is the established standard so it would rather be Google trying to start a standards war by throwing webm into the mix. For another Apple have at various times strongly come out in support of standards. The best example of this recently is HTML5, which they helped define as a member of WHATWG since 2004 (well before the iPhone.)
Yes and we already have a lot of real world laws that are perfectly applicable in case of abuse:
- someone reposts an unflattering picture of you : copyright
- someone libels you : "right to respond" and libel law
- in the EU if you make a request a website (or another company) is obliged to send you the personal information they have on you and allow you to modify it as you wish.
The only thing I see that might be problematic is maybe when you make a statement online which later you no longer support, say for example a former neo-nazi wants to disavow statements he made on a discussion board. Posting the message implies agreement to publish but you could argue for a sort of "right to respond" after the fact by having the right to append a statement to your original message. Intentionally "forgetting" data seems like a bad idea to me though.
This. A lot of iPad owners also own an Apple laptop and have first hand knowledge of how crappy flash is. Just the other day I was talking to a college who had installed Flashblock because flash cut his (Apple) laptop's battery time in half. You don't even need to go to a site that uses flash, just the flash ads are enough. At this point, personally, I wouldn't install flash on my iPad if Adobe paid me. If there are multitudes of Apple users clamoring for Flash on iOS devices I sure haven't met them.
Manually add sites at http://www.google.com/reviews/t
A constructive comment by an AC hidden in a swamp of "expertsexchange"-jokes. I'd mod you up but I've already commented.
God yes and maybe an export/import block-list so you can share with friends (or across multiple accounts.)
Yeah unfortunately they've implemented this feature in a typically annoying Google way : you have to go there and come back to Google in order to block the site. So have fun visiting all those malicious sites before you can block them. Google needs to hire some competent UI experts.
The only reason libraries are tolerated by the state is their abject passivism.
Turn libraries into bastions of activism and they'll be regulated/budget-cut out of existence, just like all other activist spaces that achieve some sort of legitimacy are eventually regulated out of existence or have rents raised beyond reasonable levels.
If our society really held the values that people give lip service to when they talk about libraries, they would already be bastions of activism. Complaints in this very thread about them being "daytime shelters for the homeless" reveal exactly the opposite: what people want is a "free bookstore, but keep those other people out, please." Values of community, shared investment in education and the future and all that jazz, that necessarily implies open to all, including those nasty poor people.
Wasn't always like that. Check out the history of the oldest public library :
"Chetham's Library in Manchester, England is the oldest free public reference library in the United Kingdom.[1] Chetham's Hospital, which contains both the library and Chetham's School of Music, was established in 1653 under the will of Humphrey Chetham (1580–1653), for the education of "the sons of honest, industrious and painful parents",[1] and a library for the use of scholars. The library has been in continuous use since 1653. It operates as an independent charity, open to readers and visitors free of charge.
[...]
Chetham's was the meeting place of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels when Marx visited Manchester. The economics books Marx was reading at the time can be seen on a shelf in the library, as can the window seat where Marx and Engels would meet."
We can't even agree on a definition of consciousness let alone separate "true" and "simulated" consciousness from each other. I think it's telling that the Turing test doesn't measure the AI directly but rather the human's response to the AI. Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference for all intents and purposes IS consciousness.
With robots, you always know it's fake. No matter how good the emulation, that's just always going to be in the back of your mind in dealing with a robot (unless you don't actually know it's a robot).
Tell that to the people convinced their PC hates them ( 93.300.000 results) Humans anthropomorphize *everything*.