So now that the foreign companies don't need stakes in local retailers to use this old loophole, will they be fire-selling them since they don't need them anymore?
It private industry can still do it, they'll collect whatever data the government needs and sell it to them, or perform things like access control using facial recognition. So this is just a revenue generating law for private industry, not unlike the laws requiring official dealers to sell cars and preventing the manufacturers from doing so.
Unless of course the law prevents the government to have access to absolutely anything that has facial recognition, then just add facial recognition to any system you want the government to never be able to search or seize. I somehow doubt the law till go that far.
I don't get it. Have an app tell a stranger to report some guy half a kilometer away? Why not have the app just report directly to whoever the stranger is supposed to report to?
Working against the government in China is a crime (or at the very least gets you on a bad side of the dictatorial government). Why would any company admit to doing it, even if they did?
What Dorsey is saying is that they want to move to authentication based on whether you own a recent Apple device. Still not that hard to beat by a bot, but sure, will filter out low cost bots (and 80% of the smartphone market with it).
When cyber attacks are perpetrated, it can be extremely hard if not impossible to confirm who actually initiated the attack. Worse, the attackers may plant evidence pointing to an innocent party, causing the French to attack that target, which it turn can cause that target to retaliate, initiating a full out cyber war back and forth...
Sounds great on paper, however very impractical in real life. Imagine you wrote a comment here about someone being convicted of a crime, which was true when you wrote it. 20 years later the person is cleared of any wrongdoing. Who is responsible for going back and editing your comment? You, slashdot, your kids (if you died)? That doesn't scale.
Why not keep the current model, while offering a cheaper, or even free tier with commercials. People often say one thing, but their actions don't always match - someone who said they'd quit netflix with ads, might actually watch with commercials if it was free. Youtube model, watch ads or pay subscription.
Exactly - they want their cake and eat it too. I wonder if Google News withdrawal means blocking access to google news from EU, or simply not indexing any EU sources but still allowing EU residents to be fed a steady stream of news from elsewhere in the world.
The question is, what action can stop this? It seems that 58M years ago, with human emissions non-existent, the climate still changed. What could have prevented this 58M million years ago?
If performing a google search on the doctor yields the court's ruling, does that violate the ruling? Or is this some kind a secret ruling nobody can talk about but somehow they are supposed to know it so they can obey it?
Or is there going to be a new website - here is a list of people who won "right to be forgotten" cases, and here are all their case details you're not supposed to link to?
"I'm still pro-humanity"... until I'm not. I have tunnels under your cities, satellites over them and rockets able to strike anywhere on earth. "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile!"
Are you assuming the startup would get free rent somehow if the builing they rent was owned independently? There is clearly conflict of interest here, however without details such as how their rent compares to market value (similar office space in the same area), you cannot state that the startup would have any more money if they rented from someone else.
So your argument is that if a business is undesirable on your street it should be illegal? I bet you wouldn't want a sewage treatment plant next door to you, does that mean you will argue they should be outlawed in UK? This is why there are zoning laws and regulations, to keep businesses from disrupting neighborhood - obviously something failed on your street by allowing six gambling shops to open next to each other.
You argument about addiction has some merit, but you could argue that about alcohol too. Are you a proponent banning all alcohol for human consumption because, no argument there, alcohol addition has ruined many lives? How about sex? That can be a powerful addiction too. Are the Brits wanting to outlaw sex too (introduce hospitalized procreation sex and only allow recreational sex on cruises)? Banning gambling, alcohol, or sex, doesn't work - people who want to do it will find a way. The way to deal with it in society is to control it, if for no other reason other than because you can't stop it and futile trying is very expensive.
About Vegas and the US, I think people who don't live here think Vegas is the only place with gambling. Most states have casinos today. You can usually find one within driving distance unless you live in places like Utah. I've lived in a number of states (not Nevada), and I could usually drive to a casino and/or a card room in under an hour, most often under 20 minutes.US is fighting online gambling, but brick and mortar locations are still growing all over - governments are encouraging those (for obvious reasons).
I think it all boils down to how paternalistic you want your government to be. Should they treat their citizens as irresponsible children who need to be tightly controlled because "the government knows better what's good for you" or should you give people freedom to determine their own future? You mention how cruise ships fell into disrepute because of gambling. Well, that's how it's supposed to be. If there was a market for gambling free cruises, they would be offered, evidently there isn't if they are not offered (or maybe you just discovered a great investment opportunity?). Also, people wouldn't be going on cruises to gamble if they could gamble at home.
You know, there was one government in history which "knew better" and controlled their citizens as much as possible - Communist Russia. They always knew better what is best for their citizens. More libraries or more night clubs? Of course, libraries are better than night clubs for society right? Well, how come people risked life and limb to escape such controlled society then? Personally I prefer to live in a free society, even if it enables people to be stupid and self-destructive.
I maintain 3 inboxes and manage them differently. 1. Private - Inbox Zero 2. Wildcard private email, allowing me to filter into sub-folders (or delete automatically if too much spam) based on destination email - Inbox Infinity, check over it once or twice a day 3. Work email - major rules filtering into a number of sub-folders. Main inbox zero, all sub-folders get different amount of attention (from hourly to weekly attention). I should add that my employer IT already does a good job at filtering out spam from the outside world.
Occasionally I setup a rule to forward a wildcard private to main inbox for a duration of my dealings with whoever I gave the email to, then I move it back to the once-a-day check folder.
All that's needed is for the city to officially declare an abandoned scooter as litter and post signs all over the city encouraging people to clean up the streets.
Maybe you just got a bad and cheaply designed charger? I have come across charging stands which behave as you describe, but also ones which work well regardless of position and orientation of the phone. Now, I am talking about a stand (not a mat), so a less possible orientations and positions, but even with stands design there are good ones and poor ones.
I see you're building in a loophole for Google, Facebook, etc. If you use a free service, they can sell any data they can gather on you. Next step, all cellular connections are free of charge, but if you want voice, sms or data, that costs money. Your location is collected as part of you connecting to the base station, which is a free service, therefore your location is not protected. Y the simple law you just proposed.
A giant 10km in diameter radar antenna array. Earth sees a small burst of radio waves repeatedly every time the radar beam scans across in the direction or Earth (hence the short duration). The big question is who is operating such scanning radar arrays.
Cable companies are increasing prices to maintain revenue growth, not to counter cord-cutting (the title is illogical), and they can do it because TV is mostly price inelastic. Consider the markets Cable companies are in:
TV - Mature, saturated, declining Landline Internet - Mature, saturated (as far as they are concerned), declining slightly (and possibly declining significantly if 5G can provide 20-100 Mbps fixed Internet for good prices) Landline Phone - Mature, saturated, declining Mobile Phone - Mature, mostly saturated
The title is not illogical. The price increase is to increase revenue, which is to counter the decline in revenue, which is caused by decline in the markets, which is caused by the cord cutters. So, simplifying, the price increase is countering the effect cord-cutters have on the revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, that seems to be Indian strategy. They want to ban not just foreign companies, but automation too (see https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...).
So now that the foreign companies don't need stakes in local retailers to use this old loophole, will they be fire-selling them since they don't need them anymore?
It private industry can still do it, they'll collect whatever data the government needs and sell it to them, or perform things like access control using facial recognition. So this is just a revenue generating law for private industry, not unlike the laws requiring official dealers to sell cars and preventing the manufacturers from doing so.
Unless of course the law prevents the government to have access to absolutely anything that has facial recognition, then just add facial recognition to any system you want the government to never be able to search or seize. I somehow doubt the law till go that far.
Shame them how? It's now legal in China to verbally and/or physically abuse someone the app says is a debtor?
I don't get it. Have an app tell a stranger to report some guy half a kilometer away? Why not have the app just report directly to whoever the stranger is supposed to report to?
Working against the government in China is a crime (or at the very least gets you on a bad side of the dictatorial government). Why would any company admit to doing it, even if they did?
Creating computer generated realistic bio-metrics is not that hard. See link below filled with very real looking computer generated faces.
https://youtu.be/kSLJriaOumA
What Dorsey is saying is that they want to move to authentication based on whether you own a recent Apple device. Still not that hard to beat by a bot, but sure, will filter out low cost bots (and 80% of the smartphone market with it).
When cyber attacks are perpetrated, it can be extremely hard if not impossible to confirm who actually initiated the attack. Worse, the attackers may plant evidence pointing to an innocent party, causing the French to attack that target, which it turn can cause that target to retaliate, initiating a full out cyber war back and forth...
Sounds great on paper, however very impractical in real life. Imagine you wrote a comment here about someone being convicted of a crime, which was true when you wrote it. 20 years later the person is cleared of any wrongdoing. Who is responsible for going back and editing your comment? You, slashdot, your kids (if you died)? That doesn't scale.
Why not keep the current model, while offering a cheaper, or even free tier with commercials. People often say one thing, but their actions don't always match - someone who said they'd quit netflix with ads, might actually watch with commercials if it was free. Youtube model, watch ads or pay subscription.
Exactly - they want their cake and eat it too. I wonder if Google News withdrawal means blocking access to google news from EU, or simply not indexing any EU sources but still allowing EU residents to be fed a steady stream of news from elsewhere in the world.
The question is, what action can stop this? It seems that 58M years ago, with human emissions non-existent, the climate still changed. What could have prevented this 58M million years ago?
If performing a google search on the doctor yields the court's ruling, does that violate the ruling? Or is this some kind a secret ruling nobody can talk about but somehow they are supposed to know it so they can obey it?
Or is there going to be a new website - here is a list of people who won "right to be forgotten" cases, and here are all their case details you're not supposed to link to?
"I'm still pro-humanity"... until I'm not. I have tunnels under your cities, satellites over them and rockets able to strike anywhere on earth. "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile!"
Are you assuming the startup would get free rent somehow if the builing they rent was owned independently? There is clearly conflict of interest here, however without details such as how their rent compares to market value (similar office space in the same area), you cannot state that the startup would have any more money if they rented from someone else.
A TV antenna of course! :-)
Are you voting for prohibition too? Or not yet, because you don't know anyone who had their life ruined by alcohol?
So your argument is that if a business is undesirable on your street it should be illegal? I bet you wouldn't want a sewage treatment plant next door to you, does that mean you will argue they should be outlawed in UK? This is why there are zoning laws and regulations, to keep businesses from disrupting neighborhood - obviously something failed on your street by allowing six gambling shops to open next to each other.
You argument about addiction has some merit, but you could argue that about alcohol too. Are you a proponent banning all alcohol for human consumption because, no argument there, alcohol addition has ruined many lives? How about sex? That can be a powerful addiction too. Are the Brits wanting to outlaw sex too (introduce hospitalized procreation sex and only allow recreational sex on cruises)? Banning gambling, alcohol, or sex, doesn't work - people who want to do it will find a way. The way to deal with it in society is to control it, if for no other reason other than because you can't stop it and futile trying is very expensive.
About Vegas and the US, I think people who don't live here think Vegas is the only place with gambling. Most states have casinos today. You can usually find one within driving distance unless you live in places like Utah. I've lived in a number of states (not Nevada), and I could usually drive to a casino and/or a card room in under an hour, most often under 20 minutes.US is fighting online gambling, but brick and mortar locations are still growing all over - governments are encouraging those (for obvious reasons).
I think it all boils down to how paternalistic you want your government to be. Should they treat their citizens as irresponsible children who need to be tightly controlled because "the government knows better what's good for you" or should you give people freedom to determine their own future? You mention how cruise ships fell into disrepute because of gambling. Well, that's how it's supposed to be. If there was a market for gambling free cruises, they would be offered, evidently there isn't if they are not offered (or maybe you just discovered a great investment opportunity?). Also, people wouldn't be going on cruises to gamble if they could gamble at home.
You know, there was one government in history which "knew better" and controlled their citizens as much as possible - Communist Russia. They always knew better what is best for their citizens. More libraries or more night clubs? Of course, libraries are better than night clubs for society right? Well, how come people risked life and limb to escape such controlled society then? Personally I prefer to live in a free society, even if it enables people to be stupid and self-destructive.
All insurance is based on statistical risk. Is selling insurance online now illegal?
I maintain 3 inboxes and manage them differently.
1. Private - Inbox Zero
2. Wildcard private email, allowing me to filter into sub-folders (or delete automatically if too much spam) based on destination email - Inbox Infinity, check over it once or twice a day
3. Work email - major rules filtering into a number of sub-folders. Main inbox zero, all sub-folders get different amount of attention (from hourly to weekly attention). I should add that my employer IT already does a good job at filtering out spam from the outside world.
Occasionally I setup a rule to forward a wildcard private to main inbox for a duration of my dealings with whoever I gave the email to, then I move it back to the once-a-day check folder.
All that's needed is for the city to officially declare an abandoned scooter as litter and post signs all over the city encouraging people to clean up the streets.
Maybe you just got a bad and cheaply designed charger? I have come across charging stands which behave as you describe, but also ones which work well regardless of position and orientation of the phone. Now, I am talking about a stand (not a mat), so a less possible orientations and positions, but even with stands design there are good ones and poor ones.
I see you're building in a loophole for Google, Facebook, etc. If you use a free service, they can sell any data they can gather on you. Next step, all cellular connections are free of charge, but if you want voice, sms or data, that costs money. Your location is collected as part of you connecting to the base station, which is a free service, therefore your location is not protected. Y the simple law you just proposed.
A giant 10km in diameter radar antenna array. Earth sees a small burst of radio waves repeatedly every time the radar beam scans across in the direction or Earth (hence the short duration). The big question is who is operating such scanning radar arrays.
Cable companies are increasing prices to maintain revenue growth, not to counter cord-cutting (the title is illogical), and they can do it because TV is mostly price inelastic. Consider the markets Cable companies are in:
TV - Mature, saturated, declining
Landline Internet - Mature, saturated (as far as they are concerned), declining slightly (and possibly declining significantly if 5G can provide 20-100 Mbps fixed Internet for good prices)
Landline Phone - Mature, saturated, declining
Mobile Phone - Mature, mostly saturated
The title is not illogical. The price increase is to increase revenue, which is to counter the decline in revenue, which is caused by decline in the markets, which is caused by the cord cutters. So, simplifying, the price increase is countering the effect cord-cutters have on the revenue.