That's not what the word "outdated" means. What you are arguing is that it is OK to be outdated as long as it still serves its purpose. That's fine. But it doesn't change the status of being outdated. Lots of people use outdated things. I use a fully mechanical watch. My father uses a fountain pen. The fact that they serve a purpose doesn't mean they aren't outdated.
The original question (in my filtered view) was asking whether you'd be happy with China demanding information stored on US Microsoft servers.
And I answered that in this thread. I said it was the wrong question. Microsoft is a USA company. They should be subject to USA law. Conversely Aliyun should be subject to Chinese law even for USA customers. ChinaCache has services in about 10 American cities but the company is Chinese and China is the appropriate regulating body for their service. The services under European law should be ones like Interxion and those should not be subject to USA law.
Agreed. I wish MacPorts were better. Though most compile errors are a question of dependencies that they didn't list in the port. I've found they are fixable if you look. I've usually been able to get them to compile. I switched from Fink when that got worse to MacPorts. I'm often not sure if I should go back. Fink often is so out of date but MacPorts is often so annoying. I wish Apple just through 20 fulltime guys at MacPorts.
Exactly right. Microsoft Office created a document standard and Office worked for Windows. There were other applications too. That was the old Microsoft's strategy and today it isn't as important. The web is finally a rich experience and people run many of their applications on the internet. Mobile applications can be light because they depend on client services.
Which is why Microsoft is focusing so heavily on the Azure cloud experience to help organize those new technologies and standards. Azure management tools offer an operating system for the new kinds of applications business need their people to use. Microsoft to be effective need to interoperate with these other kinds of technologies. The value Microsoft intends to bring is interoperability with a wide range of standards which is unmatched. To do that they need to break their own desktop paradigm.
As far as not caring about Office Suite they are enabling the transition. They want you to be on a range of devices via. Office 365. Go out and buy a Mac, go out and use an iPad get your interoperability with office though Microsoft. Its a terrific strategy but one that most/.ers don't see. I suspect mainly because just as when/. started most of the technical people here were using a GUI as a way to run multiple x-terms, most of the people here still are very happy with the 1990s paradigm. They don't get for example how many business cloud applications the average Microsoft customer is really using already.
I used to have that setup too before I got a laptop with a retina screen. I might switch back if I get a large high definition monitor. What I am saying though is that docking stations aren't the norm. They just don't sell enough for them to be the norm. There was a real shift in how people did computing when there was a change from desktop to laptop. They needed to be functional "on the go". We are experiencing a similar change now with mobility.
Assuming that was even accurate do you think what they really meant was they liked the logo or rather they'd had excellent experiences with Apple products and thus had a very high degree of faith. For example I might pay quite a bit more for a Mercedes brand watch not because I like the logo but because I have faith that such a watch is likely to be very well made.
. : the legacy interfaces are the installed base for which Microsoft has a market in the first place. They are an aspect of the product that their customers like.... But at the user level, they should change as little as possible. It's not their job to disrupt the operations of their customers, or else, before they know it, they won't have any.
Microsoft's assumption and I believe they are correct in this is that the amount disruption that changing platforms would induce dwarfs the amount of disruption that changing their customers over to a new interface induces. That's the calculus. That they can force this change with very little damage to their enterprise customer base. I think they are absolutely correct in this assessment. If you think they are wrong think about the costs of walking away from Windows entirely for many of these very organizations. They may be unhappy about the extra costs associated with an interface change but they don't have a viable alternative at any price remotely similar to what accepting those interface changes would be like.
Microsoft has made a decision that the interests of the broad ecosystem require them to force their customer base to do things they would rather not do. They aren't denying that. So when you say that their customers don't want to do something you aren't disagreeing with Microsoft you are simply refusing to consider the overall strategy. They are thinking long term. They are thinking strategically. They are once again leading the x86 ecosystem. Their customers are thinking short term. Their customers are thinking tactically. Were they to follow their customer's lead they would be forced into servicing an ever decreasing market and becoming ever more irrelevant to computing. Their highest point of overage 15 years is likely now. If they are going to have to undergo this change eventually, now is the time when they can force the change without hemorrhaging customers.
So yes it is their job to disrupt the operations of their customers.
What are you talking about. USA law applies to the USA. Chinese law applies to China. French law applies to France. Its the Europeans who are trying to export their laws to the rest of the planet.
This is a perfect example of ubiquitous computing.
If you are using a x86 tablet you can run Windows Media center right on your tablet and use the Metro style interface on it. Connected to the TV is a extender. A computer connected can act like an extender. So the entire application runs remotely. Conversely any windows mobile tables like the Nokia Lumia 2520 or the Surface RT can run the interface and the application itself runs on the PC. In other words you can split the GUI. No need for VNC.
Run the app where you want to run it. Run the interface where you want to run it the way you want to run it.
Go to some offices and see if people doing their daily work with a touchscreen is anywhere close to being the typical setup.
I wasn't saying that touchscreen is the typical setup yet. Though obviously with the dominance of smartphones and tablets probably already the majority of workers do the majority of their work on these form factors. What I was saying is that touchscreen should be and will be. What I was also saying though is that using laptops without external monitors and mice is the norm.
Funnily enough, ABC was exactly the network I had in mind as I wrote my previous comments. We get the ABC nightly news bulletin shown on our own BBC News channel, and sometimes the degree of dumbing down, "patriotic" chest-thumping, and overtly biased commentary literally makes my cringe. It's awful. Maybe that's just the main bulletin and some of its other content is better?
ABC has a few good shows. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek... is considered one of the cornerstone shows for official pronouncements of policy. Very official, but more in depth similar to the more bland shows on the BBC. Martha Raddatz who is the Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABCNews was considered so good that people joked she won the Vice Presidential debate in 2012 (she was the moderator and did a fantastic job cutting through the BS with two very seasoned politicians). But no, what you see is pretty reflective of the ABCNews.
As for the BBC I agreed with you above the BBC is better. We have something like the BBC, PBS NewsHour.
Out of genuine curiosity, what would you consider to be "good" and reasonably neutral news media in the US?
Those two tend to negatively correlate in the USA media. The better the source the more likely it is funded by an organization with an agenda or appeals to a narrow segment of the electorate. PBS NewsHour (TV), that I mentioned above or the Washington Post. The two newswires Reuters and AP are both good and neutral. http://www.nationaljournal.com... But mostly the better sources aren't neutral. The Wall Street Journal does some fantastic coverage but it represents the Republican establishment it isn't neutral. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ represents the opinions of the State Department. Stratfor is terrific but tends to represent the CIA. On the left the Nation is very good but they only claim to represent the most progressive 10%...
but I can't imagine that anyone I know who takes an interests in these kinds of political issues wouldn't be aware that not everyone in the world uses a parliamentary system of government. I expect most who have had any significant discussions about the US at least understand the general separation of powers idea at the executive/legislature/judiciary level, even if they don't necessarily know the intricacies of your legislative structure and so on.
They don't. It is frankly amazing. Though the UK may be better than the rest of Europe. But for example I was discussing legal stuff with a UK guy who was quite knowledgeable who was shocked that Presidents regularly used their power to pardon. They also didn't understand state vs. federal law and how few and specific federal crimes are. That just about everybody in jail is in jail at the country and state level and this has nothing to do with Obama. Try and keep your ears open for this as you listen to critiques of the USA over the next year. You'll frequently hear people upset with Obama about issues that are state issues, or things that come from congress...
For example, it's taken until the Obama administration for anyone to even try implementing universal healthcare. That is something many (though of course not all) in Europe would consider a basic requirement for any civilised society in the 21st century.
That's not true. Harry Truman tried and failed, Lyndon Johnson tried and failed. Richard Nixon tried and failed. Bill Clinton tried and failed. And that's just presidents. In congress there were probably several dozen important attempts.
But who in mainstream US politics is arguing for, say, reform of working conditions?
The minority leader in the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi argues fo
. It isn't regulating your opinion, it is regulating what information about you a commercial for-profit company can provide to other people.
It isn't regulating my opinion it is regulating Google's opinion. It is regulating Google's opinion about what is the most relevant information about a person. That's the opinion being regulated.
Your own speech and the freedom of the press are not affected
What is the freedom of the press other than the ability of the press (i.e. Google) to express opinion? I don't do business in Europe, if I did, then yes this would affect my opinion.
I would first point out in return that many Europeans have seen what government power looks like when too many people know too much personal information about everyone.
That's a good point. Americans have generally been very aggressive about regulating the government's ability to know things. And also the scope of government is much more heavily regulated. The result is they don't have any experience with an overly knowledgeable government. I don't disagree these issues are seen differently. When I'm pointing out is that they are seen so differently that European laws would encounter strong resistance if applied in America.
I would also point out that this case had nothing to do with state suppression of free speech.
Of course that's what it is. The government of Germany is telling Google what they can or cannot say about an individual. That's the state suppressing speech.
. It was a case brought by a private individual, under reasonable circumstances, according to the same law that applies to everyone here. There was no inherent imbalance of power,
Agreed. This was not an unjust application of the law, this was a just application of a law that Americans disagree with and don't want to be subject to. I also agree there was no imbalance of power.
. The people of the US today allow their opinions to be dictated by powerful organisations all the time.
You are going to give a bunch of examples I'm going to refute. I would say the people of the United States choose between a rich diversity of news sources generally based on agreeing. News everywhere is driven by powerful organizations the distinctions come down to who is in power. The powerless generally don't do an effective job propagating their views or they wouldn't be powerless.
I've seen the major US TV networks, and the blatant bias in their presentation of news stories is almost comical to someone who's used to international coverage. It's not as if we don't have the same issues to deal with, but even the most reputable of US TV networks is barely above what we would call tabloid journalism
This goes to the whole America is a foreign country. You are trying to compare too directly and as a result comparing apples to oranges.
First off you have more newsy tabloids than we do. Our tabloids tend to have stories at the low end like "half human half monkey baby born to Oklahoma woman" with doctored photos to a high end that focus on fashion and celebrity sex lives. Our most mainstream news, stuff like ABC world news is designed to present a quick 30 minute overview of world events in terms of mainstream (i.e. the two political parties) opinion for a semi-interested audience. I think it does accomplish that.
We have more serious news sources which are designed for the more interested. But ultimately one huge difference is we have a free market for news and people vote with their dollars about what kinds of coverage they want. You all have a much more regulated environment where average people get less say in their news coverage but get a better quality product as a result of getting that less say. Though I will say that when I talk to Europeans they don't seem particularly educated. For example virtually every political conversation I have with a European where they start discussing policy has to start with a basic education that the USA does not have a parliamentary system. If you are doing such a great job informing people, then why is it that even the 5% most educated don't they know the absolute basics like that?
Your creative industries do it: As we've discussed elsewhere on Slashdot recently, the US is by far the biggest supporter of IP protections in the world, and has no problems using diplomatic and political leverage to export its cultural preferences to as much
Well, Scientology is a cult, and a moneymaking enterprise. Everyone knows that.
I don't know that. How precisely are you using the term cult? What does it mean to you?
I wouldn't be for taking kids away from parents just because they're Scientologists, though... and that's never happened, either
Your claiming that non-Scientology parents never got full custody in European courts because of anti-Scientology persecution? I just want to make sure of your claim before I go find examples.
ie sedition. "Seditious Conspiracy" is planning on bringing down the US government. No violence is necessary.
That's the same with any conspiracy.
Speech: Mr. X should be die. Conspiracy: At 12:00 when Mr. X goes to lunch I'lll be wearing a bright green shirt and point him out. You fire your assault rifle from that window...
One is the early stage of an act, the other is an opinion. Acts are regulated opinions are not. Same applies to sedition.
The hate speech laws in the UK are rarely used. I absolutely agree with you that they should not have been passed. What's interesting is that they were passed in order to protect minorities (in theory), and a disproportionate number of people prosecuted with them have been minorities.
I agree. GP seemed unaware that hate speech was legal in the USA and that we don't have those laws.
For example, there are already on-line services that guarantee to store data only within the EEA, so the data protection rules about exports don't apply, and this is already becoming a commercial advantage for them over their US competitors. There are already questions being asked openly in security-sensitive organisations about whether once unquestioned US brands like Cisco, Dell and Apple are appropriate suppliers for computing and communications equipment. Now that governments have started doing things like seizing domain names, it is probably only a matter of time before ICANN loses its overall authority as well.
Good. The more we return to a system where corporations can be effectively regulated the better. The EU can effectively regulate EU businesses. They can't effectively regulate and shouldn't try to regulate US businesses. Reducing trade to a level where effective regulation becomes possible is not a bad thing.
the US is not a popular country in Europe right now.
When was the US ever popular in Europe? When was this time of glorious popularity. There was a short window after 9/11. But for example right before that the EU was kicking the USA out of one of the few UN organizations which had voice over here: United Nations Human Rights Council, which resulted in devastatingly negative effects for that council and for global human rights. Bill Clinton and George Bush both made it clear that the US could never sign the ICC treaty without the right of trial by jury and Europe didn't give a damn. They would rather have an ineffectual toothless court than reach (IMNO) a very reasonable compromise. So when was this golden age? I don't really see it.
What I see is a Europe that for whatever reason believes the USA has much more culturally in common with them than it does, and continually acts shocked that we are not a European country and don't want to live under European standards and law. There is some level of compromise between the USA and Europe. We are allies. But we are not part of the same political system. And if Europeans started to relate to the USA they way they do to Asian, Latin American or African countries as meaningfully and genuinely foreign I think that would be better all around for everyone.
As far as I can see, there is absolutely no possible upside to any of this for US businesses, and ultimately for the US economy and government.
The upside is the reestablishment of the rule of law when it comes to corporations. The alternative of allowing USA corporations to setup shop in every foreign country on the planet and be governed by the piecewise minimum of law everywhere is far more of a threat than not directly selling cloud services. That is a really serious threat to USA society, USA government. Certainly it might be advantageous for USA business to be exempt from all law but I'm not sure how that benefits the society in the USA much certainly not enough to compensate.
It's used to everyone taking for granted that keeping the US friendly will be more important in the long run and letting minor transgressions slide is diplomatically justified, but in the current European political climate that assumption isn't what it used to be.
Like I said. I'm all for you all setting up your own cloud services subject to European law. That creates genuine competition. That's a good thing not a bad thing. Your threat is seen over here as a benefit. Even if there weren't an underlying legal reason I'd still be enthusiastic about it.
But in case you wanted a genuine answer, it is actually rather easy. Firstly, they'd go after the corporate officers based on Europe. Secondly, if any corporate officer who was American ever entered Europe (even flying over European airspace or in temporary transit through a connection at a European airport) they would be subject to arrest
It ain't a mere question of being cheap. It's a question of overhauling existing setups, particularly in offices, where the implications are work disruptions & worse.
Let's separate the two issues partially for a moment. There is the use of lower end computers, and updating them less frequently rather than being on a schedule of continuous improvement using latest and newest version. That was driven by a desire for cost savings. Then there is also the issue that the larger the stack of layers replacing a lower layer becomes exponentially more expensive.
x86 is way ahead of Android at the high end, example Apple rMBP or MacPro. Android likely won't be comparable to those sorts of systems for a decade. If Microsoft could drive up average spend so that OEMs were doing research themselves, plus allowing for higher cost of parts... that would in turn allow applications to be more sophisticated and make greater demands on the OS and hardware... This pushes off the date of crossover when Android becomes "better" or at least "close enough" to x86. To do that one of the elements is a culture of continuous improvement which would decrease migration hassles since IT shops would be setup for replacing operating systems regularly.
You see this on iOS. Apple because they essentially force annual upgrades of the operating systems with often breaking API have required IT shops to budget for operating system upgrades and application upgrades annually. Microsoft may never be able to push their base quite that far, but there is a lot of distance between where they are now and where they could be.
Plus Windows Vista & beyond were built on a win64 subsystem, and there are a lot of XP applications that companies didn't or can't upgrade, which would not run on 7 w/o either XP-Mode or Hyper-V.
First off the applications should be upgraded. That's part of the culture change they need to drive. But certainly XP-mode was designed to act as a intermediate system for companies not quite there yet.
I do think Microsoft should consider a model where they sell improved kernels, w/ whatever UI customers want - be it Metro, Aero, XP or classic NT. After all, 8 is better under the hood, if the UI could be the same as before. Maybe in installation, give users a choice of interfaces - making the newest the default but traditional UIs optional, so that it can be adapted by businesses w/ minimal disruptions.
They need to disrupt the applications if they are going to get them the applications to take advantage of Metro. They don't want the applications to support the legacy interfaces. That's a negative for Microsoft.
1) Design an OS which can run the legacy system and can run new style hardware (windows 8) 2) Get the OEMs up to the point that they are bringing out Windows 8 style hardware (percentage rising rapidly, I think they should be pushing harder). 3) Get the application vendors to convert over to Metro style (not happening yet).
They don't must anything. US multinations can or cannot run cloud services in Europe. European cloud services can or cannot run services in the USA. Similarly with all the possibilities with China or African countries. There is no must. There are options.
There may be some compromises and treaties in the future and that's fine. If treaties are signed than that becomes USA law. But until then, absolutely US multinationals follow USA law as it exists. If they can't "compete" then fine.
Do you really believe that people are buying a logo? That a company makes its own OS and has its own software ecosystem isn't the differentiator but how much people like a bitten into Apple vs. a box with the letters HP or Samsung's writing is the big issue.
If you are going to take that sort of position then it is impossible to reason.
OK so neither of us really understood GP's point which makes this hard. That's what I meant by extensions vendor specific extensions. I was the one originally saying DirectX is better for gaming. Though AMD Mantle sounds very promising.
, but why the hell shouldn't a non-touchscreen computer exist? How suddenly did the mouse&keyboard become such inferior tech...
Because there has been a shift from desktop to laptop and then from laptop to smartphone as the dominant computing platform. So desktops are now in 4th place they used to be in first. Which means they are a special needs auxiliary platform not the dominant platform and interoperability is important. The same way that when dumb terminals were replaced with terminal emulators which were often more feature rich (because the computer was more powerful and versatile than the real dumb terminal) expectations changed.
I think I have never seen a touchscreen laptop used practically. A tablet is one thing, the device is already in your hands. A device with a raised screen and dedicated input devices, the touchscreen is at best an option and at worst a distracting pain to interact with.
Watch anyone with the right hardware interact with windows 8. Heck watch people using good quality resistive laptops with Windows 7 and applications that worked well with tablets. They might disattach and carry the laptop around one handed using it for lookup then reattach the keyboard for quick entry. I'm a mac user and I immediately saw the value of this new form factor and picked up a surface 1. If it just had better battery life it would probably be my primary conference laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
Outdated: not modern or current.
That's not what the word "outdated" means. What you are arguing is that it is OK to be outdated as long as it still serves its purpose. That's fine. But it doesn't change the status of being outdated. Lots of people use outdated things. I use a fully mechanical watch. My father uses a fountain pen. The fact that they serve a purpose doesn't mean they aren't outdated.
And I answered that in this thread. I said it was the wrong question. Microsoft is a USA company. They should be subject to USA law. Conversely Aliyun should be subject to Chinese law even for USA customers. ChinaCache has services in about 10 American cities but the company is Chinese and China is the appropriate regulating body for their service. The services under European law should be ones like Interxion and those should not be subject to USA law.
Google can't say it. The ruling wasn't about me, it was about them. They were the ones whose speech was censored.
Agreed. I wish MacPorts were better. Though most compile errors are a question of dependencies that they didn't list in the port. I've found they are fixable if you look. I've usually been able to get them to compile. I switched from Fink when that got worse to MacPorts. I'm often not sure if I should go back. Fink often is so out of date but MacPorts is often so annoying. I wish Apple just through 20 fulltime guys at MacPorts.
Exactly right. Microsoft Office created a document standard and Office worked for Windows. There were other applications too. That was the old Microsoft's strategy and today it isn't as important. The web is finally a rich experience and people run many of their applications on the internet. Mobile applications can be light because they depend on client services.
Which is why Microsoft is focusing so heavily on the Azure cloud experience to help organize those new technologies and standards. Azure management tools offer an operating system for the new kinds of applications business need their people to use. Microsoft to be effective need to interoperate with these other kinds of technologies. The value Microsoft intends to bring is interoperability with a wide range of standards which is unmatched. To do that they need to break their own desktop paradigm.
As far as not caring about Office Suite they are enabling the transition. They want you to be on a range of devices via. Office 365. Go out and buy a Mac, go out and use an iPad get your interoperability with office though Microsoft. Its a terrific strategy but one that most /.ers don't see. I suspect mainly because just as when /. started most of the technical people here were using a GUI as a way to run multiple x-terms, most of the people here still are very happy with the 1990s paradigm. They don't get for example how many business cloud applications the average Microsoft customer is really using already.
I used to have that setup too before I got a laptop with a retina screen. I might switch back if I get a large high definition monitor. What I am saying though is that docking stations aren't the norm. They just don't sell enough for them to be the norm. There was a real shift in how people did computing when there was a change from desktop to laptop. They needed to be functional "on the go". We are experiencing a similar change now with mobility.
Assuming that was even accurate do you think what they really meant was they liked the logo or rather they'd had excellent experiences with Apple products and thus had a very high degree of faith. For example I might pay quite a bit more for a Mercedes brand watch not because I like the logo but because I have faith that such a watch is likely to be very well made.
Microsoft's assumption and I believe they are correct in this is that the amount disruption that changing platforms would induce dwarfs the amount of disruption that changing their customers over to a new interface induces. That's the calculus. That they can force this change with very little damage to their enterprise customer base. I think they are absolutely correct in this assessment. If you think they are wrong think about the costs of walking away from Windows entirely for many of these very organizations. They may be unhappy about the extra costs associated with an interface change but they don't have a viable alternative at any price remotely similar to what accepting those interface changes would be like.
Microsoft has made a decision that the interests of the broad ecosystem require them to force their customer base to do things they would rather not do. They aren't denying that. So when you say that their customers don't want to do something you aren't disagreeing with Microsoft you are simply refusing to consider the overall strategy. They are thinking long term. They are thinking strategically. They are once again leading the x86 ecosystem. Their customers are thinking short term. Their customers are thinking tactically. Were they to follow their customer's lead they would be forced into servicing an ever decreasing market and becoming ever more irrelevant to computing. Their highest point of overage 15 years is likely now. If they are going to have to undergo this change eventually, now is the time when they can force the change without hemorrhaging customers.
So yes it is their job to disrupt the operations of their customers.
What are you talking about. USA law applies to the USA. Chinese law applies to China. French law applies to France. Its the Europeans who are trying to export their laws to the rest of the planet.
This is a perfect example of ubiquitous computing.
If you are using a x86 tablet you can run Windows Media center right on your tablet and use the Metro style interface on it. Connected to the TV is a extender. A computer connected can act like an extender. So the entire application runs remotely. Conversely any windows mobile tables like the Nokia Lumia 2520 or the Surface RT can run the interface and the application itself runs on the PC. In other words you can split the GUI. No need for VNC.
Run the app where you want to run it. Run the interface where you want to run it the way you want to run it.
I wasn't saying that touchscreen is the typical setup yet. Though obviously with the dominance of smartphones and tablets probably already the majority of workers do the majority of their work on these form factors. What I was saying is that touchscreen should be and will be. What I was also saying though is that using laptops without external monitors and mice is the norm.
ABC has a few good shows. For example: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek... is considered one of the cornerstone shows for official pronouncements of policy. Very official, but more in depth similar to the more bland shows on the BBC. Martha Raddatz who is the Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABCNews was considered so good that people joked she won the Vice Presidential debate in 2012 (she was the moderator and did a fantastic job cutting through the BS with two very seasoned politicians). But no, what you see is pretty reflective of the ABCNews.
As for the BBC I agreed with you above the BBC is better. We have something like the BBC, PBS NewsHour.
Those two tend to negatively correlate in the USA media. The better the source the more likely it is funded by an organization with an agenda or appeals to a narrow segment of the electorate. PBS NewsHour (TV), that I mentioned above or the Washington Post. The two newswires Reuters and AP are both good and neutral. http://www.nationaljournal.com... But mostly the better sources aren't neutral. The Wall Street Journal does some fantastic coverage but it represents the Republican establishment it isn't neutral. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/ represents the opinions of the State Department. Stratfor is terrific but tends to represent the CIA. On the left the Nation is very good but they only claim to represent the most progressive 10%...
They don't. It is frankly amazing. Though the UK may be better than the rest of Europe. But for example I was discussing legal stuff with a UK guy who was quite knowledgeable who was shocked that Presidents regularly used their power to pardon. They also didn't understand state vs. federal law and how few and specific federal crimes are. That just about everybody in jail is in jail at the country and state level and this has nothing to do with Obama. Try and keep your ears open for this as you listen to critiques of the USA over the next year. You'll frequently hear people upset with Obama about issues that are state issues, or things that come from congress...
That's not true. Harry Truman tried and failed, Lyndon Johnson tried and failed. Richard Nixon tried and failed. Bill Clinton tried and failed. And that's just presidents. In congress there were probably several dozen important attempts.
The minority leader in the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi argues fo
The ability to freely say X about person Y is what free speech is about. What do you think free speech means?
It isn't regulating my opinion it is regulating Google's opinion. It is regulating Google's opinion about what is the most relevant information about a person. That's the opinion being regulated.
What is the freedom of the press other than the ability of the press (i.e. Google) to express opinion? I don't do business in Europe, if I did, then yes this would affect my opinion.
That's a good point. Americans have generally been very aggressive about regulating the government's ability to know things. And also the scope of government is much more heavily regulated. The result is they don't have any experience with an overly knowledgeable government. I don't disagree these issues are seen differently. When I'm pointing out is that they are seen so differently that European laws would encounter strong resistance if applied in America.
Of course that's what it is. The government of Germany is telling Google what they can or cannot say about an individual. That's the state suppressing speech.
Agreed. This was not an unjust application of the law, this was a just application of a law that Americans disagree with and don't want to be subject to. I also agree there was no imbalance of power.
You are going to give a bunch of examples I'm going to refute. I would say the people of the United States choose between a rich diversity of news sources generally based on agreeing. News everywhere is driven by powerful organizations the distinctions come down to who is in power. The powerless generally don't do an effective job propagating their views or they wouldn't be powerless.
This goes to the whole America is a foreign country. You are trying to compare too directly and as a result comparing apples to oranges.
First off you have more newsy tabloids than we do. Our tabloids tend to have stories at the low end like "half human half monkey baby born to Oklahoma woman" with doctored photos to a high end that focus on fashion and celebrity sex lives. Our most mainstream news, stuff like ABC world news is designed to present a quick 30 minute overview of world events in terms of mainstream (i.e. the two political parties) opinion for a semi-interested audience. I think it does accomplish that.
We have more serious news sources which are designed for the more interested. But ultimately one huge difference is we have a free market for news and people vote with their dollars about what kinds of coverage they want. You all have a much more regulated environment where average people get less say in their news coverage but get a better quality product as a result of getting that less say. Though I will say that when I talk to Europeans they don't seem particularly educated. For example virtually every political conversation I have with a European where they start discussing policy has to start with a basic education that the USA does not have a parliamentary system. If you are doing such a great job informing people, then why is it that even the 5% most educated don't they know the absolute basics like that?
I don't know that. How precisely are you using the term cult? What does it mean to you?
Your claiming that non-Scientology parents never got full custody in European courts because of anti-Scientology persecution? I just want to make sure of your claim before I go find examples.
That's the same with any conspiracy.
Speech: Mr. X should be die.
Conspiracy: At 12:00 when Mr. X goes to lunch I'lll be wearing a bright green shirt and point him out. You fire your assault rifle from that window...
One is the early stage of an act, the other is an opinion. Acts are regulated opinions are not. Same applies to sedition.
I agree. GP seemed unaware that hate speech was legal in the USA and that we don't have those laws.
Good. The more we return to a system where corporations can be effectively regulated the better. The EU can effectively regulate EU businesses. They can't effectively regulate and shouldn't try to regulate US businesses. Reducing trade to a level where effective regulation becomes possible is not a bad thing.
When was the US ever popular in Europe? When was this time of glorious popularity. There was a short window after 9/11. But for example right before that the EU was kicking the USA out of one of the few UN organizations which had voice over here: United Nations Human Rights Council, which resulted in devastatingly negative effects for that council and for global human rights. Bill Clinton and George Bush both made it clear that the US could never sign the ICC treaty without the right of trial by jury and Europe didn't give a damn. They would rather have an ineffectual toothless court than reach (IMNO) a very reasonable compromise. So when was this golden age? I don't really see it.
What I see is a Europe that for whatever reason believes the USA has much more culturally in common with them than it does, and continually acts shocked that we are not a European country and don't want to live under European standards and law. There is some level of compromise between the USA and Europe. We are allies. But we are not part of the same political system. And if Europeans started to relate to the USA they way they do to Asian, Latin American or African countries as meaningfully and genuinely foreign I think that would be better all around for everyone.
The upside is the reestablishment of the rule of law when it comes to corporations. The alternative of allowing USA corporations to setup shop in every foreign country on the planet and be governed by the piecewise minimum of law everywhere is far more of a threat than not directly selling cloud services. That is a really serious threat to USA society, USA government. Certainly it might be advantageous for USA business to be exempt from all law but I'm not sure how that benefits the society in the USA much certainly not enough to compensate.
Like I said. I'm all for you all setting up your own cloud services subject to European law. That creates genuine competition. That's a good thing not a bad thing. Your threat is seen over here as a benefit. Even if there weren't an underlying legal reason I'd still be enthusiastic about it.
I didn't say they would disappear. I did say they need to able to effectively interface. That's application ubiquity.
See this from 2011 where they outlined their goal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You'll see how desktops work in a ubiquitous environment.
Let's separate the two issues partially for a moment. There is the use of lower end computers, and updating them less frequently rather than being on a schedule of continuous improvement using latest and newest version. That was driven by a desire for cost savings. Then there is also the issue that the larger the stack of layers replacing a lower layer becomes exponentially more expensive.
x86 is way ahead of Android at the high end, example Apple rMBP or MacPro. Android likely won't be comparable to those sorts of systems for a decade. If Microsoft could drive up average spend so that OEMs were doing research themselves, plus allowing for higher cost of parts... that would in turn allow applications to be more sophisticated and make greater demands on the OS and hardware... This pushes off the date of crossover when Android becomes "better" or at least "close enough" to x86. To do that one of the elements is a culture of continuous improvement which would decrease migration hassles since IT shops would be setup for replacing operating systems regularly.
You see this on iOS. Apple because they essentially force annual upgrades of the operating systems with often breaking API have required IT shops to budget for operating system upgrades and application upgrades annually. Microsoft may never be able to push their base quite that far, but there is a lot of distance between where they are now and where they could be.
First off the applications should be upgraded. That's part of the culture change they need to drive. But certainly XP-mode was designed to act as a intermediate system for companies not quite there yet.
They need to disrupt the applications if they are going to get them the applications to take advantage of Metro. They don't want the applications to support the legacy interfaces. That's a negative for Microsoft.
1) Design an OS which can run the legacy system and can run new style hardware (windows 8)
2) Get the OEMs up to the point that they are bringing out Windows 8 style hardware (percentage rising rapidly, I think they should be pushing harder).
3) Get the application vendors to convert over to Metro style (not happening yet).
They don't must anything. US multinations can or cannot run cloud services in Europe. European cloud services can or cannot run services in the USA. Similarly with all the possibilities with China or African countries. There is no must. There are options.
There may be some compromises and treaties in the future and that's fine. If treaties are signed than that becomes USA law. But until then, absolutely US multinationals follow USA law as it exists. If they can't "compete" then fine.
Do you really believe that people are buying a logo? That a company makes its own OS and has its own software ecosystem isn't the differentiator but how much people like a bitten into Apple vs. a box with the letters HP or Samsung's writing is the big issue.
If you are going to take that sort of position then it is impossible to reason.
OK so neither of us really understood GP's point which makes this hard. That's what I meant by extensions vendor specific extensions. I was the one originally saying DirectX is better for gaming. Though AMD Mantle sounds very promising.
Because there has been a shift from desktop to laptop and then from laptop to smartphone as the dominant computing platform. So desktops are now in 4th place they used to be in first. Which means they are a special needs auxiliary platform not the dominant platform and interoperability is important. The same way that when dumb terminals were replaced with terminal emulators which were often more feature rich (because the computer was more powerful and versatile than the real dumb terminal) expectations changed.
Watch anyone with the right hardware interact with windows 8. Heck watch people using good quality resistive laptops with Windows 7 and applications that worked well with tablets. They might disattach and carry the laptop around one handed using it for lookup then reattach the keyboard for quick entry. I'm a mac user and I immediately saw the value of this new form factor and picked up a surface 1. If it just had better battery life it would probably be my primary conference laptop.