Of course it would be awesome for Microsoft's customers. So what? The customers who want XP buy and large want it because they are cheap and don't want to update their hardware and OSes. That is they don't want to pay Microsoft. Sure they would be thrilled if Microsoft assisted them in spending very little on Microsoft. The same way Exxon's customers would be happier if Exxon sold gas below their cost of oil.
Most games are coded against DirectX. OpenGL is considered by most game companies far worse. Linux drivers are often well behind commercial drivers. This isn't an easy to solve problem.
Then of course there is the problem that the whole theory is wrong. Most home / small business PCs are not primarily used for gaming but for home productivity and communications.
Microsoft is being disrupted from below by Android. Overtime Android will get more capable. Right now they have established a lock on enterprise desktop so the likely move will be for Android to replace Home / Small business. For them to compete with Android's 2017 version they need to offer the functionality of Android at the very least and that means a good tablet / phone experience as well as a desktop experience. Which is ubiquitous computing. To get to ubiquitous computing they need applications that support multiple form factors. To get those they need both hardware and OSes that support ubiquitous computing. To get the hardware they need an OS. So they release the OS which allows OEMs to have a target platform to work against.
What isn't required is that end users appreciate the advantages yet. As a point of fact Windows 8 is pretty cool on the right hardware but most of the critics are shocked that Windows 8 runs poorly on Windows 7 hardware. Microsoft would have done better to make 8 touchscreen or digitizer mandatory and not allowed Windows 7 hardware at all. But regardless Windows 8 accomplishes their key objective of moving the platform forward.
If something does what its user needs it to do, then how is it outdated?
Because does what it needs is not the antonym for outdated. Stovetop percolators make good coffee, I think better coffee than the drip coffee makers used today, that doesn't change the fact they are outdated. Windows XP doesn't fit current software and presents all sorts of problems that Windows 7/8 would not. Does it run the application you want / need? Sure. Does it run the current applications? No. QED.
Well then if you know what they do, you know they are not how the USA enforces the law on people who live here primarily and you wouldn't have brought them up. They are a coordination service when the USA has no leverage and is cooperating with a foreign government.
I haven't heard of commercial espionage by the US government. I think it makes sense for Europe to operate their own cloud services. You guys keep throwing this around as a threat. Its a good thing. American services subject to American law, French services subject to French law, Chinese services subject to Chinese law. That's all good.
What are you talking about? Microsoft is crystal clear on that one:
For instance, organizations covered by the E.U. Data Protection Directive should have their own policies, security, and training program in place to ensure their personnel do not use Azure in a way that violates the Directive. We will do our part by abiding by the promises we have made, thereby helping you remain compliant. ( http://azure.microsoft.com/en-... )
I was talking about search warrants, but the same thing applies to arrest warrants. Interpol themselves don't issue warrants or enforce them. They just coordinate.
There are plenty of cloud services not subject to European privacy laws, the overwhelming majority. To pick an example I was working a few weeks ago on a SQLServer database which lists parts and suppliers for home repairs. Where to get which bolt ain't exactly confidential.
The ruling isn't going to be reversed. For example, take a look at this thread. Remarkably for/. the Americans: Democratic to Republican to Libertarian seem pretty united it was the right ruling. The Europeans just disagree.
Good point on your clarification of independent, that makes sense. In which case.. yes it does appear that the President probably should just appoint a prosecutor at this point to investigate.
re its possible for any federal agency to either belong to more than one branch of government, or alternatively belong to none
Company X has data subject to EU privacy rules. Company X exports this data to the USA. That data get subpoenaed by a USA court. No one questions Company X is responsible.
Situation with Azure. When uploading to Azure Company X has agreed to export their data to the USA and subject it to USA rules. There shouldn't be any data on Microsoft UK Azure that is subject to EU privacy policies since Azure does not provide a service compliant with EU privacy policies and says so openly. So it is effectively the same as the above.
Now Microsoft USA is going to shield their UK employees further by just doing the transfer themselves so there are no employees to jail.
Its more than that. Remember this would apply to cloud services operating in the United States. So probably what it means is fragmented cloud services for consumer applications or EULAs in Europe where people consent that they have made their information international and thus semi-public.
Or who knows. Your worst case doesn't sound that bad that European cloud providers become able to play at the level of Azure, AWS, SoftLayer... Where is the downside for Americans in that?
The US is burninig goodwill like there's no tomorrow...
What goodwill? I don't see a lot of goodwill in Europe ever for the USA. Mostly we get opposition even for stuff that benefits Europe. I'd love to see European powers step up to the plate and handle stuff once in a while. I'm sick of the USA always being called on. If Germany or France or someone wants to deal with Syria, go for it. If by "burning goodwill" you mean the result is less internationalization, well good.
That being said, I think the average European is more concerned about multi-nationals being unaccountable than them being accountable. It is the United States taking a step towards ending corporate oligarchy which originates from these companies being able to freely flee jurisdictions whenever there is a crime. The USA government is better than anarchy even for most Europeans and thus I think this will be seen as a net positive.
If you need a powerful ERP with complex process, in multiple department you need a serious ERP. What you didn't do was budget for a full implementation. You can get rid of the 3rd party and the implementation part much cheaper than using your existing implementation partner for everything though.
I know a company that specializes in converting legacy systems over to new system and doing these sorts of Integrations that also has a strong staff development staff aug model (http://bluelotussidc.com/contact/contactus.php )
this is what Interpol and local LEO is for. ALL that is needed is validation of the warrant. Which takes about three minutes over the phone.
Interpol does coordination primarily for arrests. They don't do warrants. The prosecutor would need to get the local court to agree to the search before local LE intervenes. Which is possible and done all the time. This has come up because US prosecutors are asserting they don't need to follow that procedure it is optional when it comes to US hosting providers and USA courts are agreeing. They have asserted that all of Azure is legally domestic and the courts agree.
In the case of Azure the top administrative level is in the USA so they have direct access. MSUK doesn't need to even know or be involved. Which keeps them clean. If they didn't have direct access the courts would fine the heck of MSUSA until MSUK gave it up on the assumption that the parent company probably does have ways to get it if they really want it. Which of course they do
Re:It's better to hear people you might disagree w
on
The CIA Does Las Vegas
·
· Score: 1
True but techno libertarians often make claims that can be checked but are complicated. For example what XYZ said or how ABC acts when exploded or...
In general there have been some leaks, example the Wikileaks embassy stuff that gave us a pretty good statistical basis for where the State Department was lying and where it was telling the truth. That's extremely useful for estimating the likelihood of lies in other cases.
Those warrants and subpoenas have the value of toilet tissue as soon as you try to execute them off-shore.
Not really. That's precisely the point you are arguing against the USA is executing them off-shore. And in the case of the search of the Amsterdam house someone who refused to comply could get charged with obstruction of justice, and go to a USA jail. That's how you get compliance.
And the execution of a search warrant happens "where the thing to be searched is", not "where people who have access to it are".
Search warrant, yes. Search warrants don't usually ask for active cooperation. Subpoena on the other hand require cooperation. You are required to go get the records and turn them over to X. Most companies facing a search warrant actively cooperate since failure to actively cooperate can be taken into account in assessing damages. So the warrant itself doesn't compel cooperation but it comes just short.
Should the Chinese government be able to compel a Chinese company, with operations in the US to turn over data, stored in the US, where doing so would be a violation of US law?
Absolutely yes. For example if Huawei USA had a cloud provider that should be regulated by China since that's the only government with real leverage over them.
If "ChinaCo" was a military contractor and had a bunch of classified material on servers here in the US, should the US just roll over and allow China to "subpoena" the US-based blueprints for the new Stealth weapon? Why or why not?
Yes which is why the USA military should never ever ever contract out secret weapons systems to a non-USA company.
If the courts can punish Microsoft for not producing evidence in Ireland, why cannot it then punish Senators for not producing evidence of income hidden in the Bahamas?
They can, they have (though I don't know about senators but certainly Americans) and they still do.
so the CCP can get MS to give them all my incriminating 'speech' because it's saved in the US?
The analogy would be the CCP can get Huwaii to give you their incriminating speech even from their US based cloud (if they had one). And the answer would be yes they can and they should.
The structure is this Microsoft Washington owns a Nevada corporation owns a Bermuda corporation owns Microsoft Ireland. The data is on Microsoft Ireland's physical servers but they hire Microsoft Washington for services and another subsidiary for licensing.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it would be awesome for Microsoft's customers. So what? The customers who want XP buy and large want it because they are cheap and don't want to update their hardware and OSes. That is they don't want to pay Microsoft. Sure they would be thrilled if Microsoft assisted them in spending very little on Microsoft. The same way Exxon's customers would be happier if Exxon sold gas below their cost of oil.
Most games are coded against DirectX. OpenGL is considered by most game companies far worse. Linux drivers are often well behind commercial drivers. This isn't an easy to solve problem.
Then of course there is the problem that the whole theory is wrong. Most home / small business PCs are not primarily used for gaming but for home productivity and communications.
Because does what it needs is not the antonym for outdated. Stovetop percolators make good coffee, I think better coffee than the drip coffee makers used today, that doesn't change the fact they are outdated. Windows XP doesn't fit current software and presents all sorts of problems that Windows 7/8 would not. Does it run the application you want / need? Sure. Does it run the current applications? No. QED.
Well then if you know what they do, you know they are not how the USA enforces the law on people who live here primarily and you wouldn't have brought them up. They are a coordination service when the USA has no leverage and is cooperating with a foreign government.
I haven't heard of commercial espionage by the US government. I think it makes sense for Europe to operate their own cloud services. You guys keep throwing this around as a threat. Its a good thing. American services subject to American law, French services subject to French law, Chinese services subject to Chinese law. That's all good.
What are you talking about? Microsoft is crystal clear on that one:
For instance, organizations covered by the E.U. Data Protection Directive should have their own policies, security, and training program in place to ensure their personnel do not use Azure in a way that violates the Directive. We will do our part by abiding by the promises we have made, thereby helping you remain compliant. ( http://azure.microsoft.com/en-... )
I was talking about search warrants, but the same thing applies to arrest warrants. Interpol themselves don't issue warrants or enforce them. They just coordinate.
There are plenty of cloud services not subject to European privacy laws, the overwhelming majority. To pick an example I was working a few weeks ago on a SQLServer database which lists parts and suppliers for home repairs. Where to get which bolt ain't exactly confidential.
The ruling isn't going to be reversed. For example, take a look at this thread. Remarkably for /. the Americans: Democratic to Republican to Libertarian seem pretty united it was the right ruling. The Europeans just disagree.
Good point on your clarification of independent, that makes sense. In which case.. yes it does appear that the President probably should just appoint a prosecutor at this point to investigate.
The Federal Reserve I think would qualify.
Here is the situation.
Company X has data subject to EU privacy rules. Company X exports this data to the USA. That data get subpoenaed by a USA court. No one questions Company X is responsible.
Situation with Azure. When uploading to Azure Company X has agreed to export their data to the USA and subject it to USA rules. There shouldn't be any data on Microsoft UK Azure that is subject to EU privacy policies since Azure does not provide a service compliant with EU privacy policies and says so openly. So it is effectively the same as the above.
Now Microsoft USA is going to shield their UK employees further by just doing the transfer themselves so there are no employees to jail.
Its more than that. Remember this would apply to cloud services operating in the United States. So probably what it means is fragmented cloud services for consumer applications or EULAs in Europe where people consent that they have made their information international and thus semi-public.
Or who knows. Your worst case doesn't sound that bad that European cloud providers become able to play at the level of Azure, AWS, SoftLayer... Where is the downside for Americans in that?
What goodwill? I don't see a lot of goodwill in Europe ever for the USA. Mostly we get opposition even for stuff that benefits Europe. I'd love to see European powers step up to the plate and handle stuff once in a while. I'm sick of the USA always being called on. If Germany or France or someone wants to deal with Syria, go for it. If by "burning goodwill" you mean the result is less internationalization, well good.
That being said, I think the average European is more concerned about multi-nationals being unaccountable than them being accountable. It is the United States taking a step towards ending corporate oligarchy which originates from these companies being able to freely flee jurisdictions whenever there is a crime. The USA government is better than anarchy even for most Europeans and thus I think this will be seen as a net positive.
Ley's touch base about your book. Email me jbolden AT BlueLotusSIDC DOT com
If you need a powerful ERP with complex process, in multiple department you need a serious ERP. What you didn't do was budget for a full implementation. You can get rid of the 3rd party and the implementation part much cheaper than using your existing implementation partner for everything though.
I know a company that specializes in converting legacy systems over to new system and doing these sorts of Integrations that also has a strong staff development staff aug model (http://bluelotussidc.com/contact/contactus.php )
Interpol does coordination primarily for arrests. They don't do warrants. The prosecutor would need to get the local court to agree to the search before local LE intervenes. Which is possible and done all the time. This has come up because US prosecutors are asserting they don't need to follow that procedure it is optional when it comes to US hosting providers and USA courts are agreeing. They have asserted that all of Azure is legally domestic and the courts agree.
If they don't want to subject to USA law, yes. Same way I shouldn't use Chinese services if I don't want to be subject to Chinese law.
In the case of Azure the top administrative level is in the USA so they have direct access. MSUK doesn't need to even know or be involved. Which keeps them clean. If they didn't have direct access the courts would fine the heck of MSUSA until MSUK gave it up on the assumption that the parent company probably does have ways to get it if they really want it. Which of course they do
Fair enough.
Sorry not sure what you are saying.
True but techno libertarians often make claims that can be checked but are complicated. For example what XYZ said or how ABC acts when exploded or...
In general there have been some leaks, example the Wikileaks embassy stuff that gave us a pretty good statistical basis for where the State Department was lying and where it was telling the truth. That's extremely useful for estimating the likelihood of lies in other cases.
Not really. That's precisely the point you are arguing against the USA is executing them off-shore. And in the case of the search of the Amsterdam house someone who refused to comply could get charged with obstruction of justice, and go to a USA jail. That's how you get compliance.
Search warrant, yes. Search warrants don't usually ask for active cooperation. Subpoena on the other hand require cooperation. You are required to go get the records and turn them over to X. Most companies facing a search warrant actively cooperate since failure to actively cooperate can be taken into account in assessing damages. So the warrant itself doesn't compel cooperation but it comes just short.
Absolutely yes. For example if Huawei USA had a cloud provider that should be regulated by China since that's the only government with real leverage over them.
Yes which is why the USA military should never ever ever contract out secret weapons systems to a non-USA company.
They can, they have (though I don't know about senators but certainly Americans) and they still do.
The analogy would be the CCP can get Huwaii to give you their incriminating speech even from their US based cloud (if they had one). And the answer would be yes they can and they should.
The structure is this
Microsoft Washington owns a Nevada corporation owns a Bermuda corporation owns Microsoft Ireland. The data is on Microsoft Ireland's physical servers but they hire Microsoft Washington for services and another subsidiary for licensing.