No you don't. This has nothing to do with your privacy and everything to do with manufacturers not restricting B2B transactions with other vendors. You're not getting your privacy back, you're getting the option to buy a phone with Google Play + Bing Search or some other formerly banned combination.
This is both awful and stupid. The point of fines is not to have someone else pay them for you.
Google is not charging to pay off the fine. Google is charging due to the loss of income from the anti-competitive practice they have been forced to stop. In any normal world this is exactly how a product works to begin with: You want to use it, pay a fee.
Not: "You want to use it, well let me give you a list of all these things not related to my product that you will not be allowed to do."
and then sticking their middle finger up at the EU courts.
No they are not sticking anything. They are complying with the court requirements which was to stop an anticompetitive behaviour. As this anticompetitive behaviour was worth money to Google they just said they will comply and stop the practice and instead monetise their product in a different and far more traditional way: Ask for a fee.
If a manufacturer does not want to abide by Google's rules, they don't have to use their software - no problem.
Yes problem. Google's rules extend beyond the line of their sale. Google has a market share of considerable power which means that manufacturers are forced towards adopting Google's rules or provide a device that doesn't meet a customer's requirements.
This is the fundamental piece of anti-trust legislation: Having power over company's decisions, and using that power anti-competitively. A vendor can't opt out of the former.
No one sued Microsoft for including Internet Explorer in Windows Mobile
It didn't come with strings attached that had nothing to do with Internet Explorer.
Yours and the GP's point are irrelevant. It's their device and enjoys a minority position in the market.
On the other hand a Samsung Galaxy S is NOT Google's device in which case they are not able to restrict any deals Samsung make with Microsoft or whoever else without falling afoul of antitrust laws.
So... the way for Google to appease the EU's regulators is to become more of a locked down,
No. The way Google appeases the EU regulators is to monetise their product properly (i.e. charge a fee) rather than add anti-competitive strings (lock out participation of other vendors from the default configuration).
That is because you don't understand antitrust. Anti-trust is about using your position of power to be anti-competitive against others. One example of anti-trust is taking a highly popular product that is used on a wide variety of hardware, and adding restrictions to that product that artificially limit the business a company chooses to make with another. For example permitting the use of Google Play only when a vendor doesn't ship a competitors product (Bing search engine).
Apple on the other hand is not being anti-competitive. There is zero requirement anywhere in the world for a vendor to dice up and serve their stack in pieces to be consumed how another company sees fit. Apple having complete control of *their* product isn't an antitrust issue. Likewise Google restricting the use of the Google Play store to *only* Google devices would also not be an antitrust issue. Neither imposes anticompetive practices on a 3rd party.
Also of note would be the fact that in order to have an antitrust claim against you you actually have to be in a position of power. 19% market share is not a position of power, so the Apple case fails on both requirements.
You don't seem to realize that your complaint is a real life example of a catch 22: ad slingers promise they'll respect the DNT header only as long as users promise not to use it.
Not quite. The original idea was advertisers promise to respect the DNT header only as long as users meaningfully make the choice to not want to be tracked. Changing defaults screwed this entire principle.
They're selling that in the USA? How is that possible?
Was it imported from China or made under commission. It's amazing how few foreign beers are actually foreignly sourced. E.g. in Australia people don't drink Fosters for taste related reasons, however many of the foreign beers are actually brewed at the Foster's Brewery (formerly CUB) such as the iconic Guinnes.
In the Netherlands I've also seen some foreign beers with "Brewed by Heineken" written in the fine print.
- Normal images with many layers eat RAM. - Creating gigapixel images. - Advanced processing for images e.g. stacking to 64bit images, deconvolution, etc. They can all happily eat up as much RAM as you let it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? I have an old java based IPMI and other than getting a security warning about unsigned applications I don't have any problem in IE10 with it. Is there something specific yours complains about?
Please don't speak for "people". Speak for yourself. You'll find there's lots of people out there who want lots of different things. For example I want one single experience, but I want that experience to start with a base system that is customisable and extensible with a rich plugin scheme.
but found it would split many of my albums into 2, I think because some songs used a different encoding in the tagging. Maybe this has been fixed now.
It sounds like you're using the Album view. There's no "fix" for this situation. There is only switching to a different view (e.g. sort by folder and change the display not to group by albums), or fixing the album names. To identify as a common album the MP3 only needs to have a common Artist (if Various isn't ticked), Album name, and year (if it is used). I really question how people were able to even rip content where this differed in the first place.
My own opinion in interface differs from yours. Winamp IMO has a horrible interface now that I have used Foobar I won't consider going back. Also the continuous updates and development of foobar is a great advantage (including a Windows 10 app that allows the player to continue playing through the lock screen and sleep state, something no other useful media players do).
And yet a good indicator of if you truly care about something is if you put the effort to voice your own opinion or just do the FCC equivalent of re-tweeting.
I hope that the conflation of illegal immigrant vs legal immigrant data gets policed.
Australia has learnt a long time ago that this doesn't change anything. They'll just move onto the next derogatory comment to describe people who some political group don't want.
Illegal Immigrants. - Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants. Queue Jumpers. - Asylum seekers don't have a queue to get into. Boat People. - Oh FFS, the Prime Minister who made this comment's own parents arrived by boat.
It's comments like this which is why I browse at -1. Seriously entertaining stuff. The only thing funnier than an internet toughguy is an internet toughguy with a grudge and the mentality of a 5 year old whose favourite toy just got broken.
That hasn't been true since about the iPhone 4 days. I figure that is roughly when quality started going really south (the obvious iTunes case which was always a disgrace aside).
But since I doubt professional industry-grade printing firms prit their photos on inkjet printers.
Define professional industry grade. You'll find there's a wide variety of printers out there for a wide variety of purposes including laser, inkjet, and lithography.
In the professional / industrial arena you'll happily find inkjets costing upwards of several thousands of dollars. They are used for professional photos, but you also find them for very large format printers since it is still one of the best ways to make a quality print in a compact form factor while printing on huge rolls of paper.
And I also see no reason why laser printer pigments would have to be inferior.
Inferior to what. Each medium has it's benefits and drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
You're writing this as if it is some kind of retribution instead of the exact frigging point of the ruling. It's completely related news.
No you don't. This has nothing to do with your privacy and everything to do with manufacturers not restricting B2B transactions with other vendors. You're not getting your privacy back, you're getting the option to buy a phone with Google Play + Bing Search or some other formerly banned combination.
Why should I suffer for the EUs shortsightedness?
Enforcing antitrust laws is shortsighted? You really MUST be an Alphabet shareholder. Are you also on their board?
This is both awful and stupid. The point of fines is not to have someone else pay them for you.
Google is not charging to pay off the fine. Google is charging due to the loss of income from the anti-competitive practice they have been forced to stop. In any normal world this is exactly how a product works to begin with: You want to use it, pay a fee.
Not: "You want to use it, well let me give you a list of all these things not related to my product that you will not be allowed to do."
and then sticking their middle finger up at the EU courts.
No they are not sticking anything. They are complying with the court requirements which was to stop an anticompetitive behaviour. As this anticompetitive behaviour was worth money to Google they just said they will comply and stop the practice and instead monetise their product in a different and far more traditional way: Ask for a fee.
If a manufacturer does not want to abide by Google's rules, they don't have to use their software - no problem.
Yes problem. Google's rules extend beyond the line of their sale. Google has a market share of considerable power which means that manufacturers are forced towards adopting Google's rules or provide a device that doesn't meet a customer's requirements.
This is the fundamental piece of anti-trust legislation: Having power over company's decisions, and using that power anti-competitively. A vendor can't opt out of the former.
No one sued Microsoft for including Internet Explorer in Windows Mobile
It didn't come with strings attached that had nothing to do with Internet Explorer.
Err.. Apple does restrict 3rd party browsers.
Yours and the GP's point are irrelevant. It's their device and enjoys a minority position in the market.
On the other hand a Samsung Galaxy S is NOT Google's device in which case they are not able to restrict any deals Samsung make with Microsoft or whoever else without falling afoul of antitrust laws.
So... the way for Google to appease the EU's regulators is to become more of a locked down,
No. The way Google appeases the EU regulators is to monetise their product properly (i.e. charge a fee) rather than add anti-competitive strings (lock out participation of other vendors from the default configuration).
corruption?
Understanding. In this case understanding of what "antitrust" actually is.
That is because you don't understand antitrust. Anti-trust is about using your position of power to be anti-competitive against others. One example of anti-trust is taking a highly popular product that is used on a wide variety of hardware, and adding restrictions to that product that artificially limit the business a company chooses to make with another. For example permitting the use of Google Play only when a vendor doesn't ship a competitors product (Bing search engine).
Apple on the other hand is not being anti-competitive. There is zero requirement anywhere in the world for a vendor to dice up and serve their stack in pieces to be consumed how another company sees fit. Apple having complete control of *their* product isn't an antitrust issue. Likewise Google restricting the use of the Google Play store to *only* Google devices would also not be an antitrust issue. Neither imposes anticompetive practices on a 3rd party.
Also of note would be the fact that in order to have an antitrust claim against you you actually have to be in a position of power. 19% market share is not a position of power, so the Apple case fails on both requirements.
You don't seem to realize that your complaint is a real life example of a catch 22: ad slingers promise they'll respect the DNT header only as long as users promise not to use it.
Not quite. The original idea was advertisers promise to respect the DNT header only as long as users meaningfully make the choice to not want to be tracked. Changing defaults screwed this entire principle.
They're selling that in the USA? How is that possible?
Was it imported from China or made under commission. It's amazing how few foreign beers are actually foreignly sourced. E.g. in Australia people don't drink Fosters for taste related reasons, however many of the foreign beers are actually brewed at the Foster's Brewery (formerly CUB) such as the iconic Guinnes.
In the Netherlands I've also seen some foreign beers with "Brewed by Heineken" written in the fine print.
imagine a world full of sober people.
I did that once. Now I'm sitting in the bar trying hard hard to forget.
Medium format 48-bit image editing
Image editing in general:
- Normal images with many layers eat RAM.
- Creating gigapixel images.
- Advanced processing for images e.g. stacking to 64bit images, deconvolution, etc. They can all happily eat up as much RAM as you let it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? I have an old java based IPMI and other than getting a security warning about unsigned applications I don't have any problem in IE10 with it. Is there something specific yours complains about?
This is all part of Microsoft’s scheme to get people to use Spydows 10.
Or maybe it's just a sensible move from a security point of view. I'm sure that anyone still running Windows XP doesn't give a shit about that though.
People don't want one single experience.
Please don't speak for "people". Speak for yourself. You'll find there's lots of people out there who want lots of different things. For example I want one single experience, but I want that experience to start with a base system that is customisable and extensible with a rich plugin scheme.
Anybody who wants a simple lightweight music player that just works and not a bloated "music library manager" one.
Foobar2000. Winamp is no longer relevant in a market with better options that meet all your requirements.
but found it would split many of my albums into 2, I think because some songs used a different encoding in the tagging. Maybe this has been fixed now.
It sounds like you're using the Album view. There's no "fix" for this situation. There is only switching to a different view (e.g. sort by folder and change the display not to group by albums), or fixing the album names. To identify as a common album the MP3 only needs to have a common Artist (if Various isn't ticked), Album name, and year (if it is used). I really question how people were able to even rip content where this differed in the first place.
My own opinion in interface differs from yours. Winamp IMO has a horrible interface now that I have used Foobar I won't consider going back. Also the continuous updates and development of foobar is a great advantage (including a Windows 10 app that allows the player to continue playing through the lock screen and sleep state, something no other useful media players do).
And yet a good indicator of if you truly care about something is if you put the effort to voice your own opinion or just do the FCC equivalent of re-tweeting.
I hope that the conflation of illegal immigrant vs legal immigrant data gets policed.
Australia has learnt a long time ago that this doesn't change anything. They'll just move onto the next derogatory comment to describe people who some political group don't want.
Illegal Immigrants. - Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants.
Queue Jumpers. - Asylum seekers don't have a queue to get into.
Boat People. - Oh FFS, the Prime Minister who made this comment's own parents arrived by boat.
We'll keep finding new ways to dehumanise people.
It's where the emo kids hung out before Tumblr.
It's comments like this which is why I browse at -1. Seriously entertaining stuff. The only thing funnier than an internet toughguy is an internet toughguy with a grudge and the mentality of a 5 year old whose favourite toy just got broken.
"It just works" is the byline of Apple products
That hasn't been true since about the iPhone 4 days. I figure that is roughly when quality started going really south (the obvious iTunes case which was always a disgrace aside).
But since I doubt professional industry-grade printing firms prit their photos on inkjet printers.
Define professional industry grade. You'll find there's a wide variety of printers out there for a wide variety of purposes including laser, inkjet, and lithography.
In the professional / industrial arena you'll happily find inkjets costing upwards of several thousands of dollars. They are used for professional photos, but you also find them for very large format printers since it is still one of the best ways to make a quality print in a compact form factor while printing on huge rolls of paper.
And I also see no reason why laser printer pigments would have to be inferior.
Inferior to what. Each medium has it's benefits and drawbacks.