Thats like one specific model of car jerking the wheel into oncoming traffic for no reason. Completely unacceptable.
Not quite. It's a car slowly moving the vehicle into oncoming traffic against your corrections to the contrary. None of these planes nosed down and went boom in a second. In all cases the pilots had time to react.
Your car analogy is good except for the "jerking" comment. Have you ever had a flat tire on the highway? This is very similar, except what to do about it is nowhere near as clear. Equipment failure causing car to continuously try and move in a direction you don't want it to.
On a business side that is 100% correct. I'm in Germany at the moment, I had a vendor from Texas call up to meet and discuss how he will get more business in Europe. I said you better start at the low hanging fruit and work on our Dutch and Belgian plants because... your main competitor is German. It doesn't matter how good your are there's a big barrier to overcome against local companies.
I was talking exclusively about the legal side of EU enforcement. That often looks one sided but that's largely because of the one sided scale of breach of the laws and that won't ever go away, not unless principly the USA acts more like the EU (preventing mega companies from forming), or the EU becomes like USA, neither of which are realistic scenarios due to cultural differences.
What has a monopoly got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that you need a monopoly in order to abuse your power? Are you under the impression that antitrust laws only applies to monopolies?
Let me help you: No.
As to Google's market power, there are several hundred million smartphones shipped every year. Some 75-80% of those globally run Android, some 50-70% of those fall under the Google certification scheme. So a fair chunk of the entire market was restricted due to a bundling practice that prevented competition on an open use platform. That is called abuse of market power and it has directly affected hundreds of millions of people regardless of your definition of monopoly.
unless the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there as well as those like the Kindle devices running a non-Google fork of Android without all the Google bits and the few others still running things like Windows or Blackberry all dont count
You're conflating two different things there. The presence of a completely different platform does not absolve Google from control over a platform. Just because there's lots of iPhones or iPads out there doesn't mean Google isn't abusing its market power controlling Android. As to the Kindle devices and others... well that is exactly the point. These have been intentionally limited by a company with large market power precisely due to being customised. Critical core features have been locked out of these devices, their market share has reflected this accordingly, and that is precisely what the fine is all about.
Changing the search engine in Chrome does nothing other than change the search engine in Chrome. Hit the search button at the top of the home screen? Well you're back to Google. Using the Assistant? Google. Is Firefox your default browser but you use Bixby or your feral "assistant" of choice to open a link, guess where it opens... did you guess Firefox? You're wrong. Google.
So yes, it's to hard. It's not a 3 step process. On many devices it's simply not possible to *not* use Google Search or *not* use Chrome. And why would it be easy? The reason they got fined $5bn in the first place is because they specifically asked manufacturers to make it hard in order to get the Play Store.
Define easily. Personally I find the batteries on iPhones to be easily replaceable.
Superuser privileges
The first two words were good, but then the rest of the sentence made no sense and has no place in this discussion. A better wording would be something around manufacturers not limiting the ability to perform 3rd party repairs through software. Don't conflate separate issues.
From whom? Trust is not an all or nothing question. Now your advice is generally good, but for the most part people aren't trying to remain anonymous from their VPN provider and legitimate legal requests for their logs.
Fining US corporations is a fairly painless way to boost the budget.
Errr horseshit. The law doesn't care about where corporations come from, and there's nothing painless about multi year protracted legal battles against incredibly wealthy and well resourced opponents.
Now here's a thought, rather than getting all upset that a USA based company is in trouble with a another country, instead point out how that USA based company actually complied with laws that have been on the books since the 60s (before the precious budget contributor of the UK even joined the EU).
No matter where you're from, it seems likely there exists more animus against a successful foreign company dominating a local market.
It always seems like that to the outside but that is a misanalysis. The EU quite happily fines EU companies constantly. The difference is it doesn't make the news outside of the EU since it's not newsworthy, and also due to relative sizes the relative fines (which take into account both market effects as well as ability to pay) are usually significantly lower.
Now while it does look like Google is a healthy target for the EU the reasoning behind it makes perfect sense too, but not for the reasons you think. Unchecked and unregulated free market economics is what allowed US and Chinese based companies to grow to the incredible size that they do. This is actively prevented in much of the rest of the world. These large companies suddenly doing businesses the same way as they are used to in Europe find themselves under extreme scrutiny thanks to their massive size and stronger local laws.
For example: The USA has anti-trust laws. But unlike the EU the anti-trust laws need to directly show a financial impact to consumers which makes it very hard to break those laws simply by using abusing market power to sink competitors. In other parts of the world anti-trust laws are focused more exclusively on abusing power which means effects on other businesses are equally punished (after all lack of competition indirectly affects consumers), and this is what Google repeatedly gets in trouble for.
Hence it looks like USA based companies are unfairly targeted, while the reality is that's just a shallow observation.
You gave up because you saw a single event from a single bad actor? You were not an "avid" recycler. You were a minimum effort recycler with no conviction whatsoever.
What the hell are we supposed to do with this information?
Read the subtext and not the media reports. At no point has any scientific study discredited the "balanced diet" regardless of the efforts of the media to vilify individual food items.
There is literately not a single fucking task that is performed at Kickstart that is either dangerous or dirty; which is about the only legitimate reason why you would need actual union protection.
I'm no fan of unions but my god that is wildly off base. In fact I would argue the opposite, dangerous tasks are not the ones that should be defended by a union since they are already defended by the state. Why whine to your colleagues when you can bring in OSHA.
No. The GP did not say all employees are going to be bad and you won't be able to fire them. What the GP said is say hello to bad employees you can never fire. Bad employees are universal. The inability to fire them is something that is enabled by shitty unions.
It would be a more accurate rebuff to the GP to say that not all unions defend bad employees, but at no point was the GP applying individuals to the whole in terms of employee performance.
And another oh-so-superior Europe supremacist jumps in the conversation to crap all over Americans and remind them just how stupid and culturally backwards we are.
Well someone has to. You seem to forget it in your superiority.
If anyone wonders why NATO failed, just refer to this comment.
Huh? It failed? As far as I can tell the USA wants more money put into it.
Have fun with your new buddies in Communist China.
Your brain doesn't appear to be working. If you've already had your morning coffee then may I suggest calling 911, you may have just had a stroke.
Bet they won't pay for your defense or let you rip them off for $150 billion a year in unfair trade agreements.
You repeat this ad nauseum despite having been told with references all over again that the figure is bullshit. Your inability to learn from the falsehood of your fox and friends talking points is precisely why it is important people constantly remind you of how moronic you guys can actually be.
Slashdot Mirror
Negligence and experience are not the same thing. It wasn't inexperience that caused this issue.
Thats like one specific model of car jerking the wheel into oncoming traffic for no reason. Completely unacceptable.
Not quite. It's a car slowly moving the vehicle into oncoming traffic against your corrections to the contrary. None of these planes nosed down and went boom in a second. In all cases the pilots had time to react.
Your car analogy is good except for the "jerking" comment. Have you ever had a flat tire on the highway? This is very similar, except what to do about it is nowhere near as clear. Equipment failure causing car to continuously try and move in a direction you don't want it to.
On a business side that is 100% correct. I'm in Germany at the moment, I had a vendor from Texas call up to meet and discuss how he will get more business in Europe. I said you better start at the low hanging fruit and work on our Dutch and Belgian plants because ... your main competitor is German. It doesn't matter how good your are there's a big barrier to overcome against local companies.
I was talking exclusively about the legal side of EU enforcement. That often looks one sided but that's largely because of the one sided scale of breach of the laws and that won't ever go away, not unless principly the USA acts more like the EU (preventing mega companies from forming), or the EU becomes like USA, neither of which are realistic scenarios due to cultural differences.
What has a monopoly got to do with anything? Are you under the impression that you need a monopoly in order to abuse your power? Are you under the impression that antitrust laws only applies to monopolies?
Let me help you: No.
As to Google's market power, there are several hundred million smartphones shipped every year. Some 75-80% of those globally run Android, some 50-70% of those fall under the Google certification scheme. So a fair chunk of the entire market was restricted due to a bundling practice that prevented competition on an open use platform. That is called abuse of market power and it has directly affected hundreds of millions of people regardless of your definition of monopoly.
unless the hundreds of millions of iOS devices out there as well as those like the Kindle devices running a non-Google fork of Android without all the Google bits and the few others still running things like Windows or Blackberry all dont count
You're conflating two different things there. The presence of a completely different platform does not absolve Google from control over a platform. Just because there's lots of iPhones or iPads out there doesn't mean Google isn't abusing its market power controlling Android. As to the Kindle devices and others ... well that is exactly the point. These have been intentionally limited by a company with large market power precisely due to being customised. Critical core features have been locked out of these devices, their market share has reflected this accordingly, and that is precisely what the fine is all about.
A 3 step process already - settings, basics, search engine. Done.
Changing the search engine in Chrome does nothing other than change the search engine in Chrome. Hit the search button at the top of the home screen? Well you're back to Google. Using the Assistant? Google. Is Firefox your default browser but you use Bixby or your feral "assistant" of choice to open a link, guess where it opens ... did you guess Firefox? You're wrong. Google.
So yes, it's to hard. It's not a 3 step process. On many devices it's simply not possible to *not* use Google Search or *not* use Chrome. And why would it be easy? The reason they got fined $5bn in the first place is because they specifically asked manufacturers to make it hard in order to get the Play Store.
Now... he's killing the baby for a cash payout.
Being a hero doesn't pay bills.
How does that make sense?
Even less sense: Make e-cigs illegal, but normal cigarettes legal, no need to talk about pot.
frame rate is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy more important than resolution.
Indeed it is. Right until you hit a limit when discussing either of them.
Before I do that, I'd buy a $450 PS4 Pro and spend the balance on an eight-ball of coke and take your mom out for a nice dinner and then anal sex.
If you've ever met my mother it would be you pleading to keep her out of this. Me, I'm just entertained, ... and grossed out.
must be easily user-removable and replaceable
Define easily. Personally I find the batteries on iPhones to be easily replaceable.
Superuser privileges
The first two words were good, but then the rest of the sentence made no sense and has no place in this discussion. A better wording would be something around manufacturers not limiting the ability to perform 3rd party repairs through software. Don't conflate separate issues.
If you want to stay anonymous
From whom? Trust is not an all or nothing question. Now your advice is generally good, but for the most part people aren't trying to remain anonymous from their VPN provider and legitimate legal requests for their logs.
I typically overwrite all sectors on a HD for a month with random crap, and drill holes in the platters.
How well does that work on a small device with a soldered on SSD that just had the screen break and is still under warranty?
Fining US corporations is a fairly painless way to boost the budget.
Errr horseshit. The law doesn't care about where corporations come from, and there's nothing painless about multi year protracted legal battles against incredibly wealthy and well resourced opponents.
Now here's a thought, rather than getting all upset that a USA based company is in trouble with a another country, instead point out how that USA based company actually complied with laws that have been on the books since the 60s (before the precious budget contributor of the UK even joined the EU).
No matter where you're from, it seems likely there exists more animus against a successful foreign company dominating a local market.
It always seems like that to the outside but that is a misanalysis. The EU quite happily fines EU companies constantly. The difference is it doesn't make the news outside of the EU since it's not newsworthy, and also due to relative sizes the relative fines (which take into account both market effects as well as ability to pay) are usually significantly lower.
Now while it does look like Google is a healthy target for the EU the reasoning behind it makes perfect sense too, but not for the reasons you think. Unchecked and unregulated free market economics is what allowed US and Chinese based companies to grow to the incredible size that they do. This is actively prevented in much of the rest of the world. These large companies suddenly doing businesses the same way as they are used to in Europe find themselves under extreme scrutiny thanks to their massive size and stronger local laws.
For example: The USA has anti-trust laws. But unlike the EU the anti-trust laws need to directly show a financial impact to consumers which makes it very hard to break those laws simply by using abusing market power to sink competitors. In other parts of the world anti-trust laws are focused more exclusively on abusing power which means effects on other businesses are equally punished (after all lack of competition indirectly affects consumers), and this is what Google repeatedly gets in trouble for.
Hence it looks like USA based companies are unfairly targeted, while the reality is that's just a shallow observation.
That ignores a fundamental problem in the US.
It's good that we all ignore fundamental problems which don't actually exist outside of Faux News.
You gave up because you saw a single event from a single bad actor? You were not an "avid" recycler. You were a minimum effort recycler with no conviction whatsoever.
While this study is indeed interesting, I would like to see another study involving healthy young and middle aged adults.
Prediction: Study involving younger people results in a lower total death rate and thus a lower chance of statistically significant results.
What the hell are we supposed to do with this information?
Read the subtext and not the media reports. At no point has any scientific study discredited the "balanced diet" regardless of the efforts of the media to vilify individual food items.
Not quite enough. To make it a complete French breakfast that egg needs to be followed up with 5 cigarettes.
There is literately not a single fucking task that is performed at Kickstart that is either dangerous or dirty; which is about the only legitimate reason why you would need actual union protection.
I'm no fan of unions but my god that is wildly off base. In fact I would argue the opposite, dangerous tasks are not the ones that should be defended by a union since they are already defended by the state. Why whine to your colleagues when you can bring in OSHA.
No. The GP did not say all employees are going to be bad and you won't be able to fire them. What the GP said is say hello to bad employees you can never fire. Bad employees are universal. The inability to fire them is something that is enabled by shitty unions.
It would be a more accurate rebuff to the GP to say that not all unions defend bad employees, but at no point was the GP applying individuals to the whole in terms of employee performance.
I have great fibre service where I live and I'd still rather just install them on my top end gaming pc
I highlighted the reason why you don't want this but other people may.
You should
Let me stop you right there. The parent never made a case of what you should do. Reading comprehension is important when having an online argument.
And another oh-so-superior Europe supremacist jumps in the conversation to crap all over Americans and remind them just how stupid and culturally backwards we are.
Well someone has to. You seem to forget it in your superiority.
If anyone wonders why NATO failed, just refer to this comment.
Huh? It failed? As far as I can tell the USA wants more money put into it.
Have fun with your new buddies in Communist China.
Your brain doesn't appear to be working. If you've already had your morning coffee then may I suggest calling 911, you may have just had a stroke.
Bet they won't pay for your defense or let you rip them off for $150 billion a year in unfair trade agreements.
You repeat this ad nauseum despite having been told with references all over again that the figure is bullshit. Your inability to learn from the falsehood of your fox and friends talking points is precisely why it is important people constantly remind you of how moronic you guys can actually be.
So men with guns should use violence to force Apple to extend their warranty on the fashion statements?
Your irrelevant word salad is one of the indicators you may have just had a stroke. I would go to the hospital.