I'm a user, not a customer. And yes, as others have said, by being a user, I'm the actual product;
That's very black and white thinking. Ultimately there are two business directions here, and whether you consider yourself a customer or a product there is no practical difference to you for Google. They need to keep *you* happy with new products and services or they will cease to be able to sell your to advertisers.
People who keep using the "you are the product" meme as an excuse for Google ignoring its customers fundamentally fail to realise that the product can't be sold if it isn't also a customer.
So what you're saying is you had great performance for 70% of the time and yet you don't want the ability to have that anymore and instead want the your device permanently in limp mode? Do you run with 4G turned off? Do you always have 25% brightness on your screen? And how would you feel about both those not being optional and in your control?
Power management you can't control? No one. Would you be happy with your screen permanently at 0% brightness? Would you be happy if your V8 car was permanently set to ECO mode with a speed limiter? Would you be happy with Microsoft capping your CPU performance at 75% to save your energy bill?
I didn't say emergency surgery, I said emergency situation. There are a long list of routine tasks that can get turned into an emergency situation. Someone swapped out a machine, normal person who works with machine calls in sick, I mean if we trusted doctors with all their tools there wouldn't be 3 other people in every surgery.
You are drawing way too many conclusions from a lack of data on the other end of a tech support phone line.
Or do you blindly do whatever they tell you to do without thinking about it at all?
Define the alternative: Shop for a doctor who's opinions you agree with? Why not self diagnose using WebMD while you're at it. My thumb hurt. I have cancer. Doctors know nothing.
It was never viable to begin with since most vendors would never push it out. Shit the last BIOS update I got was in 2014 and it is marked as Beta.
Also if you want to get realllllllllly technical they never promised a lack of system reboots. Maybe the new patch comes with features that ensure you're always running the latest kernel. You know getting all those Linux sysadmins who insist they don't need to reboot after applying security updates.;-)
Agreed. But Frizt being the underdog is unable to abuse a dominant market position. It's a strange dichotomy where what is illegal for one may not be illegal for another.
On behalf of all Australians we encourage your unnamed investor to build his course and spend as much time playing there as possible. The only things up there are skin cancer, firebombing birds, crocodiles, and the worlds deadliest jellyfish. Think you're safe? Not even Steve Irwin survived up there.
Nope, they said no such thing. They said that 90% of their systems have patches available. Given it was always left to the vendors to issue these patches that 90% figure is not going to happen, at all, and definitely not on the day the microcode was released.
I couldn't help but notice that the package "intel-microcode" was updated today. Given that I already had the 20180801 microcode installed I looked up the version of the package: "intel-microcode 3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu16.04.1"
That's an interesting package management technique.
ARM isn't affected by Meltdown. IBM is. It's not just an Intel problem, but it is an Intel problem for popular chips on the market.... Lucky for Apple.
It seems the majority of people believe that Spectre (affects Intel, AMD and ARM) is just as dangerous as Meltdown
It is just as dangerous, but it's also harder to exploit. But then we apply security fixes for all manner of unlikely attack vectors all the time. It's just not good practice to leave a known publicised attack vector which has been patched unpatched on your systems.
Very few people have the resources to independently risk assess all patches that they apply.
No. It's illegal to abuse a position of a monopoly. Depending on your current market situation, who you're doing business with and who it affects, all of the things you listed can be considered illegal for the same reason.
The difference will be buried in the details. For example from experience in the restaurant, there is no financial exclusivity deal. What there is is a breach of contract deal. You're more than welcome to start stocking Pepsi. But Coke will not let you put it in their fridge (those fridges are leased by the way), and will very likely terminate the contract with you causing quite a bit of grief. This is very different from "here's money, don't buy anything from Pepsi"
The other big difference is that exclusivity contracts aren't by themselves illegal. If Coke made a similar contract with some restaurant where they paid you to not stock any Pepsi products it in itself would not be illegal as they aren't a monopoly. Now if they went into Germany and paid someone to not stock Fritz Kola all of a sudden you may find yourself running afoul of antitrust laws.
The key thing here Qualcomm was fined for "abuse of market dominance".
but automating any long-stretch transportation systems does have quite a few aspects in common
Actually it has very few. The only thing they have in common is going from a to be. You can consider trains over constrained versions of cars, but when you put enough constraints on any problem it gets broken down to a simple yes / no type logic. It's this massive simplification that allows automated trains and metros to run on simple industrial PLCs whereas a car has a boot full of GPUs doing real time vision analysis.
Incidentally this is also the reason why train drivers are at constant risk of falling asleep, boredom combined with even the slightest bit of fatigue is a bad combination.
Trains and cars have many of the same problems, like braking for obstacles and managing speed for turns. They lack one obvious similarity, of course.
No they really couldn't be more different. You're either way overcomplicating train automation or way simplifying car automation. There's a reason why traditional train automation is handled by basic industrial PLCs while car automation is a box full of computers processing the whazoo out of vision and radar sensors.
Yep, that system. Twitter is not an acceptable alternative.
No one said it was. But when your communication system goes down, while people go to replace it the best way to get a message out to people is via traditional media. And you can say what you want, there's no arguing that Twitter is now a core part, if not the fastest way, to get messages to the media.
Of course they are. When applied for protectionism tariffs exist due to a difference in the domestic regulation and the foreign regulation and are used as a way to prevent exporting bypasses around domestic regulation to other countries.
i.e. If your HSE rules mandate that you don't kill someone, and those rules cause a 10% overhead in that manufacturing activity it stands to reason that this domestic rule should come with a tariff on imported products from any country where the rule doesn't exist or is laxer. Likewise the reverse applies too, expect to have a tariff levied against your exports for the same reasons.
Now tariffs aren't always a domestic issue, but in terms of protecting your industry against a known undercutter they are.
Actually something like this reminds me of an even earlier Tesla accident where the investigation went something like: Driver: "It was on autopilot!" Investigator: "Tesla, was it on autopilot?" Tesla: "No." Driver: "Ok I lied, wait, how did you even know about that? Help help I'm being oppressed".
Given how Google's core market is the analytics on your data, your data is their "coke classic recipe". If you want to ensure your data is protected and not shared with 3rd parties you wouldn't give it to any company which doesn't focus on your data as their sole core business.
That includes Apple, but is most specifically focused on Amazon. The former has only reputational reasons to protect your data, the latter has no reason at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a user, not a customer. And yes, as others have said, by being a user, I'm the actual product;
That's very black and white thinking. Ultimately there are two business directions here, and whether you consider yourself a customer or a product there is no practical difference to you for Google. They need to keep *you* happy with new products and services or they will cease to be able to sell your to advertisers.
People who keep using the "you are the product" meme as an excuse for Google ignoring its customers fundamentally fail to realise that the product can't be sold if it isn't also a customer.
So what you're saying is you had great performance for 70% of the time and yet you don't want the ability to have that anymore and instead want the your device permanently in limp mode? Do you run with 4G turned off? Do you always have 25% brightness on your screen? And how would you feel about both those not being optional and in your control?
Sure, who needs power management, right?
Power management you can't control? No one. Would you be happy with your screen permanently at 0% brightness? Would you be happy if your V8 car was permanently set to ECO mode with a speed limiter? Would you be happy with Microsoft capping your CPU performance at 75% to save your energy bill?
not emergency surgery
I didn't say emergency surgery, I said emergency situation. There are a long list of routine tasks that can get turned into an emergency situation. Someone swapped out a machine, normal person who works with machine calls in sick, I mean if we trusted doctors with all their tools there wouldn't be 3 other people in every surgery.
You are drawing way too many conclusions from a lack of data on the other end of a tech support phone line.
Or do you blindly do whatever they tell you to do without thinking about it at all?
Define the alternative: Shop for a doctor who's opinions you agree with? Why not self diagnose using WebMD while you're at it. My thumb hurt. I have cancer. Doctors know nothing.
It was never viable to begin with since most vendors would never push it out. Shit the last BIOS update I got was in 2014 and it is marked as Beta.
Also if you want to get realllllllllly technical they never promised a lack of system reboots. Maybe the new patch comes with features that ensure you're always running the latest kernel. You know getting all those Linux sysadmins who insist they don't need to reboot after applying security updates. ;-)
Agreed. But Frizt being the underdog is unable to abuse a dominant market position. It's a strange dichotomy where what is illegal for one may not be illegal for another.
Yeah I fully agree, but you're at most talking a few percent speed difference. Certainly not 18 years worth of speed evolution of PCs.
Is that really the best you've got?
Nope. I don't waste the best I got on fakes.
On behalf of all Australians we encourage your unnamed investor to build his course and spend as much time playing there as possible. The only things up there are skin cancer, firebombing birds, crocodiles, and the worlds deadliest jellyfish. Think you're safe? Not even Steve Irwin survived up there.
Nope, they said no such thing. They said that 90% of their systems have patches available. Given it was always left to the vendors to issue these patches that 90% figure is not going to happen, at all, and definitely not on the day the microcode was released.
I couldn't help but notice that the package "intel-microcode" was updated today. Given that I already had the 20180801 microcode installed I looked up the version of the package: "intel-microcode 3.20180108.0+really20170707ubuntu16.04.1"
That's an interesting package management technique.
ARM isn't affected by Meltdown. IBM is. It's not just an Intel problem, but it is an Intel problem for popular chips on the market. ... Lucky for Apple.
I'm looking forward to seeing the legal consequences.
There will be none. I'll bet you a dollar.
It seems the majority of people believe that Spectre (affects Intel, AMD and ARM) is just as dangerous as Meltdown
It is just as dangerous, but it's also harder to exploit. But then we apply security fixes for all manner of unlikely attack vectors all the time. It's just not good practice to leave a known publicised attack vector which has been patched unpatched on your systems.
Very few people have the resources to independently risk assess all patches that they apply.
Is it illegal to "pay to play"?
No. It's illegal to abuse a position of a monopoly. Depending on your current market situation, who you're doing business with and who it affects, all of the things you listed can be considered illegal for the same reason.
The difference will be buried in the details. For example from experience in the restaurant, there is no financial exclusivity deal. What there is is a breach of contract deal. You're more than welcome to start stocking Pepsi. But Coke will not let you put it in their fridge (those fridges are leased by the way), and will very likely terminate the contract with you causing quite a bit of grief. This is very different from "here's money, don't buy anything from Pepsi"
The other big difference is that exclusivity contracts aren't by themselves illegal. If Coke made a similar contract with some restaurant where they paid you to not stock any Pepsi products it in itself would not be illegal as they aren't a monopoly. Now if they went into Germany and paid someone to not stock Fritz Kola all of a sudden you may find yourself running afoul of antitrust laws.
The key thing here Qualcomm was fined for "abuse of market dominance".
but automating any long-stretch transportation systems does have quite a few aspects in common
Actually it has very few. The only thing they have in common is going from a to be. You can consider trains over constrained versions of cars, but when you put enough constraints on any problem it gets broken down to a simple yes / no type logic. It's this massive simplification that allows automated trains and metros to run on simple industrial PLCs whereas a car has a boot full of GPUs doing real time vision analysis.
Incidentally this is also the reason why train drivers are at constant risk of falling asleep, boredom combined with even the slightest bit of fatigue is a bad combination.
Trains and cars have many of the same problems, like braking for obstacles and managing speed for turns. They lack one obvious similarity, of course.
No they really couldn't be more different. You're either way overcomplicating train automation or way simplifying car automation. There's a reason why traditional train automation is handled by basic industrial PLCs while car automation is a box full of computers processing the whazoo out of vision and radar sensors.
Yep, that system. Twitter is not an acceptable alternative.
No one said it was. But when your communication system goes down, while people go to replace it the best way to get a message out to people is via traditional media. And you can say what you want, there's no arguing that Twitter is now a core part, if not the fastest way, to get messages to the media.
As per subject.
Of course they are. When applied for protectionism tariffs exist due to a difference in the domestic regulation and the foreign regulation and are used as a way to prevent exporting bypasses around domestic regulation to other countries.
i.e. If your HSE rules mandate that you don't kill someone, and those rules cause a 10% overhead in that manufacturing activity it stands to reason that this domestic rule should come with a tariff on imported products from any country where the rule doesn't exist or is laxer. Likewise the reverse applies too, expect to have a tariff levied against your exports for the same reasons.
Now tariffs aren't always a domestic issue, but in terms of protecting your industry against a known undercutter they are.
Actually something like this reminds me of an even earlier Tesla accident where the investigation went something like:
Driver: "It was on autopilot!"
Investigator: "Tesla, was it on autopilot?"
Tesla: "No."
Driver: "Ok I lied, wait, how did you even know about that? Help help I'm being oppressed".
Steve Jobs is dead. Your reality distortion field no longer works. You're shilling it wrong.
Or one Google Home Max. There is a market for a high end smart speaker too.
Given how Google's core market is the analytics on your data, your data is their "coke classic recipe". If you want to ensure your data is protected and not shared with 3rd parties you wouldn't give it to any company which doesn't focus on your data as their sole core business.
That includes Apple, but is most specifically focused on Amazon. The former has only reputational reasons to protect your data, the latter has no reason at all.