The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking
I see you don't know how the modern internet works. No one is worried that this won't show up in a text based search result. Aggregation is very much a part of the modern internet including content previewing, and every result is typically expected to carry associated pictures and text from the articles.
and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work.
The most substantial part of any news work is a headline and the first sentence. That is kind of the problem.
You don't like the word "link text" because it's too generic, let's be more specific: "tax on Google News paid back to news sites" does that gel better?
I don't see too many smaller businesses being affected by this. Especially given this move is mostly major media outlets battling it out for Google dollars.
In wifi, now, at least, uplinks are easily controlled at the user device (phone), which is what I was mostly measuring.
And how does that fix the monumental amount of equipment that results in buffer bloat between your phone and the target you're accessing?
The user is not in control in this in the slightest. All they can do is not make it worse than the many hops already in the system. Apple won't fix your buffer bloat. They can't. All you can ask them to do is not make it worse.
For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC?
Indeed. Did you read to the end of my sentence. Just because I walk up to TSMC doesn't mean I'll get access to what Apple has.
And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had?
Well given the rounding error differences between top of the line ARM SoCs on the market in terms of performance I fully agree with you.
Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear... snip... Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.
Except no. How many units you crank out and what you pay at the fab are two different hings. Qualcomm live on tight margins, Apple is the exact opposite and past stories have shown they pay such a nice premium for access to fabs that even Samsung prioritised producing Apple's chips over the processors for it's own flagship devices.
What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then.
No I'm fully aware of that fact. What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei? Given that they are trying to get away from the very people who own all of the designs what they are doing here is worlds different from their processor efforts.
Their success of their SoCs has nothing at all to do with their ability to design a 5G modem and it'll be a far larger and more complicated task.
Everyone IS doing it. SoCs are dime a dozen from basically every manufacturer remotely related to technology. The difference is in their market power which provides them an edge when it comes to getting it fabbed.
It would be interesting but not exactly a huge problem. These kinds of pressures were used around the WWII days by the Germans to liquefy coal into hydrocarbons. It makes for some very interesting vessel designs.
Are you being sarcastic or are you clever enough that CO2 can be shift reacted to CO and then using Fischer Tropsch synthesis be hydrogenated into a hydrocarbon?
Their conversion process could be used to convert roughly 90 percent of the world's polypropylene waste each year into fuel.
Then we can put this fuel into our cars and burn, dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere, where it can no longer be any harm to our planet.
Oh wait...
Great idea. That way we don't need to dig more oil out of the ground to put it in our cars where we will continue to burn at the same rate completely independently of this technology. Oh and we end up with less in our landfills.
So, they have discovered a method to convert millions of tons of plastic into fossil fuels that can be burned to release yet more sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. That's sure to solve our ongoing problem with carbon emissions causing climate change.
Not exactly. The petrochemical industry is driven by the thirst for liquid fuels not solid plastics. Plastics are a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. If we can reuse plastic as a liquid fuel source then we would offset pumping yet more liquid out of the ground for burning, net emissions stay somewhat equal. What we do end up with is less plastic in the landfills.
You can't solve global warming at the fuel production stage, you need to solve it at the consumption stage.
Why spin something like that when you can sell your service on marketing hype knowing full well consumer protection laws in the USA aren't worth a damn?
What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.
This is very different from designing a modem, a task which far more experienced companies than Apple are doing poorly at.
What are they saving themselves from? You're talking about the country that had to offer promises that it wouldn't screw it's own people over by removing protections afforded to them under EU laws.
If Britain ran out of the EU you can bet your testicles that the'd keep a retarded law like this one.
For comparison, it took the EU four years to do anything about the VAT mess on digital services. During that time some smaller businesses went under
Good. So let some media companies go under and serve as a lesson to stupid people who think they can get away with rentseeking by screwing around with the legal system.
This foolishness has to be stopped before it gets onto the EU statute books.
This foolishness didn't come from some bored EU bureaucrat, it came from the very people you are defending. Just because Europeans don't list "lobbying" as a line item under OpEx on their quarterly financial reports doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Actually you'd not be liable to the letter or jurisdiction.
but it is highly probable you will get GDPR related requests.
Just put "no junk mail" on your letter box.
As a company, you'll probably have to pay a lawyer
Companies outside the EU that actually paid lawyers didn't block people in the EU. Or rather they should maybe fire their lawyer and pay another one for a correct opinion.
This costs money.
This is a sunk cost.
Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
Indeed. So you geoblock you analytical system while continuing to make profit of clicks. You're all about the money and business decisions, but you seem to be advocating the wrong ones.
So how much does those off-the-shelf GDPR management code cost?
Given that every dodgy shitty site with few visitors uses it, very little.
And why wouldn't they be liable? They're storing information on Europeans
Maybe if you read the GDPR you wouldn't be asking such a silly question. Just storing information on Europeans does not make you liable. It especially doesn't make you liable if you're not in Europe and outside the reach of the law. It even more makes you not liable since personal and corporate ties don't exist like you think they do in Europe, and even if a site was falling afoul of the GDPR it's not possible to arrest some company employee who happens to be on holiday for it.
Effort? Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
So is simply not serving tracking scripts to people.
Kneejerk? Sure, if you want... but it also removes *any* possible headache regarding to GDPR.
There is no headache for GDPR. Pretty close to 100% of sites blocking the EU due to GDPR complaints are outside of the EU jurisdiction and have zero headaches as a result. Regardless whether you're doing anything shady or not.
I haven't ready anything that says that Android's source has been reviewed, and there aren't any Google hooks in it.
You don't need a source review to ensure something isn't talking to Google.
Do you have anything that shows that Android is clean of Google tracking
Do you have the ability to come up with a less tinfoil hat: "You need to prove my negative in order to be right" argument? We're all out to get you man.
You should read the constitution. You'll find that it has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Not free speech, not self incrimination, and not being innocent until proven guilty.
But you're on a role for not knowing the legal system of your country.
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data. I mean based on what you're saying you're implying that all speed cameras will read the parked car instead of the speeding one right?
Or maybe you just found an edge case and the reality is that yes you do have to break the law in order to get fined, unless you're a certain Mr Schultz who as you just stated yourself hasn't actually paid a fine.
Slashdot Mirror
The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking
I see you don't know how the modern internet works. No one is worried that this won't show up in a text based search result. Aggregation is very much a part of the modern internet including content previewing, and every result is typically expected to carry associated pictures and text from the articles.
and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work.
The most substantial part of any news work is a headline and the first sentence. That is kind of the problem.
You don't like the word "link text" because it's too generic, let's be more specific: "tax on Google News paid back to news sites" does that gel better?
I don't see too many smaller businesses being affected by this. Especially given this move is mostly major media outlets battling it out for Google dollars.
In wifi, now, at least, uplinks are easily controlled at the user device (phone), which is what I was mostly measuring.
And how does that fix the monumental amount of equipment that results in buffer bloat between your phone and the target you're accessing?
The user is not in control in this in the slightest. All they can do is not make it worse than the many hops already in the system. Apple won't fix your buffer bloat. They can't. All you can ask them to do is not make it worse.
For instance, you do realize that they use the same fabs as everyone else, right, namely Samsung and TSMC?
Indeed. Did you read to the end of my sentence. Just because I walk up to TSMC doesn't mean I'll get access to what Apple has.
And that until this last year or so, everyone was pretty much held up at 10nm, so there was no major advantage to be had?
Well given the rounding error differences between top of the line ARM SoCs on the market in terms of performance I fully agree with you.
Moreover, if what you were saying was true, we’d expect the Snapdragon line to be even better, given that it’s licensing the same tech, built on the same fabs, but should be benefitting from larger market power and orders than what even Apple can bring to bear ... snip ... Likewise, if that’s all it took, we’d expect Samsung by itself to have done it already and achieved similar results, but they haven’t.
Except no. How many units you crank out and what you pay at the fab are two different hings. Qualcomm live on tight margins, Apple is the exact opposite and past stories have shown they pay such a nice premium for access to fabs that even Samsung prioritised producing Apple's chips over the processors for it's own flagship devices.
What you seem to be unaware of is that while the A-series got its start as you describe (licensing LEGO pieces), Apple’s engineers have added quite a bit on top since then.
No I'm fully aware of that fact. What you seem to be unaware of is the monumental difference between modifying an existing licensed platform, and going out on your own and building something new. Who will Apple pay for the base design? Qualcomm? Intel? Huawei? Given that they are trying to get away from the very people who own all of the designs what they are doing here is worlds different from their processor efforts.
Their success of their SoCs has nothing at all to do with their ability to design a 5G modem and it'll be a far larger and more complicated task.
Everyone IS doing it. SoCs are dime a dozen from basically every manufacturer remotely related to technology. The difference is in their market power which provides them an edge when it comes to getting it fabbed.
Sorry, no. Their cores are fully custom and designed from scratch.
There's an entire universe of difference between "fully custom and designed from scratch" and licensing the entire architecture from ARM.
It would be interesting but not exactly a huge problem. These kinds of pressures were used around the WWII days by the Germans to liquefy coal into hydrocarbons. It makes for some very interesting vessel designs.
Are you being sarcastic or are you clever enough that CO2 can be shift reacted to CO and then using Fischer Tropsch synthesis be hydrogenated into a hydrocarbon?
The Germans used to do this with coal.
Well you're missing the "hydro" part in hydrocarbons but yes close enough ;-)
Their conversion process could be used to convert roughly 90 percent of the world's polypropylene waste each year into fuel.
Then we can put this fuel into our cars and burn, dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere, where it can no longer be any harm to our planet.
Oh wait...
Great idea. That way we don't need to dig more oil out of the ground to put it in our cars where we will continue to burn at the same rate completely independently of this technology. Oh and we end up with less in our landfills.
So, they have discovered a method to convert millions of tons of plastic into fossil fuels that can be burned to release yet more sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. That's sure to solve our ongoing problem with carbon emissions causing climate change.
Not exactly. The petrochemical industry is driven by the thirst for liquid fuels not solid plastics. Plastics are a byproduct of the oil and gas industry. If we can reuse plastic as a liquid fuel source then we would offset pumping yet more liquid out of the ground for burning, net emissions stay somewhat equal. What we do end up with is less plastic in the landfills.
You can't solve global warming at the fuel production stage, you need to solve it at the consumption stage.
Because cars don't burn solids.
Cars shouldn't burn anything at all. A nice chemical reaction and an electric motor is all that's needed.
Why not be smart and use 4.5G?
Why spin something like that when you can sell your service on marketing hype knowing full well consumer protection laws in the USA aren't worth a damn?
What makes you think the end user device is in any way in control of this?
What they are doing is licensing a 3rd party technology from someone else and bolting it together like Lego while at the same time using their market power and huge orders to be the first in line for the latest technologies fabs can provide which gives them a nice edge.
This is very different from designing a modem, a task which far more experienced companies than Apple are doing poorly at.
What are they saving themselves from? You're talking about the country that had to offer promises that it wouldn't screw it's own people over by removing protections afforded to them under EU laws.
If Britain ran out of the EU you can bet your testicles that the'd keep a retarded law like this one.
For comparison, it took the EU four years to do anything about the VAT mess on digital services. During that time some smaller businesses went under
Good. So let some media companies go under and serve as a lesson to stupid people who think they can get away with rentseeking by screwing around with the legal system.
This foolishness has to be stopped before it gets onto the EU statute books.
This foolishness didn't come from some bored EU bureaucrat, it came from the very people you are defending. Just because Europeans don't list "lobbying" as a line item under OpEx on their quarterly financial reports doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
You may not be liable to the letter of the law,
Actually you'd not be liable to the letter or jurisdiction.
but it is highly probable you will get GDPR related requests.
Just put "no junk mail" on your letter box.
As a company, you'll probably have to pay a lawyer
Companies outside the EU that actually paid lawyers didn't block people in the EU. Or rather they should maybe fire their lawyer and pay another one for a correct opinion.
This costs money.
This is a sunk cost.
Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
Indeed. So you geoblock you analytical system while continuing to make profit of clicks. You're all about the money and business decisions, but you seem to be advocating the wrong ones.
So how much does those off-the-shelf GDPR management code cost?
Given that every dodgy shitty site with few visitors uses it, very little.
And why wouldn't they be liable? They're storing information on Europeans
Maybe if you read the GDPR you wouldn't be asking such a silly question. Just storing information on Europeans does not make you liable. It especially doesn't make you liable if you're not in Europe and outside the reach of the law. It even more makes you not liable since personal and corporate ties don't exist like you think they do in Europe, and even if a site was falling afoul of the GDPR it's not possible to arrest some company employee who happens to be on holiday for it.
Who decides which legislation is 'retarded' and which is not?
Given that legislation is passed by elected officials who serve the democratic needs of the people, the court of public opinion decides.
P.S. Google doesn't need to leave the EU to oppose this legislation.
I know. Read the post I was replying to before you get worked up about something irrelevant.
it's a tax for stealing content
Stop masturbating, it's shrinking your brain's grey matter.
Effort? Geoblocking is incredibly easy and incredibly cheap.
So is simply not serving tracking scripts to people.
Kneejerk? Sure, if you want... but it also removes *any* possible headache regarding to GDPR.
There is no headache for GDPR. Pretty close to 100% of sites blocking the EU due to GDPR complaints are outside of the EU jurisdiction and have zero headaches as a result. Regardless whether you're doing anything shady or not.
I haven't ready anything that says that Android's source has been reviewed, and there aren't any Google hooks in it.
You don't need a source review to ensure something isn't talking to Google.
Do you have anything that shows that Android is clean of Google tracking
Do you have the ability to come up with a less tinfoil hat: "You need to prove my negative in order to be right" argument? We're all out to get you man.
You should read the constitution. You'll find that it has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Not free speech, not self incrimination, and not being innocent until proven guilty.
But you're on a role for not knowing the legal system of your country.
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data. I mean based on what you're saying you're implying that all speed cameras will read the parked car instead of the speeding one right?
Or maybe you just found an edge case and the reality is that yes you do have to break the law in order to get fined, unless you're a certain Mr Schultz who as you just stated yourself hasn't actually paid a fine.