There is a place in the Dalles, Oregon where Google maps will try to make you take a left through a guard rail and off a 30ft tall retaining wall. To be fair the street does continue down there.
Have you submitted a correction?
If not, please post a link to the location, so I can.
By what realistic measure did AEDE expect Google to pay, when it outright stated that it'd shut down in Germany before paying? Did they expect Spain to be different?
Basically, yes, they thought that Spain would be different.
I think their assumption was that the Germans were a bunch of savages squatting in the ruins of a civilization that could safely be ignored, but that SPAIN! was still the center of civilized culture in the world, and therefore the rules were different.
I think they thought that Spain would be different because surely Google couldn't refuse to show snippets for all Spanish publishers. They assumed the German ruling didn't have the same clout because obviously many publishers would opt out.
Alternatively, I've seen it suggested that the Spanish knew exactly what would happen, and it's what they wanted. Or, more precisely, it's what the big, influential publishers wanted, because their size allows them to attract more visitors directly to their home pages, at the expense of smaller publishers. Another Slashdot poster claimed that it was political horse trading between big news organizations who are pro-government and the government to shut out smaller (and anti-government) news organizations, with an understanding that if the change hurt the big orgs too badly, the government would funnel cash to them to prop them up.
I don't know anything about Spanish politics, but those possibilities seem believable, and perhaps more believable than that Spanish lawmakers didn't believe Google would just shut down Google News in Spain.
What that strongly suggests to me is that as a society we place more value on preserving human life regardless of cost, regardless of the fact that this cannot properly be handled in any environment.
Spanish legislation went further than the German ones - The German court decision merely gave the right to charge, but per the article the Spanish one mandated charging.
Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.
Well, if by "everything else" you mean "nothing". Can you show me a seller of digital music that still does DRM, because as far as I can tell they've all abandoned it.
And the other half of this is that students who not only have the pre-requisites but have already learned the course material should be able to test out. Perhaps required to test out, because cocky young know-it-alls can be distracting, and perhaps intimidating, to the rest of the class.
That's fine for APIs that require registration. But I use the Calendar API. It doesn't require registration, and like many people I was caught out on the hop on November 17th when the v2 API was shut down. Like I said I'm not complaining. The v3 API is superior, but I would like to know if there is simple notification system available.
Well, in that case I think the best answer is to pay attention. I mean, the v2 API deprecation was announced at least three years prior to the shutdown. I don't know exactly when, but there are mailing list posts from 2011 telling people that v1 and v2 were deprecated and v3 should be used.
That plus a phone is not quite the dedicated device you're looking for, but it could be pretty close.
It streams low-quality video to a server in real-time, as well as storing high-quality video locally. Another thing it should do (don't know if it does, but it's open source; I may see if I can add this feature) is that when you activate it, it should lock your phone automatically. You could still be forced to unlock and disable it, but they couldn't do it themselves, and their intimidating you to do it would be on the livestreamed record. Or they could smash it or remove the battery (if your phone has a removable battery); there a purpose-built device would have a big advantage. And I'd think it would support BT external mics and cameras just fine.
I think there's a much simpler and less arbitrary method: Prosecute them for the crimes commit. If I knocked you down, beat you up, took your phone, erased your data and refused to let you go, I'd have committed several serious crimes including assault and battery, theft, vandalism and unlawful imprisonment. Now, if these actions were actually necessary in the pursuit of an arrest, those are justified. But the actions that were not necessary in the execution of their proper duties were not justified and should be prosecuted.
It's simple, and doesn't require any changes to law or policy. It just requires that DAs be willing to do their jobs.
It seems though that it will in this case only give the government more control over your data.
I think this is the deeper reasoning behind most such moves all over the world. We've seen a lot of motion in this direction after Snowden's revelations, but I think it's less about worry that the US government may have too much access to countries' citizens' data than it is about the insight that if the data is within their borders then they can get it. Oh, I suspect that lawmakers in many countries who are citing the former rationale really mean what they say... but that they're being advised and encouraged by their own governments' bureacracies and security services for the latter rationale.
Of course they can. They can go back to the same politicians they bamboozled the first time, and say "oops!" and get the law repealed.
True. I suspect it won't happen, though, because the most influential publishers are also the ones who will be least harmed. And, if you believe other commenters with more knowledge of Spanish politics, the ones who will be propped up by government funding should they be hurt too much.
They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:
I think google should move to comply with this IMMEDIATELY, as in they should have stopped aggregating these publishers within minutes of the law becoming effective. And then when publishers do relent, I think they should take a few weeks, at least, to start making that content available. Just my opinion;-)
Publishers cannot relent. The law doesn't allow them to require payment for snippets (like the German law did), it requires them to require payment. Which is why Google is shutting Google News down entirely in Spain... since all Spanish publisher are required to get paid, and Google isn't going to pay them, there will be no Spanish content for the Spanish Google News, making it useless.
the reality is if you are given code to work with and you see i = j * 5, if it's C you know what it does; if it's C++, you don't, regardless of who wrote it.
Nonsense. The only way you don't know what that means in C++ is if the code was written by a complete, drooling idiot.
Seriously, this is the first thing C programmers pull out to criticize C++... but in 23 years of professional C++ programming, I have never seen bizarre arithmetic operator overloading used in practice, except for iostreams, and you get used to that pretty quickly, given that it's been part of the standard library since very early on.
I have a few times seen libraries of mathematical operations, say on vectors or tensors, that made heavy use of arithmetic operator overloading, but it was so they could say "i = j * 5" where i and j are n-dimensional matrices. In those cases, operator overloading not only makes sense, it's a dramatic improvement over C.
If you want to criticize C++, there are lots of valid criticisms, mostly around the huge variety of features and the complexity of their interactions, which can get really subtle. And you can criticize many of the insane template metaprogramming constructs (though those can be really useful sometimes, particularly in building up infrastructure that allow the compiler to diagnose all sorts of errors you might make). If you don't like "invisible" stuff, you can criticize the abuses that can be made of constructors and destructors. But operator overloading? Faugh.
always implementing the big three (default constructor, copy constructor and = operator.)
Or, in the case of the last two, intentionally declaring them private and NOT implementing them (or if you have a C++11 compiler, explicitly deleting them), so as to make the class non-copyable. Relatively few classes need to be copyable. Declaring the copy ctor and assignment operator private ensures that client code can't accidentally copy your non-copyable objects. Not implementing them ensures that if class code accidentally copies an instance, you get a link error.
Bingo. While I understand the agenda they have, a push for favorable business conditions just like any other business would pursue, why does Tesla not think they can compete on equal terms as the competition? Sounds like they feel they need help being competitive.
Sure, and if they wanted to they could sell gasoline-powered cars, too.
Tesla is taking a shot at modernizing the car industry, and not just with their choice of powerplant. The dealer system made sense when you needed local expertise, but information is much easier to distribute today. Dealers are an anachronism -- and they know it, which is why they're fighting so hard to retain the regulatory restrictions on direct sales.
There are lots of practical reasons why Tesla doesn't want to go the franchise route, but besides all of those, it's just not where Tesla wants to go. They may fail. Saturn tried to buck the old model, too, not by eliminating dealerships but by enforcing tight rules on franchises and requiring a set-price sales model, and they ultimately failed, first falling back to the old model of jerking customers around, and then ultimately getting shut down entirely. Maybe Tesla will fail, too, but I don't think so, and I'm glad they're sticking to their guns.
Rooftop solar and battery storage cannot even begin to compete with efficient central generation and distribution.
That's a rather strong statement. Do you mean that they don't compete right now, or that they never can/will compete? Because your statement sounds like the latter, and I don't buy it. Central generation clearly can benefit from economies of scale, but distribution is enormously expensive, both in terms of infrastructure cost and power losses.
You read wrong. HTTPS doesn't prevent advertising. I suppose it prevents ads injected by ISPs, etc., but very, very few ads that you see get there that way.
government bases it's model on lots of little bits of taxation to fool you. If you just had one single tax - say sales tax - it would feel gigantic - even though you would prob be paying the same % of your income.
You've put your finger on the key point... corporate taxes are a way to hide taxes from taxpayers, so they don't realize just how much they're paying.
Personally, I think that's a bad thing, not a good one. People should know what they're paying so they can decide if they're getting good value for their money.
That's hugely unfair to companies with low profit margins. There are extremely successful businesses that run on single digit profit percentages. Your local supermarket is a pretty good example.
It's also extremely harmful to highly disaggregated supply chains and strongly rewards deep vertical integration. That's bad because it means supplies of materials that have multiple uses either get locked to a single use or else the companies that control those supplies become ideally-positioned to own huge swaths of the market. This is because if you tax revenue, the tax gets applied at every step in the supply chain. If it's a 5% tax and there are 10 steps in the chain (10 companies adding a bit of value and selling on to the next company in the chain, up until the last which sells to consumers), then the tax that must be build into the final price could be as high as 63%. In contrast, a company that buys up the entire supply chain only has to build a 5% tax into their prices. This translates into a huge competitive advantage for vertical integration.
I'm skeptical about the "not enough jobs" notion. We've seen at least three technology-driven revolutions that have wiped out nearly all the jobs that everyone worked pre-revolution... and yet each time we created all sorts of new jobs, many of which would have been either frivolous or completely inconcievable before the revolution.
In general, we're really, really bad at predicting the future. To me that says that while it makes sense to look forward and plan, we should be careful to avoid extremes, because odds are very, very good that our predictions are wrong, and therefore our plans are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
When nearly all of your readers block ads, it's tough to make it as an ad-supported site.
(Yes, I have AdBlockPlus installed, too.)
There is a place in the Dalles, Oregon where Google maps will try to make you take a left through a guard rail and off a 30ft tall retaining wall. To be fair the street does continue down there.
Have you submitted a correction?
If not, please post a link to the location, so I can.
Basically, yes, they thought that Spain would be different.
I think their assumption was that the Germans were a bunch of savages squatting in the ruins of a civilization that could safely be ignored, but that SPAIN! was still the center of civilized culture in the world, and therefore the rules were different.
I think they thought that Spain would be different because surely Google couldn't refuse to show snippets for all Spanish publishers. They assumed the German ruling didn't have the same clout because obviously many publishers would opt out.
Alternatively, I've seen it suggested that the Spanish knew exactly what would happen, and it's what they wanted. Or, more precisely, it's what the big, influential publishers wanted, because their size allows them to attract more visitors directly to their home pages, at the expense of smaller publishers. Another Slashdot poster claimed that it was political horse trading between big news organizations who are pro-government and the government to shut out smaller (and anti-government) news organizations, with an understanding that if the change hurt the big orgs too badly, the government would funnel cash to them to prop them up.
I don't know anything about Spanish politics, but those possibilities seem believable, and perhaps more believable than that Spanish lawmakers didn't believe Google would just shut down Google News in Spain.
What that strongly suggests to me is that as a society we place more value on preserving human life regardless of cost, regardless of the fact that this cannot properly be handled in any environment.
FTFY.
Spanish legislation went further than the German ones - The German court decision merely gave the right to charge, but per the article the Spanish one mandated charging.
Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.
Everything else has DRM.
Well, if by "everything else" you mean "nothing". Can you show me a seller of digital music that still does DRM, because as far as I can tell they've all abandoned it.
And the other half of this is that students who not only have the pre-requisites but have already learned the course material should be able to test out. Perhaps required to test out, because cocky young know-it-alls can be distracting, and perhaps intimidating, to the rest of the class.
That's fine for APIs that require registration. But I use the Calendar API. It doesn't require registration, and like many people I was caught out on the hop on November 17th when the v2 API was shut down. Like I said I'm not complaining. The v3 API is superior, but I would like to know if there is simple notification system available.
Well, in that case I think the best answer is to pay attention. I mean, the v2 API deprecation was announced at least three years prior to the shutdown. I don't know exactly when, but there are mailing list posts from 2011 telling people that v1 and v2 were deprecated and v3 should be used.
does Google have a single source for announcements like this?
I believe developers who have registered to use a particular API are notified by e-mail of changes to that API.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ale.openwatch
That plus a phone is not quite the dedicated device you're looking for, but it could be pretty close.
It streams low-quality video to a server in real-time, as well as storing high-quality video locally. Another thing it should do (don't know if it does, but it's open source; I may see if I can add this feature) is that when you activate it, it should lock your phone automatically. You could still be forced to unlock and disable it, but they couldn't do it themselves, and their intimidating you to do it would be on the livestreamed record. Or they could smash it or remove the battery (if your phone has a removable battery); there a purpose-built device would have a big advantage. And I'd think it would support BT external mics and cameras just fine.
I think there's a much simpler and less arbitrary method: Prosecute them for the crimes commit. If I knocked you down, beat you up, took your phone, erased your data and refused to let you go, I'd have committed several serious crimes including assault and battery, theft, vandalism and unlawful imprisonment. Now, if these actions were actually necessary in the pursuit of an arrest, those are justified. But the actions that were not necessary in the execution of their proper duties were not justified and should be prosecuted.
It's simple, and doesn't require any changes to law or policy. It just requires that DAs be willing to do their jobs.
It seems though that it will in this case only give the government more control over your data.
I think this is the deeper reasoning behind most such moves all over the world. We've seen a lot of motion in this direction after Snowden's revelations, but I think it's less about worry that the US government may have too much access to countries' citizens' data than it is about the insight that if the data is within their borders then they can get it. Oh, I suspect that lawmakers in many countries who are citing the former rationale really mean what they say... but that they're being advised and encouraged by their own governments' bureacracies and security services for the latter rationale.
Publishers cannot relent.
Of course they can. They can go back to the same politicians they bamboozled the first time, and say "oops!" and get the law repealed.
True. I suspect it won't happen, though, because the most influential publishers are also the ones who will be least harmed. And, if you believe other commenters with more knowledge of Spanish politics, the ones who will be propped up by government funding should they be hurt too much.
They won't change their minds - not until it's too late (which, for many of them, it already is). It's already been tried elsewhere, with negative results:
I think google should move to comply with this IMMEDIATELY, as in they should have stopped aggregating these publishers within minutes of the law becoming effective. And then when publishers do relent, I think they should take a few weeks, at least, to start making that content available. Just my opinion ;-)
Publishers cannot relent. The law doesn't allow them to require payment for snippets (like the German law did), it requires them to require payment. Which is why Google is shutting Google News down entirely in Spain... since all Spanish publisher are required to get paid, and Google isn't going to pay them, there will be no Spanish content for the Spanish Google News, making it useless.
Google has very big pockets. They just don't want to pay for content.
Particularly for a service which doesn't generate any revenue.
Private and unimplemented is the key, on old compilers.
On new compilers use:
class MyClass {
// ...
MyClass(const MyClass&) = delete;
Doesn't matter what access specifier you use, because any attempt, from any code, to copy a MyClass will be diagnosed as an error by the compiler.
the reality is if you are given code to work with and you see i = j * 5, if it's C you know what it does; if it's C++, you don't, regardless of who wrote it.
Nonsense. The only way you don't know what that means in C++ is if the code was written by a complete, drooling idiot.
Seriously, this is the first thing C programmers pull out to criticize C++... but in 23 years of professional C++ programming, I have never seen bizarre arithmetic operator overloading used in practice, except for iostreams, and you get used to that pretty quickly, given that it's been part of the standard library since very early on.
I have a few times seen libraries of mathematical operations, say on vectors or tensors, that made heavy use of arithmetic operator overloading, but it was so they could say "i = j * 5" where i and j are n-dimensional matrices. In those cases, operator overloading not only makes sense, it's a dramatic improvement over C.
If you want to criticize C++, there are lots of valid criticisms, mostly around the huge variety of features and the complexity of their interactions, which can get really subtle. And you can criticize many of the insane template metaprogramming constructs (though those can be really useful sometimes, particularly in building up infrastructure that allow the compiler to diagnose all sorts of errors you might make). If you don't like "invisible" stuff, you can criticize the abuses that can be made of constructors and destructors. But operator overloading? Faugh.
always implementing the big three (default constructor, copy constructor and = operator.)
Or, in the case of the last two, intentionally declaring them private and NOT implementing them (or if you have a C++11 compiler, explicitly deleting them), so as to make the class non-copyable. Relatively few classes need to be copyable. Declaring the copy ctor and assignment operator private ensures that client code can't accidentally copy your non-copyable objects. Not implementing them ensures that if class code accidentally copies an instance, you get a link error.
Bingo. While I understand the agenda they have, a push for favorable business conditions just like any other business would pursue, why does Tesla not think they can compete on equal terms as the competition? Sounds like they feel they need help being competitive.
Sure, and if they wanted to they could sell gasoline-powered cars, too.
Tesla is taking a shot at modernizing the car industry, and not just with their choice of powerplant. The dealer system made sense when you needed local expertise, but information is much easier to distribute today. Dealers are an anachronism -- and they know it, which is why they're fighting so hard to retain the regulatory restrictions on direct sales.
There are lots of practical reasons why Tesla doesn't want to go the franchise route, but besides all of those, it's just not where Tesla wants to go. They may fail. Saturn tried to buck the old model, too, not by eliminating dealerships but by enforcing tight rules on franchises and requiring a set-price sales model, and they ultimately failed, first falling back to the old model of jerking customers around, and then ultimately getting shut down entirely. Maybe Tesla will fail, too, but I don't think so, and I'm glad they're sticking to their guns.
Rooftop solar and battery storage cannot even begin to compete with efficient central generation and distribution.
That's a rather strong statement. Do you mean that they don't compete right now, or that they never can/will compete? Because your statement sounds like the latter, and I don't buy it. Central generation clearly can benefit from economies of scale, but distribution is enormously expensive, both in terms of infrastructure cost and power losses.
"in-network value added services"
I just read that as "advertising".
You read wrong. HTTPS doesn't prevent advertising. I suppose it prevents ads injected by ISPs, etc., but very, very few ads that you see get there that way.
government bases it's model on lots of little bits of taxation to fool you. If you just had one single tax - say sales tax - it would feel gigantic - even though you would prob be paying the same % of your income.
You've put your finger on the key point... corporate taxes are a way to hide taxes from taxpayers, so they don't realize just how much they're paying.
Personally, I think that's a bad thing, not a good one. People should know what they're paying so they can decide if they're getting good value for their money.
That's hugely unfair to companies with low profit margins. There are extremely successful businesses that run on single digit profit percentages. Your local supermarket is a pretty good example.
It's also extremely harmful to highly disaggregated supply chains and strongly rewards deep vertical integration. That's bad because it means supplies of materials that have multiple uses either get locked to a single use or else the companies that control those supplies become ideally-positioned to own huge swaths of the market. This is because if you tax revenue, the tax gets applied at every step in the supply chain. If it's a 5% tax and there are 10 steps in the chain (10 companies adding a bit of value and selling on to the next company in the chain, up until the last which sells to consumers), then the tax that must be build into the final price could be as high as 63%. In contrast, a company that buys up the entire supply chain only has to build a 5% tax into their prices. This translates into a huge competitive advantage for vertical integration.
I'm skeptical about the "not enough jobs" notion. We've seen at least three technology-driven revolutions that have wiped out nearly all the jobs that everyone worked pre-revolution... and yet each time we created all sorts of new jobs, many of which would have been either frivolous or completely inconcievable before the revolution.
In general, we're really, really bad at predicting the future. To me that says that while it makes sense to look forward and plan, we should be careful to avoid extremes, because odds are very, very good that our predictions are wrong, and therefore our plans are wrong.
I'd donate to that.