Why would you pay more for an Android phone? If anything you will pay less, because the money the manufacturer gets for making say Bing the default search engine and Firefox the default browser will be more than Google charges.
If Google charges more than they can make bundling other stuff the EU will just hit them with more fines for trying to use pricing to maintain their anti-competitive system.
Firstly, how much 5 billion dollars hurts Google is rather missing the point. Punishment is not a major factor, the money is designed to deter them from ignoring the ruling and paying the fine and to compensate the other companies that were affected by their behaviour.
Also we can see from the example of Microsoft that in fact they did pay the fine and didn't raise their retail prices to compensate or anything like that. If they had it would probably had been punished anyway.
In this case the amount Google charges will have to reasonable in the EU's eyes, which means less than the revenue from supplying other browsers and search services.
That's extremely unlikely, especially considering that Germany has been replacing coal plants with newer, less polluting ones. Plus with the huge amount of solar installed in Germany it's quite likely that if you wanted an electric car for emissions reasons you could get solar PV to charge it too.
If your primary goal is to be green then why stop at buying the car?
Switch electricity provider to one that only buys renewable energy. Get some solar panels. If you live in one of these few places were somehow electricity production is even dirtier than diesel cars it's not like there isn't anything you can do about it.
It's also only looking at CO2, and ignoring the other pollution. Diesels put out a lot of harmful particulate matter right where people live and breathe.
Fight it if you want, but brace for impact. You can't uninvent tech.
We quite successfully restrict all kinds of tech, e.g. biological weapons and needles (of the kind used to inject things). It's not perfect but it's fairly effective at preventing most people using those things.
If we simply banned the use of facial recognition by government and by retailers it would cut out a lot of abuse immediately.
Friends of criminals who may not yet be in a database.
Doesn't stuff like this just send chills down your spine?
Even if you don't think the government will abuse it (in which case I suggest you buy a 20th century history book), do you think the government is competent enough to wield that power?
Well, there was that time that the police put up CCTV only in majority Asian areas of Birmingham, but not the others... Or when they used the facial recognition cameras on UK roads to stop and harass people travelling to London to join a protest.
More generally things like facial recognition systems tend to affect already marginalized groups more because they are more likely to be in the system. Their photos get taken during the immigration process or when arrested or when registering for services.
Then there is the human aspect, the decision by the user of whom to target with surveillance. Even your basic wall of CCTV screens is vulnerable to bias in terms of where the operator directs their attention.
Of course even suggesting any of this is grounds to get you lynched these days...
Okay, you are talking about this article on Snopes. It rates the claim made by White on Twitter that she was attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood as "mixture".
That seems entirely reasonable. It's true that she did get into an altercation, but only after going to an anti-Trump rally and, with her boyfriend, crossing an LAPD line meant to keep opposing sides apart to prevent violence.
Clearly the way she frames it as having been attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood is omitting key details. The other claim about having alcohol thrown over her is impossible to verify, and given the provocation and deception used in the first part of the video it's impossible to make any determination.
So once again we have unfounded claims of bias and an outright misrepresentation of Snopes' position. Maybe you simply misspoke when you said "false or inconclusive".
Trump, Sept. 5: You see whatâ(TM)s going on with her emails. Itâ(TM)s a disgrace. Itâ(TM)s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesnâ(TM)t know. I mean, she had her emails â" 33,000 emails â" acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and thatâ(TM)s to really get rid of them.
This has been widely reported although I couldn't immediately find a video of him saying it.
He appears to be confused by the name of the "BleachBit" software that was run on the server. In any case it's not an expensive process, the software is free and requires no special skills to use. Clearly many sophisticated people have heard of this software, it's a quite popular as an alternative to CCleaner.
It's also false to claim that Clinton had the emails destroyed in this manner. Her staff archived work related emails and then asked that the server's retention period be reduced to 60 days. The person at the hosting company who was supposed to do it didn't. When those emails were subpoenaed he panicked and used the the BleachBit software to erase them. There is no indication that Clinton knew about this at the time, much less ordered it.
In Europe Zap Map is pretty good. The app is okay, at least you can filter by charger type, check status and see them all on a map as you drive. Unfortunately it doesn't support Android Auto.
Charging networks need to get their act together and have live data available to app developers.
Re:Dangers of a Fragile Single-Outlet Monopoly
on
YouTube is Down
·
· Score: 2
These days I watch at least as much YouTube as TV.
Remember the good old days when TV shows were happy to go into detail or cater to niche interests? When documentaries weren't just Brian Cox starring off into the distance and trying to make everything into a drama? That's what YouTube channels are like.
The other great thing is that you have a choice of video length. If you want something short you can find it, if you want a longer essay type video it's there. And you can speed videos up too (it fixes the sound so they don't sound like chipmunks).
It makes no sense that a guy with so much money would get such a bad tan, and then maintain it for such a long time. Maybe someone told him it looks great and be believed them.
Then again I can't understand why middle aged men get tans either. It never, ever looks good.
According to this link Google was one of the ones who objected to it, not one of the ones who forced it through. The people who voted for it included other browser developers like Mozilla and Microsoft.
The EFF backs Do Not Track. It's imperfect but it's a wedge we can use to push for legally required compliance. The user has made a clear statement that they do not wish to be tracked.
It's tempting to think that having privacy enhancing add-ons is the answer, simply blocking ad servers and tracking cookies. But those things are far from the only methods used to track you, and if you want to interact with all but the most trivial web sites you can't block it all. So the only real solution is to legally mandate that companies don't collect that data, i.e. DNT with legal enforcement. Or do like the EU did and require an explicit opt-in to tracking.
All the pirates need to do is go to coordinates 0,0 (off the west coast of Africa) and wait for all the autonomous ships that glitched and reset to their default programming to arrive full of cargo. Ship shuts down having reached its destination, and the automated systems help the pirates unload the booty.
Per capita doesn't mean the emissions of actual people individually, it means the amount the whole country including industry produces divided by population. It's a useful metric because it allows us to compare countries directly despite their differing size, and is fair because we all have to share this planet.
I'm the post if there was an idiot on the radio or TV there would usually be someone sensible to contrast with them. Thus their idiocy was apparent.
On the internet that often doesn't happen. Systems designed to make it happen are often easily gamed. Facebook tried to force it by putting Snopes links next to fake news, so the fake news peddlers starting attacking Snopes for being fake/biased.
I tried their example of searching for "car", which they claim does not track you. I can't post the URL of the advert as plain text due to the lameness filter, so you will have to hover over the following:
So we have a bounce through yahoo.com, who do track you, "dartsearch.net" which is part of the DoubleClick network, a unique "ad_provider" ID and what looks like a number of other IDs. Also, it's HTTP, not even HTTPS, so now your ISP/employer has that data too.
Finally, the link that you claim says they curate ads actually says
By default, when you sign up for a Bing Ads account, your ads should automatically enter rotation into all of Bing's distribution channels including DuckDuckGo.
In other words they throw up whatever Bing deems to be okay.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you pay more for an Android phone? If anything you will pay less, because the money the manufacturer gets for making say Bing the default search engine and Firefox the default browser will be more than Google charges.
If Google charges more than they can make bundling other stuff the EU will just hit them with more fines for trying to use pricing to maintain their anti-competitive system.
Firstly, how much 5 billion dollars hurts Google is rather missing the point. Punishment is not a major factor, the money is designed to deter them from ignoring the ruling and paying the fine and to compensate the other companies that were affected by their behaviour.
Also we can see from the example of Microsoft that in fact they did pay the fine and didn't raise their retail prices to compensate or anything like that. If they had it would probably had been punished anyway.
In this case the amount Google charges will have to reasonable in the EU's eyes, which means less than the revenue from supplying other browsers and search services.
That's extremely unlikely, especially considering that Germany has been replacing coal plants with newer, less polluting ones. Plus with the huge amount of solar installed in Germany it's quite likely that if you wanted an electric car for emissions reasons you could get solar PV to charge it too.
If your primary goal is to be green then why stop at buying the car?
Switch electricity provider to one that only buys renewable energy. Get some solar panels. If you live in one of these few places were somehow electricity production is even dirtier than diesel cars it's not like there isn't anything you can do about it.
It's also only looking at CO2, and ignoring the other pollution. Diesels put out a lot of harmful particulate matter right where people live and breathe.
Fight it if you want, but brace for impact. You can't uninvent tech.
We quite successfully restrict all kinds of tech, e.g. biological weapons and needles (of the kind used to inject things). It's not perfect but it's fairly effective at preventing most people using those things.
If we simply banned the use of facial recognition by government and by retailers it would cut out a lot of abuse immediately.
Friends of criminals who may not yet be in a database.
Doesn't stuff like this just send chills down your spine?
Even if you don't think the government will abuse it (in which case I suggest you buy a 20th century history book), do you think the government is competent enough to wield that power?
Well, there was that time that the police put up CCTV only in majority Asian areas of Birmingham, but not the others... Or when they used the facial recognition cameras on UK roads to stop and harass people travelling to London to join a protest.
More generally things like facial recognition systems tend to affect already marginalized groups more because they are more likely to be in the system. Their photos get taken during the immigration process or when arrested or when registering for services.
Then there is the human aspect, the decision by the user of whom to target with surveillance. Even your basic wall of CCTV screens is vulnerable to bias in terms of where the operator directs their attention.
Of course even suggesting any of this is grounds to get you lynched these days...
Okay, you are talking about this article on Snopes. It rates the claim made by White on Twitter that she was attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood as "mixture".
That seems entirely reasonable. It's true that she did get into an altercation, but only after going to an anti-Trump rally and, with her boyfriend, crossing an LAPD line meant to keep opposing sides apart to prevent violence.
Clearly the way she frames it as having been attacked merely for wearing a MAGA hat in Hollywood is omitting key details. The other claim about having alcohol thrown over her is impossible to verify, and given the provocation and deception used in the first part of the video it's impossible to make any determination.
So once again we have unfounded claims of bias and an outright misrepresentation of Snopes' position. Maybe you simply misspoke when you said "false or inconclusive".
Ah, okay, fake news.
Here is the Trump quote:
Trump, Sept. 5: You see whatâ(TM)s going on with her emails. Itâ(TM)s a disgrace. Itâ(TM)s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesnâ(TM)t know. I mean, she had her emails â" 33,000 emails â" acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and thatâ(TM)s to really get rid of them.
This has been widely reported although I couldn't immediately find a video of him saying it.
He appears to be confused by the name of the "BleachBit" software that was run on the server. In any case it's not an expensive process, the software is free and requires no special skills to use. Clearly many sophisticated people have heard of this software, it's a quite popular as an alternative to CCleaner.
It's also false to claim that Clinton had the emails destroyed in this manner. Her staff archived work related emails and then asked that the server's retention period be reduced to 60 days. The person at the hosting company who was supposed to do it didn't. When those emails were subpoenaed he panicked and used the the BleachBit software to erase them. There is no indication that Clinton knew about this at the time, much less ordered it.
In Europe Zap Map is pretty good. The app is okay, at least you can filter by charger type, check status and see them all on a map as you drive. Unfortunately it doesn't support Android Auto.
Charging networks need to get their act together and have live data available to app developers.
So which browser do you use?
These days I watch at least as much YouTube as TV.
Remember the good old days when TV shows were happy to go into detail or cater to niche interests? When documentaries weren't just Brian Cox starring off into the distance and trying to make everything into a drama? That's what YouTube channels are like.
The other great thing is that you have a choice of video length. If you want something short you can find it, if you want a longer essay type video it's there. And you can speed videos up too (it fixes the sound so they don't sound like chipmunks).
You don't download them and save them on your hard drive??
Seriously I have a script that backs up every video on my favourites list, because now and then they go private or get removed.
It makes no sense that a guy with so much money would get such a bad tan, and then maintain it for such a long time. Maybe someone told him it looks great and be believed them.
Then again I can't understand why middle aged men get tans either. It never, ever looks good.
Or they, their and theirs. English already has gender neutral pronouns for this purpose.
they forced it through
According to this link Google was one of the ones who objected to it, not one of the ones who forced it through. The people who voted for it included other browser developers like Mozilla and Microsoft.
The EFF backs Do Not Track. It's imperfect but it's a wedge we can use to push for legally required compliance. The user has made a clear statement that they do not wish to be tracked.
It's tempting to think that having privacy enhancing add-ons is the answer, simply blocking ad servers and tracking cookies. But those things are far from the only methods used to track you, and if you want to interact with all but the most trivial web sites you can't block it all. So the only real solution is to legally mandate that companies don't collect that data, i.e. DNT with legal enforcement. Or do like the EU did and require an explicit opt-in to tracking.
Your obsession with the imaginary spectre of social justice both clouds your thinking and undermines your arguments.
I'd call it fake news. I'm not dumb, I know the reason you have been non-specific and not provided any links or search terms is because it's bullshit.
All the pirates need to do is go to coordinates 0,0 (off the west coast of Africa) and wait for all the autonomous ships that glitched and reset to their default programming to arrive full of cargo. Ship shuts down having reached its destination, and the automated systems help the pirates unload the booty.
Per capita doesn't mean the emissions of actual people individually, it means the amount the whole country including industry produces divided by population. It's a useful metric because it allows us to compare countries directly despite their differing size, and is fair because we all have to share this planet.
I'm the post if there was an idiot on the radio or TV there would usually be someone sensible to contrast with them. Thus their idiocy was apparent.
On the internet that often doesn't happen. Systems designed to make it happen are often easily gamed. Facebook tried to force it by putting Snopes links next to fake news, so the fake news peddlers starting attacking Snopes for being fake/biased.
I don't know how to solve it.
I tried their example of searching for "car", which they claim does not track you. I can't post the URL of the advert as plain text due to the lameness filter, so you will have to hover over the following:
ad link
So we have a bounce through yahoo.com, who do track you, "dartsearch.net" which is part of the DoubleClick network, a unique "ad_provider" ID and what looks like a number of other IDs. Also, it's HTTP, not even HTTPS, so now your ISP/employer has that data too.
Finally, the link that you claim says they curate ads actually says
By default, when you sign up for a Bing Ads account, your ads should automatically enter rotation into all of Bing's distribution channels including DuckDuckGo.
In other words they throw up whatever Bing deems to be okay.
Brother and Oki are both good, Japanese business lasers. Samsung lasers are not bad either, and very cheap.
That claim doesn't seem to be on Snopes and I can't find an archived copy. Fake news?