I wish google would stand its ground on this issue and deny those apps with messed up policies until the developers fix that. If it is not required for the core functionality of the application then it should be blocked at OS level.
... their app submission guidelines are fairly open and transparent,...
That is simply not true. Apple submission guidelines are ambiguous and their official interpretation of it is a secret. Once you are refused you have no way of knowing why or how to fix it. There are plenty of examples in the media of developers who, after having an app rejected, try in vain to get an answer from Apple on why exactly the app was refused. Most of those cases the developer simply loses all hope and abandon the app, losing months of development.
First of all, Free speech, as any natural human right, is restricted when it is considered to cause harm to other people. Different countries and cultures have different definitions of which speech causes harm and consequently restrict different kinds of speech. For example the USA (a good example because they declare themselves the champions of free speech), forbids the following classes of speech:
- obscenity, - defamation, - incitement, - incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, - fighting words, - fraud, - speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), - speech integral to criminal conduct
So, regarding the brazilian case, I don't know if the allegations on the video are true of not, but that doesn't matter at this point because the candidate, as any other, has the natural human right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and making such allegations right before the elections cause irreparable harm to the election process and consequently to the whole population of the city. If he is guilty of something, the right thing to do is to present the suspicions to the authorities for investigation, not to hold them for months/years in order to take a cheep blow to his campaign.
I'm not from there, but I applaud their justice system. It seams obvious to me that someone who opts to operate heavy machinery on a very public setting have to assume all the responsibilities that entails. A person walking or cycling should never be blamed for being crushed by such machinery, the operator bears all the blame.
Following your plan we will have to deal with tens of thousands (probably more like hundreds of thousands) of people with sedentarism related illnesses, including plenty of brain injuries in the form of strokes.
What if, instead of letting it re-entry in a few years, they pushed it beyond LEO just to be used as a base for a new one. Even without the proper shielding most of the hardware would be useful, they just need need some new habitat modules and some replacement for the more radiation sensitive equipment.
I don't think the ISS would take structural damage from a VASIMR propulsion for two reasons:
The thrust from a VASIMR would be very weak, it is more of a slow and steady kind of engine.
It was designed to be “pushed around”, I believe (I may be wrong here) they even used the main thrusters of the space shuttle to adjust its orbit sometimes.
Now, regarding the radiation belts you may have a point. They could evacuate the station before passing troug them, but then, the radiation there would probably fry some/most of the station's electronics.
Just a quick fact: Under current plans, a spaceship wouldn't be parked at the L2 point, it would orbit it. So, with a wide enough orbit, an L2 bound ship would be able to have direct line of sight to earth.
Fines are OK in civil cases, like if someone breaks a contract or copyright infringment. The “not taking the video down” is not a civil case, it is a criminal one. Every minute Google Brasil exec's refuse to take it down they are committing an election crime, that is irreparable harm to the election process and can't be fixed by a slap in the wrist (fine).
Google Brasil's president arrest warrant was not issued because “someone uploaded a video”, it was issued because “he refused to comply with a court order to stop showing the illegal video”, that is a crime in progress.
The moment this “specific Brazilian Google President” chose to violate a court order to keep an illegal video online he is responsible.
The same way, if someone advertised illegal stuff (lets say drugs) on ebay, and they refused to take it down even after a court order, they would be breaking the law and facing arrest as well.
AMD may be getting its shit together when in regards to chip design. but I'm still going Intel on my next PC because of their superior Linux drivers. At the moment I'm an unhappy owner of a laptop with a AMD graphics card that can't do anything because the drivers are useless. I'm looking forward to a new laptop with an Intel Ivy Bridge processor (I don't think I can wait Haskell).
Although companies have mostly the same legal rights as persons, we must be careful not to think of them as persons. A company cannot be not loyal or empathic, it does not have moral. Any promise made by a company is worthless unless it is a written contract, the company is not a moral being and can change its "mind" quite easily, without any remorse or guilty conscience.
I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.
There is no easy way of doing it on Linux. You must be confusing it with interface bonding which binds two or more interfaces in the same local network, this is supported on the kernel for years and recently has been added to network manager. Interface bonding does not work to link two different internet connections.
To use multiple connections on Linux you would need a very complicated setup redirecting all traffic from both connections trough some kind of custom vpn server.
... and generally you can use psychology to determine future actions of a company just as easily as you can that of a person.
This is flat out wrong, you can't use psychology to determine future actions of a company (unless it is a small family company managed completely by one guy of course)
Companies don't have sympathy or empathy. And they can change significantly their behaviour with small changes in governance. Simply speaking, you can't do a brain transplant on a person, but you can easily change a company command structure.
TL;DR: Companies are seen as people, but they shouldn't, and the pattern of behaviour of a person is difficult to change while companies change easily.
In your argument you anthropomorphize a company (Google) and that is a very misleading and dangerous thing to do. Companies are not persons, they don't have long lasting morals and personality guiding its actions. A company's actions are result of an emergent behaviour arising from (and infinitely more complex then) its leadership decisions. Because the emergence is so complex, the “personality” of a company can change inexplicably and it is even possible for a company with good people to do evil things.
TL;DR: companies are not people and their past good actions are not evidence of future good actions.
There will be no additional loss of privacy, most Brazilians (like most of the world population) can already be tracked by their cellphones (Brazilians have 1.1 mobiles per person). The fact that we now can be also tracked by our cars does not make a difference.
Avoiding the implementation of technology will not guaranty privacy, legislating how it can be used will.
This is difficult (maybe impossible) to oversee/audit. The traders will just set thousands of subsidiary companies and each one will do only 100 trades/day.
[...] 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. [...] [They need] more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles."
So, those 300,000 miles do not tell us anything useful and is not news. We won't know if it is safer of not until they have at least 725,000 representative (including nonoptimal road conditions like snow, road-works, etc) miles.
I like the idea of actors well known for scifi characters to narrate those videos.
I'd love if they did one with John de Lancie and Leonard Nimoy. Their "Spock VS Q" performance was amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish google would stand its ground on this issue and deny those apps with messed up policies until the developers fix that. If it is not required for the core functionality of the application then it should be blocked at OS level.
... their app submission guidelines are fairly open and transparent, ...
That is simply not true. Apple submission guidelines are ambiguous and their official interpretation of it is a secret. Once you are refused you have no way of knowing why or how to fix it. There are plenty of examples in the media of developers who, after having an app rejected, try in vain to get an answer from Apple on why exactly the app was refused. Most of those cases the developer simply loses all hope and abandon the app, losing months of development.
First of all, Free speech, as any natural human right, is restricted when it is considered to cause harm to other people. Different countries and cultures have different definitions of which speech causes harm and consequently restrict different kinds of speech. For example the USA (a good example because they declare themselves the champions of free speech), forbids the following classes of speech:
- obscenity,
- defamation,
- incitement,
- incitement to riot or imminent lawless action,
- fighting words,
- fraud,
- speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright),
- speech integral to criminal conduct
So, regarding the brazilian case, I don't know if the allegations on the video are true of not, but that doesn't matter at this point because the candidate, as any other, has the natural human right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and making such allegations right before the elections cause irreparable harm to the election process and consequently to the whole population of the city. If he is guilty of something, the right thing to do is to present the suspicions to the authorities for investigation, not to hold them for months/years in order to take a cheep blow to his campaign.
I'm not from there, but I applaud their justice system. It seams obvious to me that someone who opts to operate heavy machinery on a very public setting have to assume all the responsibilities that entails. A person walking or cycling should never be blamed for being crushed by such machinery, the operator bears all the blame.
Car taxation don't pay for the roads, it only pays for the additional road maintenance necessary because of the damage caused by cars passing on it.
Following your plan we will have to deal with tens of thousands (probably more like hundreds of thousands) of people with sedentarism related illnesses, including plenty of brain injuries in the form of strokes.
What if, instead of letting it re-entry in a few years, they pushed it beyond LEO just to be used as a base for a new one. Even without the proper shielding most of the hardware would be useful, they just need need some new habitat modules and some replacement for the more radiation sensitive equipment.
Now, regarding the radiation belts you may have a point. They could evacuate the station before passing troug them, but then, the radiation there would probably fry some/most of the station's electronics.
Just a quick fact: Under current plans, a spaceship wouldn't be parked at the L2 point, it would orbit it. So, with a wide enough orbit, an L2 bound ship would be able to have direct line of sight to earth.
Fines are OK in civil cases, like if someone breaks a contract or copyright infringment. The “not taking the video down” is not a civil case, it is a criminal one. Every minute Google Brasil exec's refuse to take it down they are committing an election crime, that is irreparable harm to the election process and can't be fixed by a slap in the wrist (fine).
Google Brasil's president arrest warrant was not issued because “someone uploaded a video”, it was issued because “he refused to comply with a court order to stop showing the illegal video”, that is a crime in progress.
The moment this “specific Brazilian Google President” chose to violate a court order to keep an illegal video online he is responsible.
The same way, if someone advertised illegal stuff (lets say drugs) on ebay, and they refused to take it down even after a court order, they would be breaking the law and facing arrest as well.
I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to “build up some static electricity on your person” if you are grounded like the parent post says.
I'm afraid you are wrong, the story is regarding the AMD Bulldozer family of CPUs and APUs, not only AMD CPUs.
AMD may be getting its shit together when in regards to chip design. but I'm still going Intel on my next PC because of their superior Linux drivers. At the moment I'm an unhappy owner of a laptop with a AMD graphics card that can't do anything because the drivers are useless. I'm looking forward to a new laptop with an Intel Ivy Bridge processor (I don't think I can wait Haskell).
Although companies have mostly the same legal rights as persons, we must be careful not to think of them as persons. A company cannot be not loyal or empathic, it does not have moral. Any promise made by a company is worthless unless it is a written contract, the company is not a moral being and can change its "mind" quite easily, without any remorse or guilty conscience.
I'm sure Windows supports this as well, all of which is out of the box, with the addition of some settings.
There is no easy way of doing it on Linux. You must be confusing it with interface bonding which binds two or more interfaces in the same local network, this is supported on the kernel for years and recently has been added to network manager. Interface bonding does not work to link two different internet connections.
To use multiple connections on Linux you would need a very complicated setup redirecting all traffic from both connections trough some kind of custom vpn server.
... and generally you can use psychology to determine future actions of a company just as easily as you can that of a person.
This is flat out wrong, you can't use psychology to determine future actions of a company (unless it is a small family company managed completely by one guy of course)
Companies don't have sympathy or empathy. And they can change significantly their behaviour with small changes in governance. Simply speaking, you can't do a brain transplant on a person, but you can easily change a company command structure.
TL;DR: Companies are seen as people, but they shouldn't, and the pattern of behaviour of a person is difficult to change while companies change easily.
In your argument you anthropomorphize a company (Google) and that is a very misleading and dangerous thing to do. Companies are not persons, they don't have long lasting morals and personality guiding its actions. A company's actions are result of an emergent behaviour arising from (and infinitely more complex then) its leadership decisions. Because the emergence is so complex, the “personality” of a company can change inexplicably and it is even possible for a company with good people to do evil things.
TL;DR: companies are not people and their past good actions are not evidence of future good actions.
No, they are crashing the f22's into the desert
There will be no additional loss of privacy, most Brazilians (like most of the world population) can already be tracked by their cellphones (Brazilians have 1.1 mobiles per person). The fact that we now can be also tracked by our cars does not make a difference.
Avoiding the implementation of technology will not guaranty privacy, legislating how it can be used will.
This is difficult (maybe impossible) to oversee/audit. The traders will just set thousands of subsidiary companies and each one will do only 100 trades/day.
According to TFA:
[...] 300,000 miles is not all that big of a sample. [...] [They need] more than 725,000 representative miles without incident for us to say with 99 percent confidence that they crash less frequently than conventional cars. If we look only at fatal crashes, this minimum skyrockets to 300 million miles."
So, those 300,000 miles do not tell us anything useful and is not news. We won't know if it is safer of not until they have at least 725,000 representative (including nonoptimal road conditions like snow, road-works, etc) miles.
If $50 is cheap for you, good for you. But don't forget that for the majority of people in the world, $50 is BIG bucks.
I like the idea of actors well known for scifi characters to narrate those videos. I'd love if they did one with John de Lancie and Leonard Nimoy. Their "Spock VS Q" performance was amazing.