Elop took over, Nokia stock fell, and anybody with half a brain didn't lose too much. Any reasonably smart Nokia employee would also have seen the writing on the wall and left the sinking ship. Microsoft can now acquire a mostly useless shell of a company at a low price, and they are getting their money's worth. The capital that Nokia lost went to other companies that can make better use of it. That's the way markets work. I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Incidentally, switching to Android "after late 2014" would have been too late for Nokia anyway.
Your point being what exactly? "I don't want my country to spy on me." obviously includes "I don't want my country to obtain espionage data on me from third parties." That's a legal issue in my country.
You seem to think that it's just fine if the EU spies on you because you're an EU citizen. I consider that extremely foolish.
I don't care whether other countries spy on me. Europe, Russia, China, knock yourself out (you already do anyway).
Not that I have anything against GNU, but the Heirloom Toolchest, Clang, and musl are all more standards compliant, smaller, and often faster than their GNU counterparts
They also lack tons of useful features, and a lot of stuff simply wouldn't run on such a system.
Data protection is not "law enforcement"; it's usually handled via separate data protection agencies, which often have powers to access private data that go far beyond law enforcement, of course all in the name of "protecting" people's privacy. If the "ministry of truth" is the propaganda ministry, the "data protection agency" is...
If the goal is to keep data at home and create jobs, how do you do that? By making it as much hassle as possible to move data out of the country; politicians know that which is why they create laws like this.
And tax agencies (or other government agencies) don't really care about what the purpose of a law is anyway. They are perfectly happy to enforce laws in ways that counteract their original intent. They create hassles for people and corporations for the simple reason that they have the power to do so. So if politicians want to discourage an activity, a tax on that activity is two-for-one: not only do most people end up having to pay the tax, the enforcement of the tax itself is an additional disincentive to engaging in the activity.
No one opens your mail. In my country, there's only one office permitted to open someone's mail.
Your country almost certainly has numerous exceptions to privacy laws for state security; almost all European nations do. Governments in places like Germany, France, and the UK have always been tapping phone lines and monitoring electronic communications widely.
Probably the British Empire was the first global corporation, and that predates the 19th Century considerably, and you are right it worked out very badly for a lot of people all over the world
The British empire wasn't a "global corporation", it was a belligerent and oppressive nation.
I am not a nationalist, far from it, but we don't currently have a democratically elected world government which can legislate in any way over the activities of multinational corporations
Bullshit. Multinational corporations have to comply with all local laws wherever they operate, and they do.
We developed democracies to bring the rule of law to our neighbourhoods, and the corporations tried to sidestep all that by becoming stateless, to make an extra buck by avoiding tax regimes and labour laws they didn't like
They don't "sidestep" anything. What they do is move production to where it is cheapest, namely developing nations with people eager to work for less than greedy Europeans. That's what these corporations are supposed to do; it's the whole purpose of having free trade and free movement of good and people in the first place. What really bothers you is the same thing that has bothered European imperialists for centuries, namely developing nations getting ahead, instead of being to exploit them mercilessly.
You're naive because European data protection agencies already have wide-ranging powers to access private data, and they wouldn't settle for anything less in this case.
You're wrong because just because some cases of exports of taxable data could be detected by other means doesn't mean all can; governments generally have complete power to audit anything related to taxes, so they would have that in this case as well.
Throw in another economic crisis and I see the powder-keg going off. Easily. So your analogy to 19th/20th century is correct. "It's that time again".
It's only "that time again" if Europeans fall back into their protectionist and nationalist ways. Free trade and free movement of goods and people are the best antidotes.
(And your understanding of global "camps" and "alliances" is ridiculous.)
And you know this... how? Who controls that? Who verifies that?
you're talking about one of the most confidential processes in the world
I.e.., you have no idea what they are doing.
You're also talking about a part of the world with some of the best privacy laws
No, I'm talking about a part of the world where governments record intimate details of their citizens' lives as part of routine government activities, and can intrude into their private data with impunity, and where they have done so for decades (and actually centuries). Read the news sometimes, even European newspapers report on it every few years, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23178284
That's simply wrong. To tax the data, no one needs to know the actual data, it's sufficient to know how much it is.
Non-personal data isn't taxable. So, in order to verify that data that is declared as non-personal actually is, the French government needs to be able to look at it.
Besides, these details aren't going to matter much anyway; the organization responsible for "data protection" and "data taxation" will simply get these powers.
This supports privacy but it does much more than that.
No, it invades privacy, and does so massively. Right now, if you want your data in the EU to be safe from the prying eyes of European governments, you can store it outside the country and they are going to have a tough time getting at it. This would make it costly for EU citizens to store their data outside the country, and in addition give EU governments free reign accessing all personal data leaving the country in the guise of "protecting" it.
Not quite. The cut buffers are old and very deprecated.
"Cut buffer" is still what people colloquially refer to the behavior of the X11 CLIPBOARD as, even though it (obviously) now uses a different underlying mechanism. The mechanistic distinction is entirely irrelevant to the UI issues we're discussing here.
X11 actually has an arbitrary number of clipboards. Those three are the commonly recognised ones.
If you're going to be a stickler for terminology, then at least be consistent and accurate. X11 does not have an "arbitrary number of clipboards", it has an arbitrary number of selections. The primary selection is called PRIMARY, it's what currently is selected, and it's what the middle mouse button inserts. The secondary selection is called CLIPBOARD, and it behaves like a cut buffer.
Data protection in the EU already involves government agencies with enormous powers to intrude into private data. Enforcement of this "tax" means, in particular, that French government officials will have to have access to all communications of corporations. The primary goal is not to protect people's privacy, it's obviously to spy on foreign companies and to invade their privacy.
What's going on is that EU citizens have little privacy within the EU; European governments can get at any data on servers within their own countries with near impunity. Therefore EU governments hate it when EU citizens store their data on US servers because they can't easily get at it. That's why they have embarked on a campaign to demonize US companies and to put legal restrictions in place for data moving out of the country. It has nothing to do with protecting privacy and everything with invading it.
The difference in length depends on which convention you use for defining the interglacial. Either convention results in the same result though.
Complete regularity isn't really the issue here. What matters is that there is a good chance that without anthropogenic warming, temperatures might be dropping any time. Note that some of the warming periods are actually shorter. The point is that the idea that without anthropogenic warming, the climate would just merrily go along being generally nice has little support. Temperatures could be dropping rapidly, and even small drops have devastating consequences (cf the "little ice age"). Cooler temperatures are much worse than warmer temperatures.
The term "runaway greenhouse effect" refers to Venus-like outcomes; there simply is no possibility that that will happen on Earth, at least not through burning fossil fuels. Right now, it looks like all we may be able to do is skip a few glaciation cycles. It would be really amazing if we managed to get out of the current ice age (which has been going on for millions of years) and melt the polar ice caps altogether. Not only would it be amazing, it would probably be a good thing.
But none of that even has much political relevance. Politically, there is no way meaningful limitations on carbon emissions are going to be implemented globally. Any attempts to limit carbon emissions are merely going to reduce economic growth and are going to delay the transition away from fossil fuels that is inevitably going to happen anyway for simple economic reasons. So, if you care about limiting carbon emissions, just let it be. Personally, I don't care about limiting carbon emissions, I just don't like the limits on economic growth and the resulting opportunity costs, suffering and deaths that result from ineffective attempts of regulating carbon emissions.
Middle click inserts the current selection, pasting inserts the cut buffer. They are two different things.
Removing this feature seems stupid; it's not only been around forever and people are used to it, it's also very useful. In particular, it's nice to have in addition to cut-and-paste.
At the very least "insert selection here" should be configurable under mouse settings.
If you are a farmer that means that the weather patterns you have taken for granted as "in place" for the past few thousand years are rapidly changing,
You're insane. There have been no weather patterns "in place for the past few thousand years" anywhere on the planet, at least not anywhere where agriculture is taking place. Frankly, people like you are at about the same level of scientific literacy as young earth creationists.
A server based system learns and updates constantly.
Nonsense. Server-based systems are usually batch-trained, just like phone based systems. The primary difference is in the amount of memory and CPU power they have available for recognition.
But I could see moving some of the simpler, well-known recognition onto the phone to avoid lag.
Well, you can imagine lots of things. But the fact is that Google has built two recognizers, one running on the phone and one running on the server. They use different technologies, and the phone based one is newer and apparently works quite a bit better than if you simply took the server based one and made it resource constrained.
It's generally getting warmer, so the Arctic ice is melting. Maybe we'll even get a completely ice-free Arctic summer one of these years. It's not a big deal.
And yet I don't buy into this "OMG, C++ is either clumsy or slow compared to Fortran" FUD
Well, I suggest you learn modern Fortran well. Given that you claim to be writing tools for HPC, you really should.
For a certain (perhaps smallish) domain LibGeoDecomp is such a library which makes it easy to write short, yet (nearly) optimal code with C++.
Not even close. I got a single-core speedup of a factor of two simply by rewriting your Fortran example, which tells me that LibGeoDecomp must have significant overhead somewhere.
I write a significant amount of stencil code, and I don't see myself using LibGeoDecomp; it seems to be both less efficient and more cumbersome than other solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama administration.
Yes, sleazy corporations may be taking advantage of this, but ultimately it's the administration that is responsible for leaking this information.
Apple had the same problem; if the resolution is high enough, you can just double the pixels.
Elop took over, Nokia stock fell, and anybody with half a brain didn't lose too much. Any reasonably smart Nokia employee would also have seen the writing on the wall and left the sinking ship. Microsoft can now acquire a mostly useless shell of a company at a low price, and they are getting their money's worth. The capital that Nokia lost went to other companies that can make better use of it. That's the way markets work. I don't think it's a big deal either way.
Incidentally, switching to Android "after late 2014" would have been too late for Nokia anyway.
Your point being what exactly? "I don't want my country to spy on me." obviously includes "I don't want my country to obtain espionage data on me from third parties." That's a legal issue in my country.
You seem to think that it's just fine if the EU spies on you because you're an EU citizen. I consider that extremely foolish.
I don't care whether other countries spy on me. Europe, Russia, China, knock yourself out (you already do anyway).
I hear you. Decade after decade, C++ is gradually fixing its enormous bulk of horrendous problems. It almost is a half decent language now. Almost.
They also lack tons of useful features, and a lot of stuff simply wouldn't run on such a system.
Data protection is not "law enforcement"; it's usually handled via separate data protection agencies, which often have powers to access private data that go far beyond law enforcement, of course all in the name of "protecting" people's privacy. If the "ministry of truth" is the propaganda ministry, the "data protection agency" is ...
If the goal is to keep data at home and create jobs, how do you do that? By making it as much hassle as possible to move data out of the country; politicians know that which is why they create laws like this.
And tax agencies (or other government agencies) don't really care about what the purpose of a law is anyway. They are perfectly happy to enforce laws in ways that counteract their original intent. They create hassles for people and corporations for the simple reason that they have the power to do so. So if politicians want to discourage an activity, a tax on that activity is two-for-one: not only do most people end up having to pay the tax, the enforcement of the tax itself is an additional disincentive to engaging in the activity.
Your country almost certainly has numerous exceptions to privacy laws for state security; almost all European nations do. Governments in places like Germany, France, and the UK have always been tapping phone lines and monitoring electronic communications widely.
The British empire wasn't a "global corporation", it was a belligerent and oppressive nation.
Bullshit. Multinational corporations have to comply with all local laws wherever they operate, and they do.
They don't "sidestep" anything. What they do is move production to where it is cheapest, namely developing nations with people eager to work for less than greedy Europeans. That's what these corporations are supposed to do; it's the whole purpose of having free trade and free movement of good and people in the first place. What really bothers you is the same thing that has bothered European imperialists for centuries, namely developing nations getting ahead, instead of being to exploit them mercilessly.
You're both naive and wrong.
You're naive because European data protection agencies already have wide-ranging powers to access private data, and they wouldn't settle for anything less in this case.
You're wrong because just because some cases of exports of taxable data could be detected by other means doesn't mean all can; governments generally have complete power to audit anything related to taxes, so they would have that in this case as well.
It's only "that time again" if Europeans fall back into their protectionist and nationalist ways. Free trade and free movement of goods and people are the best antidotes.
(And your understanding of global "camps" and "alliances" is ridiculous.)
Personally, I prefer countries to spy on me who can't do anything to me personally, i.e., the countries where I don't vote.
And you know this... how? Who controls that? Who verifies that?
I.e.., you have no idea what they are doing.
No, I'm talking about a part of the world where governments record intimate details of their citizens' lives as part of routine government activities, and can intrude into their private data with impunity, and where they have done so for decades (and actually centuries). Read the news sometimes, even European newspapers report on it every few years, e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23178284
Non-personal data isn't taxable. So, in order to verify that data that is declared as non-personal actually is, the French government needs to be able to look at it.
Besides, these details aren't going to matter much anyway; the organization responsible for "data protection" and "data taxation" will simply get these powers.
Huh?
Middle button inserts the current selection, Ctrl-V inserts what you copied with Ctrl-C. If you don't like using one or the other, don't use it.
I don't see the problem.
Yeah, because those kinds of nationalism and trade barriers worked so well for 19th and 20th century Europe, right?
A lot of stupid, self-destructive things have legs in European politics; just look at the past few centuries of history.
No, it invades privacy, and does so massively. Right now, if you want your data in the EU to be safe from the prying eyes of European governments, you can store it outside the country and they are going to have a tough time getting at it. This would make it costly for EU citizens to store their data outside the country, and in addition give EU governments free reign accessing all personal data leaving the country in the guise of "protecting" it.
"Cut buffer" is still what people colloquially refer to the behavior of the X11 CLIPBOARD as, even though it (obviously) now uses a different underlying mechanism. The mechanistic distinction is entirely irrelevant to the UI issues we're discussing here.
If you're going to be a stickler for terminology, then at least be consistent and accurate. X11 does not have an "arbitrary number of clipboards", it has an arbitrary number of selections. The primary selection is called PRIMARY, it's what currently is selected, and it's what the middle mouse button inserts. The secondary selection is called CLIPBOARD, and it behaves like a cut buffer.
Data protection in the EU already involves government agencies with enormous powers to intrude into private data. Enforcement of this "tax" means, in particular, that French government officials will have to have access to all communications of corporations. The primary goal is not to protect people's privacy, it's obviously to spy on foreign companies and to invade their privacy.
What's going on is that EU citizens have little privacy within the EU; European governments can get at any data on servers within their own countries with near impunity. Therefore EU governments hate it when EU citizens store their data on US servers because they can't easily get at it. That's why they have embarked on a campaign to demonize US companies and to put legal restrictions in place for data moving out of the country. It has nothing to do with protecting privacy and everything with invading it.
Mon oeil.
The difference in length depends on which convention you use for defining the interglacial. Either convention results in the same result though.
Complete regularity isn't really the issue here. What matters is that there is a good chance that without anthropogenic warming, temperatures might be dropping any time. Note that some of the warming periods are actually shorter. The point is that the idea that without anthropogenic warming, the climate would just merrily go along being generally nice has little support. Temperatures could be dropping rapidly, and even small drops have devastating consequences (cf the "little ice age"). Cooler temperatures are much worse than warmer temperatures.
The term "runaway greenhouse effect" refers to Venus-like outcomes; there simply is no possibility that that will happen on Earth, at least not through burning fossil fuels. Right now, it looks like all we may be able to do is skip a few glaciation cycles. It would be really amazing if we managed to get out of the current ice age (which has been going on for millions of years) and melt the polar ice caps altogether. Not only would it be amazing, it would probably be a good thing.
But none of that even has much political relevance. Politically, there is no way meaningful limitations on carbon emissions are going to be implemented globally. Any attempts to limit carbon emissions are merely going to reduce economic growth and are going to delay the transition away from fossil fuels that is inevitably going to happen anyway for simple economic reasons. So, if you care about limiting carbon emissions, just let it be. Personally, I don't care about limiting carbon emissions, I just don't like the limits on economic growth and the resulting opportunity costs, suffering and deaths that result from ineffective attempts of regulating carbon emissions.
Middle click inserts the current selection, pasting inserts the cut buffer. They are two different things.
Removing this feature seems stupid; it's not only been around forever and people are used to it, it's also very useful. In particular, it's nice to have in addition to cut-and-paste.
At the very least "insert selection here" should be configurable under mouse settings.
You're insane. There have been no weather patterns "in place for the past few thousand years" anywhere on the planet, at least not anywhere where agriculture is taking place. Frankly, people like you are at about the same level of scientific literacy as young earth creationists.
Nonsense. Server-based systems are usually batch-trained, just like phone based systems. The primary difference is in the amount of memory and CPU power they have available for recognition.
Well, you can imagine lots of things. But the fact is that Google has built two recognizers, one running on the phone and one running on the server. They use different technologies, and the phone based one is newer and apparently works quite a bit better than if you simply took the server based one and made it resource constrained.
It's generally getting warmer, so the Arctic ice is melting. Maybe we'll even get a completely ice-free Arctic summer one of these years. It's not a big deal.
Well, I suggest you learn modern Fortran well. Given that you claim to be writing tools for HPC, you really should.
Not even close. I got a single-core speedup of a factor of two simply by rewriting your Fortran example, which tells me that LibGeoDecomp must have significant overhead somewhere.
I write a significant amount of stencil code, and I don't see myself using LibGeoDecomp; it seems to be both less efficient and more cumbersome than other solutions.