"But this is not plagiarism; rather, we are standing on the shoulders of a giant for our own innovation," she added, according to local media reports. Ms Gao was also quoted as saying that the company had so far been doing very well in terms of customer satisfaction.
Not plagiarism? Well, that's technically correct. This would be corporate espionage at worst and copyright/trademark infringement at best. But let's leave that aside and wonder why they weren't satisfied with grabbing and using Chromium, the open source project Chrome is largely based on. I'm certain they have the technical expertise to compile and create a distribution package. That shouldn't be a high hurdle to jump, so it come back to why?
Maybe it's a political statement to Google who is trying to get back into the mainland Chinese market? We can take your & call it our own, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Also, the last bit about customer satisfaction? Is the article just weird about what questions were asked because that really feels like it came out of no where.
The problem is that you have to have trust in the authoritative sources and the first thing the vast majority of the conspiracy peddlars do is to throw massive amounts of doubt upon said sources. This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
It comes down to how you cannot reason someone out of a idea they didn't arrive at through reason in the first place.
This stuff. Themoptical camo. It's a few story points throughout the book and how it's used to evade and so forth. It's also very Cyberpunk. Computer brain interfaces. The world's data at the tips of my thoughts. It's all cool.
Until you look at the poverty, the political situations, the fact that you can brainwash people and implant memories...reality is kinda fucked up there.
So, yeah. If we could get everyone to stop going down this direction in history, I think we might all end up happier in the long run.
That's the way these surveys have been used for a while now. I know people who used to work at GameStop and the same applied to them. Anything less than a perfect score didn't count for anything positive.
It's a purposeful misunderstanding of how statistics work and only used to squeeze working people harder everyday. The management only want a single number to understand things when the world doesn't even come close to working like that. Nuance is lost because it's hard to manage through it. By making it a literal pass/fail, black or white situation you've suddenly gained the ability to fire people on a whim if business has a slight downturn. Keep the churn going, there's always another 18 year old kid looking for after school money.
Not only that but it's been discovered that there's a slight current in normal, everyday phone lines. Utilizing this, Apple engineers have come up with a phone you never have to charge again! In fact, it's completely immobile allowing you to never lose. It will be packed with a handy, easy to use interface. It doesn't even have one. All it has is a "receiving unit" that's directly connected to the immobile part which is a single purpose unit. All it does is listen to your voice and recreates the voice of the person you are talking with. The only interface to speak of is a set of standard numbers from zero to nine. You enter someone's phone number and it will take care of everything else!
The size of the pie does not stay constant and the game is not one of being a zero sum. Competition has a place in these things but not to the detriment of the kitchen that it's being held in.
Considering that AMC is now the largest theater chain in the US, possibly the world (depending on how that partnership with the Chinese firm goes), they might have the ability to push back against Hollywood's unreasonable financial demands. Like the ones where Disney demands the entirety of the receipts for the first three weeks of certain Avenger or Star Wars films. Or where Disney asks for an extra 25% of receipts from any or all special events the theater may host ahead of the premiere of said films.
Just so we're all on the same page, this isn't the theater chains being greedy. They're just trying to survive the ever increasing avarice of Hollywood.
Instead of just being in on the endpoint side, that the app also did the recording and mastering side as well. A nice, all-in-one solution. Now that I'd pay money for and use.
Otherwise, I have no reason to use this. I have an app and when it can grab the podcast, I can find it somewhere on the web. It's not hard. And I'd rather have recommendations from word of mouth over some algorithm telling me what I should like. I never know what new and interesting thing someone would tell me to listen to.
Actually, in YouTube's case there are probably several hands who aren't aware of the other's actions. The advertisement one is busy trying to make sure ads don't show up in certain places, the piracy one is busy doing it's own thing, and the one who used to promote original material hasn't been taking its meds lately. None of them talk with one another to coordinate changes or specifics about what is being changed so who knows. All three could be stepping on top of one another. It's not like YouTube is telling anyone, anything so you might as well read the tea leaves as you'll get just as much information out it.
I really shouldn't get any deeper, but it's going to bug me if I don't ask.
Yet maybe they haven't, and I don't need to make it easier for them.
To do what, exactly? Gather info on you? You don't have to even go close and they'll be able to build a profile of who you are, what your name is, and what you're doing day to day. That was part of the EU's GDPR is about. Even that doesn't go far enough. It certainly doesn't force them to delete what they already gathered. Or to stop the targeted stuff from happening. You leave data everywhere you go, so I'm confused about what, exactly, you're trying to avoid.
If someone really wants to know things about you, a huge amount of info is already public. And in databases. And available to be bought in a nice correlated form. Much of which you can't stop since it has to be there in order to function as part of the body public.
Please note, I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware about it or fight having your life any further invaded by these bastards than it already is. However, it seems your insistence you "don't make it easier" is almost dogmatic, as if these are magic words that explain what you are thinking or why. Let me assure you, it doesn't. And it seems like an odd thing to call out when such information isn't simply public but is already part of a legally protected status and something the vast majority of people don't deem to be anything other than a passing note about themselves. It's not key information to anything as we are not living in some sort of odd Perry Mason mystery plot.
I hate to break it to you but if you got married anywhere in the US, that's considered a public record and can be looked up. Not finding a record isn't conclusive proof but it's a good indicator that you're not.
In conclusion, your marital status is already public. It cannot be used against you as part of a job application, however. Those are two different things.
What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?
Anymore? Not a whole lot at the individual level. There was a time when anyone could look at your profile and stalk you that way, but there has since been controls put in place to keep that from happening without a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms (aka, hacking) facebook uses to generate the pages it sends you.
On the whole no one cares about you and your daily grind. The fear of wholesale turning over of logs to law enforcement for no reason seem to be unfounded as well as the delusion that you are interesting enough for, say, intelligence services to want to know more about you. I think it says more about the people who continue to fight against the service than those who use it to reconnect with friends and family members they wouldn't otherwise know anything about.
However, that isn't to say that there's no danger. These lie more in being the target of individualized advertising and propaganda. These are more dangers of aggregation, how you can be grouped together with other people, which is what TFA is talking about.
So is this one step closer to non-volatile RAM or not?
I mean, are we finally going to bridge that gap between storage and RAM so that everything is finally moving at bus speed or is that still the fevered dreams of ultra-systems-on-a-chip?
I get where this is coming from, the business demand and so forth. I get it.
What I don't get is why it even has to be a thing. It's not hard to have reasonable privacy laws and given how important our communications are these days, have those same laws apply to the internet and so forth. That we don't is a biting indictment of our political process.
Because the only reason I have YT:Red is because of the Play Music sub I have. That's it. I wouldn't pay for it otherwise. There's plenty on YT I watch but I wasn't bothered by ads before because I have my adblockers active. The best I can hope for is that the new service lets me keep my uploaded music and stuff I bought from Play Music otherwise I have one less reason to use Google's universe.
The reason being is that it's mostly random. Kinda like the stock market. You can't make predictions based on past performance. Something or someone may fall out of favor in the public's eye. Or something or someone may be suddenly popular.
So that just means we don't get to know who voted for this guy, or even if there were enough votes for him to carry.
When you thought things were getting bad with this admin, their legislative buddies pull another stinker on us. If they had the votes and were confident in the nominee a voice vote wouldn't be necessary. If this guy really was that good, being on record for him wouldn't be an albatross around anyone's neck. But here we are.
But I have large doubts that there will be much of a wait. I wouldn't put it past any of them to make changes and then in court argue that going back would cost too much money or be too hard since they've now grown used to having those profits.
are shitting themselves in fear and have begun dumping a ton of lobbying money into the capital. They've likely screwed themselves much as they did in court before the FCC dropped their action against them. By arguing out both sides of their mouth and also through their ass, they've put themselves into the unenviable position of dealing with a patchwork of laws instead of a single set of regulations. It's not as if this was an unforeseen outcome. It's quite the opposite given public opinion on the issue.
However, for reasons of nothing but plain insatiable greed the biggest ISPs decided to try anyway.
Considering that the law literally gives people the ability to go after sites for things they did before the law the passed, I'm pretty certain that this is the backup plan to these charges.
The CLOUD Act was snuck into a must pass omnibus budget bill and not left on its own legs to be debated. But the biggest issue is that it makes it a international diplomatic affair to deal with what can best be described as a local law enforcement issue.
Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather my government concentrate on the bigger issues when doing international diplomacy and not having to constantly ring up someone in the ambassador chain of command in order to get a sign-off on this sort of thing. Analogy time: It's one thing to ask to borrow a cup of sugar or an egg from time to time of your neighbor. You know you're going to do it for them and probably have in the past. It's another thing to ask for 10 grams of sugar every hour. The first isn't a big deal, the latter can really put a strain on your relationship with them. To the point that they might tell you to go away.
And unless the point was to otherwise accelerate the international isolation of the US, then this was a poorly written piece whose authors knew it. Which is why it got attached as an amendment to a must-pass piece of legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
From the end of TFA:
It might be bad luck to speak ill of the dead, but I say, "good riddance"; I never liked using those tables anyway.
They're not saying it was good to have them. That's mostly implied from what the bit above, or from the submitter.
"But this is not plagiarism; rather, we are standing on the shoulders of a giant for our own innovation," she added, according to local media reports. Ms Gao was also quoted as saying that the company had so far been doing very well in terms of customer satisfaction.
Not plagiarism? Well, that's technically correct. This would be corporate espionage at worst and copyright/trademark infringement at best. But let's leave that aside and wonder why they weren't satisfied with grabbing and using Chromium, the open source project Chrome is largely based on. I'm certain they have the technical expertise to compile and create a distribution package. That shouldn't be a high hurdle to jump, so it come back to why?
Maybe it's a political statement to Google who is trying to get back into the mainland Chinese market? We can take your & call it our own, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Also, the last bit about customer satisfaction? Is the article just weird about what questions were asked because that really feels like it came out of no where.
The problem is that you have to have trust in the authoritative sources and the first thing the vast majority of the conspiracy peddlars do is to throw massive amounts of doubt upon said sources. This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
It comes down to how you cannot reason someone out of a idea they didn't arrive at through reason in the first place.
Ghost in the Shell.
This stuff. Themoptical camo. It's a few story points throughout the book and how it's used to evade and so forth. It's also very Cyberpunk. Computer brain interfaces. The world's data at the tips of my thoughts. It's all cool.
Until you look at the poverty, the political situations, the fact that you can brainwash people and implant memories...reality is kinda fucked up there.
So, yeah. If we could get everyone to stop going down this direction in history, I think we might all end up happier in the long run.
Imagine some of the opposites here.
A company that jumps at every opportunity to create a process but never does anything with them.
A company that only promotes from within and then wonders why they can't move on to new tech as no one knows it or how to introduce it.
A company that doesn't do any get togethers with anyone since in their mind family comes first.
There are good ways to do these things and bad ways. The trick is knowing which is which.
That's the way these surveys have been used for a while now. I know people who used to work at GameStop and the same applied to them. Anything less than a perfect score didn't count for anything positive.
It's a purposeful misunderstanding of how statistics work and only used to squeeze working people harder everyday. The management only want a single number to understand things when the world doesn't even come close to working like that. Nuance is lost because it's hard to manage through it. By making it a literal pass/fail, black or white situation you've suddenly gained the ability to fire people on a whim if business has a slight downturn. Keep the churn going, there's always another 18 year old kid looking for after school money.
Not only that but it's been discovered that there's a slight current in normal, everyday phone lines. Utilizing this, Apple engineers have come up with a phone you never have to charge again! In fact, it's completely immobile allowing you to never lose. It will be packed with a handy, easy to use interface. It doesn't even have one. All it has is a "receiving unit" that's directly connected to the immobile part which is a single purpose unit. All it does is listen to your voice and recreates the voice of the person you are talking with. The only interface to speak of is a set of standard numbers from zero to nine. You enter someone's phone number and it will take care of everything else!
The size of the pie does not stay constant and the game is not one of being a zero sum. Competition has a place in these things but not to the detriment of the kitchen that it's being held in.
Considering that AMC is now the largest theater chain in the US, possibly the world (depending on how that partnership with the Chinese firm goes), they might have the ability to push back against Hollywood's unreasonable financial demands. Like the ones where Disney demands the entirety of the receipts for the first three weeks of certain Avenger or Star Wars films. Or where Disney asks for an extra 25% of receipts from any or all special events the theater may host ahead of the premiere of said films.
Just so we're all on the same page, this isn't the theater chains being greedy. They're just trying to survive the ever increasing avarice of Hollywood.
Instead of just being in on the endpoint side, that the app also did the recording and mastering side as well. A nice, all-in-one solution. Now that I'd pay money for and use.
Otherwise, I have no reason to use this. I have an app and when it can grab the podcast, I can find it somewhere on the web. It's not hard. And I'd rather have recommendations from word of mouth over some algorithm telling me what I should like. I never know what new and interesting thing someone would tell me to listen to.
Actually, in YouTube's case there are probably several hands who aren't aware of the other's actions. The advertisement one is busy trying to make sure ads don't show up in certain places, the piracy one is busy doing it's own thing, and the one who used to promote original material hasn't been taking its meds lately. None of them talk with one another to coordinate changes or specifics about what is being changed so who knows. All three could be stepping on top of one another. It's not like YouTube is telling anyone, anything so you might as well read the tea leaves as you'll get just as much information out it.
I really shouldn't get any deeper, but it's going to bug me if I don't ask.
Yet maybe they haven't, and I don't need to make it easier for them.
To do what, exactly? Gather info on you? You don't have to even go close and they'll be able to build a profile of who you are, what your name is, and what you're doing day to day. That was part of the EU's GDPR is about. Even that doesn't go far enough. It certainly doesn't force them to delete what they already gathered. Or to stop the targeted stuff from happening. You leave data everywhere you go, so I'm confused about what, exactly, you're trying to avoid.
If someone really wants to know things about you, a huge amount of info is already public. And in databases. And available to be bought in a nice correlated form. Much of which you can't stop since it has to be there in order to function as part of the body public.
Please note, I'm not saying you shouldn't be aware about it or fight having your life any further invaded by these bastards than it already is. However, it seems your insistence you "don't make it easier" is almost dogmatic, as if these are magic words that explain what you are thinking or why. Let me assure you, it doesn't. And it seems like an odd thing to call out when such information isn't simply public but is already part of a legally protected status and something the vast majority of people don't deem to be anything other than a passing note about themselves. It's not key information to anything as we are not living in some sort of odd Perry Mason mystery plot.
I hate to break it to you but if you got married anywhere in the US, that's considered a public record and can be looked up. Not finding a record isn't conclusive proof but it's a good indicator that you're not.
In conclusion, your marital status is already public. It cannot be used against you as part of a job application, however. Those are two different things.
What are the potential negative consequences if Facebook knows my real name and where and when I went to high school?
Anymore? Not a whole lot at the individual level. There was a time when anyone could look at your profile and stalk you that way, but there has since been controls put in place to keep that from happening without a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms (aka, hacking) facebook uses to generate the pages it sends you.
On the whole no one cares about you and your daily grind. The fear of wholesale turning over of logs to law enforcement for no reason seem to be unfounded as well as the delusion that you are interesting enough for, say, intelligence services to want to know more about you. I think it says more about the people who continue to fight against the service than those who use it to reconnect with friends and family members they wouldn't otherwise know anything about.
However, that isn't to say that there's no danger. These lie more in being the target of individualized advertising and propaganda. These are more dangers of aggregation, how you can be grouped together with other people, which is what TFA is talking about.
So is this one step closer to non-volatile RAM or not?
I mean, are we finally going to bridge that gap between storage and RAM so that everything is finally moving at bus speed or is that still the fevered dreams of ultra-systems-on-a-chip?
I get where this is coming from, the business demand and so forth. I get it.
What I don't get is why it even has to be a thing. It's not hard to have reasonable privacy laws and given how important our communications are these days, have those same laws apply to the internet and so forth. That we don't is a biting indictment of our political process.
Because the only reason I have YT:Red is because of the Play Music sub I have. That's it. I wouldn't pay for it otherwise. There's plenty on YT I watch but I wasn't bothered by ads before because I have my adblockers active. The best I can hope for is that the new service lets me keep my uploaded music and stuff I bought from Play Music otherwise I have one less reason to use Google's universe.
The answer is of course "No".
The reason being is that it's mostly random. Kinda like the stock market. You can't make predictions based on past performance. Something or someone may fall out of favor in the public's eye. Or something or someone may be suddenly popular.
Yeah, but this has the potential to make casual attacks even easier.
Does anyone know how hard it would be to update/patch the locks? Can it be patched at all?
So that just means we don't get to know who voted for this guy, or even if there were enough votes for him to carry.
When you thought things were getting bad with this admin, their legislative buddies pull another stinker on us. If they had the votes and were confident in the nominee a voice vote wouldn't be necessary. If this guy really was that good, being on record for him wouldn't be an albatross around anyone's neck. But here we are.
But I have large doubts that there will be much of a wait. I wouldn't put it past any of them to make changes and then in court argue that going back would cost too much money or be too hard since they've now grown used to having those profits.
That's the sort of scum we're dealing with here.
are shitting themselves in fear and have begun dumping a ton of lobbying money into the capital. They've likely screwed themselves much as they did in court before the FCC dropped their action against them. By arguing out both sides of their mouth and also through their ass, they've put themselves into the unenviable position of dealing with a patchwork of laws instead of a single set of regulations. It's not as if this was an unforeseen outcome. It's quite the opposite given public opinion on the issue.
However, for reasons of nothing but plain insatiable greed the biggest ISPs decided to try anyway.
Considering that the law literally gives people the ability to go after sites for things they did before the law the passed, I'm pretty certain that this is the backup plan to these charges.
Charges were unsealed and the people who run the site were arrested at the same time.
That was before the law was officially signed which tells you just how badly some people were wanting to take the site down.
The CLOUD Act was snuck into a must pass omnibus budget bill and not left on its own legs to be debated. But the biggest issue is that it makes it a international diplomatic affair to deal with what can best be described as a local law enforcement issue.
Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather my government concentrate on the bigger issues when doing international diplomacy and not having to constantly ring up someone in the ambassador chain of command in order to get a sign-off on this sort of thing. Analogy time: It's one thing to ask to borrow a cup of sugar or an egg from time to time of your neighbor. You know you're going to do it for them and probably have in the past. It's another thing to ask for 10 grams of sugar every hour. The first isn't a big deal, the latter can really put a strain on your relationship with them. To the point that they might tell you to go away.
And unless the point was to otherwise accelerate the international isolation of the US, then this was a poorly written piece whose authors knew it. Which is why it got attached as an amendment to a must-pass piece of legislation.