The weird thing is that research is now showing that a lot of the so-called "junk dna" is actually used indirectly. Maybe we like junk food so much because we eat what we are?:-)
But this whole thing isn't all that surprising when you consider where our mitochondria came from.
>>>What if the person was a delivery agent but it's 3 in the morning?
>>He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
>What city?
>What happens if I'm hand-delivering a letter that isn't a flier and isn't junk mail? Do I still get harassed for no reason?
If you're trying to hand-deliver a letter at 3 in the morning, you'd better call ahead of time. Parcels and stuff? Sure, if the person is actually ordered them. If they didn't, forget it. Even subpoenas can't be served before 6am in Quebec (search or arrest warrants are another matter). You want to do otherwise, you'd better have a judge's authorization.
It's not for "no reason" any more than not allowing people to run circular saws at 5am is "no reason." People have a right to live in peace, and that means no circulars or other crap dumped in their mailbox or on their porch after 8pm in most municipalities - we demanded the laws be passed in city council specifically to deal with the mountain of useless crap advertisers want us to pay to recycle.
The procedure is quite simple... your junk mail is confiscated, you're given your ticket, then you're free to go. You either pay the fine ($300.00 to $1,000.00), plus costs, or you go to court. If you lose, you either pay the fine + costs, or you go to jail, or you do community service if you can prove that you can't pay the fine. You can ask the court to order your junk mail returned, and it may or may not be - and you may be held responsible for storage costs if it is, same as cars that are impounded when you're caught for drunk driving have to pay $600.00 when you go to pick up their car ($20 a day, mandatory 30-day impound. Tends to make people renew their plates on time).
We also have a program where you put a "no fliers" sticker on your mailbox, and even the post office won't deliver junk mail unless it's addressed to the individual occupant. Again backed up with fines of $300.00 to $1,000.00
What if the person was a delivery agent but it's 3 in the morning?
He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
The implication is clear - Google will roll over when there's a request made for your info, rather than saying "no, gimme a warrant, you insensitive clod."
The only implication is that Google and everyone else has to provide them with that information. They don't have a choice in the question.
Are you insane? Since when is ANYONE obliged to hand over anything without a warrant or a subpoena? Or has everyone in your country been so brow-beaten into submission that when someone says "bend over and take it up the ass!" you think of Nike and just do it!???
Maybe if he threw the people in jail who were behind the housing bubble, it would make a difference. For example, Warren Buffett, who owned the biggest chunk of both Moody's (one of the ratings agencies that made toxic mortgages possible and AIG (the guys who got an emergency $85 billion no-strings-attached initial bail-out - since increased - and then blew a half-million on a party).
Buffett's the biggest welfare recipient in the entire history of the world. Without the bailouts, and the subsequent lawsuits, he would have lost pretty much everything.
And Obama won't do shit, and you know it. Doubling the debt, then doubling it again, isn't the way to get out of debt. It just kicks the can down the road a few years.
The context was about privacy. Search results are part of that - google stores them, analyses them, and ties them into profiles. Google (and Schmidt) don't "get it" when it comes to privacy. THAT is the context, and THE issue for this decade.
... but they don't have to store search queries - you know, those things that can get you arrested in the US, or shot in some other countries... and with smartphones, they can tie queries to customers. Nasty. And now google wants to get even more control over communications by being appointed the administrator of radio spectrum white space.
Your ignorance is showing, again. Vertical Integration is, in this case when service, hardware and software are sold as a single inseparable unit.
Since when are cell phones only available through one provider? I can buy an unlocked phone, or unlock a phone from another provider. The fact that carriers offer subsidies to keep me in no way changes the fact that you haven't got a clue as to what "vertically integrated" means. Do some research. Start with "the seven sisters" and the breakup of standard oil.
There's a big difference between sharing software and hardware. HTC is not going to give Motorola their plans, and even if they did, it's too late to take advantage of them.
Google worked behind the scene with HTC to come out with the gphone while publicly working with moto on the droid.
This is the sort of thing that, if microsoft had tried it, everyone would be screaming.
personally as I see it as Googles direct attempt to break the vertical integration of the mobile phone market.
What you wrote is total nonsense. The mobile phone market is not vertically integrated in any shape manner or form - the manufacturers of cell phones don't own the distributors - the mobile phone carriers, and people are free to buy wherever they want, which is why the carriers have to subsidize the phones - to keep customers - and why they have to deal with more than one supplier each - to keep customers. It's one of the most competitive businesses in the world, with almost zero vertical integration. Just look at how many different mobile phone carriers there are out there. Does Motorola or Apple or HTC own Rogers or Verizon or AT&T? No.
If I were motorola, I'd be thinking about an injunction.
Google also gave Motorola a fully functional modern mobile operating system for free
No they didn't. Android is based on linux. Just like ChromeOS is. Give credit where it's due, starting with Linus Torvalds, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and everyone else who contributed - including Gnu/RMS.
Remember that Motorola, HTC, Samsung and LG are getting a lot of information from the Nexus One.
Unfortunately, only HTC can immediately benefit by manufacturing the devices. Motorola, etc., are committed to their current fab run. Google just shafted Motorola big time. Motorola made the big advertising splurge, and Google rides on the coat-tails a month later with a product that obsoletes it in terms of speed.
Google might be trying to pass this off as "just a showcase", but their other "partners", including Motorola, gave Google a lot of information that is now being used against them.
You're underlying issues arnt (sic) with google but with all search engines because they are required to keep this information.
Search engines aren't "required to keep this information." Case in point - scroogle.
Nobody is required to keep the information - google only does because it's part of their user tracking so they can better target YOU with ads. In doing so they paint a bigger target on you.
If they were just serving up ads that did not track, they wouldn't have much of this data in the first place.
If there were such a requirement, they could get around it by moving their servers to Kanuckistan (aka Canada), where the government actually goes after companies for breaking the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act or otherwise infringing on individual rights and freedoms. And they'd get better natural cooling for their data centers at the same time - just leave a window open in the winter.
And do you know the actual context in which he made that statement?
Yes - he was asked about whether google should be trusted.
Here's , with VIDEO.
CNBC's Mario Bartiromo asked CEO Schmidt in her December 3, 2009 interview: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they?"
Schmidt's reply hints that if there's scandalous information out there about you, it's your problem, not Google's.
Schmidt tells Baritoromo:
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
He expands on his answer, adding that the your information could be made available not only to curious searchers or prying friends, but also to the authorities, and that there's little recourse for people worried about unintentionally "oversharing" online:
But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
The implication is clear - Google will roll over when there's a request made for your info, rather than saying "no, gimme a warrant, you insensitive clod." Look at their activities in China and, more recently, India.
Actually, you should see both threads running on the same core. It's harder/slower to get locking right when threads span multiple cores, which is why we have such things as processor affinity.
This year's challenge: write a luggage routing program that mysteriously misroutes a customer's bag if a check-in clerk places just the right kind of text in a comment field
As opposed to the current system that does it at random? If you come up with a system that ONLY does it when malicious text is written in the comment field, the government wants to talk with you. They paid $500 per LINE for a baggage-routing system that never worked. It was finally abandoned after half a billion was sunk into it.
still lacks support for multi-threading (running on different processors)
Multi-threading is running multiple threads of execution on a single cpu, which has been done on single-cpu processors for decades. That's not multiprocessing.
I thought this was a tech site.
What next - an article about how someone just bought a new hard disk to upgrade their ram, because it was cheaper than chips and a lot bigger?
The guy's a hypocrite who simply can't be trusted any more. I don't need my phone spying on me for some guy who thinks his personal info is privileged, and yours and mine isn't.
And where's google's netbook? Same stage - it's only supposed to be released in time for Christmas 2010 - at the same price point - $200.00
The telecoms got their wakeup call when google started ordering gphones from HTC. Given a choice between offering a netbook from google or a tablet from another manufacturer, they will ALL avoid google. They know google is their future competitor.
Furthermore its open source and if you really want to run local software you can make that happen.
Absolutely not. Google has said that there is NO possibility of installing software locally, for security reasons. Any attempt will make it download a new image of the OS. So forget about it.
And that's a good thing. Google's "netbook" was going to be too locked-down. Not able to install any software locally, not able to run anything not approved by and signed by google, and any attempt to change it resulting in the welfarebook re-imaging itself.
Background: MySQL is an open-source database used by millions. Originally developed by closely-held Swedish company MySQL AB, it was sold to Sun Microsystems Inc in January 2008. Sun is now in the process of being acquired Oracle Corporation. The deal is still awaiting European regulatory approval.
Not happy with selling MySQL AB to Sun for a cool billion, Monty Widenius is now trolling regulators, the media, and anyone who will listen in his efforts to get back control of "his" database (without having to give back the money).
European regulators still don't "get" the open-source software model
The Europeans are holding up their approval of the Sun-Oracle deal because of concerns that the acquisition will reduce competition in the database industry. Oracle Corp, which is already the dominant player in large-scale corporate databases, already "controls" several open-source database products such as Oracle Berkeley DB and the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MysQL
The reason I put "controls" in quotes is because it's very difficult to actually exert full control an open-source project, especially one that is licensed under the GPL or similar open-source license. It would probably be more accurate to say that Oracle "sponsors" both BerkeleyDB and InnoDB.
It's all about being an unabashed hypocrite
Widenius was originally able to control MySQL by insisting that the copyright for all code contributed by outsiders be assigned to MySQL AB. By doing this, Widenius was able to "dual-license" MySQL, with both a free GPL version and a paid commercial version.
This licensing scheme was good enough when Widenius was in control of MySQL AB, but now that Oracle is buying Sun, suddenly Widenius wants both the licensing scheme changed to something that would allow his new company to sell modified copies without having to release the source code for their changes, and to have Oracle turn over control of MySQL to someone other than Oracle - perhaps the EU should consider (nudge nudge, wink wink) his new company, Monty Program AB?
Calls the GPL licensing scheme an "infection", wants the EU to violate international treaties
You can read more about the attempt to get the Europeans to retroactively change the licensing scheme from the GPL to something more "Monty Widenius-friendly":
We would like to draw attention to the fact that some major concerns about the effects of the proposed transaction could be somewhat alleviated by requiring that all versions of MySQL source code previously released under the GPLv2 license (whether in a General Availability, Release Candidate, Beta, Alpha release, or as public bazaar or bitkeeper revision control trees) must be released under a more liberal open source license that is usable also by the OEM users and would also create an opportuity for other service vendors to compete with offerings comparable to MySQL Enterprise.
In other words, he wants the European Union to violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Bern Convention on Copyrights and retroactively change the license from the GPL, which requires him to share any changes he makes to source code covered by the GPL, to a license that would let him take from the original authors, but not give back anything in return.
The "copyleft/infection" principle of the GPL license represents a particular obstacle not only to revenue generation by the fork vendor but also to the overall adoption and market penetration of MySQL, MySQL forks and MySQL storage engines....
When we were kids, our parents told us "share and share alike." The authors who contributed source code under the GPL adhered to this principle. If you don't want to share your changes, simply don't "borrow" their
Let's get back on-topic, since you keep refusing to address the real issues. The Irish passed a law against "blasphemy"? Is this "blasphemous" enough for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. MS didn't write DOS - they bought it.. $10k for the right to sell it, + $15k for the sale of an OEM license to ... IBM. Total: $25k.
Lawsuits eventually drove the final price to $1M.
Considering that Microsoft made tens of billions in profit (not revenue - profit) off dos, ...
Not quite ... the summary calls him "teven Sinofsky" ...
It's not like anyone proofreads here. Not when the average reader doesn't know the difference between rain/rein/reign, or break/brake, or lose/loose.
The weird thing is that research is now showing that a lot of the so-called "junk dna" is actually used indirectly. Maybe we like junk food so much because we eat what we are? :-)
But this whole thing isn't all that surprising when you consider where our mitochondria came from.
>>>What if the person was a delivery agent but it's 3 in the morning?
>>He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
>What city?
>What happens if I'm hand-delivering a letter that isn't a flier and isn't junk mail? Do I still get harassed for no reason?
If you're trying to hand-deliver a letter at 3 in the morning, you'd better call ahead of time. Parcels and stuff? Sure, if the person is actually ordered them. If they didn't, forget it. Even subpoenas can't be served before 6am in Quebec (search or arrest warrants are another matter). You want to do otherwise, you'd better have a judge's authorization.
It's not for "no reason" any more than not allowing people to run circular saws at 5am is "no reason." People have a right to live in peace, and that means no circulars or other crap dumped in their mailbox or on their porch after 8pm in most municipalities - we demanded the laws be passed in city council specifically to deal with the mountain of useless crap advertisers want us to pay to recycle.
The procedure is quite simple ... your junk mail is confiscated, you're given your ticket, then you're free to go. You either pay the fine ($300.00 to $1,000.00), plus costs, or you go to court. If you lose, you either pay the fine + costs, or you go to jail, or you do community service if you can prove that you can't pay the fine. You can ask the court to order your junk mail returned, and it may or may not be - and you may be held responsible for storage costs if it is, same as cars that are impounded when you're caught for drunk driving have to pay $600.00 when you go to pick up their car ($20 a day, mandatory 30-day impound. Tends to make people renew their plates on time).
We also have a program where you put a "no fliers" sticker on your mailbox, and even the post office won't deliver junk mail unless it's addressed to the individual occupant. Again backed up with fines of $300.00 to $1,000.00
He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
Are you insane? Since when is ANYONE obliged to hand over anything without a warrant or a subpoena? Or has everyone in your country been so brow-beaten into submission that when someone says "bend over and take it up the ass!" you think of Nike and just do it!???
No warrant, no co-operation. If it's good enough for the supremes, it should be good enough for you. Here, watch a prosecutor and a cop talk about how it really works, and how anyone who cooperates without a warrant is an idiot
Maybe if he threw the people in jail who were behind the housing bubble, it would make a difference. For example, Warren Buffett, who owned the biggest chunk of both Moody's (one of the ratings agencies that made toxic mortgages possible and AIG (the guys who got an emergency $85 billion no-strings-attached initial bail-out - since increased - and then blew a half-million on a party).
Buffett's the biggest welfare recipient in the entire history of the world. Without the bailouts, and the subsequent lawsuits, he would have lost pretty much everything.
And Obama won't do shit, and you know it. Doubling the debt, then doubling it again, isn't the way to get out of debt. It just kicks the can down the road a few years.
The context was about privacy. Search results are part of that - google stores them, analyses them, and ties them into profiles. Google (and Schmidt) don't "get it" when it comes to privacy. THAT is the context, and THE issue for this decade.
... but they don't have to store search queries - you know, those things that can get you arrested in the US, or shot in some other countries ... and with smartphones, they can tie queries to customers. Nasty. And now google wants to get even more control over communications by being appointed the administrator of radio spectrum white space.
Since when are cell phones only available through one provider? I can buy an unlocked phone, or unlock a phone from another provider. The fact that carriers offer subsidies to keep me in no way changes the fact that you haven't got a clue as to what "vertically integrated" means. Do some research. Start with "the seven sisters" and the breakup of standard oil.
Moron.
There's a big difference between sharing software and hardware. HTC is not going to give Motorola their plans, and even if they did, it's too late to take advantage of them.
Google worked behind the scene with HTC to come out with the gphone while publicly working with moto on the droid.
This is the sort of thing that, if microsoft had tried it, everyone would be screaming.
You use that word, but you don't know what it means. vertical integration.
What you wrote is total nonsense. The mobile phone market is not vertically integrated in any shape manner or form - the manufacturers of cell phones don't own the distributors - the mobile phone carriers, and people are free to buy wherever they want, which is why the carriers have to subsidize the phones - to keep customers - and why they have to deal with more than one supplier each - to keep customers. It's one of the most competitive businesses in the world, with almost zero vertical integration. Just look at how many different mobile phone carriers there are out there. Does Motorola or Apple or HTC own Rogers or Verizon or AT&T? No.
If I were motorola, I'd be thinking about an injunction.
No they didn't. Android is based on linux. Just like ChromeOS is. Give credit where it's due, starting with Linus Torvalds, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and everyone else who contributed - including Gnu/RMS.
Unfortunately, only HTC can immediately benefit by manufacturing the devices. Motorola, etc., are committed to their current fab run. Google just shafted Motorola big time. Motorola made the big advertising splurge, and Google rides on the coat-tails a month later with a product that obsoletes it in terms of speed.
Google might be trying to pass this off as "just a showcase", but their other "partners", including Motorola, gave Google a lot of information that is now being used against them.
And yes, I told you so!
Search engines aren't "required to keep this information." Case in point - scroogle.
Nobody is required to keep the information - google only does because it's part of their user tracking so they can better target YOU with ads. In doing so they paint a bigger target on you.
If they were just serving up ads that did not track, they wouldn't have much of this data in the first place.
If there were such a requirement, they could get around it by moving their servers to Kanuckistan (aka Canada), where the government actually goes after companies for breaking the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act or otherwise infringing on individual rights and freedoms. And they'd get better natural cooling for their data centers at the same time - just leave a window open in the winter.
Yes - he was asked about whether google should be trusted. Here's , with VIDEO.
The implication is clear - Google will roll over when there's a request made for your info, rather than saying "no, gimme a warrant, you insensitive clod." Look at their activities in China and, more recently, India.
Actually, you should see both threads running on the same core. It's harder/slower to get locking right when threads span multiple cores, which is why we have such things as processor affinity.
As opposed to the current system that does it at random? If you come up with a system that ONLY does it when malicious text is written in the comment field, the government wants to talk with you. They paid $500 per LINE for a baggage-routing system that never worked. It was finally abandoned after half a billion was sunk into it.
Maybe Eric Schmidt (png image - safe for work unless your job is at the googleplex) has mod points and he's spying on us :-)
Multi-threading is running multiple threads of execution on a single cpu, which has been done on single-cpu processors for decades. That's not multiprocessing.
I thought this was a tech site.
What next - an article about how someone just bought a new hard disk to upgrade their ram, because it was cheaper than chips and a lot bigger?
I would have answered YES to an android in December. Now, the answer would be NO. Not unless I can replace all the Google apps with something else.
What changed my mind? Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google..
This is the same guy who had Google blackball CNET after they published some of his personal info.
The guy's a hypocrite who simply can't be trusted any more. I don't need my phone spying on me for some guy who thinks his personal info is privileged, and yours and mine isn't.
And where's google's netbook? Same stage - it's only supposed to be released in time for Christmas 2010 - at the same price point - $200.00
The telecoms got their wakeup call when google started ordering gphones from HTC. Given a choice between offering a netbook from google or a tablet from another manufacturer, they will ALL avoid google. They know google is their future competitor.
Absolutely not. Google has said that there is NO possibility of installing software locally, for security reasons. Any attempt will make it download a new image of the OS. So forget about it.
And that's a good thing. Google's "netbook" was going to be too locked-down. Not able to install any software locally, not able to run anything not approved by and signed by google, and any attempt to change it resulting in the welfarebook re-imaging itself.
Background: MySQL is an open-source database used by millions. Originally developed by closely-held Swedish company MySQL AB, it was sold to Sun Microsystems Inc in January 2008. Sun is now in the process of being acquired Oracle Corporation. The deal is still awaiting European regulatory approval.
Not happy with selling MySQL AB to Sun for a cool billion, Monty Widenius is now trolling regulators, the media, and anyone who will listen in his efforts to get back control of "his" database (without having to give back the money).
European regulators still don't "get" the open-source software model
The Europeans are holding up their approval of the Sun-Oracle deal because of concerns that the acquisition will reduce competition in the database industry. Oracle Corp, which is already the dominant player in large-scale corporate databases, already "controls" several open-source database products such as Oracle Berkeley DB and the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MysQL
The reason I put "controls" in quotes is because it's very difficult to actually exert full control an open-source project, especially one that is licensed under the GPL or similar open-source license. It would probably be more accurate to say that Oracle "sponsors" both BerkeleyDB and InnoDB.
It's all about being an unabashed hypocrite
Widenius was originally able to control MySQL by insisting that the copyright for all code contributed by outsiders be assigned to MySQL AB. By doing this, Widenius was able to "dual-license" MySQL, with both a free GPL version and a paid commercial version.
This licensing scheme was good enough when Widenius was in control of MySQL AB, but now that Oracle is buying Sun, suddenly Widenius wants both the licensing scheme changed to something that would allow his new company to sell modified copies without having to release the source code for their changes, and to have Oracle turn over control of MySQL to someone other than Oracle - perhaps the EU should consider (nudge nudge, wink wink) his new company, Monty Program AB?
Calls the GPL licensing scheme an "infection", wants the EU to violate international treaties
You can read more about the attempt to get the Europeans to retroactively change the licensing scheme from the GPL to something more "Monty Widenius-friendly":
In other words, he wants the European Union to violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Bern Convention on Copyrights and retroactively change the license from the GPL, which requires him to share any changes he makes to source code covered by the GPL, to a license that would let him take from the original authors, but not give back anything in return.
When we were kids, our parents told us "share and share alike." The authors who contributed source code under the GPL adhered to this principle. If you don't want to share your changes, simply don't "borrow" their
Let's get back on-topic, since you keep refusing to address the real issues. The Irish passed a law against "blasphemy"? Is this "blasphemous" enough for you?