Dji phantoms won't let you fly near airports, the onboard gps knows the location of every airport and will not allow it. The app even displays a message saying restricted airspace and will not allow flight into it.
If they're that smart, why not do it for class A (IFR only), B (PPR), C (2 way communication and transponder required) and D (2 way communication required) airspace as well?
I'm pretty sure those things won't be carrying transponders (or ADS-B as required in a few years), nor will they be able to talk to ATC.
Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.
A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.
I think you have just proven my point. Google operates in Germany with its google.de domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany. Google operates in The Netherlands with its google.nl domain name and its own Google legal entity for The Netherlands. Google operates in Belgium with its google.be domain name and its own Google legal entity for Belgium. Google operates in the US with its google.com domain name and Google Inc.
Why would some local I-feel-important politician that hasn't even been chosen directly in The Netherlands be in the position to dictate a foreign entity what to do? Let them have jurisdiction of google.nl.
Lawmakers need to simply accept the consequences that connecting to a global network (the internet) means that there are boundaries with regards to their legal jurisdiction. If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect. If China can do it, then the EU can do it as well. And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.
In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country? Take this one step further. Google operates in China, do you expect Google to comply with all Chinese laws, including censorship, as well? No of course you don't. Chinese law is applied on google.cn, not on google.com.
And this is exactly what's going on here, according to TFA, or even the summary:
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.
And for what it's worth: there is no such thing as EU law. There are EU directives, which have to be implemented into local law by its member states. Which means that, assuming you agree with me on the China analogy, Google would only have to censor individual country-specific TLD search results such as google.nl, google.de, google.be etc. And what is happening now is that the EU tries to force Google to change the international version of Google, meaning it is attempting to shove EU directives through the rest of the world's throats.
I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.
Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content". Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
I find this a typical case of where governments go wrong. They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?
in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
No disagreement there.
I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.
And this is the part where it becomes interesting. Remember what is happening here. Google is a search engine, an indexer of information that is readily available elsewhere. If the Guardian reports about child-abuse allegations against John Doe, and Mr Doe is acquitted in court, the report about the allegations are still correct. You're arguing that Google should no longer be allowed to produce search results that link to the original allegations. I'm arguing that this is a silly way of handling things. If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.
Obscuring the fact that the original allegation was made by passing laws against an indexing service smells like Chinese Censorship to me, and I find that to be a dangerous slippery slope.
I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
Totally agree there. But my point remains valid: in such a case the origin of the information should be affected, not the indexer. And also, most criminal convictions will stay on the record (especially in the case of felonies), but won't be taken into account (or to a lesser extent) when performing a background check. In my former home country (The Netherlands) that usually means 4 years for infractions, 8 years for felonies. The record itself stays and the individual can go to the courthouse to see the rapsheet, but it will not be disclosed to anyone.
I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?
You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The problem is you can't anymore, without forgetting to use the web in its entirety.
Bullshit. You name me one Google service that you can't live without. Last time I checked, Google Beating Heart or Google Breathing Air were not available yet.
The Internet has the bad habit of not forgetting anything, hence laws are necessary to purge incorrect, or out of date information pertaining to people.
There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?
If the OP shouts communism or socialism it just shows how idiot you really are.
On the contrary, it shows how socialistic nanny-states try to force companies founded in free countries to adhere by their standards. The EU doesn't want American laws to apply to Europe, but they do want EU law to apply to US companies? They can fsck themselves.
Any wear levelling worth its salt will not do what the grandparent wrote.
Yes, which is where the smarter controllers come in, and where you have the process of "garbage collection". There was a piece a while ago on TRIM not being support on some Apple gear, if I'm not mistaken.
If that's the case, then why are they not copying the data to ram contained on the drive itself? Seems like an awful waste of cycles with a relatively simple fix. Is it just a cost issue?
Cost and reliability/latency. If you copy it to RAM and get a power outage, data is gone. So that will ruin your reliability. Which means that you have no choice but to ack the write after it's written to the actual block itself. Which in turn increases the latency between receiving the data and ack'ing it.
Most current MLC (multi-level cell) implementations can sustain anywhere between 1000 and 3000 write/erase cycles per cell. This is better than TLC (triple-level cell, max 1000), but far worse than SLC (single-level cell, max 100k up to a million, depending on the technology).
The problem is the way how flash itself works, and how smart your controller is. Unlike a disk, flash must be erased before writing. And here is where the problem comes: flash data is stored in a page of cells, with typically 8 pages of data per "block". Erasing happens on the block level. So in order to erase a single page of data, you need to erase all 8 pages in a block. Since you need to keep the data of the other 7, you first need to copy that data into another block, erase the original one, write all data back and erase your "tmp" block. The churn on blocks happens a lot faster than what you'd think.
Having that said, for consumer products, MLC or TLC is perfectly fine. For enterprise, not so much.
You'll see that in the price, obviously. TLC is the cheapest, followed by MLC, and the most expensive technology is SLC.
serves to remind everyone who is in charge here: voters rather than shareholders.
This. Exactly this. This is exactly my point. But quite the opposite.
If I own a loaf of bread, I get to choose whatever the F I want to do with it. I own it. No matter what my neighbor thinks, I own it and if I want to eat it, or let it sit, it is my property.
Google is private property. Private property with shareholders yes, but it is still private property. The moment a government, -any- government, starts to interfere, it is interfering with private property. And that is exactly the thing I don't want the government to do with very limited exceptions (such as an idiot owning a nuclear bomb). Simply being the best in their industry (search results), is not one of these exceptions.
The owner of the corporation is in charge of the corporation, not a voter (or a politician that nobody voted for).
And once more, you modding-morons can mod me down as much as you like because you disagree, it doesn't make my points any less valid.
Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.
What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them. In some cases, their "constitution" was rejected in a direct referendum and they *still* passed it as law. You tell me how that does not constitute Soviet behavior.
They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.
Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.
My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.
They are arrogant (see point #1) and have no clue about technology. You tell me what's wrong with my assessment.
Sure, if you live in Greece and need the EU to fund your pension, I can understand that you'd downmod someone who confronts you with the truth. But, I'm far from a troll. Unless you want me to start lecturing you on the benefits of a hosts file... (but let's not go there).
The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU. It's called sovereignty and the US does it too all the time. Having a beef with virtual or actual monopolies is not exactly a communist thing either. A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.
Finally at least a reply that contains an actual argument. Thanks for that.
I actually agree with you. The EU can set conditions for allowing a company to operate within the EU. However, they EU should not be in a position to split up a privately owned enterprise. If they feel that Google has too big of a market share, than they should encourage competition. Which, BTW, there is a lot of. Bing, Yahoo, Duckduckgo, Ask.com (yikes) and many others.
In the case of Microsoft's anti-trust case, there was no such thing. Most people and business needed a Windows PC because (at the time) it was pretty much the only thing that would be compatible with your neighbor's PC. MS controlled the desktop. Switching required a installing a new operating system, and most people didn't even know how to do that let alone that they were even aware of alternatives.
Google does not control your search engine. Internet Explorer defaults to Bing, and soon Firefox will default to Yahoo. It is easy to switch default search engines, all you need is to change a bookmark. However, I prefer Google simply because it's better and a lot of people will do the same.
Having a better product than others doesn't necessarily mean you're an illegal monopoly. Google's perceived monopoly can be gone in six months, as soon as a competitor brings a better product.
Well, I hate to break the news to you but I'm far from monolingual. I speak English, Dutch, German, a bit of French (albeit so bad that even the waiters in Paris reply in English) and a bit of Albanian. And I've lived in the EU as well as the US.
Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.
Fine, have it your way. Doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion. Let's assume it is a worldwide company with no particular headquarters.
What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise. Not as a result of violating any laws (there are criminal courts for that), but as a direct result of the success of the company. That smells like what Mother Russia did with Gazprom and is one of the big reasons why I've started to hate the EU so much that I chose to leave it.
Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.
Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"
Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.
They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.
why would anyone trust an anti-counterfeiting method from the chinese... a country that thrives on stealing state and industrial secrets, theft of intellectual property and trademarks, the piracy of all kinds of products and media, and manufacturing of counterfeit goods?
Because unlike people living in the ghetto like you, science doesn't discriminate?
Association by nationality doesn't make someone a criminal.
transmits to the booth as: Do it -static- do it -static- kill everyone!
Something vaguely similar actually happened, killing 500+ people. In 1977, two 747s collided on the runway in part due to miscommunication.
ICAO phraseology has since been changed to use separate terminology for positive and negative communications. For example, when an ATC controller asks whether or not your capable your aircraft is capable of maintaining straight and level flight at a speed of 80 knots, the pilot will not say "I don't think we can do that" or "we can not do that". He or she will say "Affirmative" or "negative".
Takeoff clearings are even more different. When ready to take off, a pilot will advice "ready for departure" and will only use the word takeoff when reading back a clearance (i.e. Delta 19 cleared for expedited takeoff rwy 19).
Where exactly am I wrong? A presidential TFR is issued by the FAA in a NOTAM, and so are all other TFRs (which is something completely different than a Restricted Area, like the airspace over camp pendleton).
A TFR always follows the President (TFR POTUS designation)
Total bullshit again. They are designated Temporary flight restrictions for VIP Movement.
Slashdot Mirror
Dji phantoms won't let you fly near airports, the onboard gps knows the location of every airport and will not allow it. The app even displays a message saying restricted airspace and will not allow flight into it.
If they're that smart, why not do it for class A (IFR only), B (PPR), C (2 way communication and transponder required) and D (2 way communication required) airspace as well?
I'm pretty sure those things won't be carrying transponders (or ADS-B as required in a few years), nor will they be able to talk to ATC.
Yes, of course. And domain names are utterly irrelevant to this.
A state can only impose sanctions against a business to the extent that the business falls within its jurisdiction, but otherwise no business has any power to override national laws in nations where it operates, so it has to play by the rules or accept the consequences. It really is as simple as that.
I think you have just proven my point. Google operates in Germany with its google.de domain name and its own Google legal entity for Germany. Google operates in The Netherlands with its google.nl domain name and its own Google legal entity for The Netherlands. Google operates in Belgium with its google.be domain name and its own Google legal entity for Belgium. Google operates in the US with its google.com domain name and Google Inc.
Why would some local I-feel-important politician that hasn't even been chosen directly in The Netherlands be in the position to dictate a foreign entity what to do? Let them have jurisdiction of google.nl.
Lawmakers need to simply accept the consequences that connecting to a global network (the internet) means that there are boundaries with regards to their legal jurisdiction. If the EU does not want to deal with American companies, they should choose to disconnect. If China can do it, then the EU can do it as well. And I honestly, honestly do not see a difference between the censorship in China and the censorship of the EU. Well, maybe one thing: at least China does it openly.
In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
Ok, so your point is that as long as Google operates within a certain country, it should comply with all laws in that country? Take this one step further. Google operates in China, do you expect Google to comply with all Chinese laws, including censorship, as well? No of course you don't. Chinese law is applied on google.cn, not on google.com.
And this is exactly what's going on here, according to TFA, or even the summary:
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
This would imply that China (or the EU for that matter) is now forcing its own laws on the international version of Google. Which means that they would be grossly overstepping the bounds of their own jurisdiction.
And for what it's worth: there is no such thing as EU law. There are EU directives, which have to be implemented into local law by its member states. Which means that, assuming you agree with me on the China analogy, Google would only have to censor individual country-specific TLD search results such as google.nl, google.de, google.be etc. And what is happening now is that the EU tries to force Google to change the international version of Google, meaning it is attempting to shove EU directives through the rest of the world's throats.
I'm arguing that because of human nature search engines should be required not to promote misleading or inaccurate information that may lead to unfair inferences being drawn about innocent people, once the search engines are explicitly made aware that they are doing so.
Unfortunately from this point of view, there are plenty of places in the world where they will tell you to go hang, because their right to mislead people about you is more important than your right to be treated fairly. This law is the closest we have right now to routing around that problem.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content". Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
I find this a typical case of where governments go wrong. They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
For example, there was an infamous case in the UK a few year ago when a paediatrician -- a doctor who specialises in helping children -- was run out of their home by vigilantes who were too stupid to know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile.
So, you're arguing that due to English schtupidity (pronounce as Clarkson), Google should conceal factually correct data from being discovered while it is perfectly visible elsewhere on the web?
in reality the people accessing information on the Internet are only human, and in reality even well-meaning people may come across incorrect or misleading information and make judgements based on it without realising they were in error. That means sometimes it does make sense to conceal information, at least partially or for a limited period of time, in order to protect other humans from unfair harm.
No disagreement there.
I believe everyone has a basic moral right to fair treatment in this respect, particularly because the damage to a wronged individual if that right is violated will be far greater than the damage to someone who just didn't trivially find out about some possibly incorrect allegations.
And this is the part where it becomes interesting. Remember what is happening here. Google is a search engine, an indexer of information that is readily available elsewhere. If the Guardian reports about child-abuse allegations against John Doe, and Mr Doe is acquitted in court, the report about the allegations are still correct. You're arguing that Google should no longer be allowed to produce search results that link to the original allegations. I'm arguing that this is a silly way of handling things. If one would really want to protect the acquitted, the law should mandate that the article be amended with information regarding the acquittal.
Obscuring the fact that the original allegation was made by passing laws against an indexing service smells like Chinese Censorship to me, and I find that to be a dangerous slippery slope.
I also note that the justice systems in almost every civilised country take a similar view, often such that even actual criminal convictions become "spent" after a time and no longer need to be disclosed. It turns out that sometimes people do change and that encouraging the successful rehabilitation of past offenders makes that much more likely than leaving them with some minor infraction hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
Totally agree there. But my point remains valid: in such a case the origin of the information should be affected, not the indexer. And also, most criminal convictions will stay on the record (especially in the case of felonies), but won't be taken into account (or to a lesser extent) when performing a background check. In my former home country (The Netherlands) that usually means 4 years for infractions, 8 years for felonies. The record itself stays and the individual can go to the courthouse to see the rapsheet, but it will not be disclosed to anyone.
I assume that in yours my freedom of movement also extends to the right to enter your home and my freedom of expression extends to the right to spray paint abusive comments all over it?
You have the freedom of movement that extends to the border of my properties. Your freedom of expression extends to the right to say whatever you want. Spray painting is not free speech, that would be infringement on my property rights. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The problem is you can't anymore, without forgetting to use the web in its entirety.
Bullshit. You name me one Google service that you can't live without. Last time I checked, Google Beating Heart or Google Breathing Air were not available yet.
The Internet has the bad habit of not forgetting anything, hence laws are necessary to purge incorrect, or out of date information pertaining to people.
There are already existing laws that cover incorrect information. Correct information itself is never out of date. If someone has been charged with a crime, that fact stays, even if s/he was found not guilty. Information on the second world war is out of date as well, shall we just erase that from history?
If the OP shouts communism or socialism it just shows how idiot you really are.
On the contrary, it shows how socialistic nanny-states try to force companies founded in free countries to adhere by their standards. The EU doesn't want American laws to apply to Europe, but they do want EU law to apply to US companies? They can fsck themselves.
You can have mirrored ram. you can have battery backed-up ram.
Yes you can. Now name me one vendor that actually offers that today....
Any wear levelling worth its salt will not do what the grandparent wrote.
Yes, which is where the smarter controllers come in, and where you have the process of "garbage collection". There was a piece a while ago on TRIM not being support on some Apple gear, if I'm not mistaken.
If that's the case, then why are they not copying the data to ram contained on the drive itself? Seems like an awful waste of cycles with a relatively simple fix. Is it just a cost issue?
Cost and reliability/latency. If you copy it to RAM and get a power outage, data is gone. So that will ruin your reliability. Which means that you have no choice but to ack the write after it's written to the actual block itself. Which in turn increases the latency between receiving the data and ack'ing it.
Most current MLC (multi-level cell) implementations can sustain anywhere between 1000 and 3000 write/erase cycles per cell. This is better than TLC (triple-level cell, max 1000), but far worse than SLC (single-level cell, max 100k up to a million, depending on the technology).
The problem is the way how flash itself works, and how smart your controller is. Unlike a disk, flash must be erased before writing. And here is where the problem comes: flash data is stored in a page of cells, with typically 8 pages of data per "block". Erasing happens on the block level. So in order to erase a single page of data, you need to erase all 8 pages in a block. Since you need to keep the data of the other 7, you first need to copy that data into another block, erase the original one, write all data back and erase your "tmp" block. The churn on blocks happens a lot faster than what you'd think.
Having that said, for consumer products, MLC or TLC is perfectly fine. For enterprise, not so much.
You'll see that in the price, obviously. TLC is the cheapest, followed by MLC, and the most expensive technology is SLC.
Because, they're like, Germans.
Na und? Ich spreche auch Deutsch, aber nur weil ich das gelernt habe in die Schule. You know damn well what I mean.
serves to remind everyone who is in charge here: voters rather than shareholders.
This. Exactly this. This is exactly my point. But quite the opposite.
If I own a loaf of bread, I get to choose whatever the F I want to do with it. I own it. No matter what my neighbor thinks, I own it and if I want to eat it, or let it sit, it is my property.
Google is private property. Private property with shareholders yes, but it is still private property. The moment a government, -any- government, starts to interfere, it is interfering with private property. And that is exactly the thing I don't want the government to do with very limited exceptions (such as an idiot owning a nuclear bomb). Simply being the best in their industry (search results), is not one of these exceptions.
The owner of the corporation is in charge of the corporation, not a voter (or a politician that nobody voted for).
And once more, you modding-morons can mod me down as much as you like because you disagree, it doesn't make my points any less valid.
Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.
What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them. In some cases, their "constitution" was rejected in a direct referendum and they *still* passed it as law. You tell me how that does not constitute Soviet behavior.
They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.
Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.
My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.
They are arrogant (see point #1) and have no clue about technology. You tell me what's wrong with my assessment.
Sure, if you live in Greece and need the EU to fund your pension, I can understand that you'd downmod someone who confronts you with the truth. But, I'm far from a troll. Unless you want me to start lecturing you on the benefits of a hosts file... (but let's not go there).
The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU. It's called sovereignty and the US does it too all the time. Having a beef with virtual or actual monopolies is not exactly a communist thing either. A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.
Finally at least a reply that contains an actual argument. Thanks for that.
I actually agree with you. The EU can set conditions for allowing a company to operate within the EU. However, they EU should not be in a position to split up a privately owned enterprise. If they feel that Google has too big of a market share, than they should encourage competition. Which, BTW, there is a lot of. Bing, Yahoo, Duckduckgo, Ask.com (yikes) and many others.
In the case of Microsoft's anti-trust case, there was no such thing. Most people and business needed a Windows PC because (at the time) it was pretty much the only thing that would be compatible with your neighbor's PC. MS controlled the desktop. Switching required a installing a new operating system, and most people didn't even know how to do that let alone that they were even aware of alternatives.
Google does not control your search engine. Internet Explorer defaults to Bing, and soon Firefox will default to Yahoo. It is easy to switch default search engines, all you need is to change a bookmark. However, I prefer Google simply because it's better and a lot of people will do the same.
Having a better product than others doesn't necessarily mean you're an illegal monopoly. Google's perceived monopoly can be gone in six months, as soon as a competitor brings a better product.
Look at Myspace vs Facebook, for example.
This is an argument from a monolingual person.
Well, I hate to break the news to you but I'm far from monolingual. I speak English, Dutch, German, a bit of French (albeit so bad that even the waiters in Paris reply in English) and a bit of Albanian. And I've lived in the EU as well as the US.
Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.
Fine, have it your way. Doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion. Let's assume it is a worldwide company with no particular headquarters.
What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise. Not as a result of violating any laws (there are criminal courts for that), but as a direct result of the success of the company. That smells like what Mother Russia did with Gazprom and is one of the big reasons why I've started to hate the EU so much that I chose to leave it.
Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.
It actually hurt my brain to read your reply.
My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.
Well, by that logic, not all Nazis are bad people.
Godwin's law. You lose.
Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"
Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.
They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.
why would anyone trust an anti-counterfeiting method from the chinese... a country that thrives on stealing state and industrial secrets, theft of intellectual property and trademarks, the piracy of all kinds of products and media, and manufacturing of counterfeit goods?
Because unlike people living in the ghetto like you, science doesn't discriminate?
Association by nationality doesn't make someone a criminal.
I flew both cargo and carrier based aircraft in the 90s, in the US and abroad.
You are aware that in aviation things are continue to improve, right? One of those things is phraseology.
transmits to the booth as: Do it -static- do it -static- kill everyone!
Something vaguely similar actually happened, killing 500+ people. In 1977, two 747s collided on the runway in part due to miscommunication.
ICAO phraseology has since been changed to use separate terminology for positive and negative communications. For example, when an ATC controller asks whether or not your capable your aircraft is capable of maintaining straight and level flight at a speed of 80 knots, the pilot will not say "I don't think we can do that" or "we can not do that". He or she will say "Affirmative" or "negative".
Takeoff clearings are even more different. When ready to take off, a pilot will advice "ready for departure" and will only use the word takeoff when reading back a clearance (i.e. Delta 19 cleared for expedited takeoff rwy 19).
In France
where the same guys ban wi-fi.
Yes, those flat-earthers...
Wrong!
Where exactly am I wrong? A presidential TFR is issued by the FAA in a NOTAM, and so are all other TFRs (which is something completely different than a Restricted Area, like the airspace over camp pendleton).
A TFR always follows the President (TFR POTUS designation)
Total bullshit again. They are designated Temporary flight restrictions for VIP Movement.
Have a look at tfr.faa.gov.