"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." JRR Tolkien.
This should be great. Then China will have technology secrets worth stealing and hackers from elsewhere in the world can pirate them. Or other countries can require the Chinese to manufacture their AI products locally, in cooperation with local companies, who can rip off trade secrets. China will be pulling their weight in technological advancement and balancing up the flow of stolen trade secrets. Where's the problem?
her father "takes full reponsibility for letting me film his iPhone X."
Responsibility Accepted Captain Needa. The level of response from Apple seems about right to me. You can be sure the people with pre-release hardware have the potential consequences of leaks explained to them very clearly. And not for no reason: this leak probably cost Apple way more money than they would have paid this employee even had he worked for them his whole life.
Router? Huh? What do routers have to do with this?
On the off chance that you seriously don't know what's going on here: for the general public, all boxes that connect them to the internet are "routers." This is not too surprising since a high proportion of home devices do perform routing functions. The percentage of the general public that understands what a wireless access point is is very small.
This is not a subtle difference, it's called fanboism.
How is Apple supposed to prevent issues like this happing with third party replacement parts? It's not realistic for them to somehow find out about all such parts being produced, acquire samples themselves, and then test their software updates against them. If repairers are not advising customers that they're using non-Apple parts then the fault is with the repairers, otherwise the fault is with the customers.
The only way I could see it being Apple's fault would be if they intentionally, maliciously released an update to fail with third-party parts. Nobody outside of Apple can be sure about whether they did that or not so it just degenerates into an argument between the haters and the fanbois. If "Error 53" was Apple malice, later thought better of, why would they try again with this latest issue?
The UK government has passed the laws that enable the BBC to be funded, but it's a separate tax: the money doesn't come from the government's budget. There's also a great degree of transparency as to how the BBC board is selected and how they run the BBC independently of the government. The independence is not perfect or absolute but the BBC does a pretty good job of holding the government, and the opposition, to account. Of course the BBC is run by the British so, while it might not have a pro-government bias, it can at least be pro-British at times.
In comparison, the Xinhua news agency in China is explicitly run directly by the government. When editors or journalists don't toe the official government line they are quickly replaced.
Android is cheaper but generally takes more of your time to get it working the way you want compared to IOS. Some people prefer the money; others like the time.
Well you did say "as long as it's not one of those modified Android versions that the carriers crank out." One of the reasons people buy Apple is so that they don't have to worry about that issue and other similar issues. If you have the technical expertise to deal with it then that's great for you but not everyone has the time or skills to do the same.
Some competition in the market might help a little but, fundamentally, tickets are worth whatever people are willing to pay. When demand exceeds supply them prices go up. I don't understand why in capitalist America there's a view that it's wrong for the tickets to go to those who are willing to pay the most. What is it about event ticketing that brings out the socialist in people? Why are people always trying to outlaw scalping?
This is not new. The definition that Intel uses for TDP is different from that used by AMD so you can't compare raw TDP numbers across manufacturers. AMD's numbers are more conservative so I'd expect an AMD 165W product to use less power than an Intel 180W product in most situations.
Why is Microsoft better qualified to maintain certificate stores than Mozilla and Google? It's not like every browser maintaining its own store on a machine is a huge drain on resources. When it comes to security, diversity is a good thing. Or should the UN institute a global authority to maintain a certificate store for use on every browser on every device?
The whole right to be forgotten thing is asinine to begin with.
It doesn't remove any of the source information - it just makes it harder to find - and makes the net less useful.
That's beside the point here. Clearly in Europe many people disagree with you and their laws reflect that. There are always going to be issues that people and countries disagree about around the world. What we're about to find out is how the world-wide internet, and specifically multinational companies, deal with conflicting laws.
One approach might be for Alphabet to compartmentalise itself so that its search engine operation has no legal presence outside one or a few jurisdictions, possibly just the US. Adds could be sold through wholly-owned subsidiaries or third parties. Regional data centres could handle local versions of the search results, and be subject to local court orders, without allowing those local courts to affect search results elsewhere.
And any such revenge would be a legal disaster of itself. Surely there are thousands of contracts in place to provide Google services into Canada which Google would be breaching by any such blockage of Canadian IPs. There would be a mountain of legal cases and damages arising.
Courts rule on what the constitution and the law says. Sometimes the law says they should consider consequences, such as in sentencing decisions, but not always. The separation of powers means that consequences are the ultimate responsibility of government. If the Canadian government thinks this decision is going to cause the country problems then there's nothing stopping them jumping in and amending the law.
This is the top Canadian court so they can decide on their own jurisdiction, and have done so in this case. Since Google is a legal entity in Canada the courts can require it comply with Canadian law in any way they rule is legal. Presumably the penalties for non-compliance would at least include major continuing fines, ultimately enforceable by confiscation and possibly the arrest of company officers. So jurisdiction is backed by a credible ability to enforce. Google is going to have to comply or leave Canada. I'm pretty sure the "quack" judges understand all that just fine.
One possible way forward for Google would be to leave Canada but continue to sell advertising and other services through a separate entity, maybe a wholly owned subsidiary. If it's set up in such a way that the subsidiary has no control over the search engine operation then that could mean that no legal entity in Canada could be held responsible for violating orders such as the one just made. It's a pretty drastic step and I'm not sure it would be completely effective anyway. The Canadian government could at least take action against the google.ca domain. I'm not sure if they could act against Google officers based outside Canada, either extraditing them or apprehending any that enter Canada. It will be interesting to see how hard each side wants to play.
36000 kilometers is 0.120 seconds at the speed of light, there and back is your 250 ms.
If you're talking round-trip ping times to a server for someone on a satellite link it's 500ms due to four trips: up to the satellite; down to the server; up to the satellite; back down to the client. And that's the absolute minimum.
notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.
Are you young or something? ROMs and EEPROMs were persistent but, being addressed just like RAM, were strictly power-of-two devices. Eventually EEPROMs kind of evolved into flash and, at some point, the move to look like spinning disks and to incorporate wear levelling broke flash's need to have power-of-two block counts.
I'm pretty sure the comms guys have always used powers of ten, i.e., 1Mbps means 10^6 bits per second. More and more the old computer shorthand for 1MB = 2^20 octets is being restricted to main memory (RAM) contexts only plus related hardware buffer sizes.
They are banning the charging of using a network that is not included in your service. They are banning the charging of using your service on a network that is not paid for by your subscription fees.
Yes, because the network boundaries very often correspond with national boundaries which it's the EU's role to break down. My bytes travel just fine all over the internet without me having to pay all the network providers involved and without me having to pay any special fees either. Peering arrangements are a thing. Why should mobile networks be any different. Next you'll be telling us you're against net neutrality.
The government (in this case, the EU) has no business dictating what pricing should be for a particular service
Just like the US government has no business regulating interstate commerce.
Seriously though, the EU is not dictating what the pricing should be, they're only banning the use of a customers location within the EU from being a part of the pricing model. I'm pretty sure service providers can still charge based on call distance if they choose to, they just can't tack on a fee for calls being cross-border. It's a legitimate step to take in bringing Europe closer together.
The government does, sometimes via agencies they establish for the purpose. Having published criteria would be great. That way it would be harder to ban robots on safety grounds as a smoke-screen for protecting jobs. If they want to ban them as a protectionist measure then fine, as long as everyone's clear on the reason.
San Francisco is filled with delivery services... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want.
And what does the safety record look life for those services? If they're using motor vehicles they're going to be killing and injuring people at some rate. What's the safety record for the new robots look like in comparison?
And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
Whether they add value is not for government to worry about. Some business is apparently betting they can make money this way: if they can, there's value in it; if they can't, they'll make a loss and the robots will go away.
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
Do you want a world where every business idea has to be approved by the government? If the robots present some kind of danger or hazard to people then, sure, regulate to ensure safety. If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way. Banning new technology to protect jobs is the way of the Luddite.
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem
And in the old days weaving to make fabric for clothes was well solved too. I'm not sure being a food delivery person is much more challenging or fun than operating a hand loom and it's probably not as safe. In fact I suspect there's scope for well designed robots on the footpath being all-around safer than the delivery methods they're replacing.
While simultaneously lecturing the UK on how their anti-terrorism measures infringed on civil rights. 9/11 was the final nail in the coffin of that rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." JRR Tolkien.
This should be great. Then China will have technology secrets worth stealing and hackers from elsewhere in the world can pirate them. Or other countries can require the Chinese to manufacture their AI products locally, in cooperation with local companies, who can rip off trade secrets. China will be pulling their weight in technological advancement and balancing up the flow of stolen trade secrets. Where's the problem?
her father "takes full reponsibility for letting me film his iPhone X."
Responsibility Accepted Captain Needa. The level of response from Apple seems about right to me. You can be sure the people with pre-release hardware have the potential consequences of leaks explained to them very clearly. And not for no reason: this leak probably cost Apple way more money than they would have paid this employee even had he worked for them his whole life.
Router? Huh? What do routers have to do with this?
On the off chance that you seriously don't know what's going on here: for the general public, all boxes that connect them to the internet are "routers." This is not too surprising since a high proportion of home devices do perform routing functions. The percentage of the general public that understands what a wireless access point is is very small.
This is not a subtle difference, it's called fanboism.
How is Apple supposed to prevent issues like this happing with third party replacement parts? It's not realistic for them to somehow find out about all such parts being produced, acquire samples themselves, and then test their software updates against them. If repairers are not advising customers that they're using non-Apple parts then the fault is with the repairers, otherwise the fault is with the customers.
The only way I could see it being Apple's fault would be if they intentionally, maliciously released an update to fail with third-party parts. Nobody outside of Apple can be sure about whether they did that or not so it just degenerates into an argument between the haters and the fanbois. If "Error 53" was Apple malice, later thought better of, why would they try again with this latest issue?
The UK government has passed the laws that enable the BBC to be funded, but it's a separate tax: the money doesn't come from the government's budget. There's also a great degree of transparency as to how the BBC board is selected and how they run the BBC independently of the government. The independence is not perfect or absolute but the BBC does a pretty good job of holding the government, and the opposition, to account. Of course the BBC is run by the British so, while it might not have a pro-government bias, it can at least be pro-British at times.
In comparison, the Xinhua news agency in China is explicitly run directly by the government. When editors or journalists don't toe the official government line they are quickly replaced.
Android is cheaper but generally takes more of your time to get it working the way you want compared to IOS. Some people prefer the money; others like the time.
Well you did say "as long as it's not one of those modified Android versions that the carriers crank out." One of the reasons people buy Apple is so that they don't have to worry about that issue and other similar issues. If you have the technical expertise to deal with it then that's great for you but not everyone has the time or skills to do the same.
Some competition in the market might help a little but, fundamentally, tickets are worth whatever people are willing to pay. When demand exceeds supply them prices go up. I don't understand why in capitalist America there's a view that it's wrong for the tickets to go to those who are willing to pay the most. What is it about event ticketing that brings out the socialist in people? Why are people always trying to outlaw scalping?
This is not new. The definition that Intel uses for TDP is different from that used by AMD so you can't compare raw TDP numbers across manufacturers. AMD's numbers are more conservative so I'd expect an AMD 165W product to use less power than an Intel 180W product in most situations.
Why is Microsoft better qualified to maintain certificate stores than Mozilla and Google? It's not like every browser maintaining its own store on a machine is a huge drain on resources. When it comes to security, diversity is a good thing. Or should the UN institute a global authority to maintain a certificate store for use on every browser on every device?
The whole right to be forgotten thing is asinine to begin with.
It doesn't remove any of the source information - it just makes it harder to find - and makes the net less useful.
That's beside the point here. Clearly in Europe many people disagree with you and their laws reflect that. There are always going to be issues that people and countries disagree about around the world. What we're about to find out is how the world-wide internet, and specifically multinational companies, deal with conflicting laws.
One approach might be for Alphabet to compartmentalise itself so that its search engine operation has no legal presence outside one or a few jurisdictions, possibly just the US. Adds could be sold through wholly-owned subsidiaries or third parties. Regional data centres could handle local versions of the search results, and be subject to local court orders, without allowing those local courts to affect search results elsewhere.
US courts have no jurisdiction in Canada, so they have no way to prevent Canada from punishing Google for non-compliance of a Canadian ruling.
And any such revenge would be a legal disaster of itself. Surely there are thousands of contracts in place to provide Google services into Canada which Google would be breaching by any such blockage of Canadian IPs. There would be a mountain of legal cases and damages arising.
Courts rule on what the constitution and the law says. Sometimes the law says they should consider consequences, such as in sentencing decisions, but not always. The separation of powers means that consequences are the ultimate responsibility of government. If the Canadian government thinks this decision is going to cause the country problems then there's nothing stopping them jumping in and amending the law.
This is the top Canadian court so they can decide on their own jurisdiction, and have done so in this case. Since Google is a legal entity in Canada the courts can require it comply with Canadian law in any way they rule is legal. Presumably the penalties for non-compliance would at least include major continuing fines, ultimately enforceable by confiscation and possibly the arrest of company officers. So jurisdiction is backed by a credible ability to enforce. Google is going to have to comply or leave Canada. I'm pretty sure the "quack" judges understand all that just fine.
One possible way forward for Google would be to leave Canada but continue to sell advertising and other services through a separate entity, maybe a wholly owned subsidiary. If it's set up in such a way that the subsidiary has no control over the search engine operation then that could mean that no legal entity in Canada could be held responsible for violating orders such as the one just made. It's a pretty drastic step and I'm not sure it would be completely effective anyway. The Canadian government could at least take action against the google.ca domain. I'm not sure if they could act against Google officers based outside Canada, either extraditing them or apprehending any that enter Canada. It will be interesting to see how hard each side wants to play.
36000 kilometers is 0.120 seconds at the speed of light, there and back is your 250 ms.
If you're talking round-trip ping times to a server for someone on a satellite link it's 500ms due to four trips: up to the satellite; down to the server; up to the satellite; back down to the client. And that's the absolute minimum.
you can't infringe copyright just because you think those copyrights are being abuse.
The court seems to have ruled that not only can it be done, but it has been done; otherwise they wouldn't have imposed a penalty for doing it.
notwithstanding the fact that no persistent storage device ever made has had any natural relation to 2^20, 2^30, etc.
Are you young or something? ROMs and EEPROMs were persistent but, being addressed just like RAM, were strictly power-of-two devices. Eventually EEPROMs kind of evolved into flash and, at some point, the move to look like spinning disks and to incorporate wear levelling broke flash's need to have power-of-two block counts.
I'm pretty sure the comms guys have always used powers of ten, i.e., 1Mbps means 10^6 bits per second. More and more the old computer shorthand for 1MB = 2^20 octets is being restricted to main memory (RAM) contexts only plus related hardware buffer sizes.
They are banning the charging of using a network that is not included in your service. They are banning the charging of using your service on a network that is not paid for by your subscription fees.
Yes, because the network boundaries very often correspond with national boundaries which it's the EU's role to break down. My bytes travel just fine all over the internet without me having to pay all the network providers involved and without me having to pay any special fees either. Peering arrangements are a thing. Why should mobile networks be any different. Next you'll be telling us you're against net neutrality.
The government (in this case, the EU) has no business dictating what pricing should be for a particular service
Just like the US government has no business regulating interstate commerce.
Seriously though, the EU is not dictating what the pricing should be, they're only banning the use of a customers location within the EU from being a part of the pricing model. I'm pretty sure service providers can still charge based on call distance if they choose to, they just can't tack on a fee for calls being cross-border. It's a legitimate step to take in bringing Europe closer together.
Now, who defines the criteria for "safe"?
The government does, sometimes via agencies they establish for the purpose. Having published criteria would be great. That way it would be harder to ban robots on safety grounds as a smoke-screen for protecting jobs. If they want to ban them as a protectionist measure then fine, as long as everyone's clear on the reason.
San Francisco is filled with delivery services ... for prepared meals, for groceries, for whatever you want.
And what does the safety record look life for those services? If they're using motor vehicles they're going to be killing and injuring people at some rate. What's the safety record for the new robots look like in comparison?
And when you add the fact that these robots each have a human to guide them around, it's hard to see what value they add.
Whether they add value is not for government to worry about. Some business is apparently betting they can make money this way: if they can, there's value in it; if they can't, they'll make a loss and the robots will go away.
I hate to say it -- because I'm against the idea of robots barreling around our sidewalks -- but has the city government stopped to ask itself just what problem this startup is trying to solve?
Do you want a world where every business idea has to be approved by the government? If the robots present some kind of danger or hazard to people then, sure, regulate to ensure safety. If the startup can make a profit in a safe way then the government should get out of the way. Banning new technology to protect jobs is the way of the Luddite.
It seems like food delivery is already a well-solved problem
And in the old days weaving to make fabric for clothes was well solved too. I'm not sure being a food delivery person is much more challenging or fun than operating a hand loom and it's probably not as safe. In fact I suspect there's scope for well designed robots on the footpath being all-around safer than the delivery methods they're replacing.
when the Americans were funding the IRA
While simultaneously lecturing the UK on how their anti-terrorism measures infringed on civil rights. 9/11 was the final nail in the coffin of that rhetoric.