And following one of the links in that article reveals that there is not an issue if Google uses geolocation to restrict results in the EU, but serves full results elsewhere.
The fact that a law can be worked round is no reason to not have the law. It's illegal to burgle a house, but obviously people can still break in.
We actually need to make it clear that only US laws are in play for anyone operating in the US.
Google is a multinational company. They have a European division in Ireland, that makes money from across the EU. And they have datacentres in the EU that serve requests for all google.* domains. Therefore they are most certainly subject to EU law on what they serve from the EU to the EU. No question.
They can serve what they like outside the EU, but not within it.
Even if your made up on the spot legal analysis was correct, your argument still fails. This is EU law, and Google had datacentres in Europe that serve European requests, regardless of which google.* domain they are. Google also has a European HQ (located in Ireland last time I looked) and charges European advertisers for their adverts.
Not only is Google definitely subject to this law, for all their domains, the EU has the European branch right there to extract penalties for. Google have no leg to stand on.
As to the right to be forgotten, it will certainly be taken advantage of by low-lifes. But equally people who have done nothing wrong but have been victimised online can use this law to get a degree of protection. And regardless that is the law, and Google have no choice but to obey it or remove themselves from the EU.
Yes. It's well known the Bush administration tried to suppress the climate science from NASA and other government scientists. But that administration has been gone more than 5 years. No such problem now, and indeed this release of data is testimony to that.
And the fact that it succeeds in being hostile is evidenced that few businesses will touch anything that's GPLv3. It's even unpopular amongst many, perhaps most of the existing non-business GPL supporters.
Even Linus Torvalds won't touch it for Linux. It's pretty much DOA.
There's no shortage of jobs for iOS developers. Anyone with that skillset is doing very nicely already. The idea that they'll do any better out of Linux Swift jobs, or anything on Linux for that matter is laughable.
So you're whining now that the cake you're given for free hasn't got cream on top. Remember, the open source idea isn's supposed to be about just taking. If you want more libraries, make them.
GNUStep is one path. It'd potentially be useful for porting apps from OSX to Linux.
Another is to create wrappers around another UI toolkit such as Qt, and create apps with that. That's for people that just want to use Swift for it's features, rather than because they want to port stuff.
Swift's only been out a year, and it's already #14 on the Tiobe index. And has been voted StackOverflow users favourite language. Take up has been anything but slow.
And I'd expect it to accelerate now, even without the open sourcing, as plenty of people were treating the 1.x label is meaning not yet ready. Plenty of companies will be starting to use it now it's 2.x.
Slashdot Mirror
The right to be forgotten doesn't apply to media companies, so you can go to a news site and use the site search engine for politicians, CEOs etc.
And following one of the links in that article reveals that there is not an issue if Google uses geolocation to restrict results in the EU, but serves full results elsewhere.
The fact that a law can be worked round is no reason to not have the law. It's illegal to burgle a house, but obviously people can still break in.
We actually need to make it clear that only US laws are in play for anyone operating in the US.
Google is a multinational company. They have a European division in Ireland, that makes money from across the EU. And they have datacentres in the EU that serve requests for all google.* domains. Therefore they are most certainly subject to EU law on what they serve from the EU to the EU. No question.
They can serve what they like outside the EU, but not within it.
As Google would be quite legally serving content to the place (outside the EU) where the proxy server is located, that's not an issue.
Even if your made up on the spot legal analysis was correct, your argument still fails. This is EU law, and Google had datacentres in Europe that serve European requests, regardless of which google.* domain they are. Google also has a European HQ (located in Ireland last time I looked) and charges European advertisers for their adverts.
Not only is Google definitely subject to this law, for all their domains, the EU has the European branch right there to extract penalties for. Google have no leg to stand on.
As to the right to be forgotten, it will certainly be taken advantage of by low-lifes. But equally people who have done nothing wrong but have been victimised online can use this law to get a degree of protection. And regardless that is the law, and Google have no choice but to obey it or remove themselves from the EU.
So what's user's process from seeing an ad on a page to getting that into the hosts file such that you won't see that group of ads again?
Step by step?
Right, and what represents a pointer that is guaranteed not to be null?
Which of your pointers allow a null, and which don't?
I've read it a couple of times. Which is two times more than I needed to.
Do you think Torvalds understands it
Yes. It's well known the Bush administration tried to suppress the climate science from NASA and other government scientists. But that administration has been gone more than 5 years. No such problem now, and indeed this release of data is testimony to that.
It's intended to be hostile. RMS hates business.
And the fact that it succeeds in being hostile is evidenced that few businesses will touch anything that's GPLv3. It's even unpopular amongst many, perhaps most of the existing non-business GPL supporters.
Even Linus Torvalds won't touch it for Linux. It's pretty much DOA.
There's no shortage of jobs for iOS developers. Anyone with that skillset is doing very nicely already. The idea that they'll do any better out of Linux Swift jobs, or anything on Linux for that matter is laughable.
So you're whining now that the cake you're given for free hasn't got cream on top. Remember, the open source idea isn's supposed to be about just taking. If you want more libraries, make them.
It's good to be controlled by one entity. See Python and Guido Van Rossum.
Chris Lattner has shown with LLVM that he's a good pair of hands for Swift to be in.
But with open source there's always the possibility of branching if there's a group that don't like it.
Layers. Underneath Swift is the Obj-C runtime. Under that is Clang. Under that is LLVM.
GNUStep is one path. It'd potentially be useful for porting apps from OSX to Linux.
Another is to create wrappers around another UI toolkit such as Qt, and create apps with that. That's for people that just want to use Swift for it's features, rather than because they want to port stuff.
Clearly Apple, who have far more knowledge of their products, and how licenses would restrict them than you do, disagree.
GPLv3 was deliberately crafted to limit the freedom to use it commercially. Don't be surprised when companies don't then use it.
The GPLv3 tactics to force companies to change their business models simply failed. As it was always destined to.
Lua is the most used language for the purpose it was intended - for adding custom scripting to applications. It's a huge success.
Indeed. There hasn't been anything to replace it with till now.
So that's your one example of one that didn't pan out. Does that somehow cancel out the many open source projects that Apple has released?
Well most creatives for a start.
Whilst we're still getting dereferencing of null and buffer overflows, the choice of out-dated languages such as C/C++ very much matters.
Swift's only been out a year, and it's already #14 on the Tiobe index. And has been voted StackOverflow users favourite language. Take up has been anything but slow.
And I'd expect it to accelerate now, even without the open sourcing, as plenty of people were treating the 1.x label is meaning not yet ready. Plenty of companies will be starting to use it now it's 2.x.
What do you imagine is stopping people?
You're a paedophile. Games may be the largest category. They may be the top category. But they are just another category of app. No different.