As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.
What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?
Or what about the fact that the whole issue is not at all about what you say it is.
And Google's bottom line would not suffer. I suspect Google could deal head and link that lead to an ip in France and France would pass a law demanding it be undone.
When you look at what France was demanding it was idiotic. They essentially wanted the scatter shot approach to privacy where the user has no control and less of a clue about which data is used for what.
Why don't you play around and build a boat that will transport a pound of butter from central america to the coast of California and let us know your costs and success rate. When 99.9999% of your cargo does not get to where it has to be, it hardly matters how cheap the boat is.
Its not accurate at all unless you have the luxury of training the neural networks with the phone sitting in EXACTLY the same place in EXACTLY the same orientation every time, in a totally vibration damped laboratory.
You have to locate your phone two inches from the keyboard every time. Not on a piece of paper, a book or a mouse pad, but directly on the desk. Oh, and you have to install software on your iphone, AND feed the data into a a couple of Neural networks external to the phone. And nothing else can be vibrating on that desk. No radio. No mouse movements, and your computer has to be off the desk. No air conditioning air flow, not tapping fingers, typical floor bounce from walking people. And no typing fast.
When you start reading all of the things that will screw up this test that the authors wrote in their own study you have to wonder how it is they even managed to keep from laughing their own study out the door. They just proved it can't be done in the real world, yet they went ahead and put out the study anyway as if they had discovered a real and present attack vector.
So then the recommend you keep your phone outside the room. Who does that? Why do that, when their own study demonstrates it is totally impossible to do this?
Why would you need to have a cable to "move data about".
It isn't 1987 anymore. I've been moving data back and forth from my phone to my Windows and Linux computers without a cable ever since I dumped the iPhone.
Why? All you do is charge it via USB, it no different than anything else. Works fine. There is simply no reason to hook your phone to anything except a power outlet. If you think you still need to hook it to a computer, its time to leave the playpen and get a real phone.
As soon a wireless charging becomes common, there's never any more excuse to use a cable at all.
You can have you "nose in your device" for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with social media. News, maps, or where to find a good Latte, or maybe reading some relatively obscure novel.
Yes, the pretty vectors (nothing but lists of words) still have to be assembled by humans for the most part. Maybe not EVERY association, but enough of them such that you can build relationships and associations in-directly, and achieve a round-about translation, even if you end up having to go through 2 or 3 related languages to get there.
After a few words of context are translated you can, perhaps deduce the rest. But the idea you can do so without a dictionary is ridiculous. And putting your dictionary into digital forms and calling it a vector doesn't change the fact that you still have a dictionary associating an english word with a french word and a Mandarin word.
Standardization is ALWAYS something that needs legislation.
But the "legislation" need not be provided by a government. For example,
True. But the point of mentioning Eu Power plugs was to point out that standards bodies tend to be provincial, plagued with NIH and inertia. The electrical industry, like the plumbing industry before them, has been given hundreds of years to unify their systems, and have failed to do so on their own. All they did was create fiefdoms.
Even when the industry adopts a standard, such as the National Electrical Code it STILL requires the force of State, or Local law to make it enforceable. There are still parts of the US that don't mandate the code.
Further there are significant differences if you step across the border to Canada, or Mexico, even though parts of standard have been harmonized with standards in the USA and Mexico, and Canada. (Mexican wiring is a scary thing in many places).
Laws regulating plumbing and wiring and fire safety, and highway construction, while still leaving the definition of the standards in the hands of professional organizations seem to work best.
But in the case of gadgets, there is no standards body to fall back on.
Simply because you embed your dictionary in something you choose to call a vector doesn't make it any less of a dictionary.
Its still a dictionary, and also a thesaurus. Come to think of it a thesaurus is simply a meaning vectored dictionary. What's old is new again. Mathematicians, late to the party, still trying to drink all the punch.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah? that would hurt France more than Google.
The US is not a party to this issue.
Its between France and Google.
Maybe you'd like to dictate US Foreign Policy simply because the US exports more wine than France while you're at it?
As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.
What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?
Or what about the fact that the whole issue is not at all about what you say it is.
Go do your homework.
And Google's bottom line would not suffer.
I suspect Google could deal head and link that lead to an ip in France and France would pass a law demanding it be undone.
When you look at what France was demanding it was idiotic. They essentially wanted the scatter shot approach to privacy where the user has no control and less of a clue about which data is used for what.
Like I said, deployed.
Dude, back off.
He could be deployed, divorced, hospitalized or whatever.
You have no answer, then just but out.
Ah, yes, I do.
Why don't you play around and build a boat that will transport a pound of butter from central america to the coast of California and let us know your costs and success rate. When 99.9999% of your cargo does not get to where it has to be, it hardly matters how cheap the boat is.
Until you read a little closer and find out this couldn't possibly work in real life. The whole thing is a joke.
Its not accurate at all unless you have the luxury of training the neural networks with the phone sitting in EXACTLY the same place in EXACTLY the same orientation every time, in a totally vibration damped laboratory.
You have to locate your phone two inches from the keyboard every time.
Not on a piece of paper, a book or a mouse pad, but directly on the desk.
Oh, and you have to install software on your iphone,
AND feed the data into a a couple of Neural networks external to the phone.
And nothing else can be vibrating on that desk. No radio. No mouse movements, and your computer has to be off the desk.
No air conditioning air flow, not tapping fingers, typical floor bounce from walking people.
And no typing fast.
When you start reading all of the things that will screw up this test that the authors wrote in their own study you have
to wonder how it is they even managed to keep from laughing their own study out the door.
They just proved it can't be done in the real world, yet they went ahead and put out the study anyway as if
they had discovered a real and present attack vector.
So then the recommend you keep your phone outside the room. Who does that? Why do that, when
their own study demonstrates it is totally impossible to do this?
You are wrong on the efficiency angle.
Significantly behind the technology curve.
You want to do some research on this. Its not like the old concept of broadcast power.
We are also talking about boats with a useful drug carrying capacity.
So back to your bath with your toy boat son, this conversation is for adults.
Why would you need to have a cable to "move data about".
It isn't 1987 anymore. I've been moving data back and forth from my phone
to my Windows and Linux computers without a cable ever since I dumped the iPhone.
Now who is looking like the "thick" one?
Drug smuggling subs are not smaller than the chop. Google them.
So then explain why you need all those pins and special cables just to charge a phone?
Why? All you do is charge it via USB, it no different than anything else. Works fine.
There is simply no reason to hook your phone to anything except a power outlet. If you think you still need to hook it to a computer, its time to leave the playpen and get a real phone.
As soon a wireless charging becomes common, there's never any more excuse to use a cable at all.
Why don't you import a phone that doesn't need to be cabled to a computer.
A phone that needs a computer is like a fish that needs a bicycle.
You can have you "nose in your device" for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with social media.
News, maps, or where to find a good Latte, or maybe reading some relatively obscure novel.
This story isn't about devices.
Not having an account (as in never ever signing up for one) is no protection either.
There is bound to be some person who chooses to use FaceBook as their address book, so facebook will end up knowing everything about you soon enough.
Because there are standards for injected Gasoline?
Watch the mod army attack this with knives.... They have to, it hits too close to home.
Yes, the pretty vectors (nothing but lists of words) still have to be assembled by humans for the most part. Maybe not EVERY association, but enough of them such that you can build relationships and associations in-directly, and achieve a round-about translation, even if you end up having to go through 2 or 3 related languages to get there.
After a few words of context are translated you can, perhaps deduce the rest. But the idea you can do so without a dictionary is ridiculous. And putting your dictionary into digital forms and calling it a vector doesn't change the fact that you still have a dictionary associating an english word with a french word and a Mandarin word.
"These types of devices allow insurance companies the ability to prejudge you, without relying on your driving record."
I take it you've never been a male under 25 years old with a driver's license? Insurance companies do this stuff all the time.
But its not personal. Its actuarial.
Standardization is ALWAYS something that needs legislation.
But the "legislation" need not be provided by a government. For example,
True. But the point of mentioning Eu Power plugs was to point out that standards bodies tend to be provincial, plagued with NIH and inertia. The electrical industry, like the plumbing industry before them, has been given hundreds of years to unify their systems, and have failed to do so on their own. All they did was create fiefdoms.
Even when the industry adopts a standard, such as the National Electrical Code it STILL requires the force of State, or Local law to make it enforceable. There are still parts of the US that don't mandate the code.
Further there are significant differences if you step across the border to Canada, or Mexico, even though parts of standard have been harmonized with standards in the USA and Mexico, and Canada. (Mexican wiring is a scary thing in many places).
Laws regulating plumbing and wiring and fire safety, and highway construction, while still leaving the definition of the standards in the hands of professional organizations seem to work best.
But in the case of gadgets, there is no standards body to fall back on.
Simply because you embed your dictionary in something you choose to call a vector doesn't make it any less of a dictionary.
Its still a dictionary, and also a thesaurus. Come to think of it a thesaurus is simply a meaning vectored dictionary.
What's old is new again.
Mathematicians, late to the party, still trying to drink all the punch.
Firefox had nothing to do with it.
It was PEBCAK, pure and simple.