The linked article is a short version of the Reuters article that is much more informative.
To address the concerns of European authorities, the Internet giant will soon start polishing search results across all its websites when someone conducts a search from the country where the removal request originated, a person close to the company said.
That means that if a German resident asks Google to de-list a link popping up under searches for his or her name, the link will not be visible on any version of Google's website, including Google.com, when the search engine is accessed from Germany.
The company will filter search results according to a user's IP address, meaning people accessing Google from outside Europe will not be affected, the person added.
So once again Anti-Geoblocking/Anti-Georestriction VPN becomes the solution for folks.
True. It does not change the general premise of the post.
The entire premise behind the device is to protest the claim that was made and believed that sent him to jail and has him owing millions in debt. As TFA states: "The most important message, however, is that the millions of dollars in losses the industry claims from him and the other TPB founders are just as fictitious as the number displayed on the Kopimashin."
It even goes so far as to say that the piracy is a net GAIN for the industry, and this could potentially make sense. Take the doughnut example:
The friend offers ten doughnuts to ten people and three of them like the doughnut a lot, so end up each ordering a dozen doughnuts at the store at full price. Ten doughnuts loss, 36 doughnuts paid for. PROFIT! Loss leaders, free samples... all the same concept, and one that the industry is not understanding.
The 8,000,000 copies it makes every day costs the record industry $10m/day in losses....
This implies an 80-cents loss per copy,
Given the title of the post, I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.
(Though because I know it will be: Eight million copies creating ten million loss is $1.25 per copy. The order of the numbers is important in division.)
Drivers are "required" to be alert today, yet that doesn't stop them from texting, putting on makeup, reading books (!) and lots of other things that divide their attention - they surely aren't going to pay *more* attention to their driving when the car is doing all of the work.
That makes it sound like "drivers" is all-inclusive. Probably as long as these requirements exist, the companies making the cars will only allow them to be operated by people who will not do that. It's not as if you can go to a dealership and buy a self-driving car, after all. Though of course the requirements will be taken as seriously as the penalties for not meeting them and as the likelihood of being caught. Penalties to likely include bad press as well as legal implications.
The problem is that the driver is not going to be alert -- drivers are barely alert even with fully manual cars, they surely are not going to be paying attention while stopped at a light, they are going to be playing Angry Birds.
Which simply means that the requirements will require alert drivers and no angry birds. This leads to the concept that California still considers the technology to be "In Development" and not for the average SMSing driver or general consumption. Which also leads to the implication that these requirements will be changed in the future when the technology is no longer in a testing phase.
To forestall responses that "It'll never change", I'll point out that very few open-stretch, long-haul freeways still have a speed limit of 55.
An example would be the car sitting at a red light in a construction zone with new signals strung up and when an unrelated light turns green, the autonomous car releases the brakes and starts to move forward against a red for its lane. An alert individual can override and re-apply the brakes immediately similar to if they had a lapse of clarity and a moment of confusion and avoid crossing fully into opposing traffic.
Perhaps the biggest problem they encountered is the fact that the email service providers are sending their threats to the spam box where nobody is likely to see them. Hard to have good return on your marketing when you don't have trusted email.
What amuses me most is that they'd probably make more money if they set up their own Patreon account.
CBC has permission to do that though, from CNN. It's CNN that did not have permission to sublicense the way they did (or at all, who knows). So why this guy is suing the CBC is beyond me
IANAL, however I wonder... Last time I checked copyright law in the US (LOOONG ago), there were limitations on what you could do against infringing entities without the copyright being registered with the government. Perhaps Canada, where CBC is based, doesn't care if the copyright is registered with anybody and allows him to seek damages despite it likely not being registered. Of course to get damages from CNN he might need to register it, and I forget what the timing parts of the law are. Ahh well. Idle speculation.
Rear-ending is something that always comes up in/. discussions about driving, especially by US drivers (the site is rather US centric).
If it helps you feel any better about US driving habits, I was rear ended by a police car in California when I came to a full and complete stop behind the limit line at a stop sign in a grocery store parking lot. The officer was anticipating that I would either not-stop or perform a rolling stop (slowing and not fully stopping) and was ready to pull me over for it, so was looking up my plate data on his in-car computer when he hit me.
There is, perhaps, an edge case in freeway driving: someone changes lanes in front of you, then slams on their brakes, but that isn't really relevant to approaching a stop sign.
Sadly this is an intentional insurance fraud item. "Swoop and squat" or "swoop and stop" is a common scam in a number of places. Notably, with the telemetrics from an Autonomous vehicle, that kind of scam would be impossible to pull off successfully. Besides the fact that the 360 awareness of the vehicle would show the obviousness if it succeeded, the autonomous vehicle would very likely react in sufficient time to avoid the front collision, though it still may be collided with from behind.
Perhaps the difference in this case is that that example involves the person having a business relationship with the bank and interacting with the teller, voluntarily giving their name for the person to connect to the face.
What is being considered and fretted over here are such events as the following lovely bit of near-future (possibly not) fiction...
It was a lovely day as Jack Smith strolled down the street. He glanced at the sign on the bus stop as he passed by and the sign, recognizing who he was, displayed advertisements for fresh strawberries at Hole Dudes Market. He never shopped there, but he did buy strawberries at Wallyworld every Monday, so they knew.
There was a buzz from his smartwatch and he glanced at his wrist. WatchU sent email informing him that the bus he normally took had broken down on the interstate and he should turn left at the next light to grab a different bus. It would only make him get to work ten minutes late instead of thirty. Oh, and they'd already emailed his boss to let them know he'd be late. Wait... Who was WatchU? He'd never signed up for such a service. Besides, he was taking a day off today and heading somewhere completely different. Why did they email his boss? Well, because they knew.
Shrugging the thought aside, he tried to enjoy the day. Thinking about strawberries, his mouth started to water, so he headed into Samba Juice for a smoothie. It was a new establishment that he'd never been in before, so he wanted to see how it stacked up against other places.
"Hi Mr Smith!" the cashier said as he approached her, taking the cue from her register. "Would you like a Strawberry Stratosphere in mega-size today?"
"Um, sure," he said. He looked at her, unable to place her, and finally curiosity overcame him. "Do I know you?"
"Oh, we know all our customers, even if they are brand new," she exclaimed. "We're tied in to the system. Working a few bugs out though." She looked at the screen and blushed. "Oh, and a coupon popped up. When you head back to the Lover's Lace escort services, ask for Margarette. You'll get a discount on all personal services." They knew.
Jack winced at that and mumbled thanks, then headed to wait awkwardly for his smoothie. The cups had advertisements printed on them based on marketing data for the customers, and he was shocked to see a code to scan on his phone for half off bulk adult diapers. That was insulting! Why did they think he needed such a thing?! Ah... right... because the camera had seen him unloading a truck while volunteering at a retirement home. They knew.
So yes... Meat popsicles have limits on who and what they know and know about who. This system, as people want it, will have no limits.
At the same time, just like in any group, there are "bad" researchers and "good" researchers, and the ones performing due diligence and trying to be upstanding can still have a bad day.
The primary focus was to point out that even a scientific journal is not without fault, and there are even some that have been known to accept and promote complete drivel that was created intentionally to point out how flawed the scientific journal system can be in some places.
The general idea is not to make the researchers seem malicious. The intent is to point out that just because it's published doesn't mean it's true, and in this case it's taking it even further than the prior shows of failure that occurred with "Pay to be published" journals.
This is definitely a case of picking the worst summary of the source article possible. When I looked at the/. summary, I immediately thought "3D is going out in movies and TV, and haven't we been there with the HTC Evo 3D?". Obviously a lot of other people did too.
So I clicked on TFA. Ahhhhhhhh... Now it makes more sense! From TFA:
We're used to our gadgets being passive objects. They respond to typed or tapped commands, but we don't expect them to be aware of their surroundings.
... As our devices have more and better sensors, they're going to be increasingly aware of the world around them, and will interact with the world and with us in more sophisticated ways.
So other than the really gimmicky "personal drones that can take breathtaking aerial shots", this is primarily talking about computer vision, such as gesture recognition, local environment evaluation, etc.
Except a decade ago, you got 95% on a powerful desktop computer. Today you get 95% on a cellphone.
If I sit in a quiet room, and enunciate carefully, with slight pauses between words, I can get way better than 95%. Also, if voice recognition is integrated with a camera focused on the speaker's face, accuracy can go way up.
Well, of course. A cell phone now is the same power as a powerful desktop computer back then for the most part. But wasn't "Natural speech recognition" the big goal? They did call it "Dragon Naturallyspeaking" after all. However it still sits in a state where the computer needs to have a perfect environment to achieve something partially as good as a human being.
Are you implying their predictions have as much clarity as an obsidian crystal ball in a sewage treatment tank? As much fidelity as a wax cylinder on a 120 degree day in Arizona? As much accuracy as somebody trying to blindly roundhouse kick the Andromeda Galaxy? And hold as much water as a clogged ink jet nozzle? If you are, I agree.
With voice recognition still doing well at 95% accuracy when trained (an average of one in twenty words wrong? Sign me up!) - which was about what it was back a decade ago - and the essay grading systems being very good at what they do (Sarcasm alert), they'll have to improve things a lot faster than they have been for the machines to take over 'knowledge work'.
I'm the technology manager at a school but beholden to a larger "Management" company for a lot of my processes. In our case, we can't afford to issue laptops or tablets or Chromebooks to students, however it is absolutely true that we have access to everything everybody does on school computers. This includes students and to some portion, teachers. We tell everybody straight out with big, bold text that we have access, but people do stuff anyway.
Tuesday, a new employee got onto his computer for the first time and within five minutes I had an alert that he'd downloaded a "flash-installer.exe" infection when he'd managed to find a porn site that wasn't blocked by our filter. He was fired within five minutes, because a trace showed that it was obvious intent, not accident.
On the student side of things, we are required by law to report things, and it is not often thankfully, but we have been alerted by monitoring software that a student was being solicited by an adult for illegal activities. The student logged into their personal GMail account from school and typed in a reply. All captured and monitored and observed. More common is catching online bullying.
In general, it does show just how much access we have and why we have such extremely strong language in our alerts to say "Yes, we can see EVERYTHING." Also one of the reasons we are reluctant to issue take-home equipment to students because of blasted cameras and no desire to even tempt anybody.
I propose storing it in a new medium. A "molecular chain", which should withstand the effects of EMP, right?
A name for it. Hmmm. How about the Destroy-Not Archive, or D.N.A. for short.
But then cosmic rays and ionizing radiation and other things will still introduce errors.
So we would further need a method to reliably store the chains themselves and that could replicate the data to ensure there was a high chance of accurate data surviving. Little cartridges with all of the necessary environment and materials to power the reading system and maintain the chain and that could, as needed, replicate the data into new cartridges. The second versions, Contained Environment II (CE-II) work decently.*
(*Hey, I couldn't think of anything with L. I guarantee I gave it at least four seconds of thought too!)
How long until somebody figures out where this toilet is, watches the pattern of timing of the tweets, and cleans out the place with a robbery when they determine him to be away due to a lack of flushing?
Slashdot Mirror
The linked article is a short version of the Reuters article that is much more informative.
To address the concerns of European authorities, the Internet giant will soon start polishing search results across all its websites when someone conducts a search from the country where the removal request originated, a person close to the company said.
That means that if a German resident asks Google to de-list a link popping up under searches for his or her name, the link will not be visible on any version of Google's website, including Google.com, when the search engine is accessed from Germany.
The company will filter search results according to a user's IP address, meaning people accessing Google from outside Europe will not be affected, the person added.
So once again Anti-Geoblocking/Anti-Georestriction VPN becomes the solution for folks.
True. It does not change the general premise of the post.
The entire premise behind the device is to protest the claim that was made and believed that sent him to jail and has him owing millions in debt. As TFA states: "The most important message, however, is that the millions of dollars in losses the industry claims from him and the other TPB founders are just as fictitious as the number displayed on the Kopimashin."
It even goes so far as to say that the piracy is a net GAIN for the industry, and this could potentially make sense. Take the doughnut example:
The friend offers ten doughnuts to ten people and three of them like the doughnut a lot, so end up each ordering a dozen doughnuts at the store at full price. Ten doughnuts loss, 36 doughnuts paid for. PROFIT! Loss leaders, free samples... all the same concept, and one that the industry is not understanding.
A lot of words to say I agree with you. ;)
This implies an 80-cents loss per copy,
Given the title of the post, I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.
(Though because I know it will be: Eight million copies creating ten million loss is $1.25 per copy. The order of the numbers is important in division.)
Drivers are "required" to be alert today, yet that doesn't stop them from texting, putting on makeup, reading books (!) and lots of other things that divide their attention - they surely aren't going to pay *more* attention to their driving when the car is doing all of the work.
That makes it sound like "drivers" is all-inclusive. Probably as long as these requirements exist, the companies making the cars will only allow them to be operated by people who will not do that. It's not as if you can go to a dealership and buy a self-driving car, after all. Though of course the requirements will be taken as seriously as the penalties for not meeting them and as the likelihood of being caught. Penalties to likely include bad press as well as legal implications.
The problem is that the driver is not going to be alert -- drivers are barely alert even with fully manual cars, they surely are not going to be paying attention while stopped at a light, they are going to be playing Angry Birds.
Which simply means that the requirements will require alert drivers and no angry birds. This leads to the concept that California still considers the technology to be "In Development" and not for the average SMSing driver or general consumption. Which also leads to the implication that these requirements will be changed in the future when the technology is no longer in a testing phase.
To forestall responses that "It'll never change", I'll point out that very few open-stretch, long-haul freeways still have a speed limit of 55.
An example would be the car sitting at a red light in a construction zone with new signals strung up and when an unrelated light turns green, the autonomous car releases the brakes and starts to move forward against a red for its lane. An alert individual can override and re-apply the brakes immediately similar to if they had a lapse of clarity and a moment of confusion and avoid crossing fully into opposing traffic.
"Everyone" is kind of like the "infinite" part, where "infinity" and 13 have the same value. Extrapolate from there.
(*Using a smaller-than-normal value of infinity. Actual lack of end does not exist.)
Perhaps the biggest problem they encountered is the fact that the email service providers are sending their threats to the spam box where nobody is likely to see them. Hard to have good return on your marketing when you don't have trusted email.
What amuses me most is that they'd probably make more money if they set up their own Patreon account.
I love how all of the comments so far are about the god awful editing of the title instead of the actual story itself.
The focus is on what is important to readers.
CBC has permission to do that though, from CNN. It's CNN that did not have permission to sublicense the way they did (or at all, who knows). So why this guy is suing the CBC is beyond me
IANAL, however I wonder... Last time I checked copyright law in the US (LOOONG ago), there were limitations on what you could do against infringing entities without the copyright being registered with the government. Perhaps Canada, where CBC is based, doesn't care if the copyright is registered with anybody and allows him to seek damages despite it likely not being registered. Of course to get damages from CNN he might need to register it, and I forget what the timing parts of the law are. Ahh well. Idle speculation.
Rear-ending is something that always comes up in /. discussions about driving, especially by US drivers (the site is rather US centric).
If it helps you feel any better about US driving habits, I was rear ended by a police car in California when I came to a full and complete stop behind the limit line at a stop sign in a grocery store parking lot. The officer was anticipating that I would either not-stop or perform a rolling stop (slowing and not fully stopping) and was ready to pull me over for it, so was looking up my plate data on his in-car computer when he hit me.
There is, perhaps, an edge case in freeway driving: someone changes lanes in front of you, then slams on their brakes, but that isn't really relevant to approaching a stop sign.
Sadly this is an intentional insurance fraud item. "Swoop and squat" or "swoop and stop" is a common scam in a number of places. Notably, with the telemetrics from an Autonomous vehicle, that kind of scam would be impossible to pull off successfully. Besides the fact that the 360 awareness of the vehicle would show the obviousness if it succeeded, the autonomous vehicle would very likely react in sufficient time to avoid the front collision, though it still may be collided with from behind.
Perhaps the difference in this case is that that example involves the person having a business relationship with the bank and interacting with the teller, voluntarily giving their name for the person to connect to the face.
What is being considered and fretted over here are such events as the following lovely bit of near-future (possibly not) fiction...
It was a lovely day as Jack Smith strolled down the street. He glanced at the sign on the bus stop as he passed by and the sign, recognizing who he was, displayed advertisements for fresh strawberries at Hole Dudes Market. He never shopped there, but he did buy strawberries at Wallyworld every Monday, so they knew.
There was a buzz from his smartwatch and he glanced at his wrist. WatchU sent email informing him that the bus he normally took had broken down on the interstate and he should turn left at the next light to grab a different bus. It would only make him get to work ten minutes late instead of thirty. Oh, and they'd already emailed his boss to let them know he'd be late. Wait... Who was WatchU? He'd never signed up for such a service. Besides, he was taking a day off today and heading somewhere completely different. Why did they email his boss? Well, because they knew.
Shrugging the thought aside, he tried to enjoy the day. Thinking about strawberries, his mouth started to water, so he headed into Samba Juice for a smoothie. It was a new establishment that he'd never been in before, so he wanted to see how it stacked up against other places.
"Hi Mr Smith!" the cashier said as he approached her, taking the cue from her register. "Would you like a Strawberry Stratosphere in mega-size today?"
"Um, sure," he said. He looked at her, unable to place her, and finally curiosity overcame him. "Do I know you?"
"Oh, we know all our customers, even if they are brand new," she exclaimed. "We're tied in to the system. Working a few bugs out though." She looked at the screen and blushed. "Oh, and a coupon popped up. When you head back to the Lover's Lace escort services, ask for Margarette. You'll get a discount on all personal services." They knew.
Jack winced at that and mumbled thanks, then headed to wait awkwardly for his smoothie. The cups had advertisements printed on them based on marketing data for the customers, and he was shocked to see a code to scan on his phone for half off bulk adult diapers. That was insulting! Why did they think he needed such a thing?! Ah... right... because the camera had seen him unloading a truck while volunteering at a retirement home. They knew.
So yes... Meat popsicles have limits on who and what they know and know about who. This system, as people want it, will have no limits.
"Industry lobbyists are <insert negative thing here>"?
When did anybody in the US think we aren't living in a plutocratic oligarchy?
Though please do note: I said ruled by the MONEY... not the rich... parse that as you see fit.
"We haven't seen any attacks work therefore it must be 100% effective."
1: A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.
2: I have this wonderful Ticklebang repelling charm. Nobody wearing it has ever been stolen by Ticklebangs.
Notably, no explanation of how it determines what I/O is "Authorized" versus "Unauthorized".
At the same time, just like in any group, there are "bad" researchers and "good" researchers, and the ones performing due diligence and trying to be upstanding can still have a bad day.
The primary focus was to point out that even a scientific journal is not without fault, and there are even some that have been known to accept and promote complete drivel that was created intentionally to point out how flawed the scientific journal system can be in some places.
The general idea is not to make the researchers seem malicious. The intent is to point out that just because it's published doesn't mean it's true, and in this case it's taking it even further than the prior shows of failure that occurred with "Pay to be published" journals.
It wasn't just published on the internet, it was published in a scientific journal!
Silly researchers. You're not supposed to publish science fiction just because a company paid you to write a story that matches their agenda.
This is definitely a case of picking the worst summary of the source article possible. When I looked at the /. summary, I immediately thought "3D is going out in movies and TV, and haven't we been there with the HTC Evo 3D?". Obviously a lot of other people did too.
So I clicked on TFA. Ahhhhhhhh... Now it makes more sense! From TFA:
We're used to our gadgets being passive objects. They respond to typed or tapped commands, but we don't expect them to be aware of their surroundings.
... As our devices have more and better sensors, they're going to be increasingly aware of the world around them, and will interact with the world and with us in more sophisticated ways.
So other than the really gimmicky "personal drones that can take breathtaking aerial shots", this is primarily talking about computer vision, such as gesture recognition, local environment evaluation, etc.
Except a decade ago, you got 95% on a powerful desktop computer. Today you get 95% on a cellphone.
If I sit in a quiet room, and enunciate carefully, with slight pauses between words, I can get way better than 95%. Also, if voice recognition is integrated with a camera focused on the speaker's face, accuracy can go way up.
Well, of course. A cell phone now is the same power as a powerful desktop computer back then for the most part. But wasn't "Natural speech recognition" the big goal? They did call it "Dragon Naturallyspeaking" after all. However it still sits in a state where the computer needs to have a perfect environment to achieve something partially as good as a human being.
I counter-propose that humans will be helping computers more in the future.
Are you implying their predictions have as much clarity as an obsidian crystal ball in a sewage treatment tank? As much fidelity as a wax cylinder on a 120 degree day in Arizona? As much accuracy as somebody trying to blindly roundhouse kick the Andromeda Galaxy? And hold as much water as a clogged ink jet nozzle? If you are, I agree.
With voice recognition still doing well at 95% accuracy when trained (an average of one in twenty words wrong? Sign me up!) - which was about what it was back a decade ago - and the essay grading systems being very good at what they do (Sarcasm alert), they'll have to improve things a lot faster than they have been for the machines to take over 'knowledge work'.
I'm the technology manager at a school but beholden to a larger "Management" company for a lot of my processes. In our case, we can't afford to issue laptops or tablets or Chromebooks to students, however it is absolutely true that we have access to everything everybody does on school computers. This includes students and to some portion, teachers. We tell everybody straight out with big, bold text that we have access, but people do stuff anyway.
Tuesday, a new employee got onto his computer for the first time and within five minutes I had an alert that he'd downloaded a "flash-installer.exe" infection when he'd managed to find a porn site that wasn't blocked by our filter. He was fired within five minutes, because a trace showed that it was obvious intent, not accident.
On the student side of things, we are required by law to report things, and it is not often thankfully, but we have been alerted by monitoring software that a student was being solicited by an adult for illegal activities. The student logged into their personal GMail account from school and typed in a reply. All captured and monitored and observed. More common is catching online bullying.
In general, it does show just how much access we have and why we have such extremely strong language in our alerts to say "Yes, we can see EVERYTHING." Also one of the reasons we are reluctant to issue take-home equipment to students because of blasted cameras and no desire to even tempt anybody.
I propose storing it in a new medium. A "molecular chain", which should withstand the effects of EMP, right?
A name for it. Hmmm. How about the Destroy-Not Archive, or D.N.A. for short.
But then cosmic rays and ionizing radiation and other things will still introduce errors.
So we would further need a method to reliably store the chains themselves and that could replicate the data to ensure there was a high chance of accurate data surviving. Little cartridges with all of the necessary environment and materials to power the reading system and maintain the chain and that could, as needed, replicate the data into new cartridges. The second versions, Contained Environment II (CE-II) work decently.*
(*Hey, I couldn't think of anything with L. I guarantee I gave it at least four seconds of thought too!)
How long until somebody figures out where this toilet is, watches the pattern of timing of the tweets, and cleans out the place with a robbery when they determine him to be away due to a lack of flushing?