The stock Maps app on Win10 platforms is HERE Maps, at least as far as map data goes (you can see "(c) HERE" in the corner in most areas).
It also has offline map downloading. And unlike Google Maps (but like HERE), it lets you download entire regions without limitation, so long as you have the space. You can have the entire world cached if you so desire.
And yes, it does offline navigation, as well.
Which, in conjunction with the way it renders things, leads me to believe that it is also based on the code of HERE Maps, at least in part.
Your notion that "private speech is not evidence" runs directly contrary to, oh, 300 years of law and precedent? Maybe even more?
Opening and reading mail with a properly obtain warrant, for example, has always been legal.
The key part here is the warrant requirement. That, in theory, is what prevents the government from just doing bulk wiretapping, and ensures that it's not an "unreasonable" search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Of course, in practice, they have created rubber-stamp courts like FISA that sign warrants for bulk collection. And those are bad and, arguably, unconstitutional, and should be gone. But for a case like this, when there's ample evidence of a crime being committed by a specific person, a warrant specifically targeting this person and their means of communications is perfectly reasonable.
Americans finally get to enjoy the excitement of politics that is common in unstable countries.
Even though I was a kid, I still remember 1996, when my country was deciding between an utterly corrupt but nominally liberal sitting president; a populist even nuttier than Trump, but calling himself a "liberal democrat"; and a hardcore communist who promised to bring everything back as it was 20 years before.
Yeah, it's kinda fun. The process. Not its result.
And yet it is perfectly legal to protect your belongings in this way.
But this isn't actually what is at stake in this case. Again, the case is not about whether the government can legally access the phone - they can, of course, since they have a valid warrant. The question is whether they can compel Apple - who is not a defendant in this case - to perform the work necessary to let them have access. If it flies, it would establish a very bad precedent that anyone who can reasonably be of assistance to law enforcement can be similarly compelled.
It's called a "plain sight doctrine". If they are allowed to legitimately enter (e.g. because you invited them, or because there were circumstances justifying such warrantless entry, like e.g. hot pursuit, or articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed), they cannot search specifically; but anything that they can see without specifically searching, is considered valid evidence.
You're speaking as if there'd be just one wall. There's Canada to consider, too, and I'm sure we can find something afterwards, like walling off Muslim ghettos. After that, well... the walls could always be a bit higher. And it gives real hard-working Americans well-paying jobs!
(full disclosure: I am a developer on the RTVS team)
It is a bit too early to make feature-by-feature comparisons, since you'd be comparing green apples to ripe oranges. RStudio has been out for several years; RTVS is in its first public pre-release, it's not even feature complete yet.
So, for the most part, RStudio can currently do more. But there are exceptions already. Some of it stems from piggy-backing on top of VS, such as multi-language support - you can have a.cpp file in your R project, and you will get the usual VS editing experience for it, with syntax highlighting, completion etc.
Some of it is product-specific features, such as Variable Explorer (in RStudio, the same thing is called Environment). Have a look at this video, starting from 2:12 on. Notice how you can drill down into children of values without limitation - in RStudio, you're limited to a single level. Or, in the same video, note how the REPL has syntax highlighting for R code.
More of both - more product-specific features and improvements, and better integration with the rest of VS and other languages in it (esp. C++) - will be coming in the future.
Our issue tracker is public, and you can see the things that are in the pipeline. Please take a look, and if you see anything you like, comment on it to let us know that there's user demand for it. And if there's anything that you would be interested in that is not there at all, feel free to file it.
Mussolini used the word "corporation" in a very different sense from what we mean by it today. It was part of the vocabulary of corporatism, and meant something more like a trade association or a guild.
None of your examples are even remotely close to being compelled to say something that you don't approve of, and especially forcing you to sign it in a manner that uniquely ties it to you.
You sound like one of those "balance in the media" pundits, for whom "balance" means that "both sides get an equal say", even if one of those sides is some morons like flat earthers or creationists.
It has been repeatedly noted that superdelegates are very unlikely to go against the popular vote in this case - first, because they have never done so before, and doing it for the first time would be unprecedented and would really sour up Sanders supporters (while the party still has the general to win); and second, because the institution of superdelegates is already viewed with deep suspicion by party base, and such a thing would probably result in the membership revolting and demanding its complete abolition.
"Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination....
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on....
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way."
"Legal advice" is a formal term, defined by law, and it's actually illegal to offer it if you're not a lawyer in many places. Furthermore, for a lawyer, giving such advice can be constituted as establishing an attorney-client relationship, which results in legal obligations for the lawyer. So, even ignoring the time and effort, it's never free for them. I would assume there is some kind of insurance that exist specifically to indemnify lawyers in cases where they become subject to such obligations; and, naturally, that insurance is not free.
Software developers, on the other hand, don't establish this kind of relationship with the user merely by virtue of writing software for them. At least, not any more so than anyone else providing any other service does.
(I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
I'm not a hunter, actually. But when I hike somewhere that is 50 miles away from the nearest human settlement, and where I have two miles of the trail all to myself, I prefer to do so with a bear spray and a.357 revolver. Because the wildlife isn't fond of you sometimes. That's why they have claws and teeth. And I don't, because my species have sacrificed that for the sake of technological process - and so I use the products of said progress as a substitute when I'm in an environment where they might be needed.
But feel free to keep stereotyping. You forgot to speculate on which state I live in, what my religion is, whom I vote for, and which organizations I am a member of, so there's plenty more to cover.
Oh, and that whole "peaceful serene nature" thing is largely urban hippie bullshit, anyway. Go look at your local zoo and watch them feed the cougars. Then realize that the same thing is what's happening every day in "peaceful serene nature", except they chase down and kill the prey first, so it's a lot messier. Nature is majestic and beautiful, yes, and as such, deserves respect. And misrepresenting it is disrespecting it.
Most assertions that you've made in your comment are ideological beliefs ("in an economically free society, advancement keeps ahead of any downsides"), not hard data.
We do have data that indicates that we have a major problem.
We don't yet know the exact magnitude of that problem.
To assert that somehow, by "magic of the free markets" or whatever, the problem will be solved, is wishful thinking.
It would actually be nice to develop a standard protocol for websites to communicate to (not detect!) adblockers, so that they get one chance to present their argument as to why you should unblock them, in a format that is controlled by the adblocker rather than the site (so, on one hand, it would be less intrusive than an HTML popup; and, on the other hand, the adblocker should provide a single-click UI to exclude the site)
Right. But notice that Google isn't complaining about ABP. It is complaining about a different adblocker which does not have a similar arrangement, so far as I can tell
Slashdot Mirror
It does have offline maps as well as navigation. And the maps are the same that HERE uses.
The stock Maps app on Win10 platforms is HERE Maps, at least as far as map data goes (you can see "(c) HERE" in the corner in most areas).
It also has offline map downloading. And unlike Google Maps (but like HERE), it lets you download entire regions without limitation, so long as you have the space. You can have the entire world cached if you so desire.
And yes, it does offline navigation, as well.
Which, in conjunction with the way it renders things, leads me to believe that it is also based on the code of HERE Maps, at least in part.
So basically this is a non-story.
Your notion that "private speech is not evidence" runs directly contrary to, oh, 300 years of law and precedent? Maybe even more?
Opening and reading mail with a properly obtain warrant, for example, has always been legal.
The key part here is the warrant requirement. That, in theory, is what prevents the government from just doing bulk wiretapping, and ensures that it's not an "unreasonable" search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Of course, in practice, they have created rubber-stamp courts like FISA that sign warrants for bulk collection. And those are bad and, arguably, unconstitutional, and should be gone. But for a case like this, when there's ample evidence of a crime being committed by a specific person, a warrant specifically targeting this person and their means of communications is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for.
Are you really not understanding it yet? Yes, that is what the Republican voters have been saying all along - and Trump is that candidate.
Americans finally get to enjoy the excitement of politics that is common in unstable countries.
Even though I was a kid, I still remember 1996, when my country was deciding between an utterly corrupt but nominally liberal sitting president; a populist even nuttier than Trump, but calling himself a "liberal democrat"; and a hardcore communist who promised to bring everything back as it was 20 years before.
Yeah, it's kinda fun. The process. Not its result.
Obama doesn't kill Muslims merely because they're Muslims, though.
And yet it is perfectly legal to protect your belongings in this way.
But this isn't actually what is at stake in this case. Again, the case is not about whether the government can legally access the phone - they can, of course, since they have a valid warrant. The question is whether they can compel Apple - who is not a defendant in this case - to perform the work necessary to let them have access. If it flies, it would establish a very bad precedent that anyone who can reasonably be of assistance to law enforcement can be similarly compelled.
It's called a "plain sight doctrine". If they are allowed to legitimately enter (e.g. because you invited them, or because there were circumstances justifying such warrantless entry, like e.g. hot pursuit, or articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed), they cannot search specifically; but anything that they can see without specifically searching, is considered valid evidence.
You're speaking as if there'd be just one wall. There's Canada to consider, too, and I'm sure we can find something afterwards, like walling off Muslim ghettos. After that, well... the walls could always be a bit higher. And it gives real hard-working Americans well-paying jobs!
you'll be the first one up against the wall
Not against the wall, in the wall.
Mr Trump, wise as he is, respects Chinese and their expertise in this area.
(full disclosure: I am a developer on the RTVS team)
It is a bit too early to make feature-by-feature comparisons, since you'd be comparing green apples to ripe oranges. RStudio has been out for several years; RTVS is in its first public pre-release, it's not even feature complete yet.
So, for the most part, RStudio can currently do more. But there are exceptions already. Some of it stems from piggy-backing on top of VS, such as multi-language support - you can have a .cpp file in your R project, and you will get the usual VS editing experience for it, with syntax highlighting, completion etc.
Some of it is product-specific features, such as Variable Explorer (in RStudio, the same thing is called Environment). Have a look at this video, starting from 2:12 on. Notice how you can drill down into children of values without limitation - in RStudio, you're limited to a single level. Or, in the same video, note how the REPL has syntax highlighting for R code.
More of both - more product-specific features and improvements, and better integration with the rest of VS and other languages in it (esp. C++) - will be coming in the future.
Our issue tracker is public, and you can see the things that are in the pipeline. Please take a look, and if you see anything you like, comment on it to let us know that there's user demand for it. And if there's anything that you would be interested in that is not there at all, feel free to file it.
"Europe" is an arbitrary political grouping, not a geological one. The latter would be Eurasia.
Mussolini used the word "corporation" in a very different sense from what we mean by it today. It was part of the vocabulary of corporatism, and meant something more like a trade association or a guild.
Wouldn't First Amendment protection against compelled speech also apply to the specific engineers who would have to write that code?
None of your examples are even remotely close to being compelled to say something that you don't approve of, and especially forcing you to sign it in a manner that uniquely ties it to you.
It's not biased, it's truthful.
You sound like one of those "balance in the media" pundits, for whom "balance" means that "both sides get an equal say", even if one of those sides is some morons like flat earthers or creationists.
It has been repeatedly noted that superdelegates are very unlikely to go against the popular vote in this case - first, because they have never done so before, and doing it for the first time would be unprecedented and would really sour up Sanders supporters (while the party still has the general to win); and second, because the institution of superdelegates is already viewed with deep suspicion by party base, and such a thing would probably result in the membership revolting and demanding its complete abolition.
FSF GPL FAQ:
"Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination. ...
A consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on. ...
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means you must license the plug-in under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license and distribute it with source code in a GPL-compliant way."
"Legal advice" is a formal term, defined by law, and it's actually illegal to offer it if you're not a lawyer in many places. Furthermore, for a lawyer, giving such advice can be constituted as establishing an attorney-client relationship, which results in legal obligations for the lawyer. So, even ignoring the time and effort, it's never free for them. I would assume there is some kind of insurance that exist specifically to indemnify lawyers in cases where they become subject to such obligations; and, naturally, that insurance is not free.
Software developers, on the other hand, don't establish this kind of relationship with the user merely by virtue of writing software for them. At least, not any more so than anyone else providing any other service does.
(I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)
FSF has been claiming that (with DLLs and Java .class files), but it was never actually tested in court.
I'm not a hunter, actually. But when I hike somewhere that is 50 miles away from the nearest human settlement, and where I have two miles of the trail all to myself, I prefer to do so with a bear spray and a .357 revolver. Because the wildlife isn't fond of you sometimes. That's why they have claws and teeth. And I don't, because my species have sacrificed that for the sake of technological process - and so I use the products of said progress as a substitute when I'm in an environment where they might be needed.
But feel free to keep stereotyping. You forgot to speculate on which state I live in, what my religion is, whom I vote for, and which organizations I am a member of, so there's plenty more to cover.
Oh, and that whole "peaceful serene nature" thing is largely urban hippie bullshit, anyway. Go look at your local zoo and watch them feed the cougars. Then realize that the same thing is what's happening every day in "peaceful serene nature", except they chase down and kill the prey first, so it's a lot messier. Nature is majestic and beautiful, yes, and as such, deserves respect. And misrepresenting it is disrespecting it.
Well, last time I wanted to do it, I couldn't unblock it in two clicks - because I had the AdBlock toolbar button in Chrome hidden.
Most assertions that you've made in your comment are ideological beliefs ("in an economically free society, advancement keeps ahead of any downsides"), not hard data.
We do have data that indicates that we have a major problem.
We don't yet know the exact magnitude of that problem.
To assert that somehow, by "magic of the free markets" or whatever, the problem will be solved, is wishful thinking.
It would actually be nice to develop a standard protocol for websites to communicate to (not detect!) adblockers, so that they get one chance to present their argument as to why you should unblock them, in a format that is controlled by the adblocker rather than the site (so, on one hand, it would be less intrusive than an HTML popup; and, on the other hand, the adblocker should provide a single-click UI to exclude the site)
Right. But notice that Google isn't complaining about ABP. It is complaining about a different adblocker which does not have a similar arrangement, so far as I can tell