There is a massive cost of entry and a massive cost of switching, we aren't talking about web users who can switch search engines, we are talking about businesses that need to advertise their services, switching to another service means they don't get the exposure and advertising they need to survive as google has a monopoly on the advertising industry, building your own service would cost billions as you need to gain a foothold to make your advertising have some value, to do so would likely cost 10's of billions in free advertising to attract enough customers to make your advertising business viable.
google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.
It is a shitful practise, but if you are in the US then you are living in the land of Geo blocking. Just about every major service in the US uses geo blocking. I personally have to use a VPN/Smart DNS to access much of the content I SUBSCRIBE to from the US. At least the BBC is free once you get around the Geo Blocking (funded by tax dollars).
I am no partition manager expert, but if the existing most popular one is missing some features then why not implement them rather than producing yet another piece of software to fragment and complicate things. Are the existing ones that bad that they can't be improved?
Did he also decide to produce the Hex output that is entirely useless and without merit? I understand that's for debugging purposes, but who decided that was a good idea to leave in for a consumer-level OS? Seriously.
WTF? of all the idiotic things they have done, leaving the debug information available in the consumer-level OS was one of the BEST ideas. It gives even the most clueless user a chance to google it, or read the screen to someone that understands it, or in the case of my mother send a photo of it so someone can look up what went wrong.
The engineering community has never had a problem with someone being called a software Engineer. The objection has always been people being labelled software engineers without needing any formal certification and hence degrading the term engineer. Where I work here there are 3 hundred people that label themselves software engineers, of that maybe a dozen have any real certification in the field that would approach that of a real engineer, the rest just have computer science degrees or on the job training.
Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.
Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".
Only in the USA are such low levels of insurance appropriate, in the rest of the world a million dollars for a taxi would mean the taxi is UNDERINSURED. most countries I am aware of require between $5 million-$10 million minimum, I believe Germany is even higher. $1 million is underinsured even for a private car.
$1 million insurance is actually very low level of insurance for commercial operators and is far below that which is required in many countries. Insurance is also only valid if the driver is licensed, driving for hire vehicles in many countries requires a different license, therefore the drivers are in many cases driving unlicensed.
They didn't outright outlaw Uber, they outlawed their illegal practices. Such laws are common in many countries, e.g. Australia it is also illegal to act as a for hire car without appropriate license and insurance, but here they have been directly targeting any driver that drives for them with multi thousand dollar fines. I also don't think the laws around this are absurd, they are about ensuring people are correctly protected by the for hire vehicle as without the regulations it is a cut throat industry with everyone looking to screw over their competitors for an edge.
Ukraine, "previously" held control of Russia's only viable winter port for the Russian fleet. The US's intervention in forcing a government change to a pro west/anti Russian government meant Russia was at risk of losing access to a vital military facility as well as have a close friendly neighbour suddenly become a NATO stronghold, wrongly or rightly Russia still view NATO with a great deal of suspicion if not as an outright enemy. If that isn't backing him into a corner and prodding the bear with a massive cattle prod then I don't know what is. It would be the equivalent of mexico and Canada suddenly becoming communist north Korean and expecting the US would not react.
Given the French revolution was a direct response in part to the excess, privilege and abuses committed by the church and state the actions their while excessive are hardly surprising and the pre French revolution time is an excellent example of why the church should never be permitted to have any sort of power in society. It is important to note though the revolution WASN'T based on atheism at all, it was based on overthrowing an aristocracy and class system that was oppressing the people through taxes and starvation.
They aren't the only country wanting to remain in the 8th century, their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism.
I don't think he denied anything, the fact you are equating the USSR and Russia is a problem though. Ukraine was part of what happened in Hungary so why are you blaming only Russia? Ukraine was as much a core of the USSR as Russia was back then.
The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.
Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?
Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.
This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".
An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?
The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders. You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal. They must go through the countries legal system that holds the goods they want to seize, similarly the same applies to Data, the US can get access to it as long as it follows the appropriate laws and procedures. What the US government is trying to do is say other countries laws don't matter with data and therefore are asking a US companies to break another countries laws. You yourself said it that when in other countries you must abide by that countries rules, you cannot compel an individual or company to break the laws of another country. No one is suggesting that MS gets to ignore US laws, it is the US government saying that they get it ignore other countries laws and can compel US companies to do the same while they are in those countries.
Well it appears they have entered into the contract with the explicit purpose to disrupt their business, it is arguably fraud or at least tortuous interference, it could be argued as either a criminal or civil offense.
Yes really. It has been stated by both the insurance industry and government in Australia that Uber drivers are NOT insured here unless they have a commercial license and corresponding commercial insurance as it is illegal to offer for hire services without a public transport license and insurance is invalid when you are operating outside the law
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.
depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.
perhaps overcoming the law of thermodynamics is unlikely. BUT, utilising the waste heat efficiently and effectively so that any such signature would be all but undetectable from this range I think would be distinctly possible, if not likely.
I have plenty where I work where the source code has been lost or has been poorly maintained so that the binary version is significantly different to our only source code copy.
That is a religious argument. personally I would prefer my government to stay out of religion. Software is a tool, governments concerns should be using the best tool for the job with the least cost. Hopefully that is free software, if not then that is fine too.
That is BS. publicly funded Government departments Priorities should be first and foremost to ensure they are getting best value for money, if that is OSS/Free software then great, license fees are a tiny part of the cost of most software and while they are an important consideration the overall cost and effectiveness is far more important. Also plenty of OSS sucks (just like plenty of Closed source software does), and NO open source doesn't prevent kickbacks as it still needs to be supported and inevitably this comes down to commercial companies.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a massive cost of entry and a massive cost of switching, we aren't talking about web users who can switch search engines, we are talking about businesses that need to advertise their services, switching to another service means they don't get the exposure and advertising they need to survive as google has a monopoly on the advertising industry, building your own service would cost billions as you need to gain a foothold to make your advertising have some value, to do so would likely cost 10's of billions in free advertising to attract enough customers to make your advertising business viable.
google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.
It is a shitful practise, but if you are in the US then you are living in the land of Geo blocking. Just about every major service in the US uses geo blocking. I personally have to use a VPN/Smart DNS to access much of the content I SUBSCRIBE to from the US. At least the BBC is free once you get around the Geo Blocking (funded by tax dollars).
I am no partition manager expert, but if the existing most popular one is missing some features then why not implement them rather than producing yet another piece of software to fragment and complicate things. Are the existing ones that bad that they can't be improved?
Ahhh yes, lets punish apple for punishing their employee's by punishing even more of them.
Did he also decide to produce the Hex output that is entirely useless and without merit? I understand that's for debugging purposes, but who decided that was a good idea to leave in for a consumer-level OS? Seriously.
WTF? of all the idiotic things they have done, leaving the debug information available in the consumer-level OS was one of the BEST ideas. It gives even the most clueless user a chance to google it, or read the screen to someone that understands it, or in the case of my mother send a photo of it so someone can look up what went wrong.
The engineering community has never had a problem with someone being called a software Engineer. The objection has always been people being labelled software engineers without needing any formal certification and hence degrading the term engineer. Where I work here there are 3 hundred people that label themselves software engineers, of that maybe a dozen have any real certification in the field that would approach that of a real engineer, the rest just have computer science degrees or on the job training.
Well, for one, Uber has about 10 times as much insurance coverage as a taxi--a million dollars, instead of $25,000 to $100,000. Slugging and hitching have Guest PIP at $5000.
Uber also has traceability. Every Uber charter has passenger, driver, and time centrally logged. Passengers can comment on drivers, and drivers can comment on passengers. There's a rating system. A rapist will expose themselves to a hard evidence chain establishing where they were and that they were with the accuser, as well as a rating of "1 Star, Driver raped me, would not ride again".
Only in the USA are such low levels of insurance appropriate, in the rest of the world a million dollars for a taxi would mean the taxi is UNDERINSURED. most countries I am aware of require between $5 million-$10 million minimum, I believe Germany is even higher. $1 million is underinsured even for a private car.
$1 million insurance is actually very low level of insurance for commercial operators and is far below that which is required in many countries. Insurance is also only valid if the driver is licensed, driving for hire vehicles in many countries requires a different license, therefore the drivers are in many cases driving unlicensed.
They didn't outright outlaw Uber, they outlawed their illegal practices. Such laws are common in many countries, e.g. Australia it is also illegal to act as a for hire car without appropriate license and insurance, but here they have been directly targeting any driver that drives for them with multi thousand dollar fines. I also don't think the laws around this are absurd, they are about ensuring people are correctly protected by the for hire vehicle as without the regulations it is a cut throat industry with everyone looking to screw over their competitors for an edge.
Ukraine, "previously" held control of Russia's only viable winter port for the Russian fleet. The US's intervention in forcing a government change to a pro west/anti Russian government meant Russia was at risk of losing access to a vital military facility as well as have a close friendly neighbour suddenly become a NATO stronghold, wrongly or rightly Russia still view NATO with a great deal of suspicion if not as an outright enemy. If that isn't backing him into a corner and prodding the bear with a massive cattle prod then I don't know what is. It would be the equivalent of mexico and Canada suddenly becoming communist north Korean and expecting the US would not react.
The interesting part is Both US and Russia have breached item 1, 3 and 6.
Given the French revolution was a direct response in part to the excess, privilege and abuses committed by the church and state the actions their while excessive are hardly surprising and the pre French revolution time is an excellent example of why the church should never be permitted to have any sort of power in society. It is important to note though the revolution WASN'T based on atheism at all, it was based on overthrowing an aristocracy and class system that was oppressing the people through taxes and starvation.
They aren't the only country wanting to remain in the 8th century, their are still supposedly modern countries that ban teaching or evolution and insist on teaching their kids at school creationism.
I don't think he denied anything, the fact you are equating the USSR and Russia is a problem though. Ukraine was part of what happened in Hungary so why are you blaming only Russia? Ukraine was as much a core of the USSR as Russia was back then.
The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.
Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?
Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.
This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".
An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?
The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders. You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal. They must go through the countries legal system that holds the goods they want to seize, similarly the same applies to Data, the US can get access to it as long as it follows the appropriate laws and procedures. What the US government is trying to do is say other countries laws don't matter with data and therefore are asking a US companies to break another countries laws. You yourself said it that when in other countries you must abide by that countries rules, you cannot compel an individual or company to break the laws of another country. No one is suggesting that MS gets to ignore US laws, it is the US government saying that they get it ignore other countries laws and can compel US companies to do the same while they are in those countries.
Well it appears they have entered into the contract with the explicit purpose to disrupt their business, it is arguably fraud or at least tortuous interference, it could be argued as either a criminal or civil offense.
Yes really. It has been stated by both the insurance industry and government in Australia that Uber drivers are NOT insured here unless they have a commercial license and corresponding commercial insurance as it is illegal to offer for hire services without a public transport license and insurance is invalid when you are operating outside the law
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
YES I do think they should abide by the same rules as in order for insurance to be valid and cover you they must also be following the rules. This is the reason I would never use Uber here in Australia as while an accident is unlikely I like knowing I am insured against such an event and in most Uber drivers sharing you are definitely NOT covered. Similiarly if I am paying for accommodation I want to know that they are meeting minimum health and safety requirements and also have appropriate insurance.
depends on the situation. There is government being overly strict/arseholes, then there is government doing what it is supposed to do, which is ensuring hotels are all following the regulations required for hotels. If they are doing the former then it sucks, but I suspect it is the later they are chasing. I personally find it hard to fault them if what they are doing is chasing people that are blatantly ignoring the laws for insurance, health and safety etc when it comes to hotel accommodation.
perhaps overcoming the law of thermodynamics is unlikely. BUT, utilising the waste heat efficiently and effectively so that any such signature would be all but undetectable from this range I think would be distinctly possible, if not likely.
I have plenty where I work where the source code has been lost or has been poorly maintained so that the binary version is significantly different to our only source code copy.
That is a religious argument. personally I would prefer my government to stay out of religion. Software is a tool, governments concerns should be using the best tool for the job with the least cost. Hopefully that is free software, if not then that is fine too.
That is BS. publicly funded Government departments Priorities should be first and foremost to ensure they are getting best value for money, if that is OSS/Free software then great, license fees are a tiny part of the cost of most software and while they are an important consideration the overall cost and effectiveness is far more important. Also plenty of OSS sucks (just like plenty of Closed source software does), and NO open source doesn't prevent kickbacks as it still needs to be supported and inevitably this comes down to commercial companies.