Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages. Not clear what is horrible about sub'ing the producers of content one watches at any one moment, and switching those around when one's viewing preferences change. Personally I'm not much of a TV watcher so am not in market for this, but seems strange complaint given the population who does want paid TV content.
re: the show, can't say it interests me, I am more the sort who wants to see time-line furthered post DS9, rather than re-hash original Trek timeline. And fuck Kirk, Sisko was King.:-)
Let's recall how their treatment in the EU compares to the US: In the EU they have judicial process which merely threatens to impose fines if they continue with business as normal. In the US they were forced by government with no judicial process to licence IP to enable competitor AMD. Intel is free to cast it's IP to the wind to enable real competitive market. They no doubt prefer fines to doing that, though.
I don't see why Google giving out it's tech isn't a viable option. If anything their search is becoming progressively LESS useful to users due to being manipulated to suit Google's agenda. The underlying tech can be freed and administered by whoever willing/able to operate the required server farms, and who knows, actually deliver the best most accurate search without being clouded by corrupt interests.
Of course it never had any credibility to begin with. If anything it's a mark of derision.
"Ohhh... Another non-profitable Unicorn Venture Capital company gave their Blue Check of approval to this "Influencer with press clippings who works with big brands"...Guess I'd better buy what THEY'RE selling!!!"
Having it be openly purchasable is if anything refreshingly honest. It's the equivalent of vanity licence plate "ooh, I'm special!"
"The CDN provider says it researched the domain names listed in the injunction and found that only three of the twenty domains used Cloudflare's services at the time the RIAA asked the court to clarify its order. Some had never used CloudFlare's services at all, they say."
This seems grounds for contempt of court / sanctions on lawyers involved, wasting courts time with spurious crap they didn't even both to do due diligence on before asking for injunctions against non-events.
So besides charges/damages vs. Uber executives who pulled it off,
and damages vs Uber itself (calculated based on Uber valuation minus taxi business?)
is there grounds to bar Uber from operating in the "AI driven vehicle" sector at least for period of time?
IMHO the lack of cut marks would most logically suggest the people involved found the bones after the animal was killed by a predator species. This is exactly in line with early human ecology, being able to harvest marrow of large species killed by other predators.
Batteries can't compete with hydrocarbon fuel for aircraft which need substantial range / flight duration. Aircraft which only need to fly short trips of let's say, 30 minutes max, aren't as impacted by the difference as much. And going all electric gets rid of turbine maintenance, removes design factor of protecting against engine blade out damage, and allows "re-fueling" with simple electric connection at many points in urban grid, not dependent on avgas.
Or in other words, electric propulsion ALREADY NOW demonstrably dominates small drone propulsion right? Despite the density of batteries vs hydrocarbon fuel being no different. So clearly that factor does not absolutely dominate, but is one factor amongst many. How much bigger than drones can this work for with current tech, what range limitations can it work for? We'll see, but "NONE, BECAUSE BATTERY ENERGY DENSITY" is not the answer.
We believe Uber should not have to provide this information. We already uninstalled the app, so any more information would be a violation of our privacy....Ooops...
The woman was not an "applicant"... She was actively RECRUITED by Uber thru LinkedIn.
The woman ALREADY STATED she wasn't interested in working at Uber because of it's reputation.
IMHO, at that point, the woman has turned down the job offer herself, so the job application is over.
So what the HR manager says after that is irrelevant to discrimination claim.
Now maybe that's not the IDEAL statement to make or stance to project, but it's not job discrimination.
There are laws against ACTUAL job discrimination,
not laws against statements which don't maximally promote the official ideology.
Companies which fall in latter category are highly likely to also violate the actual law,
but such cases must be proven on their own merits by victims with actual standing re: specific law.
That said, don't use Uber, folks. For many other reasons as well.
The article itself makes no effort to sustain this premise.
Whatever engine Nintendo uses for 1st party is irrelevant.
Sony using in-house engines likewise has no bearing.
Miyamoto's apparent concession that Japanese devs lagged
behind in technical skills is somewhat interesting, I guess.
Exactly... Both the tech itself can be improved in accuracy, and normal bio-feedback training be used to increase the accuracy once baseline communication is established.
The thing is, and this is also applicable to "questions that aren't just Yes/No", is that multiple questions can be used to follow up:
"Is Paris the capital of Germany?" "OK, is that right, you just told me "NO"?"...etc.
This also addresses cases where certain topics may be less reliable or complicated.
Issue here is with no limits, there is no reason you ever need to have plan with your (actual, functional) local provider. If costs in Denmark are high, because workers operating infrastructure need higher salary to live on, or Danish government happens to tax wireless more, you can sign up for plan in Romania whose costs are based on Romanian labor costs and tax structure, yet continue to actually use Danish infrastructure all the same.
If taken far enough, Romanian carriers will have to raise their prices to account for their share of Danish infrastructure costs, but that means all Romanians would then be paying those costs (while still on lower Romanian salaries) while Danish tax and government budget is being undermined.
Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time, so there just is no broad basis for instituting this change which has broader repurcussions. If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it (potentially most popular in small countries or regions where travel to nearby countries is routine).
This just smells of ideological neoliberalism.
It's so refreshing that Elon Musk has finally helped us see thru the Star Trek idiocy of global cooperation replacing narrow national hatreds.
Besides, nobody like Chekov anyways.
Nothing like Henry Ford? You mean your whitewashed wishful thinking version of Henry Ford?
Ford was the biggest fascist, the biggest and most violent hold-out against union organizing.
Sure he finally folded in 1941, but that is hardly reason to hold him up as some example, nor to erase history.
This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters.
Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.
Perhaps you didn't read the article?
Chinese has had a legal market. They also have been largest market.
The countries that made it illegal have become smallest part of ivory trade.
But hey, elephants, or your ideological fixations, tough choice I know.
Which raises the point, if they were not even aware of it's origins from elephants to begin with, why can't the product be replaced with alternate sources of carving suitable bone etc? If they didn't know of the difference, why would they care about it's replacement?
In addition to other commenter, your entire premise seems to ignore the fact why Goldman and City at large are so heavily pushing financial "passportization", if as you suggest UK finance industry can operate seamlessly without it.
Difference being that sure the UK can operate as it wishes, but EU does not have to bless that operation. EU regulations which govern EU corporations can dictate rules which are incompatable with UK model, that require the significant steps in financial chain to be under EU jurisdiction at relevant stages. Passportization was the "As long as we are UK-legal, nobody in EU can do anything about it". Losing that means that they can.
And sure, UK can go it's own way, it can function as offshore for Russian oligarchs and non-EU corporations, but without passportization, the EU is free to claw back sovereign control over financial sector interfacing with it's own economy, it can simply state that financial arrangements occuring outside it's regulatory framework will not be able to enforced re: actual EU assets.
This reflects on Ireland in that it will not have the "lowest common denominator" advantage, it will be fully within EU regulatory regime, same as FR, DE, etc. So the legal benefits of UK will not carry over, and it will simply not be as distinctly advantageous locale to operate under. More broadly, sentiment is growing across EU against tax avoidance enabled by Ireland, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. "Profit transfer" tax evasion is far from secure, especially given the impact this has on governments under budget pressure. This also is subject to EU regulatory regime legitimizing the necessary legal schemes.
BTW, the rationa counter move by studios would be stop "selling" DVDs entirely.
Get ride of the idea of consumer owning any rights except those the studio expressly wishes.
Shift it all to streaming and they don't have these pesky issues of people trying to use what they own without permission.
The difference is that Aero was format shifting licenced broadcast TV that viewers never "owned".
When you own a DVD you have the right to format shift it, which is not "distribution" because it is for your own use.
Here there are actual DVDs "sold" by studios, and the stream count is limited to # of legit DVDs.
This isn't different than if a VHS rental store in the 80s had a VCR/TV in their store monitored by a CCTV that piped it to your house. The fact modern technology allows to do this cheaply and seamlessly is irrelevant.
The editing stuff is a side tangent, because there again there is no "distribution" besides selling-renting of DVD which is transferred in it's entirety. The "editing" (via EDL or whatever) is not for commercial purposes it is the consumer doing it for their own personal use, the company rented you the entire unmodified movie and it is just up to you if/how to edit how you watch it.
Studios wanted to use technology as illusionary magic trick to bypass fair use and their pre-existing market conditions generally. Any suggestion their shell game is up will encounter cognitive dissonance. Prepare yourself.
I just don't get how people can discount the proven basic effect of CO2 warming e.g. Greenhouse Effect, as demonstrated from basic gas column experiments.
Doesn't matter if you consider current warming "within historical natural variation", because basic science shows ANY CO2 will have some warming effect "above any beyond" prevailing conditions whatever those may be, the "source" of CO2 does not change the outcome of gas column experiment. Sure, plenty of other factors take place in those prevailing conditions, but the human CO2 is above and beyond those, and should always yield additional warming vs. baseline. To challenge human global warming (above and beyond prevailing conditions) one would need to demonstrate a mechanism whereby gas column experimental warming does not apply to the Earth as a whole, and which would apply to ALL CO2/methane in atmosphere man-made or not (unless one can show some homeopathy-like unique quality for human-derived CO2/methane).
And I love how some theoretical solar cooling cycle is coming, as if that negates need for attention. If anything, a future solar cooling cycle on scale of hundreds or thousands of years makes global warming MORE of a problem because rapid sequential up and down shifts of climate will be most disruptive to ecosystems, since the species that do OK with shift in one direction will be maladapted to the reverse shift. So if one believes in possibility of future solar cooling cycle, ceasing CO2 emmissions NOW (keeping climate cooler) is the best bet, and all the coal and oil in the ground stays there where it can still be extracted later to warm the climate if/when climate truly does significantly cool.
Not going to argue that people might feel they lose trust from this.
But the point is, he took this action because he had already lost trust.
People were going around knowingly telling lies that people (CEO) were pedophiles.
That kind of discourse is not the basis for trustful community which respects norms.
The people who did that have zero grounds to complain because they already ruined it.
Not ratifying TPP means US will "not reap the benefits of it".
OK, those being... 0.4% GDP growth by 2030 according to World Bank?
That just is not grounds for "absolutely must have this agreement".
And what of this "disruption" of trade with Asia?
Not passing TPP does not disrupt anything.
It means simply the status quo continues.
TPP is the disruption to status quo relation of law and society.
Yeah, Trump is an idiot and you hate him.
Doesn't really have much bearing on TPP.
It only has to be ratified by six countries... that comprise at least 85% of GDP of the signatories
The US alone is roughly 65% of the combined GDP by my calculations, and thus necessary for TPP.
That is written into the terms of the agreement, and can't be changed without creating a new agreement.
Obviously there are other trade agreements out there, and other countries can join them without US.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't help but notice the dislike of the "single producer streaming source" essentially conflicts with the quite-recent desire for "ala carte" cable without enforced packages. Not clear what is horrible about sub'ing the producers of content one watches at any one moment, and switching those around when one's viewing preferences change. Personally I'm not much of a TV watcher so am not in market for this, but seems strange complaint given the population who does want paid TV content.
:-)
re: the show, can't say it interests me, I am more the sort who wants to see time-line furthered post DS9, rather than re-hash original Trek timeline. And fuck Kirk, Sisko was King.
Let's recall how their treatment in the EU compares to the US: In the EU they have judicial process which merely threatens to impose fines if they continue with business as normal. In the US they were forced by government with no judicial process to licence IP to enable competitor AMD. Intel is free to cast it's IP to the wind to enable real competitive market. They no doubt prefer fines to doing that, though.
I don't see why Google giving out it's tech isn't a viable option. If anything their search is becoming progressively LESS useful to users due to being manipulated to suit Google's agenda. The underlying tech can be freed and administered by whoever willing/able to operate the required server farms, and who knows, actually deliver the best most accurate search without being clouded by corrupt interests.
I'd bang that.
Of course it never had any credibility to begin with. If anything it's a mark of derision. "Ohhh... Another non-profitable Unicorn Venture Capital company gave their Blue Check of approval to this "Influencer with press clippings who works with big brands" ...Guess I'd better buy what THEY'RE selling!!!"
Having it be openly purchasable is if anything refreshingly honest. It's the equivalent of vanity licence plate "ooh, I'm special!"
"The CDN provider says it researched the domain names listed in the injunction and found that only three of the twenty domains used Cloudflare's services at the time the RIAA asked the court to clarify its order. Some had never used CloudFlare's services at all, they say." This seems grounds for contempt of court / sanctions on lawyers involved, wasting courts time with spurious crap they didn't even both to do due diligence on before asking for injunctions against non-events.
So besides charges/damages vs. Uber executives who pulled it off, and damages vs Uber itself (calculated based on Uber valuation minus taxi business?) is there grounds to bar Uber from operating in the "AI driven vehicle" sector at least for period of time?
IMHO the lack of cut marks would most logically suggest the people involved found the bones after the animal was killed by a predator species. This is exactly in line with early human ecology, being able to harvest marrow of large species killed by other predators.
Batteries can't compete with hydrocarbon fuel for aircraft which need substantial range / flight duration. Aircraft which only need to fly short trips of let's say, 30 minutes max, aren't as impacted by the difference as much. And going all electric gets rid of turbine maintenance, removes design factor of protecting against engine blade out damage, and allows "re-fueling" with simple electric connection at many points in urban grid, not dependent on avgas. Or in other words, electric propulsion ALREADY NOW demonstrably dominates small drone propulsion right? Despite the density of batteries vs hydrocarbon fuel being no different. So clearly that factor does not absolutely dominate, but is one factor amongst many. How much bigger than drones can this work for with current tech, what range limitations can it work for? We'll see, but "NONE, BECAUSE BATTERY ENERGY DENSITY" is not the answer.
We believe Uber should not have to provide this information. We already uninstalled the app, so any more information would be a violation of our privacy. ...Ooops...
"Uber" and "Honest" appear together in same headline.
The woman was not an "applicant"... She was actively RECRUITED by Uber thru LinkedIn. The woman ALREADY STATED she wasn't interested in working at Uber because of it's reputation.
IMHO, at that point, the woman has turned down the job offer herself, so the job application is over. So what the HR manager says after that is irrelevant to discrimination claim.
Now maybe that's not the IDEAL statement to make or stance to project, but it's not job discrimination.
There are laws against ACTUAL job discrimination, not laws against statements which don't maximally promote the official ideology.
Companies which fall in latter category are highly likely to also violate the actual law, but such cases must be proven on their own merits by victims with actual standing re: specific law.
That said, don't use Uber, folks. For many other reasons as well.
The article itself makes no effort to sustain this premise. Whatever engine Nintendo uses for 1st party is irrelevant. Sony using in-house engines likewise has no bearing. Miyamoto's apparent concession that Japanese devs lagged behind in technical skills is somewhat interesting, I guess.
Exactly... Both the tech itself can be improved in accuracy, and normal bio-feedback training be used to increase the accuracy once baseline communication is established. The thing is, and this is also applicable to "questions that aren't just Yes/No", is that multiple questions can be used to follow up: "Is Paris the capital of Germany?" "OK, is that right, you just told me "NO"?" ...etc.
This also addresses cases where certain topics may be less reliable or complicated.
Issue here is with no limits, there is no reason you ever need to have plan with your (actual, functional) local provider. If costs in Denmark are high, because workers operating infrastructure need higher salary to live on, or Danish government happens to tax wireless more, you can sign up for plan in Romania whose costs are based on Romanian labor costs and tax structure, yet continue to actually use Danish infrastructure all the same. If taken far enough, Romanian carriers will have to raise their prices to account for their share of Danish infrastructure costs, but that means all Romanians would then be paying those costs (while still on lower Romanian salaries) while Danish tax and government budget is being undermined.
Normal people don't need "unlimited free international roaming", and it's easy enough to just get a local SIM card if you are travelling alot or for extended time, so there just is no broad basis for instituting this change which has broader repurcussions. If there were mass popular demand for it, carriers would already offer at least limited versions of it (potentially most popular in small countries or regions where travel to nearby countries is routine). This just smells of ideological neoliberalism.
It's so refreshing that Elon Musk has finally helped us see thru the Star Trek idiocy of global cooperation replacing narrow national hatreds. Besides, nobody like Chekov anyways.
Nothing like Henry Ford? You mean your whitewashed wishful thinking version of Henry Ford? Ford was the biggest fascist, the biggest and most violent hold-out against union organizing. Sure he finally folded in 1941, but that is hardly reason to hold him up as some example, nor to erase history.
This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters. Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.
Perhaps you didn't read the article? Chinese has had a legal market. They also have been largest market. The countries that made it illegal have become smallest part of ivory trade. But hey, elephants, or your ideological fixations, tough choice I know.
Which raises the point, if they were not even aware of it's origins from elephants to begin with, why can't the product be replaced with alternate sources of carving suitable bone etc? If they didn't know of the difference, why would they care about it's replacement?
In addition to other commenter, your entire premise seems to ignore the fact why Goldman and City at large are so heavily pushing financial "passportization", if as you suggest UK finance industry can operate seamlessly without it.
Difference being that sure the UK can operate as it wishes, but EU does not have to bless that operation. EU regulations which govern EU corporations can dictate rules which are incompatable with UK model, that require the significant steps in financial chain to be under EU jurisdiction at relevant stages. Passportization was the "As long as we are UK-legal, nobody in EU can do anything about it". Losing that means that they can.
And sure, UK can go it's own way, it can function as offshore for Russian oligarchs and non-EU corporations, but without passportization, the EU is free to claw back sovereign control over financial sector interfacing with it's own economy, it can simply state that financial arrangements occuring outside it's regulatory framework will not be able to enforced re: actual EU assets.
This reflects on Ireland in that it will not have the "lowest common denominator" advantage, it will be fully within EU regulatory regime, same as FR, DE, etc. So the legal benefits of UK will not carry over, and it will simply not be as distinctly advantageous locale to operate under. More broadly, sentiment is growing across EU against tax avoidance enabled by Ireland, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. "Profit transfer" tax evasion is far from secure, especially given the impact this has on governments under budget pressure. This also is subject to EU regulatory regime legitimizing the necessary legal schemes.
BTW, the rationa counter move by studios would be stop "selling" DVDs entirely. Get ride of the idea of consumer owning any rights except those the studio expressly wishes. Shift it all to streaming and they don't have these pesky issues of people trying to use what they own without permission.
Ok, Aerio.
The difference is that Aero was format shifting licenced broadcast TV that viewers never "owned".
When you own a DVD you have the right to format shift it, which is not "distribution" because it is for your own use.
Here there are actual DVDs "sold" by studios, and the stream count is limited to # of legit DVDs.
This isn't different than if a VHS rental store in the 80s had a VCR/TV in their store monitored by a CCTV that piped it to your house.
The fact modern technology allows to do this cheaply and seamlessly is irrelevant.
The editing stuff is a side tangent, because there again there is no "distribution" besides selling-renting of DVD which is transferred in it's entirety.
The "editing" (via EDL or whatever) is not for commercial purposes it is the consumer doing it for their own personal use,
the company rented you the entire unmodified movie and it is just up to you if/how to edit how you watch it.
Studios wanted to use technology as illusionary magic trick to bypass fair use and their pre-existing market conditions generally.
Any suggestion their shell game is up will encounter cognitive dissonance. Prepare yourself.
I just don't get how people can discount the proven basic effect of CO2 warming e.g. Greenhouse Effect, as demonstrated from basic gas column experiments.
Doesn't matter if you consider current warming "within historical natural variation", because basic science shows ANY CO2 will have some warming effect "above any beyond" prevailing conditions whatever those may be, the "source" of CO2 does not change the outcome of gas column experiment. Sure, plenty of other factors take place in those prevailing conditions, but the human CO2 is above and beyond those, and should always yield additional warming vs. baseline. To challenge human global warming (above and beyond prevailing conditions) one would need to demonstrate a mechanism whereby gas column experimental warming does not apply to the Earth as a whole, and which would apply to ALL CO2/methane in atmosphere man-made or not (unless one can show some homeopathy-like unique quality for human-derived CO2/methane).
And I love how some theoretical solar cooling cycle is coming, as if that negates need for attention. If anything, a future solar cooling cycle on scale of hundreds or thousands of years makes global warming MORE of a problem because rapid sequential up and down shifts of climate will be most disruptive to ecosystems, since the species that do OK with shift in one direction will be maladapted to the reverse shift. So if one believes in possibility of future solar cooling cycle, ceasing CO2 emmissions NOW (keeping climate cooler) is the best bet, and all the coal and oil in the ground stays there where it can still be extracted later to warm the climate if/when climate truly does significantly cool.
Not going to argue that people might feel they lose trust from this. But the point is, he took this action because he had already lost trust. People were going around knowingly telling lies that people (CEO) were pedophiles. That kind of discourse is not the basis for trustful community which respects norms. The people who did that have zero grounds to complain because they already ruined it.
Not ratifying TPP means US will "not reap the benefits of it". OK, those being... 0.4% GDP growth by 2030 according to World Bank? That just is not grounds for "absolutely must have this agreement". And what of this "disruption" of trade with Asia? Not passing TPP does not disrupt anything. It means simply the status quo continues. TPP is the disruption to status quo relation of law and society. Yeah, Trump is an idiot and you hate him. Doesn't really have much bearing on TPP.
It only has to be ratified by six countries... that comprise at least 85% of GDP of the signatories The US alone is roughly 65% of the combined GDP by my calculations, and thus necessary for TPP. That is written into the terms of the agreement, and can't be changed without creating a new agreement. Obviously there are other trade agreements out there, and other countries can join them without US.