Stealing is one of the 'commercial side''s favorite game.
Yes, but it's usually corporate espionage of other corporations, not gov't espionage of foreign non-military-related corporations. I think I would need to make a 5 x 5 grid to explain it.
For the most part, the US gov't does NOT swipe non-military secrets for the benefit of non-military US corporations, but China's gov't does. That's not the same as MS swiping GUI tech from Apple. The Chinese gov't is actively involved in non-military-related industrial espionage.
Europe was forcing all other nations/colonies to cater to them with resources.
Perhaps both sides were doing underhanded things of their own flavor. But eventually mutually agreed-upon rules were worked out and both sides mostly stuck to the agreements, rather than the underhanded tit for underhanded tat like it was before.
That's mostly military tech. Everyone expects and does military espionage.
But China plays games on the commercial side. It would be like the US Federal Gov't breaking into Chinese OS companies and giving the trade secrets to Microsoft, or creating red-tape for foreign competitors to MS that MS itself doesn't have.
it is a public debacle, damages their credibility...
I agree there is bound to be a major breach of a major cloud provider that will damage cloud's reputation, creating a major P/R kick to the nuts.
I'm not saying cloud is necessarily less secure, only that breaches will affect a lot of companies at the same time, creating a P/R nightmare. It's comparable to car crashes versus plane crashes. Your chance of dying in a car is higher per mile, but it rarely makes the news because deaths are piecemeal, unlike jet crashes.
It's not necessarily fair, but it's the way news works, setting cloud up for an ugly future.
From a business standpoint, you have to give Microsoft credit for staying on top for 4 decades. No other major tech company has done that. Even IBM didn't reign on high as long. The rapid pace of tech change usually grinds giants down.
Don't get me wrong, M$ is a conniving jerk, but they pulled off an unprecedented business feat.
Basically he's denying China cheats like the wind. To be fair, when USA industry was young, we played intellectual property games with Europe also.
But when you become a trading super-power, your scrappy "street-smarts" 3rd-world tendencies need to be corrected or you will face retaliation. You can no longer fly under the radar. China has yet to kick its bad habits.
Should we go back to that too because that was the claim to fame?
I'm just saying why it gained market share. Whether those consumer choices were wise is a different issue.
From a marketing standpoint, they gained popularity by doing X; but once popular, stopped doing X. Sounds like a risky strategy. Firefox took a hit when it wandered too far from its roots.
My opinion is many of these side features not directly related to browsing or niche preferences should be add-ons, not hard-wired into the base browser.
Chrome's claim to fame used to be simplicity and a light footprint. That's largely why people ditched IE and Firefox for it. It was sort of predictable Google would start using their browser market share for bloatWare and lockinWare.
However, most people agree on basic ethics--war, suffering, slavery, anarchy, and death is bad while progress towards shared societal goals is good. If you have those value judgments, you'll want to avoid societal collapse AND stagnation.
I don't see how that automatically dismisses "stagnation". Call it "equilibrium" instead; sounds better. Cavemen couldn't trigger Armageddon.
Again, I'm not proposing that as policy, only saying that science or logic doesn't automatically lead to "equilibrium" being bad/wrong, even with your added assumptions/goals as givens.
Here's an example of T's "negotiation" style. When he formed Trump Airlines, a dispute arose with a competitor airline. When T didn't like their proposed compromise, he started bad-mouthing their safety record, using arguably questionable statistics.
Normally the airlines don't advertise based on safety records because it hurts the entire industry by spooking customers. It's like reminding grocery shoppers what's in hot-dogs. Sales of all brands would take a hit.
So the other airline looked at T's real-estate record, and realized he picks nasty fights that appear to have dragged both parties down. If you don't share your soup on his terms, he'll piss in the pot and nobody gets any. Therefore, the competitor airline acquiesced to some degree. (Their actual reasoning was not made public, but it appears that's what happened based on the terms.)
Whether that technique scales to international deals is another matter. You may win a "battle" or two, but lose lots of longer-term goodwill such that it may not be a net beneficial strategy. Then again, long-term benefits may not be his goal.
Just imagining it makes sense -- conservatives generally want to embrace tradition and liberals want to change the world to make it a better place. Somewhere in the middle is good for society--too much change is chaos, and too little is stagnation.
Some argue stagnation may be a good thing. Some highly religious groups battle "the modern world" because they think we are diving face first into chaos and (perceived) moral decadence.
There is no absolute "law" of the science or the universe that says technical progress is a "good thing". Science can only make predictions at best, not give value judgments. It has no feelings.
Sure, we have more medicines, but also more people to feed, perhaps stretching our farms to a risky no-margin-for-error limit. Doomsday scenarios are endless. I'm not giving a preference here, only saying a case can be made.
And since the conservatives give us the tarriffs and wage and price controls, who is the liberal in the end?
Conservatives and GOP used to be in general more "free trade" than progressives and Democrats. T bucks that trend. That's sometimes why his political stances are labelled as "populism", although the term is a bit fuzzy. It generally means "anti-establishment". Being that neither party actually changed much in 3 decades with both trade and immigration (despite lip service), his aggressive focus on those issues effectively makes him anti-establishment.
Why are you confused? He pretty much explained how all this works in Art of the Deal. And regarding NK specifically, he laid out his strategy during the campaign. Now he's executing that strategy and the media is confused...
Sorry, but he was vague on details. I agree the US has been screwed on trade, but fixing it without triggering trade wars is not easy. T never laid out specific strategies, scenarios, and examples of how to do that. Or anything for that matter. Those who worked with him in business say he has an ad-hoc shoot-from-the-hip style. Perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't, or works in some circumstances but others. Regardless, he's never written or described anything that can be turned into a relatively clear deal-making algorithm. Yes, he can be tenacious, but often to his own detriment, according to some real-estate analysts. His successes can often be traced to his self-promotion abilities and sometimes charisma, rather than shrewd decisions themselves.
And his Art-of-the-Deal ghost writer admitted much of the book is fluff.
By the way, "temporarily exemptions" should have been "temporary exemptions" in my message.
Seriously, though, T is confusing and confounding other nations because of his flip-flops, surprise "temporarily exemptions", vagueness, etc. Today's proclamations maybe be irrelevant tomorrow via a new Tweet. Most world leaders are relatively careful, systematic planners and don't know what to make of his style.
Maybe there is a method to his madness. I wouldn't bet on it personally because it resembles trolling to me, but can't rule it out yet. It's an interesting experiment; I just hope us lab-rats survive it all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it's usually corporate espionage of other corporations, not gov't espionage of foreign non-military-related corporations. I think I would need to make a 5 x 5 grid to explain it.
For the most part, the US gov't does NOT swipe non-military secrets for the benefit of non-military US corporations, but China's gov't does. That's not the same as MS swiping GUI tech from Apple. The Chinese gov't is actively involved in non-military-related industrial espionage.
Perhaps both sides were doing underhanded things of their own flavor. But eventually mutually agreed-upon rules were worked out and both sides mostly stuck to the agreements, rather than the underhanded tit for underhanded tat like it was before.
That's mostly military tech. Everyone expects and does military espionage.
But China plays games on the commercial side. It would be like the US Federal Gov't breaking into Chinese OS companies and giving the trade secrets to Microsoft, or creating red-tape for foreign competitors to MS that MS itself doesn't have.
I agree there is bound to be a major breach of a major cloud provider that will damage cloud's reputation, creating a major P/R kick to the nuts.
I'm not saying cloud is necessarily less secure, only that breaches will affect a lot of companies at the same time, creating a P/R nightmare. It's comparable to car crashes versus plane crashes. Your chance of dying in a car is higher per mile, but it rarely makes the news because deaths are piecemeal, unlike jet crashes.
It's not necessarily fair, but it's the way news works, setting cloud up for an ugly future.
From a business standpoint, you have to give Microsoft credit for staying on top for 4 decades. No other major tech company has done that. Even IBM didn't reign on high as long. The rapid pace of tech change usually grinds giants down.
Don't get me wrong, M$ is a conniving jerk, but they pulled off an unprecedented business feat.
Basically he's denying China cheats like the wind. To be fair, when USA industry was young, we played intellectual property games with Europe also.
But when you become a trading super-power, your scrappy "street-smarts" 3rd-world tendencies need to be corrected or you will face retaliation. You can no longer fly under the radar. China has yet to kick its bad habits.
I'm just saying why it gained market share. Whether those consumer choices were wise is a different issue.
From a marketing standpoint, they gained popularity by doing X; but once popular, stopped doing X. Sounds like a risky strategy. Firefox took a hit when it wandered too far from its roots.
My opinion is many of these side features not directly related to browsing or niche preferences should be add-ons, not hard-wired into the base browser.
So we have to compete with China in creepiness?
Cave Trump did it in 20,000 BC!
Cable News Tablet said so! None of those fake smoke signals, like from burning Fox Pelts.
Chrome's claim to fame used to be simplicity and a light footprint. That's largely why people ditched IE and Firefox for it. It was sort of predictable Google would start using their browser market share for bloatWare and lockinWare.
That hasn't stopped orgs from buying more M$ for 30+ years. Why would it start now?
MS just makes orgs feel better because they know their competitors are also getting screwed at about the same time. Social animals prefer shared pain.
Dammit Jim, I'm a troll, not a pedant.
Virtual reality? It's a web browser, not Emacs.
"Deep-Learning" is in there (sometimes called "deep neural networks"). Actually, I missed IOT, not AI.
I'm boycotting slashdot's dupe-detection technology. I'm boycotting slashdot's dupe-detection technology.
It's not thousands, one guy merely made a bot that emulated thousands of researchers.
I don't see how that automatically dismisses "stagnation". Call it "equilibrium" instead; sounds better. Cavemen couldn't trigger Armageddon.
Again, I'm not proposing that as policy, only saying that science or logic doesn't automatically lead to "equilibrium" being bad/wrong, even with your added assumptions/goals as givens.
Haven't you heard of Qbit Blockchain Deep-Learning Microservice Serverless 4D.js Rendering?
Here's an example of T's "negotiation" style. When he formed Trump Airlines, a dispute arose with a competitor airline. When T didn't like their proposed compromise, he started bad-mouthing their safety record, using arguably questionable statistics.
Normally the airlines don't advertise based on safety records because it hurts the entire industry by spooking customers. It's like reminding grocery shoppers what's in hot-dogs. Sales of all brands would take a hit.
So the other airline looked at T's real-estate record, and realized he picks nasty fights that appear to have dragged both parties down. If you don't share your soup on his terms, he'll piss in the pot and nobody gets any. Therefore, the competitor airline acquiesced to some degree. (Their actual reasoning was not made public, but it appears that's what happened based on the terms.)
Whether that technique scales to international deals is another matter. You may win a "battle" or two, but lose lots of longer-term goodwill such that it may not be a net beneficial strategy. Then again, long-term benefits may not be his goal.
I for one welcome our Nigerian teapot overlords.
Some argue stagnation may be a good thing. Some highly religious groups battle "the modern world" because they think we are diving face first into chaos and (perceived) moral decadence.
There is no absolute "law" of the science or the universe that says technical progress is a "good thing". Science can only make predictions at best, not give value judgments. It has no feelings.
Sure, we have more medicines, but also more people to feed, perhaps stretching our farms to a risky no-margin-for-error limit. Doomsday scenarios are endless. I'm not giving a preference here, only saying a case can be made.
Conservatives and GOP used to be in general more "free trade" than progressives and Democrats. T bucks that trend. That's sometimes why his political stances are labelled as "populism", although the term is a bit fuzzy. It generally means "anti-establishment". Being that neither party actually changed much in 3 decades with both trade and immigration (despite lip service), his aggressive focus on those issues effectively makes him anti-establishment.
Sorry, but he was vague on details. I agree the US has been screwed on trade, but fixing it without triggering trade wars is not easy. T never laid out specific strategies, scenarios, and examples of how to do that. Or anything for that matter. Those who worked with him in business say he has an ad-hoc shoot-from-the-hip style. Perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't, or works in some circumstances but others. Regardless, he's never written or described anything that can be turned into a relatively clear deal-making algorithm. Yes, he can be tenacious, but often to his own detriment, according to some real-estate analysts. His successes can often be traced to his self-promotion abilities and sometimes charisma, rather than shrewd decisions themselves.
And his Art-of-the-Deal ghost writer admitted much of the book is fluff.
By the way, "temporarily exemptions" should have been "temporary exemptions" in my message.
That wasn't a typo, it's covfefe's brother.
Seriously, though, T is confusing and confounding other nations because of his flip-flops, surprise "temporarily exemptions", vagueness, etc. Today's proclamations maybe be irrelevant tomorrow via a new Tweet. Most world leaders are relatively careful, systematic planners and don't know what to make of his style.
I'm not going to even say T's unpredictable style "doesn't work"; for it's too early to judge. I'm merely saying that it's baffling the h$ll out of world leaders and negotiators.
Maybe there is a method to his madness. I wouldn't bet on it personally because it resembles trolling to me, but can't rule it out yet. It's an interesting experiment; I just hope us lab-rats survive it all.
Now they are a dictatorship. Xi booted opposition.