Never seen it? Obama uses it regularly. For example, he argued that destroying people's cars would help the economy because they'd buy new ones. He called it "cash for clunkers".
That's not broken windows. The economic growth was postulated to come from subsidizing purchases directly. The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy, but to improve the environment by destroying highly polluting cars. The two were linked, but the essence of the breaking windows fallacy isn't the mere association between an action which destroys property and economic growth, but the causal nexus between the act of destroying property and economic growth.
Just the other day there were people railing against Destructoid for complaining about ad blockers. Now, apparently as long as Google is involved, it is OK to allow ads to protect developers.
Or maybe the internet isn't just you and one other person, so that the fact that you saw someone on the internet railing against Destructoid and then later saw someone defending Google's position on ad blockers doesn't mean those two "someones" are the same person (or group of people).
Andy Rubin created Android. This is a big achievement.
And may well be why Rubin is moving out of Android; he may well be moving to a position in Google where he can create new things, rather than managing a relatively mature product.
What are the achievements of Sundar Pichai? [...] He looks like a career manager
Seems appropriate, for someone whose job is managing.
[Just because...]...I have my blinds up doesn't make it legal for you to stand in the street and watch my family dress ot bathe.
Well, no. That doesn't "make it legal". Its legal to start with, and the fact that there is is no law which actually criminalizes standing on a public property and observing events occurring within a nearby private dwelling is what fails to make it illegal.
They could have gone after the individual employees with threats of criminal prosecution (no, the "corporate veil" would not protect them) but that would not have gotten them any money.
Nor would it have been likely to produce criminal convictions, since recording unencrypted broadcasts that may happen to contain, e.g., passwords is not a crime.
Yes, it was a horrible tragedy that everyone involved probably wishes they could do over again.
Well, except the involved people that have repeatedly said they did exactly the right thing and would do the same thing again in the same circumstances, sure.
You really need to learn the difference between self executing and non-self executing treaties. Many treaties themselves are most certainly be law, without subsequent legislation.
Even a self-executing treaty can be overridden by a federal statute, though the Court generally won't read a statute as having this effect implicitly, only when the statute expressly states its intent to override the treaty provision.
While GP was incorrect to state that treaties are "LESS powerful than Law", they still are not akin to the Constitution which cannot be overridden by statute, so the idea present in TFS that the existence of the treaty commitments makes it impossible for the unlocking problem to be addressed by the US government remains wrong.
Don't assume that just because it's bad science it must absolutely be wrong.
But do assume that because its bad science on every point, there is no reason to believe that its true. Sure, the conclusion might be true -- just as much as it might have been true without the "research". But this paper does nothing to justify any greater belief in its conclusion than there would be with no evidence at all, because it is no evidence at all.
They are doing it because they want to do it. So if you are someone who relies on backwards compatibility, cross-compatibility, or some feature in X that they don't care about, then you should realize that this is basically the guys at Canonical giving you the middle finger.
This probably wouldn't be as bad if it weren't just a little while ago that Canonical was touting how they were totally committed to Wayland, all the while working on Mir behind the scenes.
Eh? Netflix seems to work just fine on my Android tablets, and I'm pretty sure it's not using Silverlight there. Probably doesn't use it on the various Smart TVs and Blu-Ray players that support it, either.
On all of those, its by way of a proprietary app that handles the DRM for the streaming video.
Is this just a case of Google deciding to enable something that other people were using already?
Its a case of--as TFA states--Google providing in Chrome a mechanism for supporting DRM along with HTML5 streaming video in the browser.
So that Wolfram, who heads a firm whose product (Wolfram Alpha) is a key part of the set of cloud services backing Apple's cloud-based voice assistant for mobile devices (Siri) has "jumped on the bandwagon for cloud, mobile devices" is supposed to be news?
Next we're going to see a headline about how Steve Ballmer has jumped on the bandwagon for desktop, office software.
HTML is not XML, stop trying to force that crap. Replace HTML with something not terrible and not based on XML bloat.
Okay, how about HTML, then which isn't based on XML bloat (HTML is based on SGML, and predates XML, although an XML serialization of the same content -- XHTML -- was introduced later, sold as a "better" successor to plain-old HTML, but with HTML5 pretty much got relegated to an parallel alternative serialization format rather than an replacement.)
We're deprecating the Mayan method since the world didn't end at the end of their time...
The Mayan calendar doesn't end just because one cycle (and not even the longest cycle) in their calendar system ended. Its like saying that Gregorian calendar ended just because we reached the end of a month (say, August), even though the Gregorian calendar has longer cycles than months (e.g., years), and doesn't have any particular end-of-world prophecy associated with the end of the cycle at issue.
The whole "end of the world" thing was a New Age myth inspired in part by Mayan legends about the end of an previous creation and the expiration of a particular cycle, not a Mayan belief.
In the world where, despite their different core competencies in terms of engineering ways to attract non-paying users to whom their customers can advertise, both of them actually make the vast majority of their revenue selling online advertising.
Oh, right, they've got those ten Google+ users.
Google+ isn't where Google competes with Facebook directly for money. Social network users aren't either company's paying customers.
But really, that isn't very relevant to the point I was making: the drones have been used in ways that are very clearly in violation of treaty, U.S. law, and international law.
Please cite the clear facts (not supposition) and specific provisions of treaty, U.S. law, and international law justifying this claim.
So your theory is that cops who are willing to beat you up and take your camera will be unwilling to beat you up and take your geek glasses?
I think the reference is more to the fact that, as a device that is normally connected and uploading to the internet, the fact that beating someone up and taking their "geek glasses" won't actually let you seize and destroy the recording, and just makes it more likely that, on top of whatever they were recording that made you want to seize the device getting out, the video of your beating them up to seize the device will also get out, which sort of removes the whole incentive for the beating-and-seizing behavior in the first place.
They want to support the "journalists" other wise it would mean "everyone" this way they can come back and arrest/prosecute non journalists.
This argument becomes harder to maintain when you read the actual government brief, and realize that while Ars Technica (and, following them, the Slashdot summary) use language that makes it seem like a government defense of special privileges for journalists, the actual brief takes the exact opposite position, arguing "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street" and "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public’s and the media’s rights to record here."
TFS is (and so is TFA) misleading when it says that the government argues that the Constitution "prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights", as the actual brief filed by the Justice Department explicitly argues (heck, its a bolded section heading) that "Members of the Public and the Media Are Both Entitled to Protection Under the First Amendment", and, more specifically, "The First Amendment protections afforded members of the public and press when recording public police activity are coextensive" and "Although Mr. Garcia alleges facts here that show that he is a member of the press, this makes no difference to the analysis under the First Amendment",and "Courts have long held that recordings made by private citizens of police conduct or other items of public interest are entitled to First Amendment protection".
The DoJ isn't arguing that police can't arrest journalists from recording police activity, the DoJ is arguing that "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street", and that "core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis" for discretionary charges such as disturbing the peace, etc., and, finally, that "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media" without distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not broken windows. The economic growth was postulated to come from subsidizing purchases directly. The property destruction was not designed to improve the economy, but to improve the environment by destroying highly polluting cars. The two were linked, but the essence of the breaking windows fallacy isn't the mere association between an action which destroys property and economic growth, but the causal nexus between the act of destroying property and economic growth.
Or maybe the internet isn't just you and one other person, so that the fact that you saw someone on the internet railing against Destructoid and then later saw someone defending Google's position on ad blockers doesn't mean those two "someones" are the same person (or group of people).
And may well be why Rubin is moving out of Android; he may well be moving to a position in Google where he can create new things, rather than managing a relatively mature product.
Seems appropriate, for someone whose job is managing.
Well, no. That doesn't "make it legal". Its legal to start with, and the fact that there is is no law which actually criminalizes standing on a public property and observing events occurring within a nearby private dwelling is what fails to make it illegal.
Nor would it have been likely to produce criminal convictions, since recording unencrypted broadcasts that may happen to contain, e.g., passwords is not a crime.
Well, except the involved people that have repeatedly said they did exactly the right thing and would do the same thing again in the same circumstances, sure.
Even a self-executing treaty can be overridden by a federal statute, though the Court generally won't read a statute as having this effect implicitly, only when the statute expressly states its intent to override the treaty provision.
While GP was incorrect to state that treaties are "LESS powerful than Law", they still are not akin to the Constitution which cannot be overridden by statute, so the idea present in TFS that the existence of the treaty commitments makes it impossible for the unlocking problem to be addressed by the US government remains wrong.
But do assume that because its bad science on every point, there is no reason to believe that its true. Sure, the conclusion might be true -- just as much as it might have been true without the "research". But this paper does nothing to justify any greater belief in its conclusion than there would be with no evidence at all, because it is no evidence at all.
Well, arguably, they are -- via ChromeOS.
But not in a desktop OS that has a history as a traditional-style desktop Linux distribution.
This probably wouldn't be as bad if it weren't just a little while ago that Canonical was touting how they were totally committed to Wayland, all the while working on Mir behind the scenes.
On all of those, its by way of a proprietary app that handles the DRM for the streaming video.
Its a case of--as TFA states--Google providing in Chrome a mechanism for supporting DRM along with HTML5 streaming video in the browser.
One word:
Woooosh!
No, Apple's legal team for the case (from the firm of Gibson, Dunne & Crutcher, LLP) are not in-house, salaries staff.
So that Wolfram, who heads a firm whose product (Wolfram Alpha) is a key part of the set of cloud services backing Apple's cloud-based voice assistant for mobile devices (Siri) has "jumped on the bandwagon for cloud, mobile devices" is supposed to be news?
Next we're going to see a headline about how Steve Ballmer has jumped on the bandwagon for desktop, office software.
Okay, how about HTML, then which isn't based on XML bloat (HTML is based on SGML, and predates XML, although an XML serialization of the same content -- XHTML -- was introduced later, sold as a "better" successor to plain-old HTML, but with HTML5 pretty much got relegated to an parallel alternative serialization format rather than an replacement.)
Money.
Again, money.
The Mayan calendar doesn't end just because one cycle (and not even the longest cycle) in their calendar system ended. Its like saying that Gregorian calendar ended just because we reached the end of a month (say, August), even though the Gregorian calendar has longer cycles than months (e.g., years), and doesn't have any particular end-of-world prophecy associated with the end of the cycle at issue.
The whole "end of the world" thing was a New Age myth inspired in part by Mayan legends about the end of an previous creation and the expiration of a particular cycle, not a Mayan belief.
Corporations don't have members.
In the world where, despite their different core competencies in terms of engineering ways to attract non-paying users to whom their customers can advertise, both of them actually make the vast majority of their revenue selling online advertising.
Google+ isn't where Google competes with Facebook directly for money. Social network users aren't either company's paying customers.
Please cite the clear facts (not supposition) and specific provisions of treaty, U.S. law, and international law justifying this claim.
HuffPo has been a bastion of exaggerated sensationalism since before AOL bought them, and much worse since.
The fact that they don't have the consistent ideological bent of, say, Fox News or Mother Jones doesn't make them reliable.
I think the reference is more to the fact that, as a device that is normally connected and uploading to the internet, the fact that beating someone up and taking their "geek glasses" won't actually let you seize and destroy the recording, and just makes it more likely that, on top of whatever they were recording that made you want to seize the device getting out, the video of your beating them up to seize the device will also get out, which sort of removes the whole incentive for the beating-and-seizing behavior in the first place.
This argument becomes harder to maintain when you read the actual government brief, and realize that while Ars Technica (and, following them, the Slashdot summary) use language that makes it seem like a government defense of special privileges for journalists, the actual brief takes the exact opposite position, arguing "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street" and "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public’s and the media’s rights to record here."
TFS is (and so is TFA) misleading when it says that the government argues that the Constitution "prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights", as the actual brief filed by the Justice Department explicitly argues (heck, its a bolded section heading) that "Members of the Public and the Media Are Both Entitled to Protection Under the First Amendment", and, more specifically, "The First Amendment protections afforded members of the public and press when recording public police activity are coextensive" and "Although Mr. Garcia alleges facts here that show that he is a member of the press, this makes no difference to the analysis under the First Amendment",and "Courts have long held that recordings made by private citizens of police conduct or other items of public interest are entitled to First Amendment protection".
The DoJ isn't arguing that police can't arrest journalists from recording police activity, the DoJ is arguing that "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street", and that "core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis" for discretionary charges such as disturbing the peace, etc., and, finally, that "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media" without distinction.
Well, actually, they probably mean glacial period, which includes -- but is not limited to -- the glacial maximum.