Maybe they don't. Maybe they happened to e-mail someone who does use Gmail. So, their e-mail is scanned without ever accepting the Gmail T&Cs.
Yes, so? That's like complaining that you sent a postcard through the mail to someone, and the person they hired to pickup, read over the envelopes of enveloped mail and the entirety of unenveloped mail, and deliver their mail to them actually read your mail.
Kind of amazing that microsoft has had the nerve to go after Google's privacy practices, when its own regarding Bing generally arent as good.
Attacking your opponent, preemptively, where you are week is a fairly common tactic in political campaigns, especially for candidates that don't have a clear positive message to sell. It associates a negative which you might be vulnerable to with your opponent in the public eye, and makes it look (at least, for people who don't spend the effort to dig for the substance, but that's most of the public) like they are just engaging in "me too" attacks if they do point out your weakness.
It is probably not even a little bit coincidental that the "Scroogled" campaign coincided with Microsoft bringing long-time political consultant/campaign manager Mark Penn onboard as an executive.
Except that the majority of the government backed researchers already make their data available to the public
A substantial share of government-backed research is done by the agency which already had the mandate that the petition sought to extend to other agencies.
So what?
So your example isn't as great as you think it is.
Its a perfect example of the response to a petition exceeding what GGP asked for with regard to seeing of the petitions being at least "seriously discussed". You should probably not post based on unwarranted assumptions about what people think.
Why are they investigating the effects of "ban on cell-phone unlocking." Why aren't they investigating a BAN on Celphone Locking?
Because a "ban on cellphone locking" is what we have, so its what it is necessary to examine the effects of.
A ban on cellphone locking would be a potential remedy, if the results of the investigation were that cellphone locking had effects so bad that it needed to be prohibited as a practice.
Which goes a long way towards explaining the wrongheadedness of the decision, and should give a fine hint as to exactly what the FCC Chairman can expect to do about it. (Nothing.)
The fact that the Librarian of Congress can issue a directive making it illegal under the DMCA for consumers to unlock phones that have been locked by providers does not mean that the FCC can't issue an order under its authority with regard to telecommunications prohibiting wireless vendors from locking phones in the first place, which would render the issue of a DMCA exemption allowing unlocking locked phones moot.
Asking the FCC to investigate and explore possible action is, in a sense, more than the petition called for (as it called on the President to ask the Librarian of Congress to reverse the decision and, failing that, lobby Congress to take legislative action to reverse the LoC action.)
can't the FCC go to obama and ask him to do something? or the congres??
Well, it would be pretty dumb to ask the President and/or Congress to change the FCC's existing authority with regard to this issue that they have not previously concerned themselves with without first ascertaining what their existing authority is and whether or not it is sufficient for any action they feel it is necessary to take.
why sit there and pee in their pants on this?
The head of the FCC stating at the beginning of getting an assignment to look into an issue that he isn't, without having yet explored the issue, sure what authority the agency has to take action on the issue isn't the same as wetting their pants.
As soon as I see one of those "public input" things being seriously discussed (and I don't mean a publicity "see, we are talking about it" stunt on C-SPAN) and not just laughed off in the cafeteria, we can start talking.
like AC already wrote, if they can't do shit, they can gtfo and give taxpayers the $350million dollars back.
No, actually, while it may not be clear whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate cell phone locking/unlocking, its pretty clear that the FCC doesn't have the authority to decide to disband or to redistribute appropriate funds to individual taxpayers.
For either changing the jurisdiction of the FCC, or abolishing it and doing something else with the funds, you need action by either a majority of each house of Congress (and, in practice, at least the acqueiscence of a full 3/5 of the Senate), or by 2/3 of each house of Congress if the President disagrees.
(Of course, the question of the jurisdiction of the FCC isn't a choice between "dealing with cell phone unlocking" or "nothing".)
What would stop them from outright forbidding cell phone locking?
Regulatory agencies are empowered by specific positive grants of power. The appropriate question is "what would allow them to...", not "what would stop them from..."
Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do [fcc.gov] and specifically to
The scope of legal authority of a regulatory agency is not, surprising as it might seen, "everything that might plausibly fit within the description the agency provides of its general function on its website."
Whether or not an agency has the legal authority to take action on a specific question which it has not previously addressed is something that the head of the agency might want to consult with the agencies legal staff before stating. Its, IMO, quite appropriate for Genachowski to acknowledge that he is unclear on whether the FCC has authority in this area if that has not been examined.
There are a number of free compressors available that already cover the spectrum well, for example lzop, gzip, bzip2, xz (in order of better compression and more resource consumption).
Those (except, naturally, gzip) are not compatible with gzip decompressors (of the type found in virtually every browser), so they are useless for the main use case for this, which is as for server side compression for web content that is completely invisible, compared to gzip, to web clients (requiring no changes and having similar-to-traditional-gzip decompression time), allowing reduced bandwidth (and, assuming the content is precompressed, which given the speed it better be, reduced storage space for the host) saving the host money and reducing client-side latency and bandwidth use.
One order of magnitude slower??? Then this is just stupid. There are compressors in this speed class that do far better than zlib.
And still can be decompressed by anything that can decompress gzip with no modification on the decompresser?
(Note that this is important for many use cases, because browsers typically can handle decompressing gzipped HTTP content, so if you have compatible-but-better compression, you can deploy for your server content and browsers handle it with no changes on the client side.)
Yes, you are missing that she didn't second guess the jury's factual determination, she "identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award".
There is a difference between matters of law and matters of fact (in a jury trial in the US, the former is the purview of the judge and the latter that of the jury, generally.)
Never ran actual tests myself, but I've been told 7-zip's encoder already does DEFLATE better than zlib. I wonder how Zopfli looks compared to it.
The PDF linked in TFS is a paper which has detailed results of the testing, including time and size comparison with other DEFLATE implementations, including 7-zips.
Yes, and gzip isn't so slow that it can only be used on static content. Even if you always generate into a cached version, do you really want to spend 81x the CPU time to gain a few percent in compression, and delay the content load on the client each time that happens?
Why would you recompress static content every time it is accessed? For frequently-accessed, static content (like, for one example, the widely-used JavaScript libraries that Google hosts permanently), you compress it once, and then gain the benefit on every transfer.
For dynamic content, you probably don't want to do this, but if you're Google, you can afford to spend money getting people to research the best tool for very specific jobs.
"... without any additional requirements on the client side."
Except for the 2-3 ordeers of magnitude longer to compress.
For server-hosted content, compression is obviously done on the server side, so that's not an additional requirement on the client side.
If it takes you 5 seconds to compress that cache page, with zopfli it could take you up to 8 minutes to compress.
You probably wouldn't use this for time-sensitive, dynamic things like a cache page. You use it for completely static things, like, say, Google's hosted copies of stable versions of jQuery and other popular JavaScript libraries, and you do it once when you start hosting the content, not on the fly.
I can't imagine what kind of content you're hosting that'd justify 3 orders of magnitude compression time to gain 3% compression.
In anything that is static enough that it will be downloaded many times in its lifetime, and not time sensitive enough that it needs to be instantly available when generated, very small gains in compression efficiency are worth paying very large prices in compression.
If you, for just one of many Google-relevant examples, host a fair number of popular JavaScript libraries (used on both your own sites -- among the most popular in the world -- and vast numbers of third party sites that use your hosted versions) and commit, once you have accept a particular stable version of a library, to hosting it indefinitely, you've got a bunch of assets that are going to be static for a very long time, and accessed very large numbers of times. One time cost to compress is going to be dwarfed by even a miniscule savings in transfer costs for those.
I have no problem with DLC WITH game. What makes that different than the old Shareware days where games were sold in parts?
You mean, the Shareware days when you got a free playable-but-limited demo, but had to pay to upgrade to the full version?
What makes it different is that is that you are paying for the piece that, under the Sharewarer model, was a free teaser to evaluate whether you were interested in paying money for the full product, and then paying again if you want the full product.
People like to act like we should go back to "the good ol' days" before microtransactions but they forget that arcades were the original change munchers.
Industry would like to revive the change-munching model, but they forget that once the alternative of pay-once-and-own games via consoles and PCs (in the broad sense, not specific to one hardware/OS platform) became accessible, arcades began their long decline.
They should really call it what it is, "austerity".
No, austerity would be a spending reduction which selectively targetted programs based on a mutual agreement that the level of spending should be lower, and which applied some sense of priorities to choosing what programs should be cut to meet that goal.
(While "austerity" has been a dismal failure at achieving its goals most times governments have tried it, though in the developing world the failure is often masked by the effects of the huge foreign investment that are used as bribes to get governments to adopt austerity measures, it at least has the benefit of being something that is designed to serve a goal by being implemented as policy, rather than something whose entire design purpose -- from both sides -- is as a tool to get the other side to compromise because surely, no one would ever let it go into effect, which is then allowed to go into effect because both sides prefer it to anything the other side will agree to.)
I see Sequestration as a good thing. Think of all dead wood that is being eliminated because of it.
None. Because its not actually a legislated policy change but a spending-cut-without-program-change, there's no actual elimination of wasteful programs, or focus on maintaining good ones.
Of course there are going to be some casualties. But I am sure the shinning stars have read the book "who moved my cheese" and are looking for a better job.
The casualties are going to be the people the government is supposed to be serving. But I am sure the shining stars are looking for a better country.
Ever notice that the only things they ever cut are the services, never the wasted people who do nothing useful?
No. Ever notice that virtually every article about the sequester notes estimates of thousands of federal employees, who are clearly people (whether or not they are "wasted") being furloughed?
Slashdot Mirror
Its not to support multiplayer. Apparently, much of the game engine is online. Plus, you know, DRM.
Stuff you email to someone else isn't private from them or the people they voluntarily choose to share it with.
Yes, so? That's like complaining that you sent a postcard through the mail to someone, and the person they hired to pickup, read over the envelopes of enveloped mail and the entirety of unenveloped mail, and deliver their mail to them actually read your mail.
Attacking your opponent, preemptively, where you are week is a fairly common tactic in political campaigns, especially for candidates that don't have a clear positive message to sell. It associates a negative which you might be vulnerable to with your opponent in the public eye, and makes it look (at least, for people who don't spend the effort to dig for the substance, but that's most of the public) like they are just engaging in "me too" attacks if they do point out your weakness.
It is probably not even a little bit coincidental that the "Scroogled" campaign coincided with Microsoft bringing long-time political consultant/campaign manager Mark Penn onboard as an executive.
A substantial share of government-backed research is done by the agency which already had the mandate that the petition sought to extend to other agencies.
So what?
Its a perfect example of the response to a petition exceeding what GGP asked for with regard to seeing of the petitions being at least "seriously discussed". You should probably not post based on unwarranted assumptions about what people think.
Because a "ban on cellphone locking" is what we have, so its what it is necessary to examine the effects of.
A ban on cellphone locking would be a potential remedy, if the results of the investigation were that cellphone locking had effects so bad that it needed to be prohibited as a practice.
The fact that the Librarian of Congress can issue a directive making it illegal under the DMCA for consumers to unlock phones that have been locked by providers does not mean that the FCC can't issue an order under its authority with regard to telecommunications prohibiting wireless vendors from locking phones in the first place, which would render the issue of a DMCA exemption allowing unlocking locked phones moot.
Asking the FCC to investigate and explore possible action is, in a sense, more than the petition called for (as it called on the President to ask the Librarian of Congress to reverse the decision and, failing that, lobby Congress to take legislative action to reverse the LoC action.)
Well, it would be pretty dumb to ask the President and/or Congress to change the FCC's existing authority with regard to this issue that they have not previously concerned themselves with without first ascertaining what their existing authority is and whether or not it is sufficient for any action they feel it is necessary to take.
The head of the FCC stating at the beginning of getting an assignment to look into an issue that he isn't, without having yet explored the issue, sure what authority the agency has to take action on the issue isn't the same as wetting their pants.
How about, actual policy directives in response to one, which goes beyond even "being seriously discussed".
No, actually, while it may not be clear whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate cell phone locking/unlocking, its pretty clear that the FCC doesn't have the authority to decide to disband or to redistribute appropriate funds to individual taxpayers.
For either changing the jurisdiction of the FCC, or abolishing it and doing something else with the funds, you need action by either a majority of each house of Congress (and, in practice, at least the acqueiscence of a full 3/5 of the Senate), or by 2/3 of each house of Congress if the President disagrees.
(Of course, the question of the jurisdiction of the FCC isn't a choice between "dealing with cell phone unlocking" or "nothing".)
Regulatory agencies are empowered by specific positive grants of power. The appropriate question is "what would allow them to...", not "what would stop them from..."
The scope of legal authority of a regulatory agency is not, surprising as it might seen, "everything that might plausibly fit within the description the agency provides of its general function on its website."
Whether or not an agency has the legal authority to take action on a specific question which it has not previously addressed is something that the head of the agency might want to consult with the agencies legal staff before stating. Its, IMO, quite appropriate for Genachowski to acknowledge that he is unclear on whether the FCC has authority in this area if that has not been examined.
Those (except, naturally, gzip) are not compatible with gzip decompressors (of the type found in virtually every browser), so they are useless for the main use case for this, which is as for server side compression for web content that is completely invisible, compared to gzip, to web clients (requiring no changes and having similar-to-traditional-gzip decompression time), allowing reduced bandwidth (and, assuming the content is precompressed, which given the speed it better be, reduced storage space for the host) saving the host money and reducing client-side latency and bandwidth use.
A key use case of this for server-browser compression, which is compatibility with gzip decompression is important.
And still can be decompressed by anything that can decompress gzip with no modification on the decompresser?
(Note that this is important for many use cases, because browsers typically can handle decompressing gzipped HTTP content, so if you have compatible-but-better compression, you can deploy for your server content and browsers handle it with no changes on the client side.)
Yes, you are missing that she didn't second guess the jury's factual determination, she "identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award".
There is a difference between matters of law and matters of fact (in a jury trial in the US, the former is the purview of the judge and the latter that of the jury, generally.)
The PDF linked in TFS is a paper which has detailed results of the testing, including time and size comparison with other DEFLATE implementations, including 7-zips.
Why would you recompress static content every time it is accessed? For frequently-accessed, static content (like, for one example, the widely-used JavaScript libraries that Google hosts permanently), you compress it once, and then gain the benefit on every transfer.
For dynamic content, you probably don't want to do this, but if you're Google, you can afford to spend money getting people to research the best tool for very specific jobs.
For server-hosted content, compression is obviously done on the server side, so that's not an additional requirement on the client side.
You probably wouldn't use this for time-sensitive, dynamic things like a cache page. You use it for completely static things, like, say, Google's hosted copies of stable versions of jQuery and other popular JavaScript libraries, and you do it once when you start hosting the content, not on the fly.
In anything that is static enough that it will be downloaded many times in its lifetime, and not time sensitive enough that it needs to be instantly available when generated, very small gains in compression efficiency are worth paying very large prices in compression.
If you, for just one of many Google-relevant examples, host a fair number of popular JavaScript libraries (used on both your own sites -- among the most popular in the world -- and vast numbers of third party sites that use your hosted versions) and commit, once you have accept a particular stable version of a library, to hosting it indefinitely, you've got a bunch of assets that are going to be static for a very long time, and accessed very large numbers of times. One time cost to compress is going to be dwarfed by even a miniscule savings in transfer costs for those.
You mean, the Shareware days when you got a free playable-but-limited demo, but had to pay to upgrade to the full version?
What makes it different is that is that you are paying for the piece that, under the Sharewarer model, was a free teaser to evaluate whether you were interested in paying money for the full product, and then paying again if you want the full product.
Industry would like to revive the change-munching model, but they forget that once the alternative of pay-once-and-own games via consoles and PCs (in the broad sense, not specific to one hardware/OS platform) became accessible, arcades began their long decline.
No, austerity would be a spending reduction which selectively targetted programs based on a mutual agreement that the level of spending should be lower, and which applied some sense of priorities to choosing what programs should be cut to meet that goal.
(While "austerity" has been a dismal failure at achieving its goals most times governments have tried it, though in the developing world the failure is often masked by the effects of the huge foreign investment that are used as bribes to get governments to adopt austerity measures, it at least has the benefit of being something that is designed to serve a goal by being implemented as policy, rather than something whose entire design purpose -- from both sides -- is as a tool to get the other side to compromise because surely, no one would ever let it go into effect, which is then allowed to go into effect because both sides prefer it to anything the other side will agree to.)
None. Because its not actually a legislated policy change but a spending-cut-without-program-change, there's no actual elimination of wasteful programs, or focus on maintaining good ones.
The casualties are going to be the people the government is supposed to be serving. But I am sure the shining stars are looking for a better country.
No. Ever notice that virtually every article about the sequester notes estimates of thousands of federal employees, who are clearly people (whether or not they are "wasted") being furloughed?