The problem with G+ is that Google just copied Facebook, there is nothing new or interesting there.
The problem is that the measure treats Google+ as a "site" which is Google's social offering, but Google+ isn't a site and is only a part of Google's interlinked social offerings. Some aspects of G+ have their own pages, others are features that are integrated into a number of Google services, and a number of other Google services have social features tied to the same account/profile structure but which are neither part of the G+ branded pages nor referred to as G+ features.
I predict that there will be a Facebook-killer, but it will have to go where Google is afraid to go, it will be mostly a placeholder for content that you post where you want on the internet.
How is that someplace Google is afraid to go? Discovery and organization of content posted elsewhere on the internet is pretty much Google's core competency, and integrating that with social profiles is exactly what Google is doing with the G+-linked social features in News and Search.
The RSA conference, like most industry conferences, is in very large part a sales conference for industry products. There's no reason for it to be particularly secure (obviously, they want to maintain some security to maintain ticket prices and the marketing value of the information gathered along with those sales), a few extra people coming in without paying isn't a huge deal (whereas intrusive security measures that inconvenience legitimate ticketed attendees would be.)
Its not like the conference presents eyes-only sensitive material that only ticketed attendees are cleared for and that there is some danger to the conference sponsors if anyone outside gets wind of it. Just because its a conference about security practices and products doesn't mean that it somehow has any particular high-security needs.
I've never really understood what role PayPal plays. It's like a bank, but apparently not covered with any kind of regulations nor in fact any laws at all, with a reputation for stopping payments and confiscating money on your account on a whim.
PayPal plays the role letting on-line retailers that can't be bothered to build their own processes and infrastructure to deal with payment processing outsource payment processing and let PayPal deal with the details.
I think the main advantage (for retailers) of PayPal and similar services is that they lower the entry cost to online retail. The main advantage for customers is, well, some retailers use it, so your choice is use it or don't have the option of buying from those retailers.
Go back and reread GP carefully. You are confusing Google with Google+ (or asking a question about a claim that was never made in GP.)
Google (or, at least, the subset of services and features which rely on or are enhanced when used with Google Accounts) is Google's social network. G+ is just branding on a couple of the new features, some of which have their own set of pages, some of which are features embedded in existing services.
Comparing the G+specific pages (whether by time spent on them or by any other metric) against the whole of a competing social networking offering is missing the point in a pretty big way.
Not really. Social networks are not cheap to run, and they barely can gain any ad revenue if all you do is go in and out once a day.
The Google+ "site" (i.e., the collection of G+specific web pages) isn't the Google+ social network. The social features of Google predate G+, and G+ features are in Google services outside of the G+ "site". G+ is a feature set, the thing that rightly compares to Facebook, MySpace, etc., is the whole suite of Google services that are used with a logged in account.
Google is boasting that more than 90 million people have signed up for its Google+. Those are pretty impressive numbers. I mean, if you had 90 million people at your disposal, you could do anything. You'd rule the Internet. Except there's one little problem: No one is using the site.
Google+ isn't a distinct site, its a pervasive social layer integrated across a variety of Google services. Insofar as + is designed for stickiness at all, its designed to increase stickiness across the whole set of Google pages, not just the handful of + specific pages. (Though I'm not sure that + is designed for stickiness at all, as Google seems more to design to be a place people come back to rather than a place people stay.)
A person cannot be expected to know the law in all 200 or so countries and abide by them all.
Perhaps a person should not be, but, in fact, most sovereign states do not categorically prohibit extraterritorial application of their laws. Even when theoretically applicable under the nations laws, extraterritorial applications aren't often pursued for offenses that aren't fairly major from the perspective of the government at the time, but that's a matter of priorities, not theoretical limits.
that does raise the question of why a doctor would not prescribe sleeping pills to someone who is having a lot of trouble sleeping?
As is the case in many areas of medicine, different doctors will have different medical judgement about when the risks outweigh the benefits of prescription sleeping pills, when to recommend non-prescription remedies (and which remedies), and patients will vary in how the comply with and respond to non-prescription remedies.
The only way to conclusively prove this would be to take patients who are going to be prescribed sleeping pills, split them into two while adjusting for other controls and have one group take the pills and other placebos and then monitor them.
Obviously, this is the best (in terms of quality of evidence) way to get strong results, but its a difference in degree rather than kind from any other statistically controlled experiment and doesn't provide "conclusive proof" of causation in way which presents a nice, neat binary distinction from other methods of investigation.
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA.
Given the evidence of interaction between Assange and Manning that the government has said it has, presumably the basis of any charges would be Manning's offenses, Assange's interaction with Manning, and 18 USC Sec. 2:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Though there a range of other possible avenues to liability that aren't foreclosed by the issues you raised besides that one.
I can see why you would think that, but the science doesn't confirm what you're thinking.
The only study I've seen (quite a while go) showed talking on a hands-free phone and carrying on a conversation with a passenger to both be about equal in effect on driving, and both had very serious effects. Particularly, both appeared to contribute to a very significant tunnel-vision effect in which drivers lost much awareness of events anywhere except directly ahead of the car (and had lesser, though still notable, reductions in facility in dealing with hazards originating directly in front of the care, as well.)
The most interesting thing in this article for me is lifespan. If I buy a phone with a funky feature I expect that feature to be active for the life of the phone - two to five years. However, if I buy a car, I would expect that all the features keep working for the life of the car - which is a lot longer.
People that buy new luxury cars also tend turn them over ~3 years or so.
What is going to happen if in five or ten years time, Apple decides that Siri wasn't the right direction and makes something else? It comes back to the old DRM needing to be supported for the life of the product. What would happen to all the cars with this embedded if the servers were turned off?
By then, the people who bought new Mercedes-Benz cars with Siri when they were introduced to get the latest and greatest will, in general, be more than ready to sell them and buy whatever the new latest-and-greatest is. If Apple actually discontinues Siri service entirely, that will have a minor hit in the resale value of the cars, which, again, most of the people who would have bought new luxury cars in the first place won't even notice much when trading them in.
Yes I saw those, and no they are not the same as having categories for genres.
If you meant "genres of fictional subject matter", you probably should have said that and not "types of live action films", particularly when, as you claim here, you were aware of the fact that the latter was false.
This isn't a DMCA notice, or a case of someone filing (under penalty of perjury) a notice that they own the material and demanding you take it down.
No, but it does seem to be a clear-cut libel: a false, damaging claim made by a party who knows, or reasonably should know, that it is false, that causes damage to the party about whom the false claim (of using copyright protected material) is made.
It may also be a breach of the contract between Google and the purported content owner, but that's a different issue,
The idea behind methadone is that you're not supposed to keep using it.
No, it's not.
You use it when detoxing to gradually step down, but surprise surprise, heroin addicts don't use it as intended.
There are two main uses of methadone. One is, as you describe, for detoxification. The other is for long-term maintenance (see, e.g., this CDC fact sheet.)
There is no special category for romance, comedy, action or other types of live action film
Untrue. The categories for films (aside from Best Picture) are:
Best Animated Film Best Animated Short Film Best Documentary Feature Best Documentary Short Best Live Action Short Film
Except for the first two those are all types of live-action film (or, at a minimum, types of film that can include live-action films), and except for the last they are distinguished thematically.
The divide between those who grew up with the internet and those who did not is huge . You can see it in policy debates and philosophical problems: the previous generation thinks the internet is a neat toy, while the native generation thinks it is as essential as the air we breathe.
Those who "grew up with" (e.g., had at a very young age) access to the internet barely show up in policy debates, as most of them aren't even old enough to vote.
The big thing is that we still haven't collectively decided what the internet is for.
Well, we've at least narrowed the options. Google (quotes included) "the internet is for", and you'll find that there are basically two prominent ways of ending that phrase, the second of which is "everyone".
The immigrants focus on its ubiquity and ease of use while the natives focus on communication and collaboration. Real-world applications need not apply.
Ubiquity, ease of use, communication, and collaboration are all features which are fairly central to real world applications of all types, and the latter two can be real-world applications in their own right.
Do you think they are unable to set a cookie that remembers your identify even after you log off?
I don't think a cookie that remembers the identity of the last Google Account user that was logged into a browser is a particularly reliable indicator of the identity of the current browser user on a machine that has multiple users.
Obviously, they could associate not-logged-in searches with a Google Account based on all kinds of criteria -- IP address, presence of a cookie, etc. They could even randomly associate non-logged in searches to an account.
But none of those methods actually reliably associate the searches of the not-logged-in Google Account user who is, in fact, performing the search with their Google Account.
Granted, it's not foolproof, but the EFF claims that 84% of users can be identified by browser characteristics
First, being wrong in 1 in 6 cases is not merely "not foolproof", but its fairly inaccurate.
Second, what the radically unscientific test referred to actually demonstrated is that 84% of visits (not visitors) to a web site had browser characteristics that didn't exactly match a database of tested browser characteristics. It has no way of identifying whether those visits (whether the ones with unique browser characteristics or not) were from the same or different users as other visits.
That doesn't say anything at all about the utility of using those browser characteristics to identify users, since nothing in the test relates actual users to those visits or the associated browser characteristics. (One user can easily have many different sets of browser characteristics, and vice versa, without any impact on the results of that test in terms of the uniqueness in browser characteristics among visits to that EFF site.)
So, while the EFF may make a claim about the identifiability of users based on those results, the results themselves don't even remotely support any conclusion about users.
I don't think that's true, Google *can* associate your searches with your account whether or not you are logged on.
They can associate searches with your account when you aren't logged on, but they don't know that they were done by you or by anyone who would have access to your account, so doing so would be somewhat pointless.
Even assuming you have a single machine with a static IP, its quite possible that machine has multiple users, and that the people using your browser when you aren't logged in aren't you. In fact, its possible that multiple different Google Accounts are regularly used from the same machine, leaving Google no reliable way to associate non-logged-in searches with a single Google Account even on the (shaky) assumption that all searches from that machine are linked to the holder of oneof the Google Accounts which are sometimes logged into from that machine.
No. But in this case, the difference is enough to warrant the question marks: it *should* cost a lot less to simply develop a mockup of how something should work than to actually build that tool.
Avatar didn't even build a mockup of the technology in any meaningful sense. What it did was make a movie, part of whose premise was that the technology existed. There is no reason to expect that the cost of the cinematic production should have any relationship of any kind to the cost of the technology.
Now, Avatar did involve developing a few new technologies for the entertainment industry, but the point stands: if Avatar cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make, actually building the technology that Avatar is describing should cost more, shouldn't it? $7 million is a teacup in the ocean.
Avatar didn't describe a technology, it made a movie that presupposed quite a lot of technology that doesn't, in fact, exist.
But making a movie based around the concept of a computer program I could develop in an afternoon (besides being boring) would, assume major-studio production values, cost far more than it would cost to build the program. Again, there is no reason to expect that the cost of a movie should have any relationship to the cost of technology presupposed by the movie.
That being said, I don't think that TFA is talking about mind-machine interface, it's talking about telepresence. There's a world of difference between them, in that telepresence has already been done, and is being done on a semi-regular basis. It'll be a *lot* cheaper to build a bipedal robot that's controlled by telepresence than it would be to build one that's controlled by MMI.
True, plus in Avatar, they weren't controlling robots by MMI but actual living organisms by mind-machine-mind interface involving interaction at a distance for one of the machine-mind links.
Ah, but if you follow along with the AGW crowd and implement all the regulations and laws they require to "solve" global warming (which incidentally are exactly what one side of the political spectrum wants, but are anathema to the other side) then you must be a patriot right?
The question relies on false premises, most notably that there is a set of "regulations and laws" that "the AGW crowd" agrees are required to solve global warming.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
You are wrong. The income tax is not a direct tax, so is not prohibited by section 9 clause 4.
This is wrong. While certain income taxes are not direct taxes, and were used prior to the 16th Amendment and upheld by the US Supreme Court. However, taxes on income from certain sources were held to be direct taxes prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4. See, particularly, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 555 (1895):
First. That the law in question, in imposing a tax on the income or rents of real estate, imposes a tax upon the real estate itself; and in imposing a tax on the interest or other income of bonds or other personal property, held for the purposes of income or ordinarily yielding income, imposes a tax upon the personal estate itself; that such tax is a direct tax, and void because imposed without regard to the rule of apportionment; and that by reason thereof the whole law is invalidated.
The 16th does not allow direct taxation, so it doesn't overturn s9c4 completely.
This is about half true. The 16th, by allowing taxes on income "from whatever source derived", does allow direct taxation that was prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4 prior to the 16th Amendment, since taxes on income from certain sources are (as held in Pollock) direct taxes prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4.
However, it only allowed direct taxes to the extent those taxes are taxes on income, so it sec. 9 cl. 4 still prohibits other direct taxes not levied in accord with the rule on apportionment in that section.
it is the central question for such a service : would Google analyze your documents to provide targeted advertisement, or would they treat your "GDrive" as a black box ?
The former would not be acceptable for many persons (including me), but the latter would provide no upside for Google....
Well, except for the same "upside" that most of their "free basic quota plus paid premium option" services provide, which is having the free users provide a larger pool of users which (a) increases the appeal of the system as a target for developers of third-party apps which integrate with the system and thus increase the attractiveness of the system to users, including premium users, and (b) provides the people who will start out using the system within the free quota, find more uses for it, and eventually upgrade to the premium service.
Apps/App Engine/Storage/etc. all work on this model. Why wouldn't GDrive?
For pics and videos you have Google+/Picasa web albums and with G+ it's near unlimited space for normal size things. For documents there's Google Docs, as mentioned. What else do you need? Are they going to unify this into a single space or create a Carbonite type backup system? It seems like they already have a "Google Drive", it's just slightly broken up into separate services that enhance the features of the content.
They have specialized consumer cloud storage services (though Docs isn't very specialized, since you can store any kind of file in it), and they have the low-level, developer-focussed (similar to Amazon S3) Google Storage general-purpose offering; but what they don't have is a consumer focussed general purpose storage interface (since that's really where the difference is, the interface rather than the backend system) designed for use like Dropbox.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the measure treats Google+ as a "site" which is Google's social offering, but Google+ isn't a site and is only a part of Google's interlinked social offerings. Some aspects of G+ have their own pages, others are features that are integrated into a number of Google services, and a number of other Google services have social features tied to the same account/profile structure but which are neither part of the G+ branded pages nor referred to as G+ features.
How is that someplace Google is afraid to go? Discovery and organization of content posted elsewhere on the internet is pretty much Google's core competency, and integrating that with social profiles is exactly what Google is doing with the G+-linked social features in News and Search.
The RSA conference, like most industry conferences, is in very large part a sales conference for industry products. There's no reason for it to be particularly secure (obviously, they want to maintain some security to maintain ticket prices and the marketing value of the information gathered along with those sales), a few extra people coming in without paying isn't a huge deal (whereas intrusive security measures that inconvenience legitimate ticketed attendees would be.)
Its not like the conference presents eyes-only sensitive material that only ticketed attendees are cleared for and that there is some danger to the conference sponsors if anyone outside gets wind of it. Just because its a conference about security practices and products doesn't mean that it somehow has any particular high-security needs.
PayPal plays the role letting on-line retailers that can't be bothered to build their own processes and infrastructure to deal with payment processing outsource payment processing and let PayPal deal with the details.
I think the main advantage (for retailers) of PayPal and similar services is that they lower the entry cost to online retail. The main advantage for customers is, well, some retailers use it, so your choice is use it or don't have the option of buying from those retailers.
Go back and reread GP carefully. You are confusing Google with Google+ (or asking a question about a claim that was never made in GP.)
Google (or, at least, the subset of services and features which rely on or are enhanced when used with Google Accounts) is Google's social network. G+ is just branding on a couple of the new features, some of which have their own set of pages, some of which are features embedded in existing services.
Comparing the G+specific pages (whether by time spent on them or by any other metric) against the whole of a competing social networking offering is missing the point in a pretty big way.
The Google+ "site" (i.e., the collection of G+specific web pages) isn't the Google+ social network. The social features of Google predate G+, and G+ features are in Google services outside of the G+ "site". G+ is a feature set, the thing that rightly compares to Facebook, MySpace, etc., is the whole suite of Google services that are used with a logged in account.
Google+ isn't a distinct site, its a pervasive social layer integrated across a variety of Google services. Insofar as + is designed for stickiness at all, its designed to increase stickiness across the whole set of Google pages, not just the handful of + specific pages. (Though I'm not sure that + is designed for stickiness at all, as Google seems more to design to be a place people come back to rather than a place people stay.)
Perhaps a person should not be, but, in fact, most sovereign states do not categorically prohibit extraterritorial application of their laws. Even when theoretically applicable under the nations laws, extraterritorial applications aren't often pursued for offenses that aren't fairly major from the perspective of the government at the time, but that's a matter of priorities, not theoretical limits.
Statistical controls are controls.
As is the case in many areas of medicine, different doctors will have different medical judgement about when the risks outweigh the benefits of prescription sleeping pills, when to recommend non-prescription remedies (and which remedies), and patients will vary in how the comply with and respond to non-prescription remedies.
Obviously, this is the best (in terms of quality of evidence) way to get strong results, but its a difference in degree rather than kind from any other statistically controlled experiment and doesn't provide "conclusive proof" of causation in way which presents a nice, neat binary distinction from other methods of investigation.
Given the evidence of interaction between Assange and Manning that the government has said it has, presumably the basis of any charges would be Manning's offenses, Assange's interaction with Manning, and 18 USC Sec. 2:
Though there a range of other possible avenues to liability that aren't foreclosed by the issues you raised besides that one.
The only study I've seen (quite a while go) showed talking on a hands-free phone and carrying on a conversation with a passenger to both be about equal in effect on driving, and both had very serious effects. Particularly, both appeared to contribute to a very significant tunnel-vision effect in which drivers lost much awareness of events anywhere except directly ahead of the car (and had lesser, though still notable, reductions in facility in dealing with hazards originating directly in front of the care, as well.)
People that buy new luxury cars also tend turn them over ~3 years or so.
By then, the people who bought new Mercedes-Benz cars with Siri when they were introduced to get the latest and greatest will, in general, be more than ready to sell them and buy whatever the new latest-and-greatest is. If Apple actually discontinues Siri service entirely, that will have a minor hit in the resale value of the cars, which, again, most of the people who would have bought new luxury cars in the first place won't even notice much when trading them in.
If you meant "genres of fictional subject matter", you probably should have said that and not "types of live action films", particularly when, as you claim here, you were aware of the fact that the latter was false.
No, but it does seem to be a clear-cut libel: a false, damaging claim made by a party who knows, or reasonably should know, that it is false, that causes damage to the party about whom the false claim (of using copyright protected material) is made.
It may also be a breach of the contract between Google and the purported content owner, but that's a different issue,
When you are talking about a brand, rather than a product, there isn't: rebranding the product is killing the brand.
No, it's not.
There are two main uses of methadone. One is, as you describe, for detoxification. The other is for long-term maintenance (see, e.g., this CDC fact sheet.)
Untrue. The categories for films (aside from Best Picture) are:
Best Animated Film
Best Animated Short Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Documentary Short
Best Live Action Short Film
Except for the first two those are all types of live-action film (or, at a minimum, types of film that can include live-action films), and except for the last they are distinguished thematically.
Those who "grew up with" (e.g., had at a very young age) access to the internet barely show up in policy debates, as most of them aren't even old enough to vote.
Well, we've at least narrowed the options. Google (quotes included) "the internet is for", and you'll find that there are basically two prominent ways of ending that phrase, the second of which is "everyone".
Ubiquity, ease of use, communication, and collaboration are all features which are fairly central to real world applications of all types, and the latter two can be real-world applications in their own right.
Because its absolutely and obviously true.
I don't think a cookie that remembers the identity of the last Google Account user that was logged into a browser is a particularly reliable indicator of the identity of the current browser user on a machine that has multiple users.
Obviously, they could associate not-logged-in searches with a Google Account based on all kinds of criteria -- IP address, presence of a cookie, etc. They could even randomly associate non-logged in searches to an account.
But none of those methods actually reliably associate the searches of the not-logged-in Google Account user who is, in fact, performing the search with their Google Account.
First, being wrong in 1 in 6 cases is not merely "not foolproof", but its fairly inaccurate.
Second, what the radically unscientific test referred to actually demonstrated is that 84% of visits (not visitors) to a web site had browser characteristics that didn't exactly match a database of tested browser characteristics. It has no way of identifying whether those visits (whether the ones with unique browser characteristics or not) were from the same or different users as other visits.
That doesn't say anything at all about the utility of using those browser characteristics to identify users, since nothing in the test relates actual users to those visits or the associated browser characteristics. (One user can easily have many different sets of browser characteristics, and vice versa, without any impact on the results of that test in terms of the uniqueness in browser characteristics among visits to that EFF site.)
So, while the EFF may make a claim about the identifiability of users based on those results, the results themselves don't even remotely support any conclusion about users.
They can associate searches with your account when you aren't logged on, but they don't know that they were done by you or by anyone who would have access to your account, so doing so would be somewhat pointless.
Even assuming you have a single machine with a static IP, its quite possible that machine has multiple users, and that the people using your browser when you aren't logged in aren't you. In fact, its possible that multiple different Google Accounts are regularly used from the same machine, leaving Google no reliable way to associate non-logged-in searches with a single Google Account even on the (shaky) assumption that all searches from that machine are linked to the holder of oneof the Google Accounts which are sometimes logged into from that machine.
Avatar didn't even build a mockup of the technology in any meaningful sense. What it did was make a movie, part of whose premise was that the technology existed. There is no reason to expect that the cost of the cinematic production should have any relationship of any kind to the cost of the technology.
Avatar didn't describe a technology, it made a movie that presupposed quite a lot of technology that doesn't, in fact, exist.
But making a movie based around the concept of a computer program I could develop in an afternoon (besides being boring) would, assume major-studio production values, cost far more than it would cost to build the program. Again, there is no reason to expect that the cost of a movie should have any relationship to the cost of technology presupposed by the movie.
True, plus in Avatar, they weren't controlling robots by MMI but actual living organisms by mind-machine-mind interface involving interaction at a distance for one of the machine-mind links.
Say what?
The question relies on false premises, most notably that there is a set of "regulations and laws" that "the AGW crowd" agrees are required to solve global warming.
This is wrong. While certain income taxes are not direct taxes, and were used prior to the 16th Amendment and upheld by the US Supreme Court. However, taxes on income from certain sources were held to be direct taxes prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4. See, particularly, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 555 (1895):
This is about half true. The 16th, by allowing taxes on income "from whatever source derived", does allow direct taxation that was prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4 prior to the 16th Amendment, since taxes on income from certain sources are (as held in Pollock) direct taxes prohibited by sec. 9 cl. 4.
However, it only allowed direct taxes to the extent those taxes are taxes on income, so it sec. 9 cl. 4 still prohibits other direct taxes not levied in accord with the rule on apportionment in that section.
Well, except for the same "upside" that most of their "free basic quota plus paid premium option" services provide, which is having the free users provide a larger pool of users which (a) increases the appeal of the system as a target for developers of third-party apps which integrate with the system and thus increase the attractiveness of the system to users, including premium users, and (b) provides the people who will start out using the system within the free quota, find more uses for it, and eventually upgrade to the premium service.
Apps/App Engine/Storage/etc. all work on this model. Why wouldn't GDrive?
They have specialized consumer cloud storage services (though Docs isn't very specialized, since you can store any kind of file in it), and they have the low-level, developer-focussed (similar to Amazon S3) Google Storage general-purpose offering; but what they don't have is a consumer focussed general purpose storage interface (since that's really where the difference is, the interface rather than the backend system) designed for use like Dropbox.