Plus you can't dispose of the dead invisible pink unicorns in landfills, as they decompose into all kinds of nasty shit.
Can't? or Shouldn't?
I doubt there are more than 10 people per 100 miles that actually take note of the dangers of what are in those things and take care to dispose of them properly.
I do believe you are correct. In this situation Google is not in a good position.
I admit I'm a bit of a hardliner when it comes to freedom. I will do my best to NOT engage in commerce with an entity that will use that money to further their cause of limiting freedom. It does mean that some of my goods cost more (hardly anywhere close to the 2x that many apologists claim), but it is working out well for me so far.
Convincing our politicians to do something about it so that one US company attempting to 'be good' isn't bypassed by another US company who doesn't care is a much more difficult and complicated issue.
Every international company has to obey laws for that country, or not do business in that country. When the Wolfenstein games were released in Germany, they had to remove all Nazi signs because that is German law.
If I set up a server in not-Germany, I wouldn't have to do a damned thing to alter the content that my website is providing with respect to German law. Germany would be free to block my site, but I am not responsible for the laws of Germany as long as I'm not going into Germany, or attempting to send products to Germans. I follow the laws of my host country.
If what Google is doing in China is good enough for you, that's fine. But I consider it to be a tremendous and horrid act to behave in accordance with laws which violate someone's human rights. I won't suggest that you must believe the same as I do, but Google's warning on their website is a token gesture and is meaningless without sufficient action to back up it's statements.
The point remains that by setting up shop in a country, and attempting to follow the 'laws' of every country, Google has placed itself in the position where countries (like Italy) attempt to treat them like they have an actual business in that country.
The internet does not have an immediate analogue in the real world, and attempting to treat services provided on the internet as a local service simply because you can 'see' it from inside your country is flawed logic. I suppose the closest analogy to this example would be someone in Italy attempting to apply an Italian law against lewd behavior against an Austrian couple because they were visible from the Italian side of the border.
Just because you can 'see' it on the internet doesn't mean that the act occurred within your country's jurisdiction.
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
Wrong wrong wrong.
If you are running an algorithm and the result of that algorithm are applied to all searches for images of public persons your lawsuit would fall on its face.
There is no reason why a legitimate depiction should come first for the search of someone's name if the algorithm is applied equally. All Google would have to do is show that their algorithm is the same for everyone and therefore the reason that such a depiction was negative is because the negative depiction is the one which is most popular/relevant/whatever the algorithm is designed to measure.
If I run an algorithm to find the most linked to image for a set of search terms I have NO obligation to alter that algorithm simply because the most linked to image for a set of search terms (person) happens to be negative.
I'm just saying there is a difference between comparing a white public figure to a monkey, and comparing a black public figure to a monkey.
So, what would be an appropriate way to portray a black politician as a buffoon? (Other than the obvious fact that you called them a politician?)
Your difference only occurs in the motivation of the person who presents the image. Is it right to set aside a group of people as 'protected' from a certain form of speech while allowing that speech to be used against another group of people.
If you suggest that the form of speech is OK against one group of people, it is OK against another. The speech isn't what you should have issue with, it is the motivations of the person who presents the image.
I hope this serves as a lesson to companies who seem to want the best of all worlds. I'm kind of glad that google is getting hit with this because it brings to light the problem with trying to cater to the demands of local governments. When Google began working with governments in foreign jurisdictions it opened the door to this type of activity.
Google would have a much more stable leg to stand on if they simply said 'We are a US company, we will follow US laws.' when China asked them to tailor GoogleChina to meet the party demands.
Similar to safe harbor protections when it comes to ISPs, if you 'fly the flag' of a specific country on the Internet, you are bound by that country's laws. That doesn't mean that the local governments can't block your service, but it should serve as protection when local governments attempt to apply their laws to a foreign company.
And what would be the actual pricetag of such a device? I understand that we use more and more electronics to simplify the mechanics behind our devices. Now, with a pump, you need to physically inject air under the screen, so you have moving parts, and they are usually costly... besides, what would be the reliability of such a thing? and could you get a "flat" screen?
When someone says that a piece of electronics has "moving parts" it is used to mean things like mechanical parts that move. This air pocket is not a mechanical piece that moves and hence doesn't fall under the traditional meaning of the word.
Your definition is an odd one.
If it isn't static, it is moving. If it is moving, it is generating stresses. Those stresses *might* be negligible, they *might* be significant. One thing is certain: In almost every situation, introducing into a system any additional components will negatively impact the MTBF of the entire system.
The important thing to determine, is how each component fails. Will the failure cascade? Will it continue to function but in a degraded state? Is the degraded state acceptable? Does the failure of one component place additional stresses on other components?
We have already proven that all of those items except for the display can be included in a $20 product. Do you believe that the Display will always keep the cost above $20? With the advent of mobile browsing, many services now revolve around repackaging websites for viewing on smaller screens and requiring less processor overhead. I could see it happening in 5-10 years easily.
What I'm really waiting for is this:
Color e-Ink displays at a reasonable cost. THAT is going to usher in a huge change to our mobile landscape. It might not be the $20 model you state is impossible, but it's my prediction.
do you really want the government deciding which is which?
The government doesn't really decide that. We do. We complain, the government investigates. It isn't a proactive measure that the government is taking.
However we could have issues if it grows to something similar to the FCC.
Of course even more annoying is when it changes things that are already correct)
I keep it turned off on my phone. I hate typing a word carefully, and then having it switch it at the last minute. It is especially annoying when it changes words on a text entry box just as you hit submit. (For things like addresses, or usernames)
The ironic thing is that I actually had difficulty typing in my post incorrectly since the physical feedback of the keyboard I was using actually gave me the ability to autocorrect as I went along so I didn't end up too far off base while typing.
It was also interesting that even raising my hands above the keys, if I used the proper fingers for each key I wanted to press, I nearly got it exactly since they didn't have to move much in relation to the key they wished to press. One of the hurdles with the iphone is that you are forced to use your thumbs on a QWERTY style keyboard (or your fingers) but it is essentially a hunt and peck style experience and the motion of your digit of choice is increased to a level beyond that which they would normally move on a keyboard.
I'd kill for one of those laser keyboards combined with my iphone. Still no feedback, but at least then I could 'type'.
Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas.
It's a good thing that it is impossible to place a container on a non-commercial vessel. It is also good that it is impossible to NOT ship a weapon in a large cargo container.
It's like driving a new car, you try to vary the speeds and transmission loads for the first couple dozen miles before really letting loose with the throttle and taking it into the red.
Don't be distracted by absolute quantities. A non-car analogy. Imagine you have a funnel - 1 litre per second of water can pass through this funnel. Indeed, 1 litre per second is passing through it. Call that "nature". The level in the funnel remains the same, since it's draining at the rate that it's being filled. Then comes a human, and adds just 1ml per second (i.e. 0.1%). As surely as night follows day, the funnel begins to fill up until it eventually overflows.
Except in this analogy, not only do humans add 1ml extra input, they also reduce the exit of the funnel by 1ml/sec (reducing the "sink", in the real world, deforestation etc.
Bad analogy.
You are suggesting that the funnel can only support 1 l/s based on the fact that it is supporting 1 l/s.
Imagine a funnel with a a large spout capable of supporting 30 l/s. You could pour 1 l/s through that spout, and humans could add an additional 29 l/s without causing any backup.
That's the problem with your analogy, you haven't established that 'nature' can only handle the amount that 'nature' is currently producing. You haven't shown that your funnel can only handle 1 l/s.
Maybe it's easier for some people than others. I got the iPhone 1st gen the day after it released and have never had problems typing on it. After the first week or so, I didn't need to look at the keyboard either
i kwno what you men. i nevrr ook ay my ketboared while tyoiung thingd either.
So jailbreaking an iphone, which takes almost no technical know how is done by 10% of users and pirating apps, which takes more know how, results in 60% of games being pirated?
My phone is jailbroken, but damned if I ever even thought to try and pirate games. I just got it so I could SSH and pull other applications from Cydia.
Never even thought about it. Now I have.
The apps in the store are cheap enough that I'll keep buying them. $5 is within my range for willing to risk it. At $2 or less I'll just buy something that I think fits my needs.
There is no freaking way that 60% of all apps are pirated. Either these guys are lying, or their tracking software sucks. (are 10% of the jailbroken phones downloading the apps 5000 times?)
Dollar sinks, placing it lower with respect to other global currencies. What happens when you have a low currency? It is cheaper to manufacture goods in that region. Isn't that EXACTLY what China is doing? Keeping their currency artificially low to encourage manufacturing?
I always wondered where you would pop up after you were banned on Fark. (A pretty impressive feat in its own right). Needless to say, you certainly haven't stopped with the flamebait.
The goal for the 747-mounted laser is to shoot down missiles on the way up (when they are over bad guys) versus on the way down (like the Patriot missile). That's why it's on a plane, not a truck.
Well, the fact that they are over the people who just launched the missle is a side benefit, and doesn't really factor into why they are shooting it at that stage.
In the primary phase, the missile is pretty limited in what it can do. It has to gain altitude and speed, and really isn't/can't be built to perform evasion at that point. Combined with the fact that the earlier you hit it, the more combustible it actually is.
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
I've taken to forgetting the letters completely and relying more on keyboard patterns. I'd think of some musical theme and 'play' it on my keyboard. I'd practice the pattern a few times and eventually I'd have a password that doesn't exist in any dictionary (it might, but I wouldn't know it).
I liked it because I remembered them through muscle memory and didn't have to think, 'Was that letter caPitolized or thiS one?' I just knew the pattern.
The drawbacks I faced were this:
1. Ergonomic keyboards (The extreme ones) would throw off my pattern since I didn't always stick with resting my hands on the home row of keys to start.
2. password rules messed me up when they required a specific amount of special characters rather than just requiring a length. When you actually do have a random password, sometimes you don't always include those special characters.
3. Recalling my password without a keyboard in front of me. For example, some banks ask you to 'click' in your password using a mouse. Since I didn't know the content of my password, and just the pattern, I couldn't ever remember it to click it in.
I don't buy the Future Europe to past immigrants thing. Wasn't it Past Europe that caused past emigration to the New World and later the USA? Lack of religious freedoms, political persecution, famines, freedom, those sorts of things?
Yes. Remember though, it was OUR Past Europe. It was THEIR current Europe. Based on their experience with their current Europe (our past), their Future Europe was the one which they were planning to avoid.
Why did people leave Europe? Because they felt that Europe would be worse for them in the future than the United States. It couldn't be worse for them than it was when they were there, because when they were there, it was their present, and therefore couldn't be any worse at that moment than it possibly was. So naturally they left because staying in Europe was potentially going to be worse for them at any moment in the future.
Based on that, Future Europe to Past Immigrants was the reason for their leaving Past Europe. Since Our Europe can be referred to the Future Europe of the Past Immigrants, then the tense of the statement 'Europe is the reason why they came.' is perfectly cromulent.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus you can't dispose of the dead invisible pink unicorns in landfills, as they decompose into all kinds of nasty shit.
Can't? or Shouldn't?
I doubt there are more than 10 people per 100 miles that actually take note of the dangers of what are in those things and take care to dispose of them properly.
I do believe you are correct. In this situation Google is not in a good position.
I admit I'm a bit of a hardliner when it comes to freedom. I will do my best to NOT engage in commerce with an entity that will use that money to further their cause of limiting freedom. It does mean that some of my goods cost more (hardly anywhere close to the 2x that many apologists claim), but it is working out well for me so far.
Convincing our politicians to do something about it so that one US company attempting to 'be good' isn't bypassed by another US company who doesn't care is a much more difficult and complicated issue.
Every international company has to obey laws for that country, or not do business in that country. When the Wolfenstein games were released in Germany, they had to remove all Nazi signs because that is German law.
If I set up a server in not-Germany, I wouldn't have to do a damned thing to alter the content that my website is providing with respect to German law. Germany would be free to block my site, but I am not responsible for the laws of Germany as long as I'm not going into Germany, or attempting to send products to Germans. I follow the laws of my host country.
If what Google is doing in China is good enough for you, that's fine. But I consider it to be a tremendous and horrid act to behave in accordance with laws which violate someone's human rights. I won't suggest that you must believe the same as I do, but Google's warning on their website is a token gesture and is meaningless without sufficient action to back up it's statements.
The point remains that by setting up shop in a country, and attempting to follow the 'laws' of every country, Google has placed itself in the position where countries (like Italy) attempt to treat them like they have an actual business in that country.
The internet does not have an immediate analogue in the real world, and attempting to treat services provided on the internet as a local service simply because you can 'see' it from inside your country is flawed logic. I suppose the closest analogy to this example would be someone in Italy attempting to apply an Italian law against lewd behavior against an Austrian couple because they were visible from the Italian side of the border.
Just because you can 'see' it on the internet doesn't mean that the act occurred within your country's jurisdiction.
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
Wrong wrong wrong.
If you are running an algorithm and the result of that algorithm are applied to all searches for images of public persons your lawsuit would fall on its face.
There is no reason why a legitimate depiction should come first for the search of someone's name if the algorithm is applied equally. All Google would have to do is show that their algorithm is the same for everyone and therefore the reason that such a depiction was negative is because the negative depiction is the one which is most popular/relevant/whatever the algorithm is designed to measure.
If I run an algorithm to find the most linked to image for a set of search terms I have NO obligation to alter that algorithm simply because the most linked to image for a set of search terms (person) happens to be negative.
I'm just saying there is a difference between comparing a white public figure to a monkey, and comparing a black public figure to a monkey.
So, what would be an appropriate way to portray a black politician as a buffoon? (Other than the obvious fact that you called them a politician?)
Your difference only occurs in the motivation of the person who presents the image. Is it right to set aside a group of people as 'protected' from a certain form of speech while allowing that speech to be used against another group of people.
If you suggest that the form of speech is OK against one group of people, it is OK against another. The speech isn't what you should have issue with, it is the motivations of the person who presents the image.
I hope this serves as a lesson to companies who seem to want the best of all worlds. I'm kind of glad that google is getting hit with this because it brings to light the problem with trying to cater to the demands of local governments. When Google began working with governments in foreign jurisdictions it opened the door to this type of activity.
Google would have a much more stable leg to stand on if they simply said 'We are a US company, we will follow US laws.' when China asked them to tailor GoogleChina to meet the party demands.
Similar to safe harbor protections when it comes to ISPs, if you 'fly the flag' of a specific country on the Internet, you are bound by that country's laws. That doesn't mean that the local governments can't block your service, but it should serve as protection when local governments attempt to apply their laws to a foreign company.
And what would be the actual pricetag of such a device? I understand that we use more and more electronics to simplify the mechanics behind our devices. Now, with a pump, you need to physically inject air under the screen, so you have moving parts, and they are usually costly... besides, what would be the reliability of such a thing? and could you get a "flat" screen?
Instead of air, Ferrofluids might be a solution.
When someone says that a piece of electronics has "moving parts" it is used to mean things like mechanical parts that move. This air pocket is not a mechanical piece that moves and hence doesn't fall under the traditional meaning of the word.
Your definition is an odd one.
If it isn't static, it is moving. If it is moving, it is generating stresses. Those stresses *might* be negligible, they *might* be significant. One thing is certain: In almost every situation, introducing into a system any additional components will negatively impact the MTBF of the entire system.
The important thing to determine, is how each component fails. Will the failure cascade? Will it continue to function but in a degraded state? Is the degraded state acceptable? Does the failure of one component place additional stresses on other components?
There's never going to be a $20 netbook even if your labor costs were zero.
Just like there will never be $20 cell phones?
Netbook = Display, keyboard/HID, 802.11, Battery, Microcontroller, plastic frame/shell, AC-DC converter.
We have already proven that all of those items except for the display can be included in a $20 product. Do you believe that the Display will always keep the cost above $20? With the advent of mobile browsing, many services now revolve around repackaging websites for viewing on smaller screens and requiring less processor overhead. I could see it happening in 5-10 years easily.
What I'm really waiting for is this:
Color e-Ink displays at a reasonable cost. THAT is going to usher in a huge change to our mobile landscape. It might not be the $20 model you state is impossible, but it's my prediction.
do you really want the government deciding which is which?
The government doesn't really decide that. We do. We complain, the government investigates. It isn't a proactive measure that the government is taking.
However we could have issues if it grows to something similar to the FCC.
Of course even more annoying is when it changes things that are already correct)
I keep it turned off on my phone. I hate typing a word carefully, and then having it switch it at the last minute. It is especially annoying when it changes words on a text entry box just as you hit submit. (For things like addresses, or usernames)
The ironic thing is that I actually had difficulty typing in my post incorrectly since the physical feedback of the keyboard I was using actually gave me the ability to autocorrect as I went along so I didn't end up too far off base while typing.
It was also interesting that even raising my hands above the keys, if I used the proper fingers for each key I wanted to press, I nearly got it exactly since they didn't have to move much in relation to the key they wished to press. One of the hurdles with the iphone is that you are forced to use your thumbs on a QWERTY style keyboard (or your fingers) but it is essentially a hunt and peck style experience and the motion of your digit of choice is increased to a level beyond that which they would normally move on a keyboard.
I'd kill for one of those laser keyboards combined with my iphone. Still no feedback, but at least then I could 'type'.
Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas.
It's a good thing that it is impossible to place a container on a non-commercial vessel. It is also good that it is impossible to NOT ship a weapon in a large cargo container.
Huh?
Could you put that into a car analogy?
It's like driving a new car, you try to vary the speeds and transmission loads for the first couple dozen miles before really letting loose with the throttle and taking it into the red.
Mmm. What I'm hearing from President Political "Science" / International Relations / Lawyer is "do as I say, not as I did".
Good point, how many scientists ever 'grow up' to be President?
Don't be distracted by absolute quantities. A non-car analogy. Imagine you have a funnel - 1 litre per second of water can pass through this funnel. Indeed, 1 litre per second is passing through it. Call that "nature". The level in the funnel remains the same, since it's draining at the rate that it's being filled. Then comes a human, and adds just 1ml per second (i.e. 0.1%). As surely as night follows day, the funnel begins to fill up until it eventually overflows.
Except in this analogy, not only do humans add 1ml extra input, they also reduce the exit of the funnel by 1ml/sec (reducing the "sink", in the real world, deforestation etc.
Bad analogy.
You are suggesting that the funnel can only support 1 l/s based on the fact that it is supporting 1 l/s.
Imagine a funnel with a a large spout capable of supporting 30 l/s. You could pour 1 l/s through that spout, and humans could add an additional 29 l/s without causing any backup.
That's the problem with your analogy, you haven't established that 'nature' can only handle the amount that 'nature' is currently producing. You haven't shown that your funnel can only handle 1 l/s.
Maybe it's easier for some people than others. I got the iPhone 1st gen the day after it released and have never had problems typing on it. After the first week or so, I didn't need to look at the keyboard either
i kwno what you men. i nevrr ook ay my ketboared while tyoiung thingd either.
So jailbreaking an iphone, which takes almost no technical know how is done by 10% of users and pirating apps, which takes more know how, results in 60% of games being pirated?
My phone is jailbroken, but damned if I ever even thought to try and pirate games. I just got it so I could SSH and pull other applications from Cydia.
Never even thought about it. Now I have.
The apps in the store are cheap enough that I'll keep buying them. $5 is within my range for willing to risk it. At $2 or less I'll just buy something that I think fits my needs.
There is no freaking way that 60% of all apps are pirated. Either these guys are lying, or their tracking software sucks. (are 10% of the jailbroken phones downloading the apps 5000 times?)
Not for long, with the sinking dollar.
Dollar sinks, placing it lower with respect to other global currencies. What happens when you have a low currency? It is cheaper to manufacture goods in that region. Isn't that EXACTLY what China is doing? Keeping their currency artificially low to encourage manufacturing?
Czarangelus...
I always wondered where you would pop up after you were banned on Fark. (A pretty impressive feat in its own right). Needless to say, you certainly haven't stopped with the flamebait.
The goal for the 747-mounted laser is to shoot down missiles on the way up (when they are over bad guys) versus on the way down (like the Patriot missile). That's why it's on a plane, not a truck.
Well, the fact that they are over the people who just launched the missle is a side benefit, and doesn't really factor into why they are shooting it at that stage.
In the primary phase, the missile is pretty limited in what it can do. It has to gain altitude and speed, and really isn't/can't be built to perform evasion at that point. Combined with the fact that the earlier you hit it, the more combustible it actually is.
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
I measure the average person's respect for the next person by the metric of cigarette butts per square metre in the local parks.
By that measure you will be happy to know that I just peed in your gas tank.
I've taken to forgetting the letters completely and relying more on keyboard patterns. I'd think of some musical theme and 'play' it on my keyboard. I'd practice the pattern a few times and eventually I'd have a password that doesn't exist in any dictionary (it might, but I wouldn't know it).
I liked it because I remembered them through muscle memory and didn't have to think, 'Was that letter caPitolized or thiS one?' I just knew the pattern.
The drawbacks I faced were this:
1. Ergonomic keyboards (The extreme ones) would throw off my pattern since I didn't always stick with resting my hands on the home row of keys to start.
2. password rules messed me up when they required a specific amount of special characters rather than just requiring a length. When you actually do have a random password, sometimes you don't always include those special characters.
3. Recalling my password without a keyboard in front of me. For example, some banks ask you to 'click' in your password using a mouse. Since I didn't know the content of my password, and just the pattern, I couldn't ever remember it to click it in.
I don't buy the Future Europe to past immigrants thing. Wasn't it Past Europe that caused past emigration to the New World and later the USA? Lack of religious freedoms, political persecution, famines, freedom, those sorts of things?
Yes. Remember though, it was OUR Past Europe. It was THEIR current Europe. Based on their experience with their current Europe (our past), their Future Europe was the one which they were planning to avoid.
Also, it's a joke.
Of course it does, if you are a true pedant.
Why did people leave Europe? Because they felt that Europe would be worse for them in the future than the United States. It couldn't be worse for them than it was when they were there, because when they were there, it was their present, and therefore couldn't be any worse at that moment than it possibly was. So naturally they left because staying in Europe was potentially going to be worse for them at any moment in the future.
Based on that, Future Europe to Past Immigrants was the reason for their leaving Past Europe. Since Our Europe can be referred to the Future Europe of the Past Immigrants, then the tense of the statement 'Europe is the reason why they came.' is perfectly cromulent.
He ducked out and went with a Tracfone.