This is exactly the system I've talked about for years. Too many directors care only about pumping up the short term profitability or share prices of a company so they can make it look like they're doing a fantastic job, leave with a golden handshake and watch the company meltdown from a safe distance a few years later. There is absolutely no incentive at the moment to ensure the long term health of a company. It's exactly the same situation with governments - pretty much every political part in government cares more about being re-elected than ensuring the long term health of the country, that's why we often see big tax cut incentives right before an election even if it's not in the country's interest, because who wants to be the government to put taxes up and help your opponents to get elected with a healthy public chest? The incentives for business and politics are all wrong and that's why the world is in such a huge financial mess.
You're assuming they have any interest in the long term health of the company - it seems like a lot of executives simply want to boost short term profits, make it look like they've added value then go look for their next post for a big uplift in their salary, leaving behind a company that's a ticking time bomb in terms of future profitability. I don't know anything about this pair, but it's common enough practice.
Apple's strength has been in not being afraid to put real money into promoting an untested new stream in the market. I daresay they'll still churn out some beautiful designs (Jonathan Ive isn't going anywhere after all), but their future success will depend on how risk averse these new company heads are. Most of us remember the direction the company took the last time Jobs was no longer heading it up.
It's also magnified by the fact that the wider press don't understand technology so they'll take their cues from whoever happens to be the IT flavour of the day because it's easier to steal their ideas than to do genuine research. That means it only needs a few key figures sporting trendy gadgets for them to sink into the wider public consciousness.
Not to take anything away from Carmack's contribution here, it's a great thing he's doing, but I don't think Creative have thrown up a roadblock just yet. He's just not giving them that option by rewriting the problematic code, perhaps they wouldn't have cared but he obviously thought better safe than sorry - kudos to him for that, but yah boo sucks to the system that makes it necessary.
What acoster said - it's not Carmack's patent. It's only referred to as Carmack's Reverse because he discovered the technique after the patent was filed but before it was granted and spoke about how he'd solved the problem publicly, he still had to come to a licensing agreement with Creative at the time to be able to use it.
I'm assuming the service doesn't work based on a single access point. If you have ten access points that their database says are in location A and one access point that their database says should be 500 miles away, I'm sure they're smart enough to take a decent guess as to where you are.
What you're suggesting is not logistically feasible. Even if you ignore the difficulties of getting sufficient numbers of businesses on board with this to make it worthwhile (and the fact that you's still be missing out large swathes of any non-urban locations), what happens if your local restaurant goes out of business (happening quite a lot in this current climate) and you buy their router in an auction? Are Google then liable for the fact that you didn't realise someone else had opted you in? I'm sorry, but with this kind of attitude we'd probably not have telephones (how useful would they be if you had to personally gather every phone number you might want to call). There comes a point where giving up something as trivial as a perceived notion of privacy over a bit of practically useless data that you're already broadcasting to the public is less important than the benefits that location services can provide, especially when a trivial way to opt out (far easier than opting out of telephone directories) is also being offered.
Nobody has access to the data. Your device sends Google a request saying devices A, B and C are nearby, Google then looks these up in their database, decides you are likely somewhere near location X and returns that location. If you have something you want to keep private being broadcast by your router, you should be more worried about the guy outside your house reading that information on his phone than Google keeping a private database of that same data.
It seems to me your issue should be with the hardware vendors if they're forcing you to publicly broadcast what you consider to be private information. If your phone only worked when you stood naked in a public place, would you accept that, too?
It's not even about privacy. Most people don't know what a MAC address is, let alone care, and it's not like Google are plotting this on a map or giving any way whatsoever to trace it back to you or your location. This is far less nefarious than gathering people's phone numbers into a directory along with their name and address, yet for years that was considered perfectly acceptable on an opt-out basis. I'm all for privacy but let's fight the battles that actually matter - in the grand scheme this really doesn't.
Exactly - this is basically the equivalent of collecting house door numbers. It's a piece of information that's being made freely available to the public, the user has complete control over whether that information is broadcast or not, and now Google are giving them another option. This is far less intrusive than satellite photography services and far easier to opt out of and yet they've been around for years with little complaint, even though it's far easier to see ways to exploit that information (escape routes for burglars springing instantly to mind). It's not like the location is used for anything other than improving the quality of location services on mobile devices anyway (and even then they're not furnishing you with a list, they're just reading devices you can already see on your mobile and matching it up to a table of devices their side).
There's no law against saying something controversial - comedians, politicians and journalists do this all the time here in the UK and they're not being dragged off to prison cells. If you're discussing trade secrets or information that has monetary value, on the other hand, then GP is right - the camera is irrelevant as the cabbie already has access to the information and the best way to keep your conversations private is to not have them in public.
Presumably the CCTV isn't running 24/7, there must be a way to disable it, even a cabbie can work out if he's going to murder a fare he needs to shut off the camera first. Besides, a stupidly large number of people are still riding around in unlicensed cabs, no mandate can force them to install cameras (they're already breaking the law). So yet again a badly thought out law that will reduce the privacy of the vast majority while also failing to solve the problem it was introduced to deal with.
If we already had all the space tech we needed, we'd already be colonising other planets, mining asteroids or deploying fuel scoops to avoid current energy worries. If we didn't have the tech but we'd met aliens and knew it was possible, we'd be seeing massive funding in the space programme to get us to the point the aliens are at. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that we have the tech to reach out to other start systems, but we're cutting funding to the "putting people in orbit around the planet in tinfoil tubes" programme to throw a handful of conspiracy theorists off the scent.
Exactly, a lot of the alternative suggestions are trying to sound deliberately scary, whereas in real life we've often seen departments with the most benevolent sounding names commit the most horrendous acts, which in many ways has a much more chilling affect.
Again, that idea would unduly punish the little guy and have no real affect on the Global Megacorp. I'd rather see fees incrementally increase the more active patents you have, so that companies could no longer hold hundreds of patents, they would be forced to focus on the ones that were actively generating profit for them and not hoard them for the purposes of stifling the competition or to sell them off at a later date. The benefit of this system is that the little guy could hold a handful of patents sufficient to get his business generating a profit, and as it grew he could choose to sell off or retire patents he no longer needs while retaining the core for the usual period. There would still be flaws I'm sure but it seems like it would help solve some of the issues (and if companies were happy to pay the ridiculously high fees it would feed back into the patent system and perhaps help pay for some proper quality control).
But Google ripped off Apple's iPhone, and did it again with the iPad.
Google don't make hardware so I'm not sure how they ripped off iPhone/iPad. Did you mean they ripped off iOS? In which case some examples of innovation that was not obvious and which Apple did before anyone else and which Google ripped off would strengthen your argument.
I can't speak on the Edison example, but GP was right about the Wrights, it was only pressure from the US government at the outset of WWI that forced them to engage in licensing their patents that stopped them owning the whole process. In a very real way this was the US admitting that patents stifle productivity and trying to find a way around the issue in a time of national crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the system I've talked about for years. Too many directors care only about pumping up the short term profitability or share prices of a company so they can make it look like they're doing a fantastic job, leave with a golden handshake and watch the company meltdown from a safe distance a few years later. There is absolutely no incentive at the moment to ensure the long term health of a company. It's exactly the same situation with governments - pretty much every political part in government cares more about being re-elected than ensuring the long term health of the country, that's why we often see big tax cut incentives right before an election even if it's not in the country's interest, because who wants to be the government to put taxes up and help your opponents to get elected with a healthy public chest? The incentives for business and politics are all wrong and that's why the world is in such a huge financial mess.
You're assuming they have any interest in the long term health of the company - it seems like a lot of executives simply want to boost short term profits, make it look like they've added value then go look for their next post for a big uplift in their salary, leaving behind a company that's a ticking time bomb in terms of future profitability. I don't know anything about this pair, but it's common enough practice.
Apple's strength has been in not being afraid to put real money into promoting an untested new stream in the market. I daresay they'll still churn out some beautiful designs (Jonathan Ive isn't going anywhere after all), but their future success will depend on how risk averse these new company heads are. Most of us remember the direction the company took the last time Jobs was no longer heading it up.
It's also magnified by the fact that the wider press don't understand technology so they'll take their cues from whoever happens to be the IT flavour of the day because it's easier to steal their ideas than to do genuine research. That means it only needs a few key figures sporting trendy gadgets for them to sink into the wider public consciousness.
Not to take anything away from Carmack's contribution here, it's a great thing he's doing, but I don't think Creative have thrown up a roadblock just yet. He's just not giving them that option by rewriting the problematic code, perhaps they wouldn't have cared but he obviously thought better safe than sorry - kudos to him for that, but yah boo sucks to the system that makes it necessary.
What acoster said - it's not Carmack's patent. It's only referred to as Carmack's Reverse because he discovered the technique after the patent was filed but before it was granted and spoke about how he'd solved the problem publicly, he still had to come to a licensing agreement with Creative at the time to be able to use it.
If you could accurately predict the markets in the future, you wouldn't need to invest, people would be queuing up to invest in you.
I'm assuming the service doesn't work based on a single access point. If you have ten access points that their database says are in location A and one access point that their database says should be 500 miles away, I'm sure they're smart enough to take a decent guess as to where you are.
What you're suggesting is not logistically feasible. Even if you ignore the difficulties of getting sufficient numbers of businesses on board with this to make it worthwhile (and the fact that you's still be missing out large swathes of any non-urban locations), what happens if your local restaurant goes out of business (happening quite a lot in this current climate) and you buy their router in an auction? Are Google then liable for the fact that you didn't realise someone else had opted you in? I'm sorry, but with this kind of attitude we'd probably not have telephones (how useful would they be if you had to personally gather every phone number you might want to call). There comes a point where giving up something as trivial as a perceived notion of privacy over a bit of practically useless data that you're already broadcasting to the public is less important than the benefits that location services can provide, especially when a trivial way to opt out (far easier than opting out of telephone directories) is also being offered.
Nobody has access to the data. Your device sends Google a request saying devices A, B and C are nearby, Google then looks these up in their database, decides you are likely somewhere near location X and returns that location. If you have something you want to keep private being broadcast by your router, you should be more worried about the guy outside your house reading that information on his phone than Google keeping a private database of that same data.
It seems to me your issue should be with the hardware vendors if they're forcing you to publicly broadcast what you consider to be private information. If your phone only worked when you stood naked in a public place, would you accept that, too?
It's not even about privacy. Most people don't know what a MAC address is, let alone care, and it's not like Google are plotting this on a map or giving any way whatsoever to trace it back to you or your location. This is far less nefarious than gathering people's phone numbers into a directory along with their name and address, yet for years that was considered perfectly acceptable on an opt-out basis. I'm all for privacy but let's fight the battles that actually matter - in the grand scheme this really doesn't.
Exactly - this is basically the equivalent of collecting house door numbers. It's a piece of information that's being made freely available to the public, the user has complete control over whether that information is broadcast or not, and now Google are giving them another option. This is far less intrusive than satellite photography services and far easier to opt out of and yet they've been around for years with little complaint, even though it's far easier to see ways to exploit that information (escape routes for burglars springing instantly to mind). It's not like the location is used for anything other than improving the quality of location services on mobile devices anyway (and even then they're not furnishing you with a list, they're just reading devices you can already see on your mobile and matching it up to a table of devices their side).
Quite a few? How many taxi drivers have to assult and/or rob you before you decide it's just not worth taking taxis and buy a car instead?
Nice try - everyone knows that all the names on those counter surveillance courses go straight on the government watch list!
There's no law against saying something controversial - comedians, politicians and journalists do this all the time here in the UK and they're not being dragged off to prison cells. If you're discussing trade secrets or information that has monetary value, on the other hand, then GP is right - the camera is irrelevant as the cabbie already has access to the information and the best way to keep your conversations private is to not have them in public.
Presumably the CCTV isn't running 24/7, there must be a way to disable it, even a cabbie can work out if he's going to murder a fare he needs to shut off the camera first. Besides, a stupidly large number of people are still riding around in unlicensed cabs, no mandate can force them to install cameras (they're already breaking the law). So yet again a badly thought out law that will reduce the privacy of the vast majority while also failing to solve the problem it was introduced to deal with.
How is "improving traffic safety" not exactly the same excuse as "public security"?
If we already had all the space tech we needed, we'd already be colonising other planets, mining asteroids or deploying fuel scoops to avoid current energy worries. If we didn't have the tech but we'd met aliens and knew it was possible, we'd be seeing massive funding in the space programme to get us to the point the aliens are at. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that we have the tech to reach out to other start systems, but we're cutting funding to the "putting people in orbit around the planet in tinfoil tubes" programme to throw a handful of conspiracy theorists off the scent.
Please god don't give them ideas - what if they create the Kandy Man?
Exactly, a lot of the alternative suggestions are trying to sound deliberately scary, whereas in real life we've often seen departments with the most benevolent sounding names commit the most horrendous acts, which in many ways has a much more chilling affect.
Apparently they did try incendiary and that was the only way they got this to work (I haven't seen the episode myself, but according to TVTropes).
Again, that idea would unduly punish the little guy and have no real affect on the Global Megacorp. I'd rather see fees incrementally increase the more active patents you have, so that companies could no longer hold hundreds of patents, they would be forced to focus on the ones that were actively generating profit for them and not hoard them for the purposes of stifling the competition or to sell them off at a later date. The benefit of this system is that the little guy could hold a handful of patents sufficient to get his business generating a profit, and as it grew he could choose to sell off or retire patents he no longer needs while retaining the core for the usual period. There would still be flaws I'm sure but it seems like it would help solve some of the issues (and if companies were happy to pay the ridiculously high fees it would feed back into the patent system and perhaps help pay for some proper quality control).
But Google ripped off Apple's iPhone, and did it again with the iPad.
Google don't make hardware so I'm not sure how they ripped off iPhone/iPad. Did you mean they ripped off iOS? In which case some examples of innovation that was not obvious and which Apple did before anyone else and which Google ripped off would strengthen your argument.
I can't speak on the Edison example, but GP was right about the Wrights, it was only pressure from the US government at the outset of WWI that forced them to engage in licensing their patents that stopped them owning the whole process. In a very real way this was the US admitting that patents stifle productivity and trying to find a way around the issue in a time of national crisis.