> A car is a commodity. There is a very large barrier to new entrants.
I tried to point out that it's not just about switching costs of the consumer. It's also about what you can switch to. The common libertarian argument is that it's only the choice of the consumer that matters and that the actions of companies or governments don't matter. But if there's no competitor to "Coke or Campbell's or even Electronic Arts" then we can't switch to them. The theory, the possibility, isn't the reality and isn't the practicality.
Are you arguing that potential competitors can so easily setup the infrastructure and gain enough market and ad revenue, that it doesn't matter what Google does? Is it _impossible_ for Google to manipulate the search/advertising market? If the answer is no, then there might be something to investigate (although I believe it's bullshit in this case; just politics.)
You acknowledge that the switching costs of companies matter, but argue that in this case there is "nothing stopping" a new competitor. You've prejudged the issue; Google can manipulate the market and make barriers simply because of it's large market share. The question is, are they doing that?
> It's the burden of those trying to declare Google a monopoly to come up with some rationale...
They only need to show Google will "attempt to monopolize" the market, and only in a single state not the entire US. Are their Ad prices artificially lowered to drive Bing out of the market? It's easy to make up an excuse for an investigation.
The answer should be to fix the broken legal system that's driven by money, then we wouldn't have "investigations" like this in the first place.
It only takes you about ten seconds to switch to a different search provider, if you use google it's from free choice.
You've fallen victim to one of the classic libertarian blunders!* Other people's choices affect your options. You don't get to select what you want; you get to choose an option that enough other people also choose. So if few people buy Oldsmobile, they go out of business, and you can't buy an Oldsmobile. If they are pushed out of the market by a dominant or monopoly competitor, it isn't even other people deciding what should succeed, much less you as an individual.
*The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in asia" but only slightly less well known is "Never argue with a Libertarian when Online!"
Being right is not the same as knowing. To know something involves the reasoning/intuition/process by which you gained the knowledge. If you guess the roulette spin you might be right, but you don't know.
It might seem pedantic to point that out, but it really gets to the heart of the issue: the jury isn't there to simply render the right verdict, but to reach the right verdict. If we could build software that agreed with the jury 99% of the time, would it be OK to eliminate the jury and be tried by software?
Guys, accidents happen. This "Northrop Grumman", whoever they are, will no doubt be fired and not receive any more contracts once word of this gets out. This will put pressure on them to provide better services, or be out-competed by other entrepreneurs. Our free market system works, you just need to expect this kind of thing when it's government doing the hiring.
The problem is that it's the government selecting the vendor. If the government would just get out of the vendor-hiring-business maybe the Free Market could fix this mess.
Why is it important that the recording was performed with this particular device?
It's unique because the iPhone owner will have notified everyone that they have an iPhone, but not necessarily that it's being used to record the conversation. It's like 1 & 1/2 party consent.
It's how integrated/entangled the new systems are in our lives that makes this different. Death and "Automated systems" are understood, but having a website you use daily remind you of a loss is new. Email is ~20 years old, but it doesn't send out messages to "re-connect" with people.
The network provider cannot know whether the data I am pulling is high or low priority.
Sell me a bitrate, or a quantity of bits, but pretending that the network provider can know which bits are more important based on protocol or endpoint, for all protocols and endpoints, is ridiculous. Allowing them to make the decision based on anything other than what I (not the back-room partnership) have paid for is an express path to oligopoly over our ability to communicate. A fast-track to eviscerating the practical application of both free speech and the perfect information required for an efficient free market.
Something like this:
Package 1: Top QOS for VOIP @ 30kbps, Data at 0.5MB min to 4MB max
Package 2: Bulk Data at 1MB min to 4MB max
Then the packages can be restricted/negotiated with the government so, for example, VOIP QOS is manatory on cell phones. Ensures the quality of the network, and makes it easy on consumers.
>>>only a recovery partition which was tied to your boot sector so installing Linux or any other OS or boot manager meant your recovery sector was useless.
Really? I just learned something new. This pretty much proves the new 2000s Microsoft is better than the old 90s Microsoft (which was sued by the US and EU for various nefarious practices). I really don't understand Microsoft apologists that defend this company. It's ridiculous that you can't even install a dual-boot Windows/Linux or Windows/Other setup without destroying the "restore windows" sector.
Forget the apologists, what about everybody else. Where are the AG's investigating this? Why is it that the force of government ignores corporate abuse until it becomes so egregious - and so well understood - that everybody sees it's wrong?
As good a move as this I can't help but wonder about the comments made by volunteers moderators on the SPUFs (Steam Powered User Forum) about how "VAC doesn't make mistakes", how bans were permanent and indisputable, etc.
It's not a conundrum, it's just hypocrisy: Valve doesn't really believe VAC is perfect, as demonstrated here, but people don't really care until they get thrown under the bus. It's the same reason the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners.
Citizens recording video makes it really dangerous for the police who used to lie with impunity. The fear of video, as shown by the overreactions, isn't for the lone crazy/idiotic officer (like the one in this story,) so much as the officers who might be asked to "support" them. Should you lie to protect your fellow officer, when there might be video showing the truth? That's the kind of cultural upheaval in law enforcement that will cause real problems for everybody.
It is sad, that's for sure, but at the same time it's unfair to blame Android for this debacle. Android is the OS, and it's not Google's fault that Motorola is so blatantly circumventing the spirit of the OS..
Google could use GPL3.
To submit code you have to waive copyright/patent claims. http://source.android.com/source/cla-individual.html I can't see them switching the license. It would really be a dick move, but it would be just desserts for the telecoms.
Many laws in Brasil exists only on paper, and has't any kind of regulation nor enforcement. People simply ignore them, and even police, or official fiscalization, does nothing about it, the law is completely ignored by all sectors of society.
This is the reason the US should not be pushing ACTA. It'll only work with draconian international enforcement, constantly monitoring the actual practice of copyright, and arguing over sanctions and punishment for countries that don't meet the MAFIAA's standards. In the end the MAFIAA will keep some profits, and the US economy will suffer because the IP-based businesses didn't transition to new business models.
If the end-user is not responsible, and this all becomes the responsibility of the credit card networks and banks, then I suppose I don't care too much, but if this can end up adversely affecting the credit reports of the victims, then I think the credit card industry needs some reform, beginning with mandates that info not be retained by merchants.
They used to call it Fraud and it was the banks problem. Now they call it Identity Theft and it's your problem.
Really now, all it would take is a small amount of healthy skepticism. Let's assume the scammer is so good that there are no other "tells". A user would only need to say to the scammer "Microsoft found a virus on my PC did they? Let me get back to you" and then call Microsoft. As unpleasant as calling Microsoft would be, it beats giving money to a scammer. It's the same well-known principle used for dealing with suspicious communications from banks. If you don't know if that e-mail is really from your bank because you don't have the technical skill to determine that, then you ignore it and call your bank at their published phone number. Then it doesn't matter if it's the most clever phishing e-mail in the world.
It doesn't exactly require a genius to understand these things. It just requires that one not leap blindly into what they do not understand while expecting a good result. That's general advice for life, not just computing. I personally believe that almost everyone is capable of understanding these simple concepts, they just can't be bothered to think. Perhaps they need a little incentive. Perhaps by providing one the scammers are serving a purpose, even though I fully agree with you that they are scumbags. That's why I'd liken them to a carrion-eater or a parasite.
That's not an accurate description of how smart and savvy people deal with this: People evaluate the message and the context it was delivered in. If you get an email from a co-worker while at work and that's a normal, expected way of communication with the sender you don't call "their published phone number" to confirm you have the right person. The context for evaluating trust includes the medium of delivery. In this case it's the phone and the internet. And people are new to the internet. They haven't figured out the patterns for evaluating the trustworthiness of electronic events (if you will.) That's why this scam works in the first place. It's not just praying on those who fall for any old lie, but those who are feel confused about computers.
So is it illegal for you to tell me that Google tells me that Movie-links.tv tells me where the links to tv and movie streams are?
Prob should close this thread before the fed's charge in.
Oh snap! I just read your comment and now there's a copy in my brain. I just thought of it again and it's still there! Maybe if I just keep reading slashdot...
But, what they point out is that HTML 5 video is untenable for even their short term success. If they went to purely HTML 5, they would lose market share rapidly to people who weren't pure OSS. What does that say, from a business standpoint?
It points out something remarkable and often overlooked: The market leader is pushing for open standards like it's business depends on it. That's the exact opposite of the (short) history of high tech: it's normally the marginal players that agree on standards to commoditize the market and gain share, while the leader "innovates" to keep everything incompatible. Google is pushing HTML5 to adopt more features so it can compete in a market of open standards, rather then making a gVideo player with lots of new (closed) features.
The fact that a huge amount of H.264-related code could be reused in their VP8 decoder strongly suggests that, at minimum, VP8 and H.264 are very similar, and that greatly increases the odds that this is the case, and that any codec implementing VP8 would violate one or more of those patents.
That's bad.
OTOH, Google is a gigantic multinational with lots of money, lawyers and time to review the code, and they say it's free-and-clear of patent issues.
ACTA is the wrong economic strategy for the US. It's the modern equivalent of the British trying to force the American colony to pay British publishers, and it'll fail in the same way. No outright rejection or bloody rebellion, just a never-ending political argument over what's fair. The MAFIAA may collect for years, until China or India (or others) decide to "moderate" their enforcement of the rules. Then the US will find that a large part of it's economy is faltering with no way out, because it didn't take the pain and adjust when the technology changed.
Slashdot Mirror
> A car is a commodity. There is a very large barrier to new entrants.
I tried to point out that it's not just about switching costs of the consumer. It's also about what you can switch to. The common libertarian argument is that it's only the choice of the consumer that matters and that the actions of companies or governments don't matter. But if there's no competitor to "Coke or Campbell's or even Electronic Arts" then we can't switch to them. The theory, the possibility, isn't the reality and isn't the practicality.
Are you arguing that potential competitors can so easily setup the infrastructure and gain enough market and ad revenue, that it doesn't matter what Google does? Is it _impossible_ for Google to manipulate the search/advertising market? If the answer is no, then there might be something to investigate (although I believe it's bullshit in this case; just politics.)
You acknowledge that the switching costs of companies matter, but argue that in this case there is "nothing stopping" a new competitor. You've prejudged the issue; Google can manipulate the market and make barriers simply because of it's large market share. The question is, are they doing that?
> It's the burden of those trying to declare Google a monopoly to come up with some rationale ...
They only need to show Google will "attempt to monopolize" the market, and only in a single state not the entire US. Are their Ad prices artificially lowered to drive Bing out of the market? It's easy to make up an excuse for an investigation.
The answer should be to fix the broken legal system that's driven by money, then we wouldn't have "investigations" like this in the first place.
It only takes you about ten seconds to switch to a different search provider, if you use google it's from free choice.
You've fallen victim to one of the classic libertarian blunders!* Other people's choices affect your options. You don't get to select what you want; you get to choose an option that enough other people also choose. So if few people buy Oldsmobile, they go out of business, and you can't buy an Oldsmobile. If they are pushed out of the market by a dominant or monopoly competitor, it isn't even other people deciding what should succeed, much less you as an individual.
*The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in asia" but only slightly less well known is "Never argue with a Libertarian when Online!"
Being right is not the same as knowing. To know something involves the reasoning/intuition/process by which you gained the knowledge. If you guess the roulette spin you might be right, but you don't know.
It might seem pedantic to point that out, but it really gets to the heart of the issue: the jury isn't there to simply render the right verdict, but to reach the right verdict. If we could build software that agreed with the jury 99% of the time, would it be OK to eliminate the jury and be tried by software?
Guys, accidents happen. This "Northrop Grumman", whoever they are, will no doubt be fired and not receive any more contracts once word of this gets out. This will put pressure on them to provide better services, or be out-competed by other entrepreneurs. Our free market system works, you just need to expect this kind of thing when it's government doing the hiring.
The problem is that it's the government selecting the vendor. If the government would just get out of the vendor-hiring-business maybe the Free Market could fix this mess.
Why is it important that the recording was performed with this particular device?
It's unique because the iPhone owner will have notified everyone that they have an iPhone, but not necessarily that it's being used to record the conversation. It's like 1 & 1/2 party consent.
Automated systems are insensitive. News at 11.
It's how integrated/entangled the new systems are in our lives that makes this different. Death and "Automated systems" are understood, but having a website you use daily remind you of a loss is new. Email is ~20 years old, but it doesn't send out messages to "re-connect" with people.
The network provider cannot know whether the data I am pulling is high or low priority.
Sell me a bitrate, or a quantity of bits, but pretending that the network provider can know which bits are more important based on protocol or endpoint, for all protocols and endpoints, is ridiculous. Allowing them to make the decision based on anything other than what I (not the back-room partnership) have paid for is an express path to oligopoly over our ability to communicate. A fast-track to eviscerating the practical application of both free speech and the perfect information required for an efficient free market.
Something like this:
Package 1: Top QOS for VOIP @ 30kbps, Data at 0.5MB min to 4MB max
Package 2: Bulk Data at 1MB min to 4MB max
Then the packages can be restricted/negotiated with the government so, for example, VOIP QOS is manatory on cell phones. Ensures the quality of the network, and makes it easy on consumers.
>>>only a recovery partition which was tied to your boot sector so installing Linux or any other OS or boot manager meant your recovery sector was useless.
Really? I just learned something new. This pretty much proves the new 2000s Microsoft is better than the old 90s Microsoft (which was sued by the US and EU for various nefarious practices). I really don't understand Microsoft apologists that defend this company. It's ridiculous that you can't even install a dual-boot Windows/Linux or Windows/Other setup without destroying the "restore windows" sector.
Forget the apologists, what about everybody else. Where are the AG's investigating this? Why is it that the force of government ignores corporate abuse until it becomes so egregious - and so well understood - that everybody sees it's wrong?
Seriously, what does collecting ad-targetting data in this manner get you that you couldn't from a quick keyword analysis and Geo IP lookup?
Targeted Advertising is the new Strong AI
As good a move as this I can't help but wonder about the comments made by volunteers moderators on the SPUFs (Steam Powered User Forum) about how "VAC doesn't make mistakes", how bans were permanent and indisputable, etc.
It's not a conundrum, it's just hypocrisy: Valve doesn't really believe VAC is perfect, as demonstrated here, but people don't really care until they get thrown under the bus. It's the same reason the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners.
Citizens recording video makes it really dangerous for the police who used to lie with impunity. The fear of video, as shown by the overreactions, isn't for the lone crazy/idiotic officer (like the one in this story,) so much as the officers who might be asked to "support" them. Should you lie to protect your fellow officer, when there might be video showing the truth? That's the kind of cultural upheaval in law enforcement that will cause real problems for everybody.
... this won't help cases like Spamhaus being sued by spammers in the US for defamation and tortious interference.
Well it's easy to point out unfair legal systems in other countries, but fixing your own.. not so easy.
It is sad, that's for sure, but at the same time it's unfair to blame Android for this debacle. Android is the OS, and it's not Google's fault that Motorola is so blatantly circumventing the spirit of the OS..
Google could use GPL3.
To submit code you have to waive copyright/patent claims. http://source.android.com/source/cla-individual.html I can't see them switching the license. It would really be a dick move, but it would be just desserts for the telecoms.
Frankly, I'd be interested in knowing how they rooted the phone and then changed the boot ROMs without using a USB cable...
up up down down left right left right B A
The current user has had all memories of <ex's name> removed from their memory.
Please do not mention this person.
"They deserved the block, and we didn't block them anyway" sounds like an odd denial.
Read: We threatened them with lawyers and they stopped, so we didn't have to block them.
Many laws in Brasil exists only on paper, and has't any kind of regulation nor enforcement. People simply ignore them, and even police, or official fiscalization, does nothing about it, the law is completely ignored by all sectors of society.
This is the reason the US should not be pushing ACTA. It'll only work with draconian international enforcement, constantly monitoring the actual practice of copyright, and arguing over sanctions and punishment for countries that don't meet the MAFIAA's standards. In the end the MAFIAA will keep some profits, and the US economy will suffer because the IP-based businesses didn't transition to new business models.
If the end-user is not responsible, and this all becomes the responsibility of the credit card networks and banks, then I suppose I don't care too much, but if this can end up adversely affecting the credit reports of the victims, then I think the credit card industry needs some reform, beginning with mandates that info not be retained by merchants.
They used to call it Fraud and it was the banks problem. Now they call it Identity Theft and it's your problem.
Really now, all it would take is a small amount of healthy skepticism. Let's assume the scammer is so good that there are no other "tells". A user would only need to say to the scammer "Microsoft found a virus on my PC did they? Let me get back to you" and then call Microsoft. As unpleasant as calling Microsoft would be, it beats giving money to a scammer. It's the same well-known principle used for dealing with suspicious communications from banks. If you don't know if that e-mail is really from your bank because you don't have the technical skill to determine that, then you ignore it and call your bank at their published phone number. Then it doesn't matter if it's the most clever phishing e-mail in the world.
It doesn't exactly require a genius to understand these things. It just requires that one not leap blindly into what they do not understand while expecting a good result. That's general advice for life, not just computing. I personally believe that almost everyone is capable of understanding these simple concepts, they just can't be bothered to think. Perhaps they need a little incentive. Perhaps by providing one the scammers are serving a purpose, even though I fully agree with you that they are scumbags. That's why I'd liken them to a carrion-eater or a parasite.
That's not an accurate description of how smart and savvy people deal with this: People evaluate the message and the context it was delivered in. If you get an email from a co-worker while at work and that's a normal, expected way of communication with the sender you don't call "their published phone number" to confirm you have the right person. The context for evaluating trust includes the medium of delivery. In this case it's the phone and the internet. And people are new to the internet. They haven't figured out the patterns for evaluating the trustworthiness of electronic events (if you will.) That's why this scam works in the first place. It's not just praying on those who fall for any old lie, but those who are feel confused about computers.
Wait, this is very confusing.
So is it illegal for you to tell me that Google tells me that Movie-links.tv tells me where the links to tv and movie streams are?
Prob should close this thread before the fed's charge in.
Oh snap! I just read your comment and now there's a copy in my brain. I just thought of it again and it's still there! Maybe if I just keep reading slashdot...
But, what they point out is that HTML 5 video is untenable for even their short term success. If they went to purely HTML 5, they would lose market share rapidly to people who weren't pure OSS. What does that say, from a business standpoint?
It points out something remarkable and often overlooked: The market leader is pushing for open standards like it's business depends on it. That's the exact opposite of the (short) history of high tech: it's normally the marginal players that agree on standards to commoditize the market and gain share, while the leader "innovates" to keep everything incompatible. Google is pushing HTML5 to adopt more features so it can compete in a market of open standards, rather then making a gVideo player with lots of new (closed) features.
The fact that a huge amount of H.264-related code could be reused in their VP8 decoder strongly suggests that, at minimum, VP8 and H.264 are very similar, and that greatly increases the odds that this is the case, and that any codec implementing VP8 would violate one or more of those patents.
That's bad.
OTOH, Google is a gigantic multinational with lots of money, lawyers and time to review the code, and they say it's free-and-clear of patent issues.
That's good.
ACTA is the wrong economic strategy for the US. It's the modern equivalent of the British trying to force the American colony to pay British publishers, and it'll fail in the same way. No outright rejection or bloody rebellion, just a never-ending political argument over what's fair. The MAFIAA may collect for years, until China or India (or others) decide to "moderate" their enforcement of the rules. Then the US will find that a large part of it's economy is faltering with no way out, because it didn't take the pain and adjust when the technology changed.
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times"?! You stupid monkey!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7__SWWSaGM
All the Pakistanis have to do is give us Osama Bin Laden first!
In the meantime, we'll keep Mark in a nice safe cave built by the CIA.
We want Osama Bin Laden's social graph too.