270 posts • joined 12 Aug 2009
> Why are these clowns deciding what to block and why do they even have the power to do it.
It seems to me that having such a group deciding the what and the why is a necessary requirement to enforce the law. However, what such technically ignorant groups absolutely should not be doing is deciding the how.
All of this has happened before.
As far as I can see, there is nothing specific to the Internet about this.
Kickstarter is not an investment platform. It's a speculative pre-order platform. Pre-ordering products has existed for a long time before Kickstarter was a thing.
Or how about freelance and contract workers not getting a cut of the sale value when the business they work for is bought? This is new to the "sharing economy" is it?
> In short, you’ve been a mug.
AFAICT the ultimate argument seems to be that anyone who isn't a shareholder, or an employee of a cooperative (ie. where all employees have part ownership in the company), is a mug.
I'm inclined to agree, tbh. We need more cooperative enterprises.
> Mother of Murphy, would *you* enjoy suddenly being made responsible for making sure *everything on the Internet* is correct?!
And by "everything on the internet" you of course mean the product Google are supplying to their users. This isn't about them cleaning up the internet, this is about them cleaning up their own search indexes, and making them more relevant.
It's not like they have to do this pre-emptively either (like they do with spam, linkfarms, and certain illegal content); they get a tip-off, and then decide to either tweak their product in response, or not.
> If you get the original website to remove the page containing "kryptonaut fondles goats" then google will forget all about it.
And if you can't get the original website to remove the page? What then? Contact the Kerplekistan constabulary, asking them to raid the hosting provider?
> The point is that the data IS NOT ERRONEOUS. That's what we're talking about, that's the whole core of the controversy - the data is not wrong or inaccurate in any way.
Okay, mister reading-comprehension, apparently I was slightly too ambiguous for you: "erroneous and/or irrelevant". Better now? Or do you like having irrelevant information in your search results?
> Surely a 'right to be forgotten' ought to entail removing the information at source.
1. That is not always possible (good luck getting something removed from a seedy .ru).
2. Even if you could get the "source" removed, wouldn't you also want to remove the large "kryptonaut fondles goats! Read more at siteoflies.ru!" billboard on the public highway?
3. The original source is entirely irrelevant to the issue in question.
In the context of this brouhaha, AIUI the court decided that a list of search results about a person (not just the sites they linked to - the result list itself) constituted personal information about that person. Hence, in this case, Google *is* the "source" of the personal information.
Because of data protection legislation, Google are therefore responsible for keeping that personal information accurate and up to date - which includes removing erroneous and irrelevant information, once notified of it.
But given the hissy-fit Google seem to have been throwing about this, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Google want to provide erroneous and irrelevant search results.
Re: The USCO say what?
> Just wondering what relevance the US Copyright Office have here as the photographer is not a US citizen and the photograph in question was not taken in the US...
The story arose to public attention because the photographer came into conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a US-based organisation.
> I would say in response to @Joylon above though that this means your meat tripod DOES own the copyright.
Yes, and I believe there was a link posted last time around about a case in which that question came up (and was resolved that the person taking the photo owned copyright). In that case though, I suspect that any court would likely find that there was at least an implicit license grant made to the requester of the photo. Or maybe it could be classed as work-for-hire, in which case the copyright would be assigned to the requester, rather than the photographer.
> That's how news photographers work. They take a lot of shots and hope that one will be a winner.
No, news photographers generally take the pictures themselves, while the camera is in their possession and under their control; not farm off the job to a bunch of monkeys.
Oh wait, "citizen journalism", never mind.
> IANAL has to be the single worst acronym I've ever come across.
Have you not come across the wonderful derivation "IANALBIPOOTI" before then?
I generally prefer to go with IANAIPLBIPOOTI though, since that's my arm-chair specialty.
Oh well, I'm sure I can find the images on a more friendly news site.
Re: Slater doesn't "Own" the photo, because he doesn't and the monkey doesn't
> that you can somehow say the monkey is legally responsible for taking the image and thus Slater has surrendered his rights to it, whilst at the same time asserting that the monkey has no rights.
No, I believe that the argument is that Slater never had any rights to the image in the first place, because he was not the creator of the work.
A painting tutor may buy, transport, and set up the easels, canvas, paints, and brushes, but without an previously agreed contract, they have no rights to the works their students create. Should it be any different if some of the "students" happen to be apes, elephants, or robots?
Re: No tax breaks without representation
> Once you start shooting messengers, messengers learn that the only safe option is just to stop delivering the news.
That's the thing though; Google aren't just a simple messenger. They already pick and choose what messages to deliver to which people, every time anyone enters any search term - that's the entire point of having a search algorithm.
I've said it before: The point of this order is that Google remove information which is no longer relevant. Google should be happy to now have another source of relevance data which they can apply to their search algorithm. If the information was indeed irrelevant (and by Google's removal rate, they seems to agree in many cases), then that means their search results are now even more useful!
> If they were to stop doing business in the EU (ie, start forcing advertisers to do business in the US, in dollars), they'd be pretty much untouchable in a European court.
Indeed, but as I hinted at, they'd have to forgo the "tax efficiency" provided by certain EU nations. They don't funnel all their profits through their Irish headquarters for the craic, you know.
No tax breaks without representation
> If Google does remove a link to misleading data, the action will only be performed for searches via its European country-specific top level domains - google.be, google.de, google.fr, etc.
That may play well into the narrative Google want people to believe, but that is a solution for when a country doesn't want to see certain content (ie. censorship). The problem they actually need to solve is to remove other peoples' property from their systems when requested to do so.
As best I understand it, this whole thing was propagated from two decisions:
1) "Data subjects" (that's you and me) are the owners of data regarding themselves.
2) Google's search index/results for a person is considered to be data regarding that person.
This means that, under European data-protection laws, Google is a "data controller", and has the responsibility to delete such data at the subject's request, if it is no longer relevant.
Note: delete. Not "hide from the data subject", nor "hide from a particular region", nor even "hide from everyone". They are required to delete that data.
Or they could always pull all of their business out of the European markets. Like the Irish market, and the Dutch market, and the Irish market again.
What of the media outlets that carelessly spread the fraudulent information? Are they also being held to account for their negligence in the matter?
Anyone who knows anything about verifying sources, knows that you don't use contact information provided by the source you're trying to verify. If "the police" call you, you get a name and call the police station yourself, using a number from the phone book (or equivalent). If "the bank" (or any business) contacts you about something - especially by email - you go to their website (no, not the one linked in the email) and use the contact information there.
> But the Internet provider charges a flat rate whether you push 500 KB a month or 500 GB, simply because it's always been that way. The "solution" to this problem, unfortunately, may turn out to be metered pricing (and no, I'm not looking forward to it either.)
Except "bits" aren't in limited supply, nor are the accumulated use of such what is causing congestion on the tubes. The problem is concurrent bandwidth use exceeding the ISP's capacity, which metered-by-the-bit internet caps do not remedy. For example, if everyone burns through their allotment of bits in the first week, when that new Netflix show comes on, there's still going to be congestion, even though all the customers are well within their limit of bits.
Hence the only logical method of such tiered pricing is using bandwidth bands (10Mb/s, 30Mb/s, etc.) as is currently done by most ISPs already.
The fundamental issue is that ISPs - all of them - grossly oversell their available bandwidth/throughput. It's the reason ISPs sell "up to xMb/s broadband", and historically this was generally good enough for most people. Then internet video streaming came along, and customers started demanding ISPs make good on the inflated numbers they've been spouting for years.
> If information is out of date, then it is the out of date information that should be removed, not the links to it. The links will disappear if the information is removed.
That's the ideal, but good luck getting any information removed from some anonymous website based out of Kerplakistan.
It seems to me that this is a taste of the problems the copyright lobby have been complaining about and fighting for years.
Re: Why the UN?
> The analogy doesn't work because, on Earth, someone will own or live in the forest. There is no analogy for what we're seeing here.
People are only capable of "owning" a forest due to the laws of man. Beside the relative difficulty in access, the only reason asteroids are treated differently are because of the laws of man (the outer space treaty).
> And if you can't get in to space, why should you have ANY say in what US companies under US jurisdiction do with resources they exploit out there?
Just because you can't go somewhere, does not mean that activities in that place do not affect you. I personally can't fly up into LEO, but I'm certainly affected by what might go on up there (hello, GPS).
What about someone going out into the middle of the Atlantic (international waters), and dumping a thousand tonnes of highly radioactive waste? Should Switzerland, a land-locked nation, not have a right to complain about such activity? They may not have an Atlantic coastline, but I'm sure they have dealings involving the Atlantic (importing fish, for example).
> Notably they don't mind a visit from the T-X.
I don't know what you're talking about. There was never a T-X in either of the two Terminator movies.
AIUI these nay-saying companies seem to be saying "we'll just stuff our existing software products on top of these new kinds of hardware", without realising that introducing something like memristors could transform the computer architecture in a way which defies the fundamental assumptions on which current-day operating systems are built.
If HP do their Machine OS properly (rather than proprietarily), then it shouldn't matter so much whether it's memristors; battery-backed-up conventional RAM, crystal-lattice quantum dots; inverse-tachyon ion fields; or anything else that "wins" the hardware battle, so long as the basic assumptions of the OS hold true.
Re: @Don Jefe
> The loneliest person in the world is a Board member who had his seat purchased as a shareholder tactic. Everybody hates that guy because he's not there for the company, or even himself, he's there for someone else.
Unless I misunderstand; by "someone else" you mean "shareholders with voting rights"? Also known as owners of the company? Whom the board is meant to represent the interests of?
Besides which, ol' Zucky-boy personally holds a majority stake in the company IIRC, so the point is moot in this case. Without Zuckerberg's ear, the only way any other shareholder could get such a change enforced would be via the courts.
The Revolution will be Firefoxed
I used to use a ZTE Open. It was my first smartphone, and it was okay.
I now use a Revolution with Firefox OS (technically Boot2Gecko/B2G, likely for some licensing reason). Compared to the ZTE Open it's dreamy-smooth (which is not saying much, admittedly), and certainly a better platform for seeing what Firefox OS is capable of (or not).
Hardware-wise, I'd say it was... quirky. The power button is on the top, but on the left side - which is the opposite to what I remember from all other phones I've seen. Having the microUSB slot on the left side (about 1/4 of the way down) is just weird. And, on my unit at least, the volume-down button seems somewhat mis-aligned, in that it is difficult to activate and has no "clunk". However, the volume-up part is fine.
And in case anyone is wondering; it uses a micro-SIM, not a nano-SIM as some early (p)reviews reported.
OS-wise, it shows that Firefox OS, while very functional for the basics, is still a WIP - in terms of both feature-set and the presence of minor bugs and irritations. The new wallpapers in 1.3, featuring the fire-fox itself, are great though.
So the Revolution is certainly not a bad phone, but personally, if I were looking to get a new Firefox OS phone and didn't absolutely need one this week, I'd wait and see how the Flame (the upcoming official developer phone) stacks up.
Re: it sux if...
> I can't see why you'd need any additional "services" to implement that, any more than you'd need an additional service to use IRC or FTP.
Indeed, it's likely similarly analogous, in that neither IRC nor FTP are peer-to-peer protocols, and so require a (usually third-party) server(/"service") to mediate at least the initial connection (and more if you want group communication). Have you ever heard of firewalls and NAT?
From what I can tell, TokBox is a provider of such intermediate servers, so I assume Mozilla will be using their service as a back-end. Unless Mozilla have some sort of agreement that they host their own back-end infrastructure for it (and even then), this move concerns me with regard to long-term sustainability.
Not to mention that I'd much rather Mozilla concentrate on implementing the standards required to do this, and leave such applications to third parties. I have been very impressed by Jitsi Meet recently, but unfortunately it doesn't work on Firefox, due to Mozilla having not yet implemented everything it needs.
Re: Get your tin-foil hats here -- at these prices I'm cutting my own throat
Trawling = using a big net
Trolling = using a baited line
"Hundens balla" looks more like Swedish to me.
Granted, I'm no expert at Norwegian idioms or the intricacies of the language, but in Norwegian it could be "Hundens baller/boller". "Baller" means balls, as in sport, and "boller" can mean anything round-ish. That phrase could also be used to refer to tennis balls or such which belongs to the dog, and which dogs often love, so could be appropriate in meaning too.
Or you could use "Hundens egg" (egg is the same in singular or plural).
Although for some reason I quite prefer "Hundens plommer" (the dog's plums).
But knowing Norwegians' tendencies with English idioms, they'd probably just use the phrase in English.
Re: Cryptocurrency: How does it even work?
Indeed, as the TopOnePercent says; essentially, what would be stored in the backups are the keys used to authorize transactions on behalf of users. If the dogecoin has already been transferred away from the ownership of Dogevault's users, then all they'll regain is the ability to transfer a zero balance.
Re: W. T. F.
> Not only is Google completely wrong on this, I would say even presenting the argument is evil. Copyright is and always has been the proper method of protection for code, and patents are the wrong standard.
I was surprised at that comment in the article too, since I don't remember hearing that come up in previous coverage of this case (not that my memory of such matters is to be particularly relied upon). However, I can see an argument that the assertion in question could be appropriately applied to software APIs, which makes me wonder whether someone hasn't got their technical details in a twist.
Then again, lawyers gonna lawyer.
Re: Good riddance
> If the video showed is innocence he would probably allowed it to be used as evidence.
In that case, the prosecution would likely have moved to have it deemed inadmissable for the same reason he did. If the video was truly acquired by the police against law and due process, then it is right and just that it was not used in the trial.
I would rather not live in a society where evidence is implicitly trusted merely because it was offered up by someone in a police uniform.
Optimise for awards
This strikes me as possibly leading to a similar thing to computer performance benchmarks, whereby manufacturers tweak their product specifically to get a better score on the benchmarks, but with little or no practical real-world improvement. If I create a phone keyboard which lets you "type" that piranha thing in a single press, could I claim that as a new world record?
Is this supposed to be a world record for the physical act (an athletic achievement), or for technological progress (like "fastest electric land vehicle")? AFAICT it seems to be a fairly meaningless munging of the two.
I still have an old 2006-era "high-end" Inspiron, which I keep around in case of emergency. Had to fire it up just last year, in fact, when my primary machine died. Still worked just fine with an old Kubuntu installed on it.
Wesnoth kept me sane in those dark days waiting for the new machine to be delivered.
As a regular Reg reader, what I want to see are the latest stories since I last visited. Unfortunately, it seems I can't get to the chronological list, without first having to scroll past all the "top stories" which either I've inevitably already read, or didn't care about in the first place. Add another tab or something, so it goes: "latest", "top stories", "most read". Bonus points if it remembers which section you were last on.
And since I'm here, where the FUCK is HTTPS support? Asking people to log in to your website over an insecure connection! You are everything that is wrong with security on the Internet.
My sentiments exactly. It wasn't until the very last paragraph where the region being discussed was revealed, and only then indirectly; by mentioning the "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission".
Okay, an informed reader might have worked it out from the mention of Telstra, but even that only came up in the fifth paragraph.
Render unto Apple what is Apple's
Perhaps the fact that Comixology bills through the iTunes and Play app stores is worth noting. Amazon seems unperturbed by the fact Apple won 't let users of the Kindle app make in-app purchases.
I thought the issue was that Amazon didn't want to switch to billing through iTunes, and so pay Apple a 30% cut of all sales through the Kindle app (not to mention the price-fixing clauses in-app purchases must obey). I'm sure Apple would be happy to allow them to have in-app purchases, if only Amazon added/switched to using iTunes for processing the payments.
Re: Agenda here?
> Just like if you announce you are a vegetarian, meat eaters immediately launch into attacking you, "well you eat fish don't you?", "and eggs, and milk, they are from animals". They feel threatened and have to justify their meat eating.
I suspect in most cases they're not attacking you, or trying to justify their meat eating; they're likely just trying to work out what *kind* of vegetarian you are. The term "vegetarian" is used by a huge variety of people to mean a huge variety of things, from "I don't like the taste of some meat products" to "practically vegan".
Walk on, bye
The actual sign is already pretty cool:
Alas, this version appears to be in the process of being phased out for a more... neutral (read: generic, inoffensive, boring) sign:
Though judging by the occasional story in the local rag, I'm not alone in being dismayed with the new sign.
Re: Microsoft's influence within a private Dell?
> It would be nice to see one of these agreements challenged in the courts.
Didn't Barnes & Noble do just that, some time back? Then they took a big wodge of cash/investment from Microsoft, when it was eventually settled out of court.
> Just don't visit any dangerous websites
So any website which hosts third-party advertisements is out, then?
Re: Open your fucking eyes.
> Did you actually look, or did you assume that because you don't see such campaigns on a tech blog, they don't exist?
He didn't say they didn't exist, he said he didn't see the campaigns. And frankly, neither have I. Meanwhile, the "we need more women in x" campaigns are getting plastered across the (inter-)national media practically every week.
So if the "we need more men in x" campaigns exist, why aren't they getting as widely publicised as the female equivalents?
Re: The American press strikes again
> And yet here we are, the public, commenting on the story.
There's a difference between "in the public interest" and "interesting to the public".
> Seriously, how does one manage to say for sure either way when it's only just been opened for beta?
How much do you seriously expect to change with just two months before release? The answer is usually none at all, unless the game is so horrendous that it would be reputation-ruining for the publisher to push it out the door.
MMO betas aren't usually betas in the traditional sense. If there is already a release date set, then it is absolutely not a beta in the traditional sense. It's a free(?) preview; a taster; a demo. AFAICT what you see in a "beta" is more than likely what you're going to get at release.
Re: One big database
> just how much IT do you think a surgery has to do this
Don't most local surgeries outsource their IT already?
> You would need some kind of AI to work it out, or someone in the surgery who would spend their time reviewing and releasing data requests.
I'm not so sure pre-reviewing every request is entirely necessary. Decent security, restricted authentication tokens, comprehensive logging of every request, a clear audit trail, and stiff penalties for misuse, should be enough to deter most ne'er-do-wells from mucking about.
How often would such requests be done, anyway? Surely only when a patent's status changes - they move home, visit a doctor on holiday, require emergency treatment, etc. We're surely not talking 1,000 requests per second which need reviewing.
Re: Ponzi scheme tactics
Nothing Ponzi about it.
It's a business pledging to refund customers for a loss of company assets due to theft. AFAICT they're acting just like any regular small business startup would do if they lost assets in this manner - either make good as best they can, as soon as they can; or go bust.
Damn americans, staying over there, working their own jobs
While hiring US workers may slightly increase costs for the business, it also means that more US workers will have more money to spend, and so expand the market for goods pretty much across the board. Unless your business is entirely export, it surely makes long-term sense to hire locally.
This, exactly this.
It seems to me that there could be quite a lot about writing contracts and laws that is similar to writing software. Definitions, symbols, conditionals, GOTOs, etc.. I've thought for a while that it would be a good thing for a country or organisation to hire/contract a group of security professionals to parse, deconstruct, and analyse new laws or contracts *before* they go into force.
I have no idea what this article is about.
Yet I somehow feel that knowing this would not actually enrich my life in any way.
Re: "none of them have had any security problems"
Or possibly "none of them have noticed their security problems yet"?
Re: Thing is, we *are* all doomed.
> Do you really think you will live forever?
This isn't about you and me living forever, this is trying to reduce the chances of our proceeding generations dying en-masse from famine and disease.
> Getting all paranoid about the inevitable is counter-productive.
Yet if the changing climate is due to human activity, it is not necessarily "inevitable". Just as it is not "inevitable" that you'll go out for beers tonight.
> How about instead trying to figure out how to survive?
When you're captaining a cruise liner, it's generally a better idea to steer away from the rocks in the first place, than to be the first one in the lifeboats. No matter how impressed your mates might be by you sailing so close to the shore.
Rats in a sack
> The worst thing politicians can do in this space is fight amongst ourselves...
I believe that, in the normal course of parliamentary activities, the usual term is "debate".
Re: Best. Game. Ever.
I always used to farm Revolver matches. Score a goal or two, then just grab the ball with your fastest player, and run round collecting any cash that shows up. If you're practised/cocky enough, you could do the same with the second-worst team, but I forget what they were called.
Re: Many coin, very whimsy
So a few people get rich; those who had the best idea (created the most popular/valuable option), and those who supported it the earliest; and most people just get a modicum of value from its existence. That's pretty much the way capitalism seems to work AFAICT.
Don't let jealousy or envy of the fortunate cloud your judgement of what could be a good thing for human society as a whole.
And by that I mean Dogecoin.
Many coin, very whimsy
I still hope that it's Dogecoin which wins out overall, and becomes the global standard transaction/exchange currency.
I'm guessing this was changed to allow the use case of; people continuing to use mic input (having a conversation, etc.) while browsing other web pages. Like how you can talk to someone on Skype without having to have the Skype window visible and in-focus all the time.
Perhaps browsers should prevent cam/mic input starting on non-focussed pages and, once active, ask the user if they want to continue sending if the input-receiving page is de-focused.
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- China building SUPERSONIC SUBMARINE that travels in a BUBBLE
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS