Re: BBC Quote
Because substantial number of Americans use the site and their ad supported version must be making some money.
346 posts • joined 28 Aug 2009
Because substantial number of Americans use the site and their ad supported version must be making some money.
Subsidise by the EU.
Virgin still do it, you just get pressurise by there sale team to get add tv and phone line, which comes with line rental.
Only after you get through all the sales crap can you finally get to just give you plane and simple BB.
probably hardware requirements, a lot of things thought of in the 60/70/80 only became possible when memory became so cheap.
Really, why can't the core OS and libraries be auto-patched for security as most Linux distros do?
I'm going to take a guess and presume the mobile phone operators being the control freaks they are want to test each an every patched first, also they probably worry about being blame for customers going on their data limits unknowingly, through this could be solve by making it only wifi only feature, auto patched over wifi. Another issue is Motorola and others laying their own software on top of android, there some potential for new security patches to break these software.
considering you have to build engines to handle regular bird strikes just to get into the air, I suspect it will do just fine.
It was the F-22 and not the F-35 that had the suffocating pilot problem, which have since been resolved.
BAE probably borrowed the code of the Americans and gave it to MI6 for safe keeping, after all if rumours are to be believe BAE been taking classified US technology and sharing it with the British MOD for decades.
Actually as I understand it BAE is building or assembling components for all F-35s in the world, not just the UKs.
Not always, don't know about the government, the banks won't touch their backend because they afraid of breaking them and hardly anyone fully understand how it all works. I wouldn't be surprise if the government was in the same position.
May be instead they should just concentrate on making services easier, better to use rather than it primarily being about saving money.
or alternative Britain leaving may speed up reforms throughout the whole the EU. Especially see them doing big things like ending the nonsense of EU parliament moving between Strasbourg and Brussels.
Yeah but which politician is insane to activate Article 50 single handedly, it always good to spread the blame and get parliament to do the dirty work for you.
I suspect it will soon change to, it won't be activated until a new government is elected in a general election and the public is allowed to choose which party they want leading them out of the EU.
Didn't you get the memo, the leave campaign promised all of that money to the NHS.
As leave camp promised all of the EU savings to be devoted to the NHS, how does he (Gove )intend to replace the funding that UK scientists will lose once we leave the EU?
Considering their will be calls from farmers for the replacement of CAP, an I'm sure numerous other parties who are going to lose money from us leaving the EU, how does Gove intend to make sure UK scientists voices won't get lost amongst even more powerful lobbying groups such as Landowners and farmers in calls for replacement funding?
It already good calling for a UK version of DARPA but does he also intend to adopt it management style as well? Allowing it to be led by scientists and engineers and not by politicans.
How would the UK research councils and UKSA interact with this UK version of DARPA?
What kind of budget do you envision UK Darpa receiving on a per year basis?
They already blame the European courts of human rights as much as it is possible to blame them.
When was the last time Britain hared off on its own?
Sierra Leone. Which was entirely a British military operation. 2000
so he will be sending out science and technology books to every kid in the country instead of bibles?
Which you can thank this tory government for as they are the ones which cancel the centralisation of medical records which would have allowed cross the board opt out much easier in the first place.
Actually it not about coming to better conclusions, it about using these medical records to train up a Deepmind Neural net so that it can spot a patient with kidney trouble or sepsis or any number of other conditions before they become life threatening and presumably before a human doctor could.
Except that dealing with experiments on the patients directly with new drugs or surgical techniques, which at the moment Google isn't doing. What Google is doing with this set of data is training it neural network to recognise when a patient has kidney problems from their medical records. CQC, NICE and other organisation already does this on a regular base, NICE use patient records to confirm whether drugs are as good as they claim and whether they are worth the price we are paying for them. CQC use them to spot where parts of the NHS are failing.
Helsinki Declaration will only come into effect once Google start to test its technology in a live clinical environment and are monitoring real patients, presumably in real time because that the moment when they are actually experimenting and using patients as guinea pigs.
Deepmind are British researchers.
You have almost certainly gave you consent, which the NHS almost certainly stored at one of its storage sites or servers.
They actually state they don't sale ads in the UK, given that where nearly all of it profits are made, there very little generation of revenue and thus profits being made in this country. I don't like this anymore than you do but the politicians could change the law tomorrow if they wanted, they won't because they themselves would be hit by such changes to the law.
NHS patient records are already analyse by dozens of organisations.
There a form you and everyone else would have signed somewhere in your life where you gave permission for information to be analyse and possessed by third parties, such as department of health, NICE, CQC. Signing up to the GP for example.
Ambulance driver missed signs of sepsis,
Nurse missed signs of sepsis,
Doctor missed signs of sepsis,
consultant missed signs of sepsis,
Google software didn't, another life save.
Bet that headline doesn't meet your narrow view of the world does it?
Every data protection form I have ever signed have included giving permission for my data to be analyse and process by third parties, this is no different. If people don't want to read them that their fault.
A million patients out of 70 million people, only a tiny bit over 1% opted out.
It going to be interesting to see what Deepmind can do with this data over the next year, Sepsis is another condition they are going to investigate.
It a shame Deepmind didn't stay a British company through.
I very much doubt Google will want to risk any moves which could turn the courts against them. They can make their money from sales of books and using this massive data sets indirectly to enhance their other services.
Which would mean it couldn't be index by a library or by any other organisation like bookshops and Amazon, which would mean no one would ever be able to find your book, great for secret manuscripts about your secret cult, not so great if you actually want people to find and buy your book. I thought this site was meant to be filled with intelligent people.
Go to Google books and you will find there are no ads on the site.
Why would they shut something down which they can use to enhance some of there most important research such as AI and translations software?
For the publishers, who have spent decades making sure they lost track of the owners of copyrights so they didn't have to pay out to the authors or their inheritors any money they were rightly owed.
Now google has won the court case, the project it will probably get renew it investment and interest from Google, I wouldn't be surprise if in the next couple of years we the catalogue greatly enhance. Before now any money google spent could have been pouring money down the drain.
Rupert Murdoch- but we want our cake and eat it as well.
Nokia never caught up with Apple, they got to distracted making phones look like lipstick.
Anyone else was expecting a much more detail article?
They don't need to be planes.
The MOD will be testing out the Airlander 10 for surveillance purposes this year.
They are already working on turning it into a electric aircraft, I'm guessing they will pursue smaller versions for surveillance operations as it offers better chance of a profit before going for larger versions.
Does it matter why do you risk upsetting an existing business model, all that matters is Google is doing it by charging 9:99 to get rid of ads on Youtube, why providing a bunch of other services as well in the same package.
I chuck in a fiver on Indiegogo, what the worst that could happen, they take their prototype laser razor that can cut a few hairs over a couple minutes to a final product that can shave my face in a few minutes and put it on general sale and I spend 300 quid on a Laser razor. I spent 300 quid on worse things.
Now be honest with us, did you read the article ?
So Google could/should be able to issue a patch for Hangout to stop pre processing videos for now until manufactures pull their fingers out and issue a over the air update for android, an other messaging apps under it control. An other messaging app providers could provide the same fix fairly quickly as well, especially the big guys like Facebook and WhatsApp.
We will see how seriously the messaging apps themselves take this bug.
Only companies which operates and have a legal presence in the EU.
There are a few Chinese an at least one Russia search engines that index the whole web, they have no operational presence in the EU and no business interests in the EU and thus don't need to comply with EU judges decisions and EU governments have no powers to force them to comply with EU.
Society and people expectations are still adapting to having all of this information available with a few press of a keyboard.
I very much more doubt someone in their twenties really cares about some photos that the person that they are interviewing took in Ibiza or down at the local, I know someone who 29 interview employees for a major bank T department yes he could find out a tonne of details about the people who he interviews by searching the web but he doesn't because he accepts that this information little to no effect on them being able to do the job, whilst he knows some of his older colleagues who are in their 40s do have their puritan views and will refuse to employ someone who has a few dodgy pics on some profile page they probably can't even remember setting up or happen to have been arrested for some crime in their teens.
It often older generations that have these prejudices and well frankly we probably have to wait for the old dogs to retire or die to get rid of them.
One of the problems with that is, it can often be other people coming forward with accusations that allows the police to build up enough evidence to get a conviction in the first place.
But names slip out all the time for one. An it only rape victims that get their name protected.
Here a scenario,
one person get a accused of raping a women, they get found innocent by the courts but another person at the same trial get found guilty, the first person who got accused and found innocent, their name will still be mention in articles about the case and is often brought up in job interviews or down the pub. Now they themselves decides they have had enough and so ask for the articles to be removed from Google.
The person who is found innocent deserves to be able to get along with their lives but the person found guilty deserve have their name in the media, so how is Google meant to react. If I was reviewing the case I would have a lot of sympathy with the bloke that is found innocent and decide to remove the article. Unfortunately the side effect of this decision could easily be the actual rapist name also being removed from the Google index.
Right to be forgotten is a lot more complex to implement than it supporters would like to make out, especially when it comes to criminal cases. Often articles and news sites like to cover the whole history of criminal cases, so police suspects are often mention in article long after they became irrelevant to the cases as well. Again do they deserve to be forever tainted with the case?. These are the questions the supporters of this decision have to answer and justify.
"""If Google wasn't sure, then it could simply refuse a request and thus bounce difficult requests to the relevant national data commissioner, who would decide."""
The problem with that was always going to be about cost and Google sent thousands of cases commissioners all across Europe, costs would quickly mount, google having to send lawyers to these cases costs of assembling their cases, writing up documents, potentially flying out witnesses even having to cover the claimant costs. Plus if discussions came out against Google it could leave google open to be sued for continue reputational damage, most costs.
An that one of the unintended side effects of the law that the stupid judges in Europe didn't think about, criminal cases often involve multiple people thus multiple people will often be mention in the article and would have their privacy violated, thus they have the right to remove the article, not just the criminal in the article. Stupid decision by a bunch of overzealous judges in Europe, it no wonder a large percentage of Brits want to leave Europe.
If people don't like the way Google is dealing with then they should campaign for the government to take on the costs of dealing with all the cases an the people who want that can pay extra taxes to pay for it.
That presume the media will keep us inform about removals and keep fighting mistakes. With many media companies struggling financially their little incentive for them to spend money on fighting Google decisions.
shhhhhhhhhhhh- let at least pretend this is a brand new innovative product and not just radio over the internet.
This one confusing, messy article, I think the editor need to take another look at it, especially the first page.
The fact the lawyer firm is crying foul suggests that there is a fire to be found. Sony docs for me at least point to some sort of conspiracy. That doesn't necessarily give Google the right to demand these own fishing expedition but still I refuse to stick up for the MPAA and Hollywood.
Hood was on his own fishing expedition and rightly withdraw the requests before he got slap down by the courts for it.
I knew this was turn bad once judges with zero programming knowledge and zero interest in programming got involved.