Google loses money, but it can afford it for longer than the other companies it is trying to blackmail.
In these kind of situation, the one with the deepest pockets always win....
1488 posts • joined 28 Feb 2010
Google loses money, but it can afford it for longer than the other companies it is trying to blackmail.
In these kind of situation, the one with the deepest pockets always win....
Sure, I want to be able to select what OS to install on an iPhone or Samsung or Nexus - even on a Chromebook... why all those devices force you to use their OS and no one complains? Ah sure, only MS is evil - think, it INSTALLS NOTEPAD AND YOU PAY FOR IT!!! OH MY GOD!!!!
Why MS shoudln't be allowed to install a default browser as long as it doesn't forbid to install other ones? Doesn't your iPhone, Android or Chromebook come with a default browser installed (and maybe a text editor too?) How do you sarch and install other software today without it? How many people are proficient with command line FTP clients today? Through "stores"? Those heavily protected walled gardens that ask you a ransom for every application you sell, and decide what you can install and what not?
Ah, but MS which never forbade you to install whatever software you like is EVIL, Apple & C that forbid you to install whatever they don't approve, or try to force you to be locked up in their "free" applications are of course GOOD.
But of course is not Linux desktop crappiness that made most user avoid Linux on the desktop (even OSX has a larger market share despite its cost...), it's because MS PUT IE IN WINDOWS!!!!
Nobody offers Linux as a choice for desktops because nobody asks for it - too little *real* software, frragmented UI, lack *real* of device support from the manufactureres. etc. etc.
Grow up, and stop believing hating MS makes you "cool" and a "techie". And start to ask you why people happily ignore Linux - maybe because Linux never delivered a good "user experience"? Most user don't care at all about kernels, file sytems and the like. They care about their experience. MS understood it - Linux fans are still believing you have to worship open code and use it just because of that....
... because that's the real monopoly today.
Yes, far better that someone reusing fifty years old Apollo blueprints and trying to sell it as something new to be excited about....
... with the interviewer who already knows everything....
Devices where the OS comes preinstalled and customized by a manufacturer are always a risk - and it doesn't matter where the device comes from.
Had they hired real IT security experts, maybe they would have spent less and not found themselves in this mess.... but I guess when the tempest goes away, execs will congratulate themselves for the money spent in lawyers and will keep on not spending on IT security....
If "micro" business has slept till now, and discover two weeks before there's a law they don't like, well, they deserve it. Looks more like "we pretend nothing is changing... until we cannot any longer, and thereby you'll have to postpone it because we're not ready". Anyway I believe behind the "micro" complaining there are really the big names that don't like to pay any tax they can avoid with tricks - while others pay for them because they cannot avoid them, just because they are not large enough to "exist" wherever they like.
Seventeen years ago I had to get a VAT number and abide to all it required just to work as a self-employed IT consultant. Can't really see why people selling goods should be exempt from that just because "they use the Internet". Also, it is unfair competition against businesses that sell locally and can't avoid VAT.
Well, another example Sony IT had no clue about security. All best practices says CA certificate should not be kept on online systems...
Actual events just show how outdated are Bond stories in today world. Writers should have kept him in the '60s, in a simpler and less sophisticated world. But they know there are a lot of "kids" out there ready to waste their money on such stupid movies...
Divide et impera.
In 1727 there were no recording media, and artists get paid only for live performance. That limited a lot their revenue streams. When recording media were invented, they found a way to become much richer because they could reach a much wider audience with a single performance, and sell it over and over. That also marked the creation of the "media" inustry, because before there were no media to be sold.
Nothing wrong in that. But now that recording media allows for multiple ways of accessing the same content, they don't like it anymore, and want more money for the same performance.... and that's pretty absurd to me. It's not piracy - it's just accessing the same content for which I already paid for in the most suitable way. The day I have my preferite singer perform under the shower with me live, I'll gladly pay for it...
I *did* inform myself about how it works in Italy. Money are distributed taking into account traditional sales/broadcasting for the most part, and digital sales count only for 5%.
Of course, with such a system, the big names with a big presence in traditional channels get the largest percentage of the total sum, and the "small" artists only the breadcrumbs - regardless of what content is really "copied".
Frankly, I don't care about what artists think - if you can't live out of your "art", or you'0re just greed, well, you can't ask money to me, and force me to pay you.
Moreover, we are not talkin about artists only, because a lot of money also go to media companies.
http://www.dday.it/redazione/13799/equo-compenso-per-copia-privata-ecco-dove-vanno-a-finire-tutti-i-soldi (sorry, not available in English, while the italian agency which collects that money, SIAE, is known for its opacity).
C'mon, it's not the small artist looking for this compensation. These are the big ones who made a lot of money already - and want more backed by the media companies that like the idea to resell the same contents over and over just switching the media support. Due to the size of the digital market today, the money collected from those sales are not peanuts at all. In Italy alone, the annual sum is about 70/80 millions of euro each year, and with the updated rules passed in the past months, it will rise to 150 millions each year. Which copyright holders get *doing nothing*.
And why an "artist" trying to make a carreer should get free money while others building their own company needs to find money themselves? Why shouldn't he or she have a "real" job if his or her "art" doesn't pay the bills? Should the taxpayer pay for "artists" - and how do you decide one is an "artist" and another is not? This is just another kind of subsidy given to people who don't deserve them at all - while forcing people to pay them with they hard earned money.
There should be no compensation for "personal private copies" - as long as they are not piracy. You can't really charge someone because he or she wants today to listen to music or access contents on the device most fit for the purpose in a given situation.
I can agree with DRM technologies as long as they are used to counter piracy, but the rightful licensee of copyrighted material should be able to access it regardless of the actual device used. Charging him or her for each and every use is really an avid attempt to exploit a work over and over without any need to produce something new, and/or looking for new customers.
These taxes/levies are not enforced because of piracy, but to "compensate" for "personal copies": you buy a CD, don't own any portable CD player anymore (and anyway, you would not carry one along with you anyway), and thereby you copy your CD tracks to your smartphone - the "poor artist" - in dire need to buy a new Ferrari because the old one is getting old, after all it's a few months old and thereby no longer fashionable enough - don't like this.
Heck! YOUR ARE COPYING HIS/HER MUSIC!!!! YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO IT NOT ON THE DEVICE YOU BOUGHT! CRIMINAL! CRIMINAL! YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT RIGHT!!!
That's why I stopped to buy music/movies wholly. Sure, you can get some money from every device I buy which will not store your damned products, but you won't get the big money from me anymore.
In Italy the tax is paid on every storage device, even if bought stand-alone (any kind, including spinning hard disks, flash disks, removable disks, USB disks, CDs, DVDs, whatever) and devices that might be used to store or copy contents (PCs, recorders, mp3 players, smartphones, etc.). And it is paid by companies too. In 2012 the "Regional Administrative Tribunal" (TAR) ruled that companies are not exempt - although the European Court of Justice said they should...
A government always prefer more taxe money than less...
Depends on the patch - the vulnerability it fixes, how easy is to exploit it, and if exploits are alrready in the wild. A compromised system may be worse than one with issues.
But of course you need to test patches on a test system before applying them - ignoring this basic requirement to save some money can be very costly afterwards...
It's the right punishment for companies trying to sell you all those cloudy things - even when they are clearly a nonsense...
Because not every document needs to and does move around the Internet? A print spool may be at greater risk because you have really no way to protect it on your own - you just have to trust the system - and the owner of the system. Printing on the cloud gives the owner of the system a great deal of information which could be analyzed, unless your GC - sorry, it's no longer a Personal Computer, it's a Google Computer installed on your premises - can perform end-to-end encryption between the device and the printer. But that would mean that the device is able to spool in a format the printer can directly use, and thereby could talk to the printer directly without any cloud need. Otherwise if the transformation "happens" in the cloud, it means data are decrypted to be processed. And if they are decrypted to be printed, they can be also "analyzed"... and you can't know what they do with them.
Sorry, there are a of documents - bank, medical, etc. - I would like to print without Google in the middle. Even if they come from the Internet, but with an end-to-end encryption between me and the document provider - without Google in the middle perusing at them....
BTW: there's a lot of useful things you can do on a PC without ever sending a byte outside your local network...
Just gave a look to HP wifi AP cloud managed - you need to subscribe to HP service to manage your own APs from the cloud.... but what is really tragic is that there will be people who actually buy such prodyucts.
And the security risks implied in transmitting everything you do back and forth network you have no control over are really high. Today, often what people need to print (besides holidays/babies/cats photos) are documents that for some reason needs to be in print, and often with sensitive informations.
In a business environment unless you do photo/graphic work there's little need of inkjet printers, especially if you can afford a color laser for those tasks where color may be required.
At home, inkjets may still be easier to manage (replacing ink is usually easier than replacing toner - not that the latter is difficult, but it could be a little more intimidating). While ink is more expensive, the smaller cartridges "looks" less expensive to replace, especially for people printing little.
Then there are the *true* photo printers - I mean those like the Canon Pixma Pro or Epson Stylus Photo Rxxxx ones - which have 8+ inks dedicated to color and B/W photo prints on several professional photo papers, on 13" or 17" wide paper - maybe including roll paper. No laser can compete with these ones yet. And sure, these are not the printers you usually print to from a Chromebook or Android....
I guess there's a Google bot for that - look for any comments putting Google in bad light and start to add downvotes for that....
In Europe many countries have a levy for "personal copy" rights of copyrighted contents, inflicted on each purchase of media or devices that *might* be used to store a copy - *MIGHT*.
They are enforced just because customers have not the power of Google of inflicting big damages to publishers which don't accept the "Google rule"? Antitrust laws were created exactly to avoid a company could reach that level of power and actually rule the market.
It's funny anyway how many people were terrorized by MS monopoy which actually didn't control contetns, and are perfectly OK with the far worser one of Google which is able to control the contents, and thereby what you find, read, and, eventually, think.
Sorry, but "hacking" was already common in those days to get more access or more resources to shared machine. Mitnick started to break into systems in the early '80s.
As soon as systems became connected - and the Internet was not the only network available - they became a target - and someone break into them.
"X's biggest problem stems from the era it existed in." - this would be true for Windows as well, wouldn't it? Back in the days of Windows machines with no Internet and often no LAN at all, when you can leave your machine unlocked in your office and no one would touch it... but of course this is a lame excuse for Windows, X Window, Linux and whatever software still in use today.
A lot of code still in use was written many years ago - and now with a lot of efforts to uncover vulnerabilities - more sophisticated researchers and more sophisticated tools - lots of vulnerabilities will be discovered, many of them dating back to many years ago.
I'm more worried they fired skilled programmers and replaced them with worse (and cheaper) ones...
If I learnt something about economy, is that investors often like to waste somebody else money. While storing their own safely in some "paradise".
Don't get me wrong - I like investors who risk their own money. That's what a *true* investor is.
What I do not like are investor that borrows money, or lure banks and the like to back their very risky and often absurd investments - and when the bubble collapse, ask for taxpayers money because they're "too big to fall", the whole economy would collapse without a bailout, etc. etc.
... which actually made impossible to see contents you paid for if you moved to another "region". All these regulations are there to ensure media companies can maximize their revenues against honest customers. Dishonest ones have no problem to watch pirated contents...
A "couple of people" means half of Linux desktop users!
This is really space exploration, and not just big gov contracts to some aerospace company unable to deliver nothing new than a fifty year old design.
It should start by teaching people Excel (or any other spreadsheet) *is not a database"....
In my experience, often problems arise not from "mistakes" - people trying to doing something and doing it a wrong way - but from "laziness" - people avoiding to do things they should do, for fear of mistakes - often regarded more dangerous than a data breach, lack of resources, lack of proper skills (often due to outdated ones), lack of system knowledge (it was setup by someone else years ago, noone touches it for fear of broking it...) or pure real laziness. Or a combination of all those factors.
As long as too many people in charge of systems believes that "if it works, don't touch it", that 99.99% uptime needs to be reached with a single machine setup, that everything you learnt 15 years ago is still fully valid as if nothing changed meanwhile, that it's OK if someone sets up a system and nobody else knows anything about it, and responsibilities needs to be avoided at all costs thereby doing nothing is better than risking a mistake, well, there will be no technological solutions but full AI robots...
Heath shields? It looks to me Apollo ones worked pretty well. Fifty years ago. Space Shuttle tiles as well, as long as they weren't hurt from some pieces from the main tank. Thirty years ago.
It's really difficult to find something interesting in this Apollo with LCD panels and better computers... and they removed also fuel cells.... next time they will be excited to use a Lox/LH2 rocket engine?
SpaceX vehicles are far more interesting, having rockets and capsule trying to be able to get back and land on a platform.
Maybe it's time to hire better engineers at NASA, the actual ones looks to be rummaging in old archives to copy some old hand made bluepritns into their CAD systems...
It would be interesting to attach a debugger and check what it's really doing...
When it comes to photography, you don't really care too much about resolution (although more pixel can be better) and how much photos 'stand out' with its default settings. Although many casual viewers may like highly saturated and high contrast images, it's not what you need when processing photos. What you need is a large gamut display able to cover more than sRGB, close to full AdobeRGB, and which can be fully calibrated. Otherwise Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. can't be used at their best, and HighDPI support becomes of little use.
Unluckily all of the were more interested in boys with a new motorbike than a new computer, and valued playing soccer much more than being able to code in 6502 assembly.
None of my sister's friends entering our study ever screamed 'Cool, the new Commodore! Can I try it?', and ever asked me to exchange ideas or programs... To them I was mostly 'that strange brother who spends so many hours *playing* with a computer instead of doing something better'. PCs were seen just as a boys' *game*.
Even the two daughters of a friend of my mothers, whose father was a university professor of electronics,, one is a veterinary, the other studied 'engineering', but not IT or the like, just a strange hybrid called 'business engineering' and now works in IT, but 'of course' in the role of sales and business manager, nor in hardware or software production...
So, please, don't blame us. We really didn't anything to hinder girls fall in love with IT. We would have really liked it to happen, and see girls around us. It didn't, some of us found PCs interesting, almost all of the girls didn't. Sellers targeted the group more likely to spend money on their products, as it happens in any other market, and the nerd stereotype and stigma was created. Being a negative one, it kept girls away.
Probably, you should blame more the media and ad industry - where many women work - to have created a negative stereotype of IT professionals, and keeping women away from IT, instead of applying a sexist and misogynist stereotype now. In my now twenty year experience, it's not IT people keeping women away. It's women keeping them away themselves.
Even third party tools like Delphi in many ways abandoned Windows desktop development (and it was never really strong for server development) chasing the mobile route, because 'everybody' thought money were there. Also, to reduce costs, development has been moved to Romania and Spain, resulting in quality issues and lack of critical skills in areas like compiler technology.
While Delphi became very late to support many Windows desktop features and put lots of efforts in developing its own cross-platform GUI, MS put more roadblocks in Windows development when access to APIs needed for Windows Store App was severely limited for third party development tools.
Most roaming costs are not justified nor by costs to deliver the service, nor by the need of a reasonable profit. It's just customers exploitation. Even more so when both the company you have a contract with and the network you're using are the same.
It's just like if a beer in a pub outside your home town would cost you much more just because.
If EU wants better integration and less boundaries, it goes through stopping unfair commercial practices as well.
Being forbidden to make a copy means that once I paid for the right to listen to their music on a given medium they will replace such a medium if it is damaged or lost? Or that I can send back my old CD and obtain it in a new format?
The music industry is hiding behind a finger. It hoped new media would have allowed to sell the *same* contents to the *same* people over and over as long media evolved. A 'perfect' plan to make lots of money with minimal efforts. Just repackage old stuff in a new format, and sell it again.
Just to find the new media allowed to move contents to newer technology easily, without any need to repurchase. Just like you get your own old photos and movies digitalized.
When the plan to extract as much money as they could from the same contents failed, a 'compensation' was sought. Of course, the perfect target are the end users, regardless of what they do or don't. Just to make some overly rich 'artists' even richer, and those gathering compensation money as well.
Frankly, as a software developer, it's like if I asked to repurchase my software every time you switch to a new OS, while asking you to read the software from the original media each time, and forbidding you to make any copy, even on the hard disk - and we get no compensation....
In Italy it ended up to be a tax on any blank media, including HDDs, and every device able to store music - including smartphones. Money go to SIAE, the Italian society of artists, that after wasting a lot in its own interest, gives the rest to Italian musicians, of course being unable to know who gets copied most, so who sell more gets more money.
I stopped to buy music wholly. If I'm charged any time I buy a media or device for my use (I buy a lot of storage for my own photos) and doing that I pay someone who does nothing I use, well, I will not give 'em not an Euro.
Moreover as a software developer I don't get an euro for people 'personal copies', and really can't understand why musicians should be threated differently.
For the casual user and traveler, maybe. And just those who never travel abroad.
Nor MS had a monopoly over browsers. There were others, someone used them, many didn't and Windows never forbade to install them. If people didn't use them, nor used OS/2 or MacOS or Unix was not because MS forced any monopoly - moreover unlike Macs and some IBM using proprietary architectures, PCs run any OS you throw at them, as Linux rise shows very well.
But we still blame MS for gaining a dominant position just adding a default browser to its OS, but Google brainwashing is very effective in denying the fact that for most users Google is the home page and effectively controls access to the Internet. Sure, a few users use other services (which could be just proxies for Google....), but like IE, most users do use Google, which is in the same position MS was years ago, and it's even worse because it doesn't control the technology, it does control the contents, something MS never achieved and wasn't its aim.
What "significant competitors in search"? Yahoo and BIng? They are as much competitive as OS/2, MacOS and Netscape and other browsers were, when action was taken against MS. The only real competitors are Yandex and Baidu for their respective language areas - just both outside EU boundaries and not used by EU citizens.
Nothing to say about that "hardware empire" lobby that still "fines" $$$$$ you for Internet access because you can't just plug your fingers into a wire connection, or tune your ears to wireless signals?
Or that "telecom empire" that still asks you money to use their cables and antennas to access the Internet because you can't access internet servers with your brain powers?
But you just show what the real issues was. People don't want to pay for software, and in exchange for what looks like "free" one are ready to sell their freedom.
... politicians do know it controls access to what make them palatable to the citizens or not.
Actually Google could change what a search about a politician returns first - and make it a star or a no one. And meanwhile, it can inject a lot of funds in any "foundation" you like... so politicians will be very careful to take a stance against Google, especially since their spin-doctors will tell them not to do.
The monopoly Google has over Internet searches, and thereby the first "access" to Internet contents is far greater than those MS had simply controlling the browsing technology but not actually what the browser displayed - but it was enough to prompt the EU to take action against MS.
But no one cares, because MS is by default "evil" - because it asks you money for the products it sells-, why Google is "good" because it does't ask you money for the service it offers, just because too few understand those services are there just turn youn into a Google product being sold for money...
I too removed Avast from my sister's PC a month or so ago because latest versions were too heavy and made her old PC too slow, and riddled with too many unwelcome "options" and "ads".
I do not know if the size of the "rollup", over 700MB, created issues while Avast tries to check everything inside and checks every file change and every executable run.
Anyway, when I install so large patches I disable the AV, or it could take a very long time to complete the process, and to ensure nothing goes wrong because the AV imagines theres something bad in the patch and crash something.
Actually the author is a woman... unless she asked a men to write the book on her behalf <G>
Just Dilbert, as many other strips, take inspirations from real life - and you missed the comment I had a first hand experience of someone like that in the strips... there are women who learnt they have power over men, and will use it to reach their goals.
The dilbert strips were there just for a smile...
Unluckily, I met one like that...
Anyway, guess "girls" now understand how IT people feel everytime they are portraied in some blockbuster movie - fat, wearing teenager clothes in their forties, unkempt beard and hair, an old pizza beside the keyboard, living with mama, etc. etc.
Of course this stereotypes are OK, if Brad Pitt is the hero....
Why? Because it releases improvements without waiting for the next release?