ARA isn't dead
It's pining for the fjords!
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
If a car driver decides to save his hide and run over pedestrians, do they get prosecuted? I doubt it. Egoism is usually a valid defense. Cowardice is only a crime when facing the enemy.
Until humans solve the problem themselves, I don't see how we can expect cars to do it for us.
You're in luck, soon you won't have to convince the rest of Europe anymore.
In principle, I understand why having to pay tax in every single country where they do business would be a prohibitive cost for small companies, and I assume that's the (official) reason why the rules were written in this way.
I am not convinced that the politicians who wrote the rules could not predict global corporations taking advantages of those rules. In particular, I believe that the UK politicians thought this was going to be a boon for UK and its low corporate tax, and they just felt totally betrayed when corporations chose dirt-cheap Ireland instead of London.
Maybe the rules could be amended in some sensible way, forcing companies to pay taxes in countries where they have a sizable workforce?
Neither is Android really. If you don't want an Android phone you don't need to have one. If you walk into any phone shop they'll sell you non Android phones.
I think the argument is that for phone manufacturers, Android is a monopoly. And if you're not Apple, it's rather correct that Android is the only way you can survive these days.
Though I'm not sure how it makes sense that 1) Google Search is a monopoly & 2) Google is leveraging their Android monopoly to force phone manufacturers to use Google Search. Surely if 1) is true, then 2) is unnecessary.
I actually think that it's the small players who gain from the current situation. Look at what happened in Spain when Google closed Google News because they refused to pay for snippets. Traffic to news sites went down overall, but big sites saw an increase in market share, because people flock to them since they're famous brands. The small players got completely killed, though.
The big players would likely say this is a good thing, because they regard small players as cheap and low-quality. Springer essentially have that argument against news aggregator: it forces them to compete for eyeballs with two-bit outfits who cannot offer quality journalism. It might be partly correct, but that would mean we need to protect big news organizations, not small players.
Governments can have legal monopolies, have law enforcement and law making authority. They can also subsidize a service and undercut the prices of private business at the expense of the local taxpayers.
The situation here is rather that the government is the only entity willing to provide the infrastructure (and the local taxpayers are willing to pay for it), because private businesses do not want to provide it for such a low ROI.
"Before criticising other peoples grammar, check your own."
Any post criticising another poster's spelling, grammar or punctuation is certain to contain a spelling, grammar or punctuation error of its own. It's like a law of physics or something.
Indeed. In this case: "peoples grammar".
My assumption about the zoom not matching the larger picture: those are two pictures taken at different times, which means the lighting is different. The reason they didn't simply zoom the larger image is that it would mean crap resolution, so instead they used a different picture taken with different optics.
Or maybe they simply didn't have a larger picture showing where the zoom is, and they just put any old picture.
Groupon was also a fast growing business, and they seemed to be inevitably successful. But in the end, like Uber, they had two problems: 1) They relied on uninterruptible supply of people willing to offer something really cheap 2) there was not much barrier to enter the market.
Apart from their ventures in self-driving cars, there isn't much that Uber does that is very hard. The fact that they were so successful shows how complacent the taxi industry has been, rather than how intelligent their system is. Which means, it's eventually going to be harder to justify leeching a 20% cut, when the only thing they do is connect providers to customers.
Uber might think that self-driving cars are going to come soon enough that they can solve their problems, but it seems highly doubtful that they can convince regulators that self-driving cars are fine to have on the road, especially after pissing off half the local governments on the planet.
The reason China is more advanced in terms of online payments is by and large due to the dismal US banking industry, which still relies on cheques, and does not yet seem to have gotten the idea of account transfers.
It does not help that every player in the industry, from stores to credit card companies to phone makers to OS makers are hindering each other in the great race to a sliver of that sweet cash.
QR codes are nice, but in that particular case, they offer no particular advantage over NFC. The miracle is rather that the store and the bank simply accepted the use of Alipay without throwing a fit and attempting to create their own incompatible and buggy system.
The fine is still small at the moment. It's going to be interesting to see how long Facebook considers starting in the country is worth it. On one hand, WhatsApp is life and blood for many Brazilians; on the other hand, Brasil is one of the biggest emerging countries. It would really hurt Facebook to leave...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019