Re: Idiots of a feather flock together
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
It's interesting to see fairly important rules being decided to resolve case after case. Right now, it does feel like a lot is still undecided and constantly changing.
I would hope that in time, you could say with certainty that this or that is legal, but I'm not holding my breath.
PH icon, because it is a public figure whose representation is used for satirical purposes in this context, and therefore allowed under ruling 78290-λ of the ECJ. Or something.
I started with bluetooth earbuds a couple of weeks ago; I have to say it's easier to get used to it than I thought it would be. Because of the lack of long wires, it's much simpler to carry them around wherever you go. When I forget to charge them, I'll probably curse the world for the rest of the day, but so far I don't miss the wires.
The only issue I can see is that wireless headphones are so convenient that a lot more people isolate themselves from the world while commuting or having coffee. I'll quote the mandatory relevant XKCD
I did think while reading the article that this data dump would probably not displease Six4Three.
It was probably strictly forbidden for them to just disclose the data themselves. However, they might have let slip that their exec would have the data with him while traveling to the UK. Then of course, if the data was seized, there's nothing they could do prevent it, right?
After all, nobody would dream of taking to the US a laptop full of data known to be of interest to the US government... Unless they wanted the US government to have it.
Instead, Apple tells customers that they must replace the entire screen, at a cost exceeding $600, apparently in order to increase Apple’s profits at the expense of the customer
I agree that's probably more or less what they do (with the caveat that maybe sometimes the cheap fix would not work), but then what? They are treating customers like cash cows? Yeah, they are. You think it's scummy? Be my guest. But suing a company for doing that feels daft. Have they considered suing luxury brands for selling items at ten times the cost of production?
I use Apple devices precisely because you can only buy from one place and you know the apps will work.
Sure. But why do you have to pay 30% extra for that?
The problem is the markup. It might be convenient to you that there is only one place you can buy from, but from a different viewpoint, it's also a very convenient way for Apple to force people to overpay.
Other app stores have started reducing their markups for some of their inventory, and the fact that Apple hasn't done the same does hint that users are paying more than they have to.
The GUI should be a metaphor for the physical world.
I strenuously object.
Maybe people thought that skeuomorphic design was a good idea when computers were new and users were terrified of using new concepts. But by now, imitating the physical world is more a limitation than anything.
Though I do agree that we need a better word than click, if only because nowadays people mostly tap.
The fake death story is funny and all, yes. But what's more interesting to me is this:
The feds apparently used the fact that border agents can search laptops without a warrant to fish for evidence.
While you are in the US, the police generally need a warrant to search for your things. At the border, border agents apparently can do whatever they want, even if it is completely unrelated to assessing whether you are entering the country legally or not.
I read that the current Bitcoin price of $6000 is just above the average cost to mine one.
Of course, that depends a lot on how much you pay for electricity. The fact that miners are agressively looking into places where power is cheap is a pretty solid hint that they don't get a huge margin.
I much preferred the internet back when websites either ran off donations or where the person running the website accepted that their hobby was going to cost them money [...] Websites had a value then [...] none of the shit we see today. Ads are not keeping sites free to view because those sites could never survive as pay to view because people wouldn't pay, they would find something else to do.
You realize you are writing this on a website which is kept alive by ads, right?
Hmmm... It's not like Indian IT workers are rare; on the top of my head the CEO of Google and Microsoft both come from India, and they have a significant number of Indian employees as well...
But to get numbers like those of Tata? It's hard to say that's random. I'm sure that Indians are way more likely than Americans to seek employment with Tata, There's only so much that you can explain by Americans refusing to apply. Is it allowed to only advertise for jobs in India?
I guess the novelty lighter is somewhat similar to having a Playboy centerfold taped next to your desk. Technically, it's not hurting anybody, yet in many corporate culture it's obviously inappropriate, and you shouldn't even need somebody to explicitly complain about it to know that.
If the damages were only $0.04/person, then lawyers should make no more than what each damaged person did.
The problem is that in that case, there's going to be no lawyer who will work on such a lawsuit.
The entire point of class action lawsuits like this one is to hold companies accountable for misdoings that are a relatively small inconvenience to a large amount of people. Without this system, there is nothing stopping the large corporations from polluting quality of life at a global level, because it is not worth it for any single individual to raise the issue.
The point is making the guilty party pay an amount proportional to the total damage they have done, to deter them from doing it again. Compensating the class members is purely secondary.
That I understand, the original finding was that Google had abused of their power over the Play store to force makers put Chrome on every mobile phone. And now, according to this lawyer, they are abusing of their power to charge money.
I suppose that if the EU agree, they could simply order Google to distribute all their apps free, separately and without conditions.
I understand that there's no icons on the mobile version of the website, and apparently no way to edit posts either. I understand that it's tricky to do these things right and it may be a lot of work to just port a feature from the desktop to the mobile version.
What I don't understand is why requesting the desktop version on my mobile phone does not simply give me the desktop version. There are sometimes technical reasons why a desktop version would not work on a mobile phone, such as using Flash or WebGL, but surely that's not the case here?
Beer icon, because I can.
I doubt that European countries are going to kick out British citizens. However, I wouldn't be surprised if UK kicked out EU citizens. That I understand, they've already started sending nasty letters to warn them they may be losing their right to reside in the UK.
Considering both are free on the web, I'm not sure why you need them built into your phone at all - certainly not why you should pay $40 to get them as an app instead of bookmark.
Well then I guess the phone makers won't have to pay Google $40. Problem solved. What are people complaining about?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019