Why are all posts centered??
I hope this is a bug, and not a redesign!
3441 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
game developers have catered for different shaped screens since games were invented.
I don't think the comparison is fair. There's like four aspect ratios PC games have to handle. 3:4 was the standard for many years, until we started having 12:10 and the like. Even now on cell phones, it's not all games that can handle both landscape and portrait.
What's the difference? When the US drops a bomb from a remote-controlled aircraft, people call it a drone strike. It's remote-controlled over thousands of kilometers, and it contains way more technology; but it's remote-controlled just like a quadcopter… What is a done, then? Does it need an AI?
Companies who are ordered to give up information about users are allowed to charge the government for the effort. Considering the number of requests involved, the total they charge is probably impressive; but the amount per request is quite low.
After all, if government is powerless to stop a determined existential threat, what's the bloody point of civilization in the first place?
You are falling into the trap. Terrorism is not an existential threat. There are orders of magnitude more people who die of car accidents, cancer, or killed by their partners than because of terrorism. Terrorism is flashy; but as a threat, it barely registers.
The Irish VAT is higher than the UK VAT (and most other countries), so Google should be happy about the change. The change should have no implication whatsoever on where the income is, though. It's not because the VAT is now charged in the country of the buyer that the seller is going to suddenly change countries…
There's no way this can be made a success. Making the phones modular means it is easier to swap a part, but the total price of parts can only be more expensive than a standard phone containing the same pieces. So people who want a cheap phone will not buy this.
On the other hand, people who want a luxury phone will never go for a mix and match which does not show how cool they are for owning the right brand.
It's fun to play Lego™, and the technical problems are certainly very interesting; but I simply don't see why anybody would buy this.
Recall the colonization of the United States.
At the time, to encourage settlers to go populate the big empty West, the government decided that any settler building a house somewhere in a big empty place would automatically own the land around. As a result many people went for the big adventure, and the West ended up colonized.
Now, imagine that the settlers had decided that the land they wanted was a millimeter thin and a thousand kilometer long, along the South-North axis. Imagine further that each settler had decided that, in order to explore further at leisure, search for gold and the like, they would forbid anybody from crossing their property. Or charge a million dollars for passage. How fast do you think the West would have been colonized then, with every few meters a new guy with a gun shouting "you shall not pass"?
Of course, had they tried that, they would have got their arse kicked out by the same government who had given them property of their land; because it was very clear that the colonization was the goal, and the granting of property was only the means.
FRAND patents are the equivalent of settlers grouping to build a road going through their lands, agreeing to let anybody travel that road and not to charge extortionate prices for the right of passage. They typically do that to ensure it is their road that is used by travelers, and not another one which wouldn't bring them a cent.
Right now, in the patent world, there are settlers who have barricaded themselves across valleys leading to vast lands, and are refusing to let anybody through. Because hey, it's their property, they get to decide, and they damn well don't want anybody else reaching those lands, even if colonization is held back centuries. Fuck colonization. Fuck progress.
The sensible thing is for the government to build a road through their lands, and tell them to go fuck themselves. This has happened before, though only in time of crises: See the Wright brothers patent war
And pass the popcorn!
Most of the population would have trouble even realizing that anything not ending in .com .net .org .gov or one of the country two-letter codes is a URL. In the first place, people are hardly ever typing a URL, preferring to ask Google to bring them to Facebook.
The big failure is that the European laws allows any business to declare its income in a single country. The goal was to allow small businesses to sell in the whole of Europe without having to declare its income in every single country, which would have been inefficient and prohibitive for most companies.
What should have been done instead is that the income can be declared in a single country unless there is another company controlled by the same entity in the country where the income was realized.
For Little Business Ltd., a company of five people in Ireland, it makes sense to let them declare in Ireland the few thousands £ they earn in UK; they could not otherwise afford to do business in the UK.
For Google, Facebook et al., who own large sales teams based in the UK that are already declaring in the UK incomes of a few millions, there is little reason to let them declare in Ireland the income from what they sell in the UK.
Of course, there are probably people, even UK politicians, who think that the current situation is working as intended, and that the goal is to force governments to compete on lower income taxes, leading to more business opportunities…
why did A16Z-backed Cyanogen insist on territorial exclusivity for a platform, if it seriously wanted that platform to succeed?
If I had to guess, I'd say Cyanogen was offered a large sum of money by Micromax for exclusivity in India.
Or possibly, they absolutely wanted an Indian deal, and they proposed exclusivity to Micromax, who was afraid of getting its feet wet then finding a field crowded with competitors.
The more I think, the more I believe the second hypothesis. After all, even Apple offered exclusivity to AT&T in order to get the iPhone out the door.
This might show poor judgment from Cyanogen, but it's hard to believe in a nefarious plot from Google on this one.
I carry a watch because it allows me to know how fast I need to walk to catch the train. Every morning, I check it at least three times while walking to the station.
That's my usual excuse. It now occurs to me that I was skiing the whole day, and that while in ski gear, it takes me two seconds to check my watch, and two minutes to fish my cell phone from whichever pocket it is in. Assuming I even have it on me.
I'm not sure why YouTube is not responsible for this. They do check that adult content is not viewable unless you are signed in and have indicated an age above 18. They could do the same for 15-rated horror movies… I guess there's no legal obligation on their part, though. Did Universal mislabel the video? Or did Universal somehow choose the ads for the context?
You laugh, but revolution it was nevertheless. Did you own a smartphone before the iPhone came out? I did. It was a Palm Tréo. And let me tell you, the iPhone UI was heads and shoulders above everything that existed at the time, and it took four years for the competition to catch up after that headstart.
Since you talk of short memories, let me remind you that hardly anybody owned a phone that could surf the web at the time, business types aside. If you had told people that seven years from now, more than half of the surfing would be done by cell phones, they wouldn't have believed you.
And I've owned android phones for the part three years.
In order to safeguard that consent has been freely-given, consent should not provide a valid legal ground for the processing of personal data in a specific case where there is a clear imbalance between the data subject and the controller and this imbalance makes it unlikely that consent was given freely in all the circumstances of that specific situation,
Does this mean that it is impossible to ever freely give consent to Google, because of the imbalance of power between the user and the "gateway to the Internet"?
A taxi goes directly from point to point and tries to avoid running when empty, seeking out the likely places for fares. A bus has to run empty as part of providing the service.
I guess that taxis would magically avoid the problem that everybody wants to travel one way in the morning, and the other way in the evening…? This problem, which you used to demonstrate the inefficiency of buses, would of course not apply to taxis.
Google "aggregation" actually INCREASES the traffic on various European news websites. It's beneficial not adverserial.
As long as Google News exists, it is beneficial for news websites to appear on it; because many users go to Google News and are generally satisfied with what they find there. Not appearing on it means definitively losing traffic from these users.
If Google News disappears, however, these users will still look for news, in some other way. Some news sites will see less traffic (likely the small ones), and some will see more traffic (likely the big ones).
There are definitely websites that are getting more traffic now that Google News has closed.
In Spain, the more recent law has had an even more catastrophic effect
Why catastrophic? It means that instead of getting results from a wide array of sources, Spaniards have to go directly to the news sites they know to get their news. If you are a user, or a small, little-know website, this is bad. If you are one of the big news sites, this might be very very good.
The problem with Google News was that it forced the big news sites to compete with the rest of the planet. Now the problem has gone away. I'm guessing they have seen a bump in traffic and are celebrating. I doubt the law will change, and I doubt Google News will come back.
…from claiming that all their European profit is made in Luxembourg…
Nitpick: this change is not at all about profits, which are still going to happen in Luxembourg. It's just that now the country of the customer will get VAT.
That said, I suspect the new rules will simply not be enforced for small businesses for a while. It seems impossible they will be ready any time soon.
The law is kind of weird. How can different industries have different rules? If there is a good reason for this, how come the industries can be defined so loosely as to invite confusion? It feels to me like studying the reasons the rules were written differently at the time they were written would make it clear whether they should apply to Amazon employees…
Anyway, since this is a legal matter, why isn't it decided once and for all by a judge?
Well okay, but people would still be looking for news. (Even without Google showing them the way!)
I assume the users would just Google for the name of one of the big newspapers, find their website, and get their news from there. If you're a big newspaper, this is a good thing — possibly much better than whatever traffic they received from Google News or Google results.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019