"$90 mil a year seems pretty cheap for the trust of users worldwide." Csoghoian
Well, fuck you. Let's see you pay a third of your income fighting the government in a secret case that nobody would ever know about.
3466 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
No one wants censorship. No one!
If it's a matter of national security, on the other hand, then obviously you are not allowed to post whatever you want. You don't want the terrorists/pedophiles to win, do you, citizen?
Like, say, it is illegal to put on Google maps the position of military bases. But that's not censorship!
It's not abuse. They do whatever they want with their website. They make the rules, and can change them whenever they want. There is no way to force a website to host something it does not want. Again, the only way to have a website exactly the way you want is to do it yourself.
In the end, Reddit's rule is probably: We take it off if we want to. Like everywhere else on the web. Except they want it less often.
Definitely, getting hit constantly with high-level threats from FBI and private lawyers will make people consider very carefully their options. It can't have been a very quiet week.
And well, yeah, if you want a website that has rules exactly like you want them, you will probably have to create and maintain it yourself. And, possibly, deal with the legal troubles.
Agree with this. Claiming Google is violating your privacy by revealing to websites the query you used to find these websites is stretching it a bit.
They might as well sue W3C for inventing the referrer header, which lets websites know – gasp – which other website you are coming from!
In fact, they should sue again Google, along with Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple for distributing browsers that fill the referrer header by default. And now I'm going to stop before I give someone ideas.
Microsoft had zero developers for its mobile phones. No developers means no apps, means no users, means no developers, etc. Putting TIFKAM on desktop was a way to bootstrap development on mobile, by getting the countless developers for desktop Windows interested.
No innovation on original iPhone.
I also had a smartphone before the iPhone (a Palm). And let me tell you, the UI of the iPhone was heads and shoulders above it. It's easy to forget now that all phones are like that, but there really was nothing comparable at the time.
In particular, I don't think any other phone had swiping and pinch to zoom, which were a game changer for surfing the web using a small screen.
For people who represent percentages as concentric circles, with the percentage represented by the radius instead of the area.
I understand that the concentric circles are useful to represent a series of consecutively included percentages, but the area is all wrong.
I assume his definition of gender equality means that about the same proportion of every gender should prefer to go into coding… Implying the reason for the current imbalance is that society at large is telling girls that women are not good at coding, and they should become nurse/housewife/stripper instead.
And yeah, it's all very fine to give everyone the same opportunity when people laugh at you if you try to take it.
My hope is that he is eventually, after many years, caught; sent to Sweden; trialled; then sentenced to a week of community service. I think the worst punishment for him would be when he realizes that there is in fact no extradition awaiting because nobody cares about him anymore.
Honestly, I fail to see why PGP would have to be backward-compatible with business cards. Surely there's millions of apps that are more practical for exchanging contact information than handing over little pieces of dead trees. If you must, how about printing a QR code of the key on the back of the card?
As to the gripes about email clients, that's the fault of the mail clients, not PGP. It might be that nobody has cracked the proper UI, because let's face it, so few users care…
So the taxi business is overregulated. Regulate it less, then. I don't think it's difficult to find unnecessary rules that were added to protect incumbents.
I don't think it's about the business model in itself. Uber and taxi companies have practically the same one; it's just that Uber is less constrained by regulations. For instance, it hardly seems possible or worth it to be a part-time cabby, due to all the rules they have to satisfy.
Yeah, I don't get it either. And yet Google makes money somehow, so people must be indeed clicking. And businesses keep buying ads, so they must be convinced that the people who come to their web site because of an ad really wanted to go there, and did not do a fat finger mistake.
I have never met anybody who clicks on ads, yet they must exist. They are the dark matter of the Internet.
Not that I like Amazon's tactics, but what is Hachette contributing to the authors it is publishing? Is this something that Amazon would be able to provide by themselves?
I'm aware that publishers review books, do some editing and choose artwork, and should be compensated for this, but the vast majority of what they used to do (advancing money to actually print thousands of books and distribute them world wide) can be done vastly more efficiently with e-books.
Is it really justified for them to get as much money as the author?
I'm not sure if the effort should be admired or ridiculed. I guess Samsung is really not happy to be dependent on Google.
I wonder why they are going for Russia first. Maybe that is considered an easier big market where Microsoft is not already trying to grab whatever's left after Android and iOs…? I'm not sure it helps finding developers, though.
Unless people like Google have found out how to build thousands of powerful servers much more cheaply than experienced manufacturers like IBM. If so, they could indulge in vertical integration and make their own servers instead of buying them.
Unless I'm mistaken, Google (and Facebook, and Amazon, and Microsoft) have been doing that for years. This is not necessarly because they have more knowledge than IBM, but because they have very specific needs, and can take some very specific shortcuts.
One example is that IBM servers, even when built for racks, seem to have graphic cards. I would be extremely surprised if cloud giants bothered with such a thing for machines in their data centres.
However, the A29WP will not be producing any such guidelines for search engines.
Do they plan to contribute at all to the process of figuring out what is the so-called right to be forgotten? Or do they want Google to keep blundering in the dark until they get sued again, and a new ruling of the ECJ adds one more data point?
Sorry, but no. That is incorrect.
If there is a web page mentioning John Smith and Joe Bloggs, and Joe Bloggs asks Google to remove the link from search results for his name, the web page will still show up when searching for John Smith, as it will for any other queries that are relevant, such as "bothering a goat" or such.
The analogy is poor on multiple fronts. On one hand, this is blaming the river for being polluted. On the other hand, what they call "pollution" is what Google thinks people want to read. The reason the links appear in results is because users liked them, and have clicked on them.
By just calling it pollution and blaming it on Google, the ICO are avoiding their job, which would be to define what is pollution in the first place…
But hey, if they want Google to decide what is in the public interest, they only have to say the word. I'm sure Google will be very happy to go back to displaying everything like before the ruling happened.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019