"privacy is not absolute"
Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger sie schießen
mit Pulver und Blei: Die Gedanken sind frei!
3465 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
They used to take 30% everywhere, but they have recently reduced it to 15% or 5%... Except for games: Announcement here.
This probably reflects how desperate Microsoft is to attract developers. As to why the article did not mention it, I can only assume they thought it was irrelevant.
Seeing as Google is blocked out, there should be a lot more competition between app stores. How many are there? What percentage do they take?
I heard there's more malware in China, which might be a reason for the rise of super-apps like WeChat: the app becomes the app store.
I don't know about proportions, but games have a special place. This year, Microsoft have reduced their cut on apps from 30% to 15%... Except for games.
To foster app store competition, maybe the EU could just force Android to include as first-class citizens a couple of other app stores, like Amazon's and Samsung's. The tricky part is that for them to be successful, they need to give incentives to developers and users. Meaning, the developers need to take a bigger cut, and yet the apps themselves need to be sold cheaper; which would mean the app stores would have to massively reduce their own cut.
The device has up to to 87 percent sensitivity – patients who did have the mild diabetic retinopathy were correctly identified; 90 per cent specificity – patients who did not have the disease and were correctly identified as having no eye damage
Meaning that 13% of patients with the disease are not detected. That's not great, and I'm surprised they are proposing to remove the doctors entirely. Could it be that the doctors are even worse?
I think that typically, these detection systems err on the safe side – reduce false negatives as much as possible, even if that raises the false positives – and then all those detected as positive go through a more precise and more expensive screening with a human doctor. Maybe here the 10% false positives are already so numerous that they don't want to be more aggressive.
The people who spend that much aren't looking for a six-fold increase in utility, they're looking for a six-fold increase in self-image.
Indeed. Sports cars are also sold for double or triple the price of a bog-standard car. They are not bigger or more comfortable, and you can't even drive them faster because of speed limits. They do give you a faster acceleration, but considering most driving is done either in the traffic waiting to move or on the highway waiting to arrive, this hardly seems rational.
And note that the sums involved are two or three orders of magnitude higher than mere cell phones. Whenever El Reg describes the price of the iPhone X as "eye-watering", car businessmen have a long and hearty laugh.
Where have you been? All the big app stores take 30%, Apple and Amazon included. Apple has set the pace by taking 30% since the beginning of the App Store; the others have just followed. It's slowly changing though: Microsoft also takes 30% for games, but starting from this year, they only take 15% for other apps. Google has also reduced some of their fees to 15%.
I've heard the argument that it would also cost developers a lot to maintain their own website and payment systems. And in a sense, it's because the app stores exist that users are not just copying every single app under the sky without paying. That said, it does seem that the percentages are going down, so the app stores might have realized they are charging too much.
It was a one week delay from the moment the patch was released, not from the moment the exploit was reported. Google claims they publish after 90 days or a patch is available, whichever comes sooner.
The 90 days period is well-known, because so many companies fail to release a patch. It's the first time I hear the second part though. Apparently, Epic didn't know either. It might be in their guidelines and all, but it seems to me that next time, Epic will simply fail to tell them the exploit was fixed until the very last of the 90 days.
If he doesn't have an account, it might be difficult for Facebook to identify his data, though. They might well have a complete history of what AnonymousUser142857 has done the web, but I'm not sure how they could connect that with Joe Bloggs from Ipswich. Google certainly also creates a profile of users that have no account, but the My Activity website only works if you are logged in to a Google account.
Which leads to the depressing idea that you have to create an account with them so that they can tell you exactly what they know about you. On the other hand, depending on what the law says, that might mean that they are not allowed to create a profile of you if you don't have an account with them. Hmmmmm...?
"Our sites need to collect and process data to deliver a compelling user experience and to support our business. Since you’ve withheld your consent for those activities, we can't provide you the full Healthline experience."
In my understanding, this is completely illegal under the GDPR, but if they don't have an office in the EU, I guess they don't have to care?
Oh, and if I understand correctly "opt-out" of data gathering is a no-no under the GDPR as well, it has to be "opt-in"
I think that websites get around this by putting one big OK button for opt-in, and otherwise present you with the list of thousand cookies they intend to give you, all checked. Basically, you cannot access the website until you tell them which cookies you want to accept, but since they are all prechecked on the form it takes you an hour to say you don't accept any.
I'm sure this will eventually ruled to be illegal (at least it should), but in the meantime they get to keep tracking you.
I think a lot of the websites are probably illegal because they bar access to people who don't accept the tracking, but there's so little chance of people complaining that they do it all the same. Maybe we'll eventually get to a more private internet, one lawsuit at a time, but it's going to get decades if we ever get there before the laws are changed,
Google is creating a highly personal virtual profile of you accessible to advertisers
Does "accessible to advertisers" mean that Google uses the highly personal profile to choose which ads to show to the users, or does that mean that advertisers can read the highly personal profile of the users?
In all of Europe, the British are arguably living under the most intrusive surveillance by their own government, even though they're the only country in Europe not to have ID cards.
I would argue that by this point, people are in so many database systems already that you have all the lack of privacy of an ID card system, without any of the advantages...
On one hand, yeah security is good.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the people at Google were completely living in a bubble and did not understand multiple valid reasons for which websites have not switched to HTTPS. I can't even even figure out a dark ulterior motive for Google to do this, but it might simply be out of touch with reality.
Actually, one of the explicit points of the ruling is that manufacturers should be allowed to have the Google Play store on their phone without Google telling them what they're allowed and not allowed to do.
So yeah, the Google Play store is a must on Android phones, but that shouldn't give Google the right to dictate anything.
Google search and Google Maps are not quasi monopolies everywhere. In some countries, like Japan, South Korea and Russia, they are second fiddles.
One of the point is the ruling is that manufacturers should be allowed to make phones with, say, the Google Play store, Here maps (or Open Street maps), and Yandex. Without Google maps, without Chrome, without Google search. Up to now, they couldn't, Because in order to have the Play store, they had to include Chrome and Google search (and possibly Google Maps).
If I understand correctly, the correct argument as to why Apple hasn't been bothered is: Apple only limits choices on their own products.
Apparently, you can put as many restrictions on your own products, even if this theoretically makes it more difficult for your products to be competitive. On the other hand, it's not allowed if you (Google) put restrictions on other people's (phone manufacturers) products (phones).
Because Apple creates both the software and the hardware of the iPhone, there is no third party who is limited to what they can do.
It's not about forcing users to buy Android phones. It's about forcing phone makers who want to sell Android phones to include Google apps.
You might say: Nobody would buy Android phones if they didn't contain Google apps! But if so, why does Google force phone makers to include them?
Undersea cable was about $7 per meter for the deep sea stuff a few years ago. The real cost is the repeaters that are every 100 to 200 km along the line and used to cost about $1,000,000 each.
If your numbers are correct, the cable costs as much as the repeaters. Since $7 per meter for 100 to 200 km means $700,000 to $1,400,000 of cable between each repeater.
Speaking of which, it got me interested in where repeaters get their power from (the undersea cable includes a power cable, apparently), and how the repeaters work at all (I got as far as "Solid-state amplifiers" and gave up on understanding the rest).
On one hand, the article says that this would finally stop YouTube from ripping off artists. On the other hand, a lot of people are calling this "Content ID for the web", meaning that everybody would need to have a system similar what YouTube already has. Which would mean that YouTube would just carry on exactly as before.
What's "private email" (unless you're running your own mail server)?
Not sure if serious, but: Private email as opposed to work email.
Many people have an email account provided by their employer, and only use it for work. They have a separate "private" account, which they use for their communicating with friends and family.
Some people even have a "work" mobile phone, and a "private" mobile phone.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019