Jarndyce and Jarndyce, anyone?
The post is required, and must contain letters.
3721 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
The fight is over who gets full control of the .amazon TLD. ICANN would not need to get involved about anything lower. There's already a bunch of companies that have their own TLD, like .google and .apple and .microsoft; the list is long.
Aren't there any countries where it is forbidden for Google to put its search engine as default on Chrome, or Chrome as default browser on Android? If Russia did not do it already, maybe they should consider it. I believe they're the only country in the world where there is a close competition between Google and a local search engine (Google is getting trounced by the locals in China and Korea).
It would be interesting to know what is the actual effect on market share. I think that Bing is not having much success even though it's probably the default on everything Microsoft...
I assume that the huge backlog is related to the shutdown. God knows how many people apply for a visa every day, and when they stop working for five weeks, you must have interesting buffering problems such as "the applications don't fit in the building anymore".
I understand that it is harder for women than men to get high paying jobs, but I think it should be treated as a separate issue from getting paid differently for the same job. This statistic is confusing because it conflates the two, and half the people read "pay gap" and think it means different salaries for the same job.
"YouTube is putting these children at risk by not removing these videos."
Wait. Do they mean that YouTube should take down all videos of children eating ice cream, because somebody somewhere will manage to get excited by these dangerously titillating exhibitions?
That can't be the solution. This is on par with asking women to cover up, lest they induce men to temptation.
There are probably constraints which are harder to realize in a multi-vendor solution. For instance, I believe there is a requirement that the entire operation should be air-gapped. And then, having data in multiple data centers would certainly cause performance issues, unless they all agree to build said data centers next to each other... Meaning they would never agree and keep suing each other on whose tax incentive gets priority, etc. And they would always claim the problems is caused by the other vendor. And they would sue the Pentagon to get a bigger share.
Honestly, I can't blame the Pentagon for wanting nothing of it.
I don't see how blocking porn on a government network is a problem, especially considering the amount of bandwidth it can consume. I mean really, who cares.
Aah, the Schrodinger porn traffic. The one that consumes so much bandwidth (10-30% depending on estimates), and yet nobody cares about.
Anyway, it's good to see the FCC cares about net neutrality!
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
Yep, Google knows what's the value of traffic to websites. It's pretty much their entire business model.
Some publishers might actually prefer a paying model, because then they could bid to be on top of competition. For big publishers, the current all-free model is the worst: It makes it cheap for small indies to get discovered by users, when they wouldn't stand a chance otherwise. That I understand, big publishers actually benefited from Google News being shut down in Spain. The traffic went down for the industry as a whole, but the majority of what was left went to big sites, because they were better known to users, and they had more money to pay for ads.
Whether that leads to quality news... Maybe? Less clickbait... more BBC... but also more Daily Mail... Hmm.
The theory is that each company has enough patents that it acts as a sort-of nuclear standoff, but in Apple and Qualcomm's case the "mutually assured destruction" scenario hasn't proved sufficient
The problem with the "mutually assured destruction" theory is that for the standoff to be successful, each side must be able to inflict devastating damage on the other side without gaining much from it. However, even though we often joke that only the lawyers gain from these fights, most of the money that a company stands to lose is directly given to the other company, so it's (mostly) a zero-sum game.
If each company think they can with $1 billion from the other in patent payments, then it's worth it to spend a few millions to the lawyers just in case you win your lawsuit and the other side loses theirs. The mutually assured destruction principle would work if, say, 90% of payments were swallowed in taxes and/or legal costs. Then each side would risk losing $1 billion in order to win at most $100 millions, and it would be an efficient deterrent.
This is why "canaries" are used on certain websites. If they are ever forced, under threat of imprisonment, to comply with certain agencies, they stop posting certain signed updates that say things like "We have received no such requests from law enforcement today". No updates - they've been compromised and are unable to talk about such things.
Just saying, but the idea that this would fly in front of a judge is laughable.
If you are forbidden from telling people something happened, you are not to let them know that it happened. It doesn't matter whether you tell them directly or indirectly, by starting or stopping sending out messages, turning the light on or off, whatever. If they learn about it thanks to you, you're in for it.