Yeah, it's rather that he said their brains make them prefer other jobs. To be clear, that's still controversial, and in my opinion deeply unconvincing, but still, a bit different.
3439 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Re: here's a crazy idea...
every victim will have had an hour of their time wasted by whoever bought the list
This particular settlement is not about Google "selling the list of queries" of users. It is about the fact that when requesting a web page, browsers would typically provide as referer the URL of the page the user was coming from. When coming from Google results, that URL used to contain the query.
So website would be able to get, not the list of queries of the user, but the single query which had brought the user to their own web site.
There's a reason the settlement was so low.
Why is Bitcoin fscked? Here are three reasons: South Korea, India... and now China clamps down on cryptocurrencies
While the above data shows that driverless tech is indeed still a while away from being fully reliable, none of the autonomous vehicle makers that we can think of are claiming to be so, and certainly don't intend to be any time before 2020-ish.
I thought that Waymo was going to start a fully-automated service in Phoenix this year?
Re: What do you mean competitive portfolio?
Now... for the next killer feature for phones
Apple and Google should work together to standardize a secure method of identifying yourself legally
What the hell are you talking about? The vast majority of countries have an ID card or some other official document which serves this exact purpose. Why would you need a phone for that??
It's like you're claiming we need an app to finally enable us to unlock the door of our home. Killer feature indeed.
Re: A lesson learnt?
Actually, it should also be noted that Google did not sell all of Motorola to Lenovo for $2.91bn. They had already sold another part of the business for $2.6bn; they kept some of the research team; they kept most of the patents and the cash. What's more, by "acquiring" the previous losses of Motorola, they were able to reduce their own taxes for a few years.
As you can read on this most excellent website: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/30/google_motorola_mobility_lenovo_sale/
Trump White House mulls nationalizing 5G... an idea going down like 'a balloon made out of a Ford Pinto'
Re: Does Google really not get it?
The surprising thing is, Google only makes money when people click on ads... And Google makes a shitload of money. So yeah, somewhere, somehow, there must be a lot of people clicking on ads. I don't know who they are either.
As for why people are paying for ads... Well, maybe it's working for them. Or they're stupid. Who knows? In any case, Google is definitely getting it. The money, I mean.
I'm not sure that returning people to places to which they've had no connection for decades can be regarded as anything other than xenophobic vindictiveness.
I don't think it's vindictiveness; it's just that the country prefers not to have to take care of these people.
Of course, that's a huge problem for the people involved, but the fact they are not citizens precisely means that, technically, the country does not have to care: "I fail to see how that is my problem. Goodbye."
i am wondering about unintended consequences
Countries often consider immigration as a source of cheap labor for doing jobs that the current citizens don't want to do.
If a country only lets in highly-educated immigrants, won't the locals become the second-class people who do all the crappy jobs and are looked down upon by the recent arrivals?
Re: Maybe I missed something, but...
It's a unit in which various fractions of a second can be represented. If you want a unit in which both 1/24 and 1/25 seconds are integers, you need something that is 1/600 seconds or smaller. As you add more and more fractions you want to represent, your unit becomes smaller and smaller. At that point, you already need an int64 to store anything useful, so you might as well add a few zeroes just to be sure you'll never need more.
It's like amounts of money tend to be stored in micros of currency unit, not because you care about a micropound, but because you want to be sure never to need more precision than is available, and by the time you need that precision, you don't want to recode everything.
Some of them sound downright unlikely. Washington DC? How is that a good city for a tech company? It's a hellhole you only live close to because you're working for the federal government. I'd also bet against Newark, New-York, Miami or Boston, seeing as they want a lot of cheap space. I think cities like Denver stand a good chance.
Technology can solve more and more complicated problems, but...
Now that we have technology, we can demand that Just Eat provide temporary means of communications between restaurants, their delivery people and customers! The delivery person can carry a smartphone with a secure app sending properly authenticated messages to a web interface provided by Just Eat, who will then relay the messages securely to the customer. The delivery person never gets the contact information of the customer, and All Is Well.
Except that well, you know, the delivery person necessarily needs to receive the name and address of the customer. In order to deliver. Let's invent a complex system which ensures safe deliveries, protecting the anonymity of the customer through a complex system of go-betweens which shall have appropriate levels of authorizations separated by double-blind communication channels!
Or maybe we shouldn't be so anal about private data. Delivery people have had the name, address and phone number of customers for many years, and the privacy issues can mostly be solved by a simple rule that if you call the customers for anything unrelated to work you get fired. I am not convinced that this system is broken or needs fixing.
I feel most of the criticism is short-sighted. People playing chicken with self-driving cars, for instance, could already do that. For some reason, they don't though. And self-driving cars could very well eventually learn how to go forward very slowly in gridlock situations in a way that solves the Holborn problem.
It seems to me all of these criticisms could have been said in the 1920s to explain how cars could never be used for transportation at scale.
Well realistically, there's not much governments can do, short of banning Facebook et al. They could maybe offer an ultimatum and a limit date, like starting from 2020, no private information is allowed to leave the continent, or your service is banned. But I'm not sure that if push came to shove, they would have the balls to actually go through with it.
Re: Oh how El Reg is fallen
It was well argued, moderate and does not contain any of the sentiments indicated in the El Reg article.
I could agree that it does not contain those sentiments, but I have to disagree with well-argued and moderate.
The thesis of the paper is that women make choices that are different from men, because they are on average biologically different from men. The conclusion is that Google should stop their diversity efforts, and not make their employees follow anti-bias training.
The paper does not claim that the biological differences are significant enough to explain all or even most of the difference in results between men and women. The paper does not give any argument that bias does not exist. The paper does not explain why the status quo is optimal and should be left as is. Without these arguments, all that's left of the paper is the conclusion that the author wanted to reach, and a single factoid that generally goes in the right direction.
This is in fact rather similar to what right-wing comments accuse the global warming argument from being: A single explanation (carbon pollution) is given for an effect (temperatures are going up); all other explanations are dismissed, and the conclusion is imposed.
Completely omitted: Diversity means racial diversity as well as gender diversity. It is well-documented that resumes wearing names that sound African-American are rejected more often than those wearing names that sound white. This is not only unfair, it reduces the pool of candidates to hire from, which means it is detrimental to businesses. Which is why businesses want their employees to follow anti-bias training. There is not a single word in the article that contradicts this; yet the article somehow concludes that Google should stop its efforts to raise diversity, and again that includes racial diversity just as much as gender diversity.
Re: Where are the women in tech jobs?
However it does strike me that discriminating in *any* way when recruiting is just plain dumb -- "positive discrimination" just means you've a much smaller candidate list.
Depends who you are and how you do it, actually. Google is pretty much known to everybody, so their candidate list is everybody. But they also organize Anita Borg scholarships and participate to events encouraging women to work in tech in general and at Google in particular.
On the other hand, if your recruiters are calling 50 new graduates a day, that's how many candidates you get. What difference does it make if they call the women first?
Re: Prefer authentication on the front of the phone
The iPhone sensor is a little bit too low for me to reach with my thumb (If I hold the phone by the bottom half, I always feel it's going to fall from my hand). So when I'm reaching for the phone in my pocket, I prefer the back sensor. But yeah, the front sensor is more convenient if the phone is lying on the table.
If the sensor can be under the screen, then they can put it in the middle of the screen, where it is easiest to reach. Or maybe they could put it on the side.
Re: Bitcoin fees
I refer @ratfox to previous posts on the subject, listing a long history of global gullibility, including black tulips, south sea bubbles, the Wall Street Crash and Welsh silver and lead mines.
For all of these, there was at least a claim that these things had intrinsic worth, or eventually were going to have one. The claim was wrong, but it existed.
To answer the incoming choir of voices about fiat money: Even for fiat money, there is an implicit assumption that the country issuing the money has an interest in having a semi-stable currency. For instance, the US government could technically pay their debts in one day by printing a single bill of $5 trillions and giving it to the Chinese. They're not doing it, because it would crash their economy into the stone age (along with most of the world). That's why people keep US instead of Zimbabwean dollars.
For Bitcoin, there is nothing of the sort. Under all the complex cryptography algorithm ensuring various interesting features, you are literally buying a number in a finite list. It is very much like fiat money, except that the country is only made of people who happen to be currently working with bitcoin, and any of them can leave that country at any time without losing anything. As long as everybody does not leave at once, Bitcoin keeps existing.