Re: Even HP Cartridges don't work in HP printers
Canon also region locks their cartridges. I've just inherited a laser printer which I'll use till it dies, and go to the print shop when I need something in colour.
40 posts • joined 18 May 2015
He may also wish to ask WhatsApp why they are not enforcing their terms and services. Because I suspect that the majority of their users are in violation of the following:
Address Book. You provide us the phone numbers of WhatsApp users and your other contacts in your mobile phone address book on a regular basis. You confirm you are authorized to provide us such numbers to allow us to provide our Services.
I had a similar issue a couple of years ago, using details from my LinkedIn account. Not having a Facebook account didn't help, but after the third account appeared, the following request fixed the problem permanently:
"Could you please let me know what you require, in order to divulge all contact information (ip, email addresses, etc...) about the creator of these accounts, so that I may file a formal complaint with the appropriate authorities?"
Knowing what we know now, they have plenty of information to track such requests back to physical device.
Surely Apple is just observing the laws of the country. Whether one agrees with the laws or not, is a different issue. However from Apples perspective they have two choices, stay and observe the laws, or leave the country. If they were to walk away, one could argue that are not fulfilling their duty to their shareholders to maximise their profits, assuming that is in fact a duty.
As for the senators, maybe they could focus on reigning in the spooks in their own country first.
If the Amazon door key requires power, internet and an app, to let you, or anyone else, open it from the inside, then I'd classify it as a death trap. It's bad enough that some insurance companies in some countries require deadlocks to be installed, but at least with deadlocks, you can leave a key in them when inside.
You're conflating two very different cases here. If a car is designed to safely stop and refuse to proceed autonomously because it detects a situation it can't cope with, then at most it's an inconvenience.
Assuming that the car can safely stop, that other cars nearby can also handle the car stopping, and that the car has manual controls, then yes it could be argued that its an inconvenience. However, if an autonomous car does the bulk of the driving, and leaves the unusual driving to the human, you could argue that they are making driving more dangerous. Because in such situations, the human will have less driving experience than previously.
Autonomous cars need to be better than the next guy ALWAYS. If they decide to return control to the human, or stop, when they get confused, they're a liability. The problem with driving is that it is full of edge cases (road works, snow, flooding, dropped loads, protesters, cows, etc...) which humans are remarkably good at dealing with. Attention and reaction time however is where computers win, let them deal with that, and leave the driving to the human, until they can deal with the edge cases.
Why not simply invalidate a patent when the holder fails to defend it, particularly when they initiate the action?
"Blackbird filed suit in July 2016 against six companies asserting this '448 patent. All of those cases were voluntarily dismissed by Blackbird within three months – fitting a pattern where Blackbird was only looking for small settlements from defendants who sought to avoid the costs and delays of litigation," Prince said.
Surely a simple first step for Google would be to limit permissions based on application type. In this case available permissions ought to be minimal.
Taking it a step further, any developer requesting admin permissions could be vetted, as in theory happens when requesting a EV SSL certificate.
Given that Googles terms of service refer to "products and services (“Services”). The Services are provided by Google Inc. (“Google”), located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States", with the laws of California, USA applying, I'm having trouble understanding how Google has a leg to stand on here.
Maybe it's time for Google to start using their global offices for more than shuffling income offshore.
If the employer was decoupled from the visa except upon renewal, then the visa holder would be free to find a better paying job once they realised that they were being exploited. In theory this would naturally raise the salary floor and make such visa less attractive.
Photoshop was actually developed externally and first? available as a BarneyScan XP, which came with the BarneyScan film scanner.
Adobes problem is that their products reached maturity years ago, and have been adding bloat in order to (try to) justify their upgrades.
If the visa is not tied to the employer/sponsor, then the employer would have no hold over the recipient, who could change jobs at will (e.g for a better salary), and simply need to find a sponsor at visa renewal time. Problem would be reduced quite quickly. This is how the tech visas work in Japan, and most people figure it out pretty quickly.
Rather than increasing the visa fees, they should simply unlink the visa from specific jobs. Then the visa holder can work wherever they like within the life of the visa, but must have a sponsor during the initial application and renewal. This would restore a semblance of equality to salary negotiation, and allow locals to compete on a more even footing.
Why don't governments declare that any bank deemed to big to fail will be automatically nationalised without compensation to the shareholders? That would seem to concentrate senior management and wake up the institutional shareholders. After all who really cares about unvested bonuses, when you already own a couple of houses, cars, and have cashed in multiple previous bonuses.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020