Re: Only Jeff bothered to find an interesting room for the video-chat hearing ...
Looks like preconceived opinions are more important than actually reading the article
3728 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I'm sure Google isn't hurting much about the €600k fine, but... How does that work? The ECJ ordered Google to examine requests for delisting, and now Google gets fined every time the regulators thinks it didn't take the right decision?
I thought the regulators had outsourced their job of handling privacy requests to Google, but I hadn't realized they would also make Google pay for the privilege...
In this case, I think that a stronger law should be used to completely take down the pages, and possibly go after the ex-boyfriend. The RTBF is made for removing results on old stories that no one cares about; it would be relatively powerless against a deliberate character assassination strategy.
I would have thought that if you are willing to let your code run on somebody's cloud, you are fine with the basic promise that only your program can read your data (at least, I'm assuming that Google is promising this with or without this encryption). Ultimately, you have to trust Google are not lying to you and that they know what they are doing, because I don't see how you can get proof that your program is really running on the encrypted machine and not any old random server.
That concept was in the English language a thousand or more years before anyone English encountered a black person
Er, no. Black people were known in Europe since before English language existed. Vikings were actually known for traveling a lot and bringing back prisoners, e.g:
I downvoted your second post, and I wouldn't normally have bothered to say why I disagreed; but I'll make an exception this time: Downvoting is a fast and easy way to say I disagree, but I don't see the need to explain every single time the details of my opinion and how it differs from yours. The voting system is a useful way to measure sentiment for and against posts, but second-guessing the meaning and value of each vote is at best a waste of time, and at worst masturbatory.
Feel free to downvote my post without replying to it.
I find it annoying when designers decide they know better than you how you should use their product and what for. In general, this happens by removing features which I find useful, and adding others which make no sense to me.
Admittedly, listening to users often results in designing a faster horse rather than a car; and Apple has had some success in designing products that were hugely successful even though nobody had asked for them. But they've been burnt a few times as well.
It's good that this is becoming possible, but what I'm wondering is if it will open new possibilities. Electric engines are more versatile than gas ones; for instance it's not a problem at all to cut the engine and restart it later. Could this enable hybrid plane-gliders that would glide as much as possible, and only restart the engine when needed?
One thing that has struck me is how remote-controlled drones are almost always quadcopters, instead of looking like regular helicopters. If you take away some constraints, suddenly you have a lot more possibilities and you find different solutions. I hope that electric planes could bring some fresh designs.
I guess from the city's point of view, they're tracking the position of the scooters, not the users... I think that the city has a legitimate interest in knowing what type of trips are made, if only to optimise traffic, possibly add new bus lines, etc. Of course, it might be wishful thinking to imagine something useful is done with this data, rather than just letting it sit in an unsecured AWS storage. The city has a better chance of winning the lawsuit if they demonstrate that the data is actively used for legitimate purpose, rather than just Silicon Valley-style data hoarding "because we can".
I think this excerpt from Rasmus himself pretty much encapsulates how PHP was designed:
Well, there were other factors in play there. htmlspecialchars was a very early function. Back when PHP had less than 100 functions and the function hashing mechanism was strlen(). In order to get a nice hash distribution of function names across the various function name lengths names were picked specifically to make them fit into a specific length bucket. This was circa late 1994 when PHP was a tool just for my own personal use and I wasn't too worried about not being able to remember the few function names.
I think he's never been extremely stable, and often he's said stuff that were downright stupid. He's just currently ranting on a particularly bad subject, because his precious Tesla factory in California got impacted by the shutdowns, so he's yapping at the mainstream Covid response.
For a guy who has admittedly accomplished quite a lot, he does seem to have a rather fragile ego. I'm not sure whether he thinks giving his kid a stupid name is a proof of his genius or originality...?
One possible reason for the fast launch is that Swiss universities had a hand in the development of the DP-3T decentralized protocol. Newspapers in Switzerland act as if it was invented there, so national pride is involved.
And yet, even in Switzerland, polls seem to indicate nowhere near enough people will download the app...
The examples I know where the website reimplements the search functionality are when the page content is dynamically loaded. One such "website" is Google Sheets. You don't want the huge spreadsheet to be loaded in the browser, so only the part you see is downloaded. For the search functionality, the tool actually sends the search query to the server, which finds and sends back the relevant part of the page.
So this is a VAT, and therefore technically paid by the end user... Though in practice companies sell at whatever price point which gives them the most total revenue, so it's likely they will lower their theoretical VAT-less price to compensate. It's easier to tax digital services, because the marginal cost of selling more is near-zero; meaning once you've produced the thing, there's almost no chance you will decide not to sell in Indonesia because you make less money there.
It's an interesting move. Seems a lot fairer and more efficient than taxes on turnover proposed by various EU countries; maybe because EU rules would not allow them to raise the VAT in this way?
There are some big holes in the logic though. The argument for diversity programs is that they right an "unjust" disparity in representation. He attempts to justify the disparity between the number of men and women in IT by claiming it is caused by women choosing not work in IT. He says that this is the natural order of things and we should not try to force it.
However, he notes himself that the diversity programs at Google also try to increase the number of black people hired in IT; yet he offers no explanation as to why black people would be underrepresented in IT. Is that the natural order of things that black people choose not to work in IT? And if there is no particular need to justify the disparity in the number of black people, why even offer a justification for women?
Not sure what you mean by that zero sum comment? If I understand correctly the argument, there is limited charity money, and limited jobs. Charity money is only given to poor people, because they don't have enough money, and some jobs are given preferentially to women, because they don't have enough jobs. Both are unfair, and rich people and men are entitled to complain about discrimination.
Lawsuits against large companies are usually free, with the lawyers getting a big part of the settlement in case of victory. From what I understand, this particular lawyer is a politician treating similar cases as free campaigning opportunities, and is unlikely to insist on getting paid to keep going with a lawsuit.
Question: Were companies allowed to bid against each other during the call for bids? Or did each company give out a single bid in a sealed envelope that nobody but the customer was allowed to see? Or would the DoD come to one of the company and tell them y'know, your competitors are a lot cheaper...?
Not sure what would be best, there are probably hidden implications in every solution.
the venture capitalist mob who are underwriting these outfits to the tune of billions have left themselves with little option but to continue the money flow. If they don't, then it folds and the lose everything
That's the sunk cost fallacy! But actually, the VC mob got its money back when Uber went public. Now it's private investors who would be left holding the bag.
Arguably, the vast majority of users never even type a URL, so you could say that it doesn't even matter which TLD you are using. People Google for facebook instead of typing fb.com. On the other hand, I do know that El Reg's website ends with .co.uk, and I can therefore trust that I am on the right website... Though that logic is full of issues, starting with lookalike unicode characters used to write stuff like "tнеrеgɪѕtеr.сo.uk".
So, maybe the whole thing ought to get revisited, and companies should just register a domain name under the cheapest TLD available...?
I recall that in Germany at least, publishers were able by law to choose whether to allow Google to display snippets; the intent was that Google would have to negotiate with them a fair price. Google offered them zero, and they all accepted sooner or later.
Of course, even though big publishers initially refused, you'd have cheap fly-by-night new sites that would accept it immediately, which meant their results were more attractive to users and received more traffic, which meant that the big publishers lost any leverage to force Google to accept their terms. Typically, bigger outfit would be able to out-advertise small operations, but since Google News is free for everybody, they can't. This makes Rupert Murdoch very unhappy.
The big problem of Google News is that it makes not much difference if you're a great outfit with carefully researched stories, or a one-man outfit copy/pasting stories with automated scripts; for a lot of news it makes no difference.
This makes it possible for Google to just say: "We'll let you decide exactly what you want to us to display on Google News, and we'll pay you nothing at all". And publishers all fall over themselves to allow Google to show everything it wants.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020