"By standing in the way of a fair marketplace for images, Google is threatening innovation, and jeopardizing artists’ ability to fund the creation of important future works."
Here's a good rule of thumb: anytime the largest player in a market complains about someone else interfering with a fair (or free) market, it's generally safe to assume a priori that the complainer is either a sleazy monopolist or trying to become one.
The problem with NPM really had nothing to do with open source vs. non-open source. The problem was that the NPM system did not track dependencies correctly. If dependencies were tracked in a proper relational database, designed with referential integrity principles that have been understood for decades, it would have been literally impossible to delete a module that other modules depended on.
Ugh. Someone teach this idiot about Kerckhoff's Principle before he stuffs his foot even further into his mouth!
Kerckhoff's Principle, as it applies to software, says that any security analysis must necessarily begin with the presumption (even if it's not actually true) that "the adversary knows the system," and that if your system is not secure with the adversary having all of the code, then it's not secure at all. During the Cold War, the NSA had a similar principle: make systems secure even assuming that "serial number 1 of any new device was delivered to the Kremlin." In today's world of rampant data breaches and cyber-espionage, this is not at all an unreasonable assumption!
Based on this idea, we see that sharing code can't actually make security worse, because we must assume that the adversary already knows the system. On the other hand, opening the code up makes it possible for friends to look at it, notice problems or potential improvements, and contribute. Far from giving your adversary a leg up, open source levels the playing field in your favor.
China has hit back against this claim, arguing that the Great Firewall is not about trade barriers, but "about national security," which is a somewhat laughable claim.
That's not laughable at all. As George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." China has the same problem North Korea has, albeit to a lesser degree: the legitimacy of their government as perceived by their people is founded on a bunch of outright lies and horrendous oppression. If their people knew the truth, the security of the State would be in serious jeopardy indeed!
In most cases, there isn't going to be that much desire for manufacturers to use an Android fork. But, if they do... so what? I don't really understand why Google prevents manufacturers from choosing to offer different flavors of Android, but I'm also not sure that this is an antitrust issue.
That one actually feels to me like a legitimate antitrust issue. The rest really don't, though.
That is actually a surprisingly good point, considering how common it is--to the point of being a cliche--for Tom to found a strong company, his son Dick to keep it running, and his son Harry to run it into the ground.
Sometimes it doesn't even take three generations. Take Apple, for example. It seems to be a binary thing: it's prosperous when acting as Steve Jobs's own private cult of personality, and directionless and impotent when he's not at the helm. Both times.
Of course it speaks to whether the test is more accurate. You can't possibly hope to have any sort of reliable accuracy if you have a person alone looking at a screen, because the person will naturally, instinctively lean closer, or back, to get a better focus. (Especially if they do have existing vision problems that they aren't already wearing corrective lenses for, as this will be a natural compensation strategy they've learned over the years!) That's why the optometrist makes you stay at a specific distance from the chart, far enough that leaning forward won't make any difference, and they can watch what you're doing with your face to see if you do things like squinting.
A test like this might be a good first approximation to determine if you need to go in and see an optometrist, but without a controlled environment, I don't see how it could ever be reliable in its final determination, because people will naturally sabotage the results without even meaning to.
Of course, my first question was: "Is it accurate?" But, at least according to its clinical trial, the online version appears to be equivalent in accuracy to its analog counterpart.
Wait, wait... what?!?
How can an online eye exam possibly be accurate? How can it even hope to be accurate?
When you go to an optometrist, they make sure you're seated at the right distance from the chart--something vitally important that you can't do alone on an app. Then if they're trying to determine a prescription, they'll have you look into a machine and flip the lenses around, choosing one thing and another, sometimes even for each eye individually. You can't do that on an app. They might even put eyedrops in your eye to dilate it to get more accurate test results--I've had that happen. You can't do that on an app.
Sure, they might show some blurry images and check to see which one looks better, but that's in no way a real eye exam. I would no more get a prescription for eyeglasses online without a physical exam than I would buy shoes without going to a store to try them on, or purchase a car online without a test drive. It's one of those "how can anyone be stupid enough to think this could even possibly work?" sort of things.
It is my considered opinion that the damages and penalties for any crime committed in whole or in part to allow the offender to profit thereby, or to increase their profits in an otherwise-legal dealing, should have as a mandatory minimum 100% of revenue deriving from the illegal act.
Congress could even introduce it with a nice, fancy name: the Crime Does Not Pay act. It would immediately do away with the idea of "slap-on-the-wrist" fines and "cost-of-doing-business fines." When the cost of doing illegal business is all of your tainted revenue, suddenly the incentives realign themselves in a more optimal manner.
I'm kind of the opposite. I'm great with faces, but terrible with names. There are far too many people among my coworkers, people I interact with every day and know on sight, who I identify mentally as nothing more than "this one", "that guy", "him", or "her".
As amusing as this is, unfortunately it's exactly the opposite of what happens at a real trial. The Constitution specifically mandates "a jury of your peers", but the first thing that any lawyer will do during jury selection is disqualify all peers--people with actual, relevant knowledge of the topic at hand--because if you know what's actually going on, it makes it that much harder for lawyers to bamboozle you with obfuscation and fancy doubletalk.
Therefore, I would be incredibly surprised to find even that a single trained musician ended up on the jury for this case.
There are approximately 4 billion unique IP addresses out there, due to the nature of IPV4. If the season five premiere of The Walking Dead was illegally downloaded by roughly 1.27 million unique IP addresses worldwide, then it sounds like he's trying to turn something that approximately 0.03% of the Internet is actually doing and turn it into an epic crisis.