I still do not understand why they think that google's competition, Apple and Microsoft, would be any easier to deal with. If they think that Google is an unreasonable company to do business with then they need to get a dose of the way their competition does business. Then again, I am sure Duck Duck Go would be just lovely for the MPAA to work with as well.
The other day I went to a restaurant and asked for a Coke. The crazy waiter man said, "We have Pepsi." It was horrible. My child started to cry. My wife was horribly embarrassed. We felt so bad for Coke to have to deal with this.
I hope Coke sues them for all they are worth, the monsters.
How many of these folks are also worried about the impact of government regulations in other industries? I seem to keep hearing about politicians complaining that the good old fashioned industries, like building cars, buildings, and producing energy, need less government regulations. Somehow tech is different, even though those other industries make things that can directly impact our health and well being. Personal privacy, on the other hand, is somehow different.
Ah, I miss the good ole days when it was drugs and rock and roll that turned young brains to mush and removed all desire to succeed. We all know the real root of the problem, though. The introduction of the tractor ruined everything. Before then kids did not have time for frivolous activities and could focus on the important things. Of course we were too tired for sex and our desires for worldly goods were focused on new leather accouterments.
Now please excuse me I have some googling to do and have to figure out how to turn safe search off.
How is this all that different from the situation before 3D printers? Plans and details about making weapons have always been available. For example, there is a youtube video about how to make an AK-47 out of a shovel out there somewhere.
The only difference is that it is easier to load the file. The convenience of being able to make a weapon should not make any difference with respect to personal rights to express one's self. The only difference is that a bumbling nerd like myself can use this and not someone who has a bit of skill at making things.
I am going to have to side with Comcast and Time Warner on this one. Think about how much money they lost because people were using Periscope rather than cable television. People were not using cable television since they could get it for free, and the cable companies are the big losers. In fact so few people actually watched it on cable that big cable may have to refund their money. A sad situation all around and another win for the pirates. Expect a surge in sales for eye patches.
It would seem that Rockstar has missed the whole point of making something. They should be trying control it and control the way people use it. Creating something is about wielding absolute control over it.
It is not about the money or the joy of sharing, capitalism is all about control and power. By giving up power over something they just show they are dirty socialist who want to destroy America.
Being "against corporations" is not an ideal. I personally do not like the market power and many of the privacy violating practices of google. That does not imply that every action against google is something to support.
Going after google is fine as long as it is for something they should not be doing. The problem with the actions in Europe is they do not have evidence other than "google is big." If they think that google is taking advantage of their market power then gather evidence and then go after them.
This is an argument that patent applications should be written in a form that is actually readable. Patent writing seems to be an arcane art with little regard to reading. It is nigh impossible to reproduce an implementation after reading the patent, and sometimes it is not even easy to figure out what the patent does. Some of the technologies in question can be lost simply because the records for their implementation are so hard to figure out and are a second form of trade secret.
When people ask why diversity is important the quotes from the speech given above are a strong example of how diversity matters. People who come from groups outside of the "mainstream" have a different perspective and a greater understanding of the potential impacts of what they are doing. It is much easier for someone like Cook to understand the potential for violating privacy then someone whose actions have little or no repercussion with respect to the majority view.
As soon as the folks at google ads find out that they may be paying for ads to people who are on a site by "accident" they will likely focus their considerable talents to fix this. By fix, they will probably just not pay for those ad impressions.
I have to admit to thinking that the idea that one is buying ads may be a bit off. For example, this morning I went to youtube to check out a sneak peek of some of the Superbowl ads, and the youtube video ads had ads. There were ads on the ads that I was watching, and now people in Canada are complaining that the ads they paid for are not available.
I am beginning to understand how google is able to rake in money hand over fist on nothing but ads.
I had no idea that the "boiler plate" stuff in a contract did not actually matter. Next time I sign a contract I *really* need to make sure we specify which part is the boiler plate stuff and which part is the actual contract. This contract stuff is far more confusing that I originally thought.
This is a great idea. Since the majority of North Korea's Internet goes through China and is supplied by China then they should be quite happy when the US uses equipment in the PRC to get at one of their allies. It is time to go "full cowboy" and start shooting. Surely everything would go wonderfully, and the North Korean cyber people will welcome us with open arms.
Part of me wants this case to succeed. Copyright is hopelessly contorted to favour a few people who make content available to the detriment of the actual producers of content. This case would shift the balance of power, and it would do it to the point to make the current copyright regime completely untenable.
Unfortunately, I do not expect the current (or next) government to actually fix the problem and turn it into something more closely resembling sanity. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.