In mobile maybe. It's doing well but not "massively" dominant in the TV market, though. In that area it's gaining ground but still in heavy competition with MIPS.
ARM is SO not going to be competing in servers any time soon. Our "cheap" x86-64 servers are already at 24 cores and 64-96GB RAM. Once ARM gets anywhere near that those server specs will be 4x that, or more...
They may have originally served the purpose of protection of the consumer, but now they clearly serve the purpose of protection of the status quo. You think the fact that taxi licenses/medallions in most major cities are severely limited below demand is because they have just found the cream of the crop of drivers and no one else is trustworthy and capable?
Those companies *love* the regulations they have played by, because they are the status quo and they have used the regulations to prevent what we are seeing today with Uber, etc.
It's the same sort of thing that is preventing Tesla from being able to operate dealerships in some states - there was some obscure argument 60 years ago based on Detroit monopolies and pork politics to separate manufacturers form dealerships, and now the dealerships are using a totally obsolete law to protect their status quo.
Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.
Much more worrying is the fact they feel the need to charge extra for extra guarantees of non-serial-killer-drivers...
No, but it's a question of public interest. If the crime is shoplifting there isn't much public interest and the newspaper report will soon be forgotten, hidden away in an archive somewhere. If the crime is greater and publicized a lot at the time it won't be forgotten, obviously, as there is clearly more public interest.
But if there isn't a specific law differentiating the two, it's just the arbitrary whims of some judge deciding what's censorship and what isn't. Which just seems wrong to me. At least if you are going to put censorship into law, codify it and don't rely on some indescribable common law precedent based on what the mood of a public official that day. Personally I think if it's not illegal to print in a news article it shouldn't be illegal to put on the web.
If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried? I'd say not. Rehabilitation is fine, but that doesn't mean they have to be forgiven or that it needs to be suppressed.
Anyway, I said public information. You can debate what that means or what ends up as something that rightfully should be removed, but it's irrelevant to my comment, since the point was that the OP was implying Google should just be removing anything anyone asks to be removed without investigating it first or they are "evil", which I strongly disagree with as promoting censorship. I see no difference from that and Google removing any links, Youtube posts, etc that any company claims violates their copyrights without investigating.
Irrelevant to the point that the OP basically asked why Google didn't just delete everything requested, since I'm pretty sure public record is not defined as "only things that someone didn't request Google remove links to".
Is it evil to refuse to delete information about a person's public comments or valid criminal record?
Removing slander is one thing, removing accurate information that is public record could be considered censorship. Which is evil in that case? Or... wow, maybe it's not so black and white...
Are there genuine sincere threats made on Twitter etc?
Yes, there are...
See, now if it weren't for that wink this comment could easily have been interpreted as a veiled threat towards 'some guy'. Emoticons save lives!
No, since it's the Secret Service, they want to be able to distinguish sarcastic *threats* against sincere threats. Sincere threats are not protected speech.
I'm sure a million people a day make some form of whiny sarcastic threat against the President or other elected officials, but luckily most of them are not sincere.
Actually, no. On the coasts $500k can now barely buy a 1 BR condo.
In the (somewhat upscale) suburban Midwest, $500k can barely buy a normal middle class home.
Maybe in theory in some areas of the Midwest and South $500k could buy a "McMansion", but how many people really build mansions in the middle of a depressed economic area? Not that many. The subprime mortgage crisis was not caused by giant loans for McMansions, it was caused by giant loans for normal houses.
His analogies are all around HORRIBLE. Another statement was that "since Netflix uses 30% of our bandwidth, maybe they should pay 30% of the costs".
When Reed Hastings (Netflix CEO) responded "if we pay 30% of your costs, we should get 30% of your revenue" Comcast had no further comment...
Never said anything to the contrary. Democrat or Republican, the comment about rich oligarchy has a fair amount of truth in the US.
For example, the Bay Area has a Congressional race between old tech money Mike Honda and new tech money Ro Khanna. Both Democrats.
Due to recent election reforms it's actually an interesting race. The primary is non-partisan, so the top 2 vote getters go to the general election. Of course, interesting doesn't necessarily mean better. People with money will always find ways to use that money to fuck up good intentions (in this case Honda's PAC is actually supporting the Republican candidate to try to keep Khanna from coming in second. Despicable, IMO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life
The courts didn't save any life, and in fact, they didn't even get involved. Cigna eventually reversed their decision, but the girl died before the transplant could be performed, anyway. Amazing how an entire debate can go on here without anyone knowing the actual facts of the example.
remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life
Actually, that girl died. They said the chance of survival was low, and they were right.
Real Users know your home telephone number.
