Actually, there's evidence.

http://www.triplepundit.com/20...

Of course, don't let that stop you.

Sure, large agricorp farms that cause damages will have an easy time bringing in crops when they are boycotted by all the beekeepers and can't get their crops pollinated.

You realize quoting back at me the link I used to prove you wrong doesn't prove you right, right?

Google gather information in *aggregate*. It does not spy on individuals specifically. And yeah, Google does what Google thinks is good for society, rather than what "people" think is good for society. For example, the "people" who make up the Taliban believe that women shouldn't learn to read, and if they do anyway, they should be stoned to death, and that everyone should live under Sharia law, and that blowing up people is a reasonable political statement. "People" have a pretty piss poor track record, compared to enlightened individuals.

I;ll also point out your "what if there's a new CEO" scenario can't happen with Google: Sergey and Eric and Larry make stock grants out of non-voting stock. Any stock splits are designed such that, ig you have N shares of voting stock initially, and there's a 2:1 split, you will end up with N shares of voting stock, and N shares of non-voting stock. This is the difference between the "goog" (voting) and "googl" (non-voting) ticker symbols. And new employees get their GSU's (basically performance pro-reated RSU's) in "googl" stock - non-voting.

That means that they will never lose voting control of the board, and so if a new CEO came in (which they'd have to approve), and decided to be an asshole? They'd just throw him out the day after in an emergency board meeting that pretty much doesn't have to be more than a conference call between the three of them.

So your fear-mongering there is totally fabricated.

They are totally incomparable to a feudal lord. A feudal lord doesn't give a crap what the peasants think, so long as they keep producing. So under a feudal lord, conditions will improve only if there's widespread rebellion, but not otherwise.

If you want a feudal lord comparison, you should look to Verizon vs. Netflix, or Comcast trying to acquire Time Warner so that there's a single monopoly cable company everywhere, and zero other choice for Internet service. The model these guys use is "you send us money each month for no reason, and we will (reluctantly) provide you service, if you complain loudly enough that you start sucking the profit we are making from you out through our call center".

What historical examples of corporate rule are you able to cite again?

That actually predates the code actually working reasonably well. I believe Apple also had an exclusivity license for some of the code.

If you count only the BSD system calls, it would have been a small job; if you add the mach, sysctl, fcnt, ioctl, and other multiplex BSD system calls, there was parameter and endian switching work that happened for in excess of about 8000 APIs, and that's not including the Mach message contents diddling that had to take place between the binary application and the native runtime environment, and other programs running on the same system which may or may not have been running under Rosetta (in fact, the original DSMOS relied upon Rosetta refusing to run on non-Apple platforms, and a critical system component being compiled only for PPC, rather than both PPC and Intel).

This amount of interface translation is about comparable, in terms of effort, and in terms of runtime overhead.

And yes, I'm certain the numbers *didn't* work out, if there was such a program attempted, since they aren't working out today, as it says in the article. It's the reason they haven't already killed off the CMOS chips, they just expect that they will be able to do so in 2015, which gives them about a year and a half to either get their numbers up or throw hardware at the problem.

If they are going to take the "throw hardware at it" approach to hitting their target date (about the only reasonable chance of hitting it), it's going to take a hell of a lot more than in place retargeting the code using LLVM-IR on the existing binaries.

Nobody cares about the people doing the negotiation. The contracts are not between people, they are between companies, or at best, between people and companies, and what matters is where the contracts are *executed*.

Actually, you can. And companies do. Because nations let them do so. Because it's in the nations best interest to get some of the take, rather than none of it.

First, I'm guessing we are now specifically talking about Google's "Don't be evil" motto, which is specifically a reference to the Chinese wall between advertising income and search results (i.e. search results will not be swayed just because you buy advertising for sponsored links). Which means it's irrelevant to this discussion, but if you want to read more about it, knock yourself out, the reference is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Second, you appear to be equating giving money to a government which has admitted to spying on its own people as a means of social and political control as "moral", which I have to believe is a passing reference to Rosseau's "Social Contract", aka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

I think if you read that, you'll see that the U.K. government doesn't qualify as what Rosseau is describing in his social contract as "monarchy" or "aristocracy", since the U.K. is, at best, a Representative Democracy, or Republic, rather than a true Democracy.

But let's grant you that anyway, at the same time granting the same to the U.S., which is also technically a Republic.

I'd argue that Google has done a better job in terms of the social contract than those elected to govern. Specifically, the difference between the government doing "Google Fiber" and Google doing it, is that Google actually did it. It's not like the government lacks for money (if it needs money, it borrows it against the credit of the citizens, or it confiscates it from the citizens by way of taxation, or it confiscates it from the citizens by printing it - with concomitant inflation (e.g. so called "Quantitative Easing").

So Google is a better adherent to the social contract, if we can agree that by virtue of being born into a society, you tacitly agree to the societies shrink-wrap license, even though it's not like you had any choice in the matter.

Until the U.K.government can demonstrate better social responsibility than Google, I'm pretty happy to leave the money in the hands of those who will use it most wisely, as opposed to giving it to people with a demonstrably poor track record instead.

PS: One of the main tenets of philanthropy by individuals who have accumulated extreme wealth is that they have a demonstrated track record of understanding the system; a second tenet is that one persons enlightened judgement is often better at making socially beneficial decisions on how to wield the economic power of society than a bunch of bureaucrats - Carnegie Free Libraries, and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation's emphasis on clean water and maria eradication, and the Rockefeller Foundations charitable works all being examples of where governments talk a good game, but end up doing squat in terms of useful effect.

And in fact, you can. It's not anyones fault that you are not personally a multinational organism by nature, and that in order to do this, you'll have to physically relocate to Ireland, rather than merely relocating your consciousness to your body already living in Ireland. Sucks to be made out of meat, I guess.

So they are looking for Rosetta - the technology Apple acquired for running PPC binaries on the x86 using binary translation.

Well, good luck to them; even though they could just license the technology, they probably won't. The job posting says they are relying on LLVM-IR as a means of translating the code.

In case they care, Apple acquired the company that produced Rosetta, so that's where you want to start to license it, or Facebook last year acquired a small company that did the same type of thing. I doubt they'd be able to hire the engineers away from Google, but if they're interested, Google has NACL and PiNACL which have to use similar techniques.

It's funny how everything old is new again, isn't it? IR is basically becoming ANDF from 1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

...and there's a good reason that Avie Tevanian went with "fat binaries" instead of TenDRA style ANDF or IR, and there's a good reason we (at Apple) extended it to Intel systems, rather than continuing on with Rosetta (though, to be fair, there isn't really a technical reason for the death of Classic or Rosetta, other than a broken build and archival process, really).

If the contracts are signed in Ireland, and both parties agree that the terms of the contract are to be governed by the laws of Ireland, then they are made in Ireland. It's the same reason Apple has its call centers in Ireland, and the same reason contracts between French companies and Google are executed in Ireland. If you want them executed in your EU member country, match the Ireland corporate tax rate, or quit whining when companies follow the rules of "least money into government pockets", and said government pockets end up being Irish pockets instead of yours.

Non-paywalled link to original FT story
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0...

TL;DR version:

Google is removing them *from the premium streaming platform*, not from YouTube entirely, unless they agree to a specific streaming royalty structure AND agree to some changes to how their free content is handled as well. The objection is primarily to the free content rules, which artists, who are mostly represented by the rights agency Merlin, believe will undercut sales of their music. The refusal to sign away the rights on their free content mean they are being delisted from Google's premium streaming service, which is only a loss for them if that service takes off, and their content isn't their to receive stream royalties.

Not the original poster, but here you go...

What aspects of autism predispose to talent?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Talent in autism: hyper-systemizing, hyper-attention to detail and sensory hypersensitivity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Enhanced perception in savant syndrome: patterns, structure and creativity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

The savant syndrome: intellectual impairment and exceptional skill.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Comparing the intelligence profiles of savant and nonsavant individuals with autistic disorder
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

The obvious way to comply, of course, would be to block all Canadian eCommerce sites from Google search results, so that the situation never arises for them again in the future. Otherwise, they are going to have to create a "Canadian Judicial Censorship Division" to deal with these sorts of requests.

The trade secrets are disclosed, and once disclosed, they are only protected in terms of monetary damages vs. the disclosing party arising from loss of business. Anyone else, however, may use these trade secrets as they see fit.

If the Canadian company wanted broader intellectual property protection than that, it needed to file a patent, with the concomitant reduction in the term of protection. This was a very clear statement on the use and limits of trade secrets which arose as a finding of fact in the USL v. BSDI and USL v. UCB case.

I'm pretty sure that if the wife is doing this, she's going to just do a rolling blog, and you can either block all names on all blog sites, effectively outlawing blogging entirely because of this one woman, or you can freaking lump it, and ensure your own blog posts explaining her mental illness show up in the search results before her posts show up about you. Obviously, for this to happen, your posts will have to pass the "relevance test", rather than just being you whining, and then paying an SEO to try to get higher placement in Google until the next time Google changes their algorithm to make gaming the relevance filter harder.

The "intellectual property" being "infringed" is trade secrets, and the trade secrets are already disclosed.

In the U.S. you can raise a civil action against the disclosure of a trade secret (this was in fact one basis for the USL vs. UCB lawsuit, after BSDI hid behind UCB in the USL vs. BSDI lawsuit), but once disclosed, it is no longer secret. If you wanted your IP protected in this fashion, the way to do it is to get a patent, and live with the fact that it applies for "only" 20 years, rather than in perpetuity.

Canada may treat trade secrets differently than the U.S. treats them, but the upshot of this is that no U.S. court would uphold this order by the Canadian court, and if Canada *does* treat them the same as the U.S., it was a poor decision by the Canadian court in the first place.

Well, we certainly brought over the European pigeon variants of domestic, feral, ringneck, and rock dove, so it's certainly our fault for displacing them from their ecological niche with a more resilient invasive species. Somewhat the same as the English introducing Rabbits to Australia.

Funny how we don't seem to care enough about these particular invasive species to wipe them out from areas which are not their natural habitat, but we get our panties all in a bunch over other invasive species.