What does the Skilled Occupation List have to do with this?

First of all, I would make it so you can press the Enter key and it conducts your search. Forcing people to either tab or navigate their mouse to the button makes it a little annoying.

And inside, a modern x86 processor is actually a giant hardware emulation of x86 instructions with a RISC/VLIW core... You call it cheating, and I call it optimizing.

But this would happen with a macrokernel as well... you can't just magically make networking overhead disappear...

I wasn't intending on saying that CISC was superior to RISC... what I was more saying is that there has been more money put into CISC processors, and so they develop faster.

It's just a simple fact of money == better access to stuff to make more money.

This was basically what I was trying to say. More capital investment typically means better outcomes.

Google does have an effective monopoly in search, and it's not a bad idea to have some degree of regulation in place to make sure that it doesn't harm consumers. (Though nonsense like a 'right to be forgotten' is going too far, and should be dropped)

The problem is that that very well may not be the EU's only motive here. At about the same time that the charges were announced, Gunther Oettinger, the EU's Digital Commissioner gave a speech where he said:

A great challenge is also Europe's position in the development of the next digital platforms that will gradually replace the current Internet and mobile platforms. We have so far missed many opportunities in this field and our online businesses are today dependent on a few non-EU players world-wide: this must not be the case again in the future. ... We need European industry 4.0 champions to win the global game in industry 4.0. ... Industry in Europe should take the lead and become a major contributor to the next generation of digital platforms that will replace today's Web search engines, operating systems and social networks.

Maintaining a level playing field and ensuring fair competition is one thing. Using the law to rig the market in order to engage in protectionism, however, is not acceptable. If the EU wants to pursue Google, they're going to need to do so in a way that is justifiably beyond reproach. Otherwise it's relatively easy for Google to restructure the way it does business internationally to avoid the EU from having any power over them, while still offering its services to persons in the EU, and to have many people cheer them on in the process.

But hardly anyone is running the stock Android anyways. They've all expended on the code, and made it different. Almost no one actually uses the "official Google version" at all...

But they can't because it's open source software. No one could make all of the Linux Distros use the same official kernel... it's not possible, because it's open source, and you can make it yourself.

But this is already the case. Amazon and Barnes and Noble do not sell Android devices with Google services on them.

I don't get why people have such a difficult time understanding that Google can't wrangle these cats, because it doesn't have an Iron Fist on the source code...

I've never seen a RISC processor that can match the performance of the best CISC processors. You know, nevermind the fact that tons of money has been poured into CISC processors making them faster and faster.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of where the attention has been placed.

Snowden released all of his information to journalists before he left the country.

Snowden is both a resident and a citizen of the US. Yes, we revoked his passport, but we cannot revoke his citizenship without his consent. As a citizen, he cannot be blocked entry into the country. He can be detained indefinitely the second he enters the country, but we can't stop him from returning.

For the last time, THIS EO DOESN'T APPLY TO SNOWDEN. *mumbles mumbles mumbles*

INDEED! If they screw that up, it's bad, and they should be the ones holding the responsibility if it accidentally exposes data that they don't want exposed through uPnP... no one else is able to properly infer the right thing to do.

Yeah, my OpenBSD machine specifically refuses to do uPnP as well, because "security"... I've looked into getting some sort of uPnP working... but in the end, I'm just like, "nah... it makes my life a little bit more of a pain, but at least I know what ports are open"

As noted by the sibling post. Bing already does do this. And it's the right thing to do.

But that's the provider's problem, isn't it?

Google can't force providers to use AOSP, and unlocked bootloaders, and all that...

Wait... Google provides your cellphone directly? How did you get on their corporate plan?

Or are you talking about those Nexuses that are provided by a different carrier, and as such that carrier retains the right to do whatever they want to the OSS Android underneath?

You know... because Google can't just go on to the Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint network and update everyone's phone. The provider provides the specific Android build.

And that's why they can't update all the devices at once. Because everyone and their mother can develop their own kernel, and their own Android for their platform.

Now, if everyone just ran AOSP, then Google would be fine to update everyone at the same time.

deservedly*

But not only that, it's not like Google can infer intent to share the data... you put it out there, and Google said, "hey, this is publically available, obviously people want this to be indexed!"

There's no adequate way to fix this either, because if it's opt-in, then unknowing individuals will fail to opt-in for indexing... if it's opt-out, then unknowing individuals will fail to properly opt-out (robots.txt for example)

If you put up private data publically on the internet then you simply have to accept the fact that no one else could have known that you didn't want to share the data...