Comment Re:WRONG- it's brittle (Score 1) 189
Maybe the GT deal was a big ruse - a relatively cheap way to bargain a better deal for Gorilla Glass.
Maybe the GT deal was a big ruse - a relatively cheap way to bargain a better deal for Gorilla Glass.
If that's your argument, go after the people publishing the information: newspapers and commercial databases.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can go after the original source with a direct defamation action if they're within the same jurisdictions. All this law means is that just because the original source has escaped to a different jurisdiction, that doesn't give everyone else a free pass to propagate and amplify incorrect or misleading information about someone.
But preventing Google from returning those search results is only intended to hurt Google and to make it difficult for regular folks to get at information.
That's a very cynical viewpoint. One plausible alternative is that it's meant to stop people from missing out on say a job or a mortgage they would otherwise have had just because someone once accused them of doing something inappropriate that they did not in fact do.
Ok, so we have nailed your point of view down to "we can't control the content of the book, but we do control the table of content".
That's not so much my point of view as the entire point of the court ruling.
Don't you think that's a bit like shooting the messenger? Furthermore, don't you think that you're now placing an undue burden on a company that has nothing to do with the content that is being indexed?
No, I really don't. The existence of services like Google's dramatically amplifies the damage that would otherwise be done by sites that publish incomplete or misleading information about people. Google may not be the original source of the problem, but it is still contributing to it, and as such I don't see why it should get a free pass when it has been explicitly notified that it is doing so.
They won't go after the one they need to go after, so they go after the one they can go after.
That's a false dichotomy. In law, you can only ever go after someone within your jurisdiction, and in this case either or both of the original source and a search engine that directs people to it would be required by law to comply if they are within that jurisdiction.
There's absolutely no reason at all you should use
"Absolutely no reason" is strong words when some tools for creating mix CDs still prefer
It'd be nice if apps had a base set of privs then expanded sets that could be allowed on install or later by request to the system/user.
That's already possible in current Android. Offer one app in Google Play Store that needs a small set of permissions, then offer other apps in Google Play Store that act as content providers for the main app. For example, there might be a "Swype" keyboard app that needs only the input method permission, a "Swype auf Deutsch" app that adds a German dictionary, a "Swype Local" app that adds nearby businesses to the dictionary (which requires the location permission), and a "Swype Knows Your Name" app that adds your contacts to the dictionary (which requires the read contacts permission). If they're all digitally signed by the same publisher (such as Nuance), they can share data structures intimately as if they were one app.
Also it'd be nice if the privileges were a lot more restricted, like "Use Ad Service to show you ads" instead of "Use Internet"
The example you give is not possible unless you want all ad-supported apps in Google Play Store to move to a single monopoly ad provider. If you whitelist communication with one hostname, that host could act as a proxy to access any other host.
Android is *NOT* Linux based, it is merely Linux hosted. Android is its own OS, its own environment.
And now you know why Richard Stallman was right about calling the familiar desktop and server operating system "GNU/Linux". Android has a completely different userland on top of the same Linux kernel that underlies GNU/Linux.
If an app needs new permissions in an update it must be explicily accepted by the user.
Recent changes to Google Play Store's permission display mean that a new permission will be automatically accepted so long as the new permission is in the same group as a permission that an app already has. Predictably, Slashdot users female dogged and moaned about it.
But just for shits and giggles I took a 320k MP3 and recoded to 128k and compared it to the CD where I ripped it as 128k and honestly? I can't tell a difference between the two.
If you can't ABX a difference between CD to 128K mp3/aac/ogg and CD to 256-320K mp3 to 128K mp3/aac/ogg, then I guess that problem is solved. Thanks for testing this for us.
And if you were guaranteed to be provided with complete information and somehow constrained to read through every Google result for your search term to make sure you were fully informed before acting and somehow constrained to act fairly and without unjustified discrimination based on that information, this whole "right to be forgotten" idea wouldn't be relevant.
Unfortunately, that isn't very practical, so we have to look for another solution to the problem of people being damaged by, collectively, those who present incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the victim, those who allow others to find that information, and those who then act unfairly in light of that information. Keep in mind that this can and does happen even if there is good faith on the part of all concerned, because in general no party other than the victim necessarily knows enough to prevent the damage alone.
Attempting to discourage bad behaviour is pretty much the only good reason to pass a law. Your inability to understand that even when presented with a very obvious and uncontroversial analogy is no-one's problem but your own.
If there was an optical disc and it happened to be able to hold all your music (insert a sufficiently large value here to satisfy you), but it still skipped if you ran through your n-second buffer, would you still be using it?
Let n > the length of one piece of music and it's fine. If there were a digital audio player with a BD-ROM drive that could hold 25,000 minutes of music but started skipping if I were to jog for 4 minutes straight, that wouldn't be a problem. I could catch my breath every 3 minutes, and the BD player could catch its. That's why I bought an MP3 CD player years ago before sufficiently large solid state digital audio players became affordable, because MP3 allowed for a much larger skip buffer than a Red Book-only player.
Turns out, I don't care about carrying everything
That's fine if you just use music for background noise or for pacing exercise (like a ~120 BPM mix for walking), not so fine if you end up wanting to play a specific song in a specific circumstance.
Hackers of the world, unite!