Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I'm glad you spotted it (Score 1) 21

by plover (#48477229) Attached to: What is it like to be mentally ill?

Reading about how slowly it crept up on you helps me realize that "illness" is a really important analogy. There was no specific trauma (apart from your incident 30 years earlier) that triggered the need to seek help, no recognizable thing, just a steady worsening of your condition. I don't know that I would recognize pain like that that builds over such a long time. But if I do have self-destructive thoughts like that, I'll at least think about getting help earlier, rather than (maybe) spotting that "picking a date is really, really a sign".

Thanks

Comment: Re:Why is competition not a good criterion? (Score 2) 140

by vux984 (#48477203) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

So why isn't anyone making a big deal about Microsoft any more? The big issue at their trial was bundling the browser with the OS. They are still doing that.

That was the American anti-trust trial, and America ultimately fell on its face when it came to enforcing the antitrust issues it was pursuing.

On the other hand, for better or for worse, The Windows "N" editions available in Europe actually do not come with Windows Media Player, in compliance with EU law, as a result of the antitrust case that took place in Europe.

Comment: Re: EUgle? (Score 1) 140

by vux984 (#48477183) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

So you are saying that private companies should build and conduct business the way society tells them to, for the benefit of society. That's pretty much the view of economics fascism advocated. It doesn't work.

That's a pretty simpleminded view of it. Next you'll be telling me that consumers shouldn't be able to regulate companies to prevent them from using lead paint in toys because: fascism.

Comment: Re:EUgle? (Score 1) 140

by vux984 (#48477167) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

What does Google bundle with its search engine?

You missed the point. The point was simply to note that once upon a time society decided "bundling is harmful" so we made it illegal.

And now, once upon another time, there are some in society speculating that "search engines tied to other commercial interests" may be harmful.

Comment: Re:EUgle? (Score 1) 140

by vux984 (#48477149) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

When did Google ever start forcing users to sign up just to search?

You are missing the point. The point is not whether google is illegally tying products, because they are not. The point is that as a society we deemed that tying products was harmful.

Just as we could deem that a search engine company providing other services is harmful. Not because its a form of illegal tying, but because its harmful in similar ways.

. Bundling isn't harmful unless it is exploited, period.

And that's a great study you just did. I mean, you searched for "email" and you searched for "cloud" and you looked at the first 3 results in no less than 2 different search engines. Because clearly if google was going to manipulate the results they would ONLY do in the most blatantly obvious evil with a capital E way possible.

Well, I'm convinced.

It often leads to a greater overall benefit, as products are more likely to be able to interconnect.

What needs to interconnect with a "search" engine?

If there is evidence of exploitation, that's different, and the EU should drop the hammer on them.

Because it would be wrong for society to proactively decide what the rules it lives by are? It can only react to abuse?

But there isn't any evidence that that is going on here that I've seen,

And you've clearly settled the matter there, right? ;)

so this is almost certainly just politicians being dickweeds at the behest of people who paid them a lot of money.

Who benefits financially from search engines being decoupled from other commercial pursuits and thus paid these politicians lots of money to make it happen. I'm in agreement with you that "follow the money" is a good maxim to have when looking at politics ... so where does it lead us here? That's a good question.

Comment: Re:Not humane? (Score 1) 40

by drinkypoo (#48477111) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

"more distributed" means more land use.

No, not it does not. It means integrating them into existing land use, in places where they're not used.

human labor is an astoundingly costly input, even just from an environmental perspective.

Nonsense.

Modernization of food production is the central thing that has raised the standard of living from the stone age to the present day

Bullshit. That's often said but never backed up. The Green Revolution has in fact diminished our ability to produce food without massive energy expenditure. We must go back to a closed cycle in which the crap is reused or we will continue to deplete our topsoil. The best the GR achieved anywhere in the world was delaying starvation, and in some places it may well have caused at least as much as it postponed. Take a look at India to see what's coming for the rest of us.

Comment: Re:Its just Apple being Apple (Score 1) 141

by drinkypoo (#48476853) Attached to: Behind Apple's Sapphire Screen Debacle

What kind of surprises me is that Apple doesn't have their own skunkworks R&D for coming up with new technologies like sapphire screens or other key components. They could work out what they wanted and then farm it out to someone who can mass produce it. Sort of like the Bell Labs or IBM labs.

Under Jobs, Apple followed Jobs' vision. Without Jobs, Apple has no vision.

Probably they should have gone with JLG and BeOS instead.

Comment: Re: But correct != complete and fairly representat (Score 1) 163

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48476615) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

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.

Comment: Re:But correct != complete and fairly representati (Score 1) 163

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#48476595) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

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.

Comment: Re:EUgle? (Score 4, Insightful) 140

by vux984 (#48476539) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

Your "analogy" fails.Because there's money involved.

As there is in search.

. Google forces nothing of that nature.

Ultimately every search engine controls what pages i see when i search for something.

As a society its reasonable proposition that we would want our search engines to be competing on simply being the best search engine, without risk of it quietly subverting its integrety to push any other agenda / product / viewpoint / etc.

Unbundling them from commercial interests would be a part of that goal.

I'm not saying we should necessarily do this, or that simply un-bundling them would solve all the potential problems either. I'm just saying that its a valid argument.

If you're displeased with their service, pop another browser.

And that solves what exactly? It neither corrects the behaviour you don't want from google, nor assures you the 'next browser' isn't engaging in precisely the same thing.

Comment: Re:not a lot of use for most (Score 1) 182

by drinkypoo (#48476477) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

I'm pretty sure he's dead.

So you can agree that being raised by his own parents didn't work out so well, right? He destroyed his face out of low self-esteem in spite of being one of the best-loved entertainers in history, and died of a prescription drug overdose. Now, can you prove that being raised by someone else wouldn't have been better for him?

Comment: Re:EUgle? (Score 5, Insightful) 140

by vux984 (#48476385) Attached to: Google Should Be Broken Up, Say European MPs

Why don't the Europeans start their own search and ad engine?

Because that would be entirely beside the point.

What I don't understand here is Google does not have a monopoly on search services.

This actually doesn't have THAT much to do with monopoly at all. Even in a highly competitive market with many search engine participants the argument to unbundle search engines from other products makes a lot of sense.

Just as unbundling internet access from other network services makes a lot of sense.

The search engines effectively are the gateways to the internet. To operate effectively it's best if they simply compete at being the best search engine, instead of being crippled by constantly being subverted by the other commerical interests of the parent company that wishes to drive consumers to particular pages they have interests in rather than merely being the best at return the pages the consumer wants.

I'm not sure I see what's wrong with that.

Because your fixated on whether there is competition. Whether or not there is competition is beside the point. If your bank forces you to open savings accounts and credit cards with them to have a mortage that bundling is anti-consumer and illegal... period. Because that sort of product tying has been deemed harmful.

Competition isn't the issue. It doesn't matter if there are 5 or 10 other banks to choose from. (Especially if they all do it too.)

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...