Yeah, more politics! Less of that nerdy tech stuff! What do they think we are, a bunch of geeks who get excited by things like communications technologies and networking?
I think the number of people on Slashdot, a relatively technically edumicated audience, who think this is about someone putting a link on an auction page, and not about an automatic redirect when you visited an auction page, makes it fairly obvious why it took eBay 12 hours to respond.
Wait, iPhones autoplay music? As in, not only did Apple push the unwanted album to phones, but they then set up the iPhone to play it at full blast whenever you were nearby, forcing you to listen to it?
If that's the case, then that has been left out of the widespread news coverage of the story, which has just concentrated on the "Being uploaded to phones that were set up to automatically download new purchases", which most of us consider a minor inconvenience, if that.
The results I get seem to be mostly people trying to come up with clever blog titles, not actually cases where someone innocently said "Well, I googled what you asked for, and Bing gave me over a gajillion results."
Indeed, I suspect there are multiple levels here. If someone tells me to "Go google something", I may use Bing in my quest to research whatever it is I've been asked to look up. OTOH, if I say "Well, I googled it, and found...", it'll generally be the case that I'm saying I actually used Google.
Pro-tip, which I learned recently: Google has actually a hidden (well, obscure, it's there but there's no reason you'd think it does what it does) option that means "Just give me the results using the algorithms you used back when Google was useful." Search Tools -> (All Results) : Verbatim.
No, you can't make it a default. They track that you're probably male, probably interested in tech, and that you'd be a good person to present ads for spiked leather underpants to, but they don't track that you actually want useful search engine results. Sigh.
I'm in my forties, and I don't recall anyone ever using the term "Xerox". I've heard it used as an example of someone using a trademark generically, but not actually seen that occur in practice.
Same, BTW, goes for Kleenex. Everyone I know, since the dawn of time, has said "tissue".
Coke and Tylenol, yeah. But not Xerox or Kleenex.
Oh sure, Big Gubmint needs to regulate the Internet as a utility to do that.
I'm so glad I'm not regulated as a utility, otherwise the government could pass laws about what I can and cannot do...
Bullshit. Those groups defend the laws, but they don't exist until the laws are passed. Licensed taxi drivers are a creation of regulation, not the creators of it.
The laws get created because enough people get ripped off, killed, and otherwise hurt by a completely unregulated marketplace that politicians feel the need to take action. The environment and circumstances in which the regulations were passed are so long ago that knee-jerk libertarians can claim, with a straight face, that they really believe that someone with a medallion lobbied for a law calling for the creation of the medallion system, knowing nobody will actually be able to recall the real reasons.
In the majority of cases, the laws make sense and are obvious to anyone looking in that they have little to do with protecting monopolies.
- To reduce the risks of accidents, most taxi regulations generally impose requirements on the skills and abilities of drivers, though frequently these aren't more than those required to get a driving license to begin with.
- To prevent a taxi driver's mistake causing untold harm to a client who ends up an accident victim, taxi drivers are generally required to carry more insurance than normal.
- To ensure the taxi provides a predictable level of service, and hence avoid clients being ripped off, taxi drivers generally are required to implement a standardized fare schedule, and usually have to pass certain tests about knowledge of local routes.
In rare cases, there may also be a quota system to prevent an overload of taxis. At a surface level, this might seem like an attempt to enforce a monopoly, but in fact it's usually the result of city commissioners trying to regulate traffic in general. The poster child for the this kind of regulation is New York City. You can pretend, if you want, that the problem with NYC is that there are too few taxis as a result of the medallion system, but, well, I've been there. Those photos you see of a typical Manhattan street clogged in all lanes by nothing but yellow cabs? Those aren't staged.
So no, licensed taxi drivers did not create the licensing system. Insured taxi drivers did not demand to be insured. Trained taxi drivers did not demand training requirements. And the Linux kernel never created Linus Torvalds.
That would work if one of their internal lawyers had mentioned it in passing and that's how Google had found out about the problem. However, in this case it's government regulators who brought the subject, which means Google now knows its being watched and knows there's the risk of regulators demanding to see internal documents and auditing their systems.
So no, Google can't, now, go for the runaround option. They have to implement something that means someone at least views the comments that are received by that email address.
Thanks for posting this. The app mentioned in the summary is a completely different one and I was left thinking someone had confused the Google TV app - which has been out for a long time - with the rumors Amazon was about to release a general Amazon instant video app.
Of course, now I've installed the real one, I can't actually get it to play anything (error of "Unknown error" every time I try to play anything) but at least I found the right app.
Given the name, "Prime Video", I'm wondering if the app is only available to those with a Prime subscription - ie you can't use it if you just want to rent/buy movies and have no Prime account.
SQL is ugly, but unfortunately everyone who has attempted to reinvent it hasn't understood it, and has produced something with only a tiny percentage of its critical functionality.
It's the best we've got. NoSQL? A terrible movement made up not of SQL's critics, but of those who have no understanding of the relevent technologies.
No, he's right. The "Not only" thing is a recent thing. Wikipedia said nothing about it in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NoSQL&oldid=335085794), and the NoSQL site itself admits that people "now use" the "Not only" term claiming that the "original" NoSQL was "misleading". Besides which, it'd be NOSQL, not NoSQL, if it had "always" meant that.
I remember NoSQL first coming onto the scene, with its advocates being strong opponents of SQL itself. Regretfully the movement was at its peak when efforts to put a database in the web standards were ongoing, resulting in WebSQL being rejected and IndexedDB being put in its place. Why? Read the W3C discussions at the time. The hostility was to SQL. The reasons revolved around SQL. It was SQL specifically that was rejected.
Having trouble believing it now. Nakamoto took all these steps to protect his identity but made an order for a physical item to be shipped to his real name and address using his pseudonymous email address?