Comment Re:Good for Sundar Pichai, good for America (Score 1) 159
It's partly just age. Remember, the boomers had quite a radical streak in the 1960's.
Sorry but this is just a load of horsecrap. At no point was Google ever some kind of altruistic company that would change massive and lucrative contracts on the basis of the whining of a couple of low level employees.
That Google never existed, even in the do no evil days. It was always a for profit enterprise and it always hired and fired employees who didn't perform like any other company.
Except it's not, read it in detail. The issue isn't just updating the software, it's writing it to work natively, AND getting users to use the correct version (they make a point of the fact that the most prominent hit when searching for the windows version gives you one that is massively out of date and also has bugs in it).
Use the right tool for the job. Not all software is the right tool on every OS.
It's 2024 - people still use Windows? Why?
How detached from the world do you need to be to ask that question? People use Windows because it works for them and they don't give a shit about culture wars. People use Windows because it comes provided for them without effort required to change something. People use Windows because their employers mandate it.
Asking "why" facetiously isn't funny, it just makes it seem like you live in a fantasy.
The Chinese beg to differ with Ms. Thatcher. I would contrast their performance to Great Britain's.
Are you implying that China is more "socialist" than Britain?
Under your (directly contradicting their words) theory, then creative endeavour on the front end SHOULD count If the person writes a veritable short-story as the prompt, then that SHOULD count. It does not. Because according to the copyright office, while user controls the general theme, they do not control the specific details.
"Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output."
if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style.[29] But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text
It is the fact that the user does not control the specific details, only the overall concept, that (according to them) that makes it uncopyrightable.
The next issue is on the American corporate side. More and more people are noticing the ludicrously low prices of things if they buy direct from china and wondering why the same thing made in the same place by the same people costs so much more when bought from a U.S. company.
Not barge in, tell the company to fix it or they put out a press release denouncing the company and it's executives by name as a threat to national security.
Alas, no. Apple's users in China are getting the ones having to taste the medicine.
As a Soviet general told writer Farley Mowat, "The difference between Soviet propaganda and American propaganda is that no no one believes ours."
So you suggest that rather than depriving a few users of 3 services, you deprive a few users of ALL services you offer along with your shareholders all your money?
I don't understand your argument here. Apple is a wilful contributor to obeying the law, nothing more, nothing less. We should all promote companies who obey the law, even if its laws we don't like in other places.
I bet you'd sing a different tune if the ban was for TikTok. Would you suggest Apple leave the USA because of one stupid app or one stupid government law? Don't be daft.
If The FBI has such specific information ("23 pipeline operators"), then it should be easy to inform the companies and support them in fixing the problem.
It is not the holes that have already been identified that are the problem. It is the fact that the existence of some holes that have been found implies that a other attack vectors exist that have not been found. The best personnel to find these holes is the cybersecurity teams in charge of the systems being attacked, not the FBI.
Honestly, knowing the FBI, this is more likely about justifying their own existence. Ask them to show the evidence, and have a third-party check it out.
You're suggesting that the FBI tell the bad guys how they found what they do, and how they identified the attackers?
Good idea. Let the bad guys know what the bad guys need to do to hide their tracks, and tell them which systems we know are compromised, so they can know which systems they've compromised we don't know about.
Not mutually exclusive, you know.
Instead of saying, "Oh noes! China is going to hack us in a devastating cyber Pearl Harbor! We know they're in all these systems!", how come they don't just do their real job and have these systems cleaned up and locked down?
Why do you think that they aren't doing that?
The difficulty is that the exploits they have found and the systems that are known to be compromised imply the existence of exploits we haven't found and systems we don't know are compromised.
We've known for years our infrastructure is vulnerable. Why have they seemed to do nothing about it?
Maybe, by telling people that the infrastructure is likely to be attacked?
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
