Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

That said, I don't think one should be so naive to think the Canadian court thought 'the cloud' was a server IN Canada.

Certainly not, but courts generally don't infer evidence in a ruling. If Google didn't raise the location of the servers as a defence, then the court won't consider it as relevant. You see wording in legal rulings all the time that goes like "It very well could be that , but no such evidence has presented to this court." I suspect it's usually done to prevent surprise evidence from showing up in an appeal.

It may very well have been a strategic decision on Google's part if they thought their other arguments were stronger. Oops.

It is not clear to me, however, if both the subsidiary google.com AND google.ca, both or neither have any servers in Canada, and/or if both or neither are legal entities with a headquarter registered in Canada.

Google Canada definitely exists as a legal entity; they have offices in Toronto, Montreal (where they're also building their Canadian data center) and IIRC Waterloo.

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

When push comes to shove, a country can only order to delete something from servers that are on their terrotory, that was my exact point.

What happens when Google doesn't bring up the location of the servers as a defence?

One of the interesting points that the plaintiff jumped on in their filing to the SCC is that Google never actually testified as to where any of the servers were; not google.ca, not google.com. They made a lot of noise about the impacts being worldwide as if that was the deciding factor in jurisdiction, but they never actually specifically identified that the order would involve deleting stuff from servers outside of Canada.

Whether they intentionally withheld that from the court or just assumed that it would be obvious is debatable, but neither is a good legal strategy.

Google.com for their part, should leave the fuzzy 'cloud' defense, and concentrate on the border thingy.

Definitely.

Comment Re:Seems to be getting worse (Score 1) 381

The other point I would like to point out is the new format removed snippets of the stories

This is my biggest complaint with it, actually. Headlines are worthless (especially with the trend towards cutesy or clickbait headlines) and without the snippets to provide some context and engagement, I'm just finding myself clicking on fewer articles. I bet many news sites have seen a dive Google News traffic in the last 48 hours.

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

If the team is outside Canada, and the servers (of google.com) are out of Canada, then the court has nothing to say anymore.

I think that Google's problem is that google.ca is actually hosted outside of Canada (which isn't a stretch given that they don't have any data centers here and how Canadian infrastructure tends to connect southwards rather than cross-country).

That put Google in an ugly position.

Standing up in front of a Canadian (this really goes for any other country) court and saying "fuck you, you're not allowed to issue orders against google.ca" wouldn't go over well, even if that was technically reality. I'd expect the best case scenario to include google.ca being redirected to the text of a contempt order.

But if Google accepts that a Canadian court is allowed to issue orders against google.ca then they're in exactly the scenario they're in, which is that they've apparently established a business model which has no effective jurisdictional separation between google.ca and google.*

They've been walking a fine line between "put everything in a big happy cloud" and "pretend we care about borders" for quite a while and they got called on it.

In any case, it's irrelevant now. They can't appeal any higher within Canada and the SCC isn't likely to revisit this decision any time soon. I hope Google's Plan B is a lot better than their Plan A wasn't.

Comment Re:Not really surprising (Score 1) 177

If you own a cat or dog, go to the dollar store and get a cheap set of dry measuring cups. Then measure out the food!

You missed a step.

First, figure out the calorie requirements of your pet (there's calculators available on the web), then use the kcal/cup values listed on the bag to determine how much you should be measuring out, then measure out the amounts.

Or maybe that's just me...

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

Google subsidiaries that are country specific typically have their servers in that country itself and fall under the national law of that country.

That would be a good way to run things, if they did it that way. They didn't make that argument though. A couple things came up in their testimony on this case.

1. it didn't disclose the location of any google.ca or google.com servers in its testimony, nor did it attempt to make arguments based on distinct locations of servers.

2. it did disclose that the process of removing links from google.ca happens outside of Canada and is handled by the same team that handles removals from google.com and other country-specific sites.

In other words, any orders made against google.ca by Canadian courts are already extraterritorial, and the distinction that Google makes internally between google.ca and google.* in handling removal requests is, effectively, nothing more than a flag in a cloud database rather than along actual geographical boundaries.

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

It de facto IS declaring jurisdiction over other countries, since they do not restrict their order to google.ca, but to the whole of google, even on servers NOT within their borders.

Right.

Let's break it down.

Do you believe that a Canadian court has the legal right to order Google to delist something from Google.ca?

Comment Re:Not really surprising (Score 1) 177

The feeding guidelines on dog food bags are typically double what an average dog actually needs, even for active dogs.

The only time I've come even close to feeding manufacturer recommended amounts was with 2-3 year old dogs doing weekly flyball tournaments, agility trials, and practices, plus training and hard daily conditioning.

Comment Re:Dogs should be given carnivorous diet, too (Score 1) 177

Right, their access in nature to fruits is extremely limited by seasonality

True. Although it's not that short of a season, and you can add things like nuts and roots to the list which have a high shelf life... I spent a good chunk of the spring filling in holes in the lawn where my dogs were digging up buried walnuts.

Corn is popular with some dogs, too.

I would suspect that domestic dogs may have even evolved improved carbohydrate metabolism from their long association with people

The coyotes seem to switch to an almost exclusively apple diet in the fall (hundreds of acres of orchards), so I'm thinking it's not exclusive to domestic dogs.

Dogs do thrive on a carnivorous diet, and if you want to see lean muscle then a raw meat diet is definitely going to get your dog there easier and with less side-effects (i.e. allergies) than Ol' Roy, but I tend to worry way more about how many calories they eat than whether they're eating an optimal diet.

Comment Re:Not really surprising (Score 1) 177

I have a corgi (which are known for overeating) and her food bowl is always full. Because I buy her quality food she only picks at it and maintains a healthy weight.

You can sometimes get away with free feeding if you have a single dog (but don't try it with a Beagle). In fact, single dogs are often underweight because they're under no pressure to eat everything at a time.

It usually doesn't work in multi-dog households.

The main argument against free feeding is that it makes it a lot harder to catch health problems, and in emergencies you have trouble answering questions like "when did your dog last eat?"

Comment Re:Horrifying (Score 1) 271

Canada has no jurisdiction over other countries

It's not claiming jurisdiction over other countries. It's claiming jurisdiction over a multinational corporation which has operations within its borders, which allows it to order Google to do stuff, and that it's Google's job to show that it can't or shouldn't comply with that order.

Google whiffed their part. I have no idea why. The courts essentially told them exactly what they needed to do to get the order narrowed, and they... didn't.

If Google has any operations actually in Saudi Arabian jurisdiction, they'd better get their shit together and come up with better arguments than "but we're not *really* Saudi Arabian..."

Slashdot Top Deals

13. ... r-q1

Working...