ksk

79 ms·

781.
by ksk 9y ago
>The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, The US government has export embargoes, and has blocked the foreign purchase of US tech firms, citing "national security". The N
782.
by ksk 9y ago
Which country doesn't want to corner supply markets? How is this different from if any other country would have done it?
783.
by ksk 9y ago
Well, the US has benefited from high tariffs and protectionism (like many other countries) As is such, capturing a single data point doesn't include previous actions/policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar
784.
by ksk 9y ago
Not for long ! https://marketingland.com/google-publishers-user-data-insigh... >Among the announcements was the launch of a new effort to share user data with publishers and introduce more machine learning into Google’s
785.
by ksk 9y ago
The article is about blocking users. Google should sue the OEM's if they feel any terms have been violated.
786.
by ksk 9y ago
Well my analogy was that the 'service' MS provides is the OS Platform API, and its blocking applications from executing on their platform. Which would be ridiculous. A user should be able to run any software they want. Similarly,
787.
by ksk 9y ago
Believe me, I completely understand what you're saying. I don't see myself being convinced that the user is in the wrong here, unless Google provides specific evidence that the user has abused their services for doing something ne
788.
by ksk 9y ago
>There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers. Users are seeing this also with Google's
789.
by ksk 9y ago
In cases where users' freedoms for legitimate uses are curtailed I believe we should be siding with the end users. Maybe in time we will see microsoft banning chrome, firefox, steam etc from running on devices not certified by MS. Its
790.
by ksk 9y ago
>They don't have any right to use the Play Store or other Google specific components. You can sideload your own. They do, if they purchased the device (and have a legitimate account with google). Google AFAIK has not provided any ev
791.
by ksk 9y ago
>but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want. That makes no sense. How have they abused it? There is no evidence of breach of terms provided.
792.
by ksk 9y ago
Shouldn't the customer also have a right to do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for? Google is intentionally disabling the device without providing any evidence of breach of terms. I don't agree that this
793.
by ksk 9y ago
Extending that logic, open source advocates should be stopping people from pirating software. If they're not going to buy windows anyway, at-least a few of them would switch to Linux. >I would go as far to say that 99% [..] >Thei
794.
by ksk 9y ago
How much tax payer money was converted into private wealth?
795.
by ksk 9y ago
>On a global scale, due to interdisciplinary synergies, it seems to exceed 1:1. How does it seem to do that? If you're going to call somebody misleading, might as well go through the effort of linking to data that you consider &#x27
796.
by ksk 9y ago
Are you making the argument that ethical progress is not possible?
797.
by ksk 9y ago
Sure, but if they have to process the RAW data anyway, they could easily send an unaltered copy in parallel to storage for offline use. I guess depending on the resolution & bitness, they'd want to downsample/compress it to sa
798.
by ksk 9y ago
But why would they alter the recorded bits? An imaging sensor streams the RAW data (w/o tone curve). Wouldn't they prefer just storing the RAW bits (which probably have a higher dynamic range anyway) and then apply various transfo
799.
by ksk 9y ago
>To be fair, cell phone cameras as I recall have a tendency to push the ISO up, so it potentially could look different IRL (I'm purposefully being vague). That is true, but raising the ISO for proper (well 18% grey anyway.) exposure
800.
by ksk 9y ago
>Malicious hacking is already illegal with significant penalties. Yes, more people should end up in jail. >If the victims failed even basic security measures, I'm quite happy to give them their share of blame. Please detail how y
801.
by ksk 9y ago
You're interpreting the language of a comment that itself is a subjective interpretation. Why not go straight to the source? Have you done any analysis of what makes for a 'real commercially competitive product'?
802.
by ksk 9y ago
The last thing a business wants is a browser scaring customers away without cause. But I think they would be OK as long as the list is maintained and is accurate. Certainly, we should do more to penalize hackers, and not blame the victims o
803.
by ksk 9y ago
How are you a sucker if you have a rational basis for making the decision? FWIW I switched from Chrome to FF and haven't noticed any major differences.
804.
by ksk 9y ago
We hear a lot about it, but how many people have actually been successful in avoiding technical debt? Any links to writeups/blogs/analyses?
805.
by ksk 9y ago
Why do you think someone can't solve fundamental domain problems by thinking about it for 10 seconds? :)
806.
by ksk 9y ago
Well, I want my computer to be able to do perfect math, without mistakes too. Its one of the reasons people use computers to begin with !
807.
by ksk 9y ago
Self-driving cars are still a fantasy. I don't want the AI to be comparable to an average driver (who collectively get into 6 million accidents) . I want the AI to meet/exceed the skills of the best driver. There is no way any
808.
by ksk 9y ago
Why do you think the US would stay the same if it became closed like China? What makes you think that the freedom is a liability? You're essentially advocating to reverse decades if not centuries of policy that justified US foreign pol
809.
by ksk 9y ago
Not in my opinion, but maybe the question should be asked to the parent comment you replied to.
810.
by ksk 9y ago
>To me, this is not a philosophical argument. Why? Determining what is and isn't life is based on human reasoning, judgement, and morality. Have you found an alternate approach that was somehow missed by everyone else? :) >If you

More ›