ChineseChef

So, you are describing Walmart in most smaller cities. And Walmart doesn't carry stuff made at local shops (not usually). So, should Walmart be forced to use shelf space to help out local brands? Which Brands? How much shelf space? What if those brands don't sell well?

So what would be wrong with your scenario? I don't understand why that is bad/illegal. Why does a company have to help their competitors in any way shape or form????

So Intel should be legally mandated to sell AMD cpus? MS should be legally mandated to sell MacOS? How much market share does a company have to have before it has to start legally promote their competitors over themselves?

One thing you have to think about too. From a legal standpoint, if the car is programmed to choose between killing people, if it chooses to kill anyone it has been programed to murder by the company that made it. It (the company that made the car programming) will then be 100% liable for killing whoever dies. The car will have to be programmed to stop as safely as possible. Regardless of all other factors. It will have to act with the sole purpose of preserving the safety of the occupants. Or it will be considered fully liable for any harm done to the occupants. And it will thus have to act indifferent to whatever it is trying to avoid hitting.

I mean, sort of. Look at what the modern gov'ts want to do. Lock down the internet. Full control of all online access. Complete monitoring of all communications. They look at 1984 as a guidebook, not a warning. The funny thing is Orwell thought the gov't would have to force this stuff on us. He never thought we would be begging for it.

I can't agree with you more. All of these "who does the car kill" scenarios rely on the car making stupid human decisions that put it in a no win scenario. My questions are always: Why is the car going so fast it can't react? Why did the car drive that speed without the appropriate vision data to see where it would be? What is this magical scenario and how often do human drives face it today?

From what I have read, to effectively reduce traffic such that it would remove traffic jams would require less than 50% AI driven cars on any given section of road. That said, not sure if I believe that. Lots of the claims and hype around AI cars seems to be way overblown on ability and timelines and the effects it will have. Also, regarding Telsa, my only real complaint about their Autopilot is the name and public perception of that name. The common public thinks Autopilot means fully autonomous driving, like in the movies. Tesla knew this, and knew they could capitalize on peoples ignorance. So they can claim they have Autopilot, meaning that it will maintain speed and heading, but they know the public will think it is fully autodrive. Which is why they got in trouble in one country (can't remember where), simply because of the naming and implied abilities. (in spite of their wall of text disclaimer about the capabilities of autopilot) Another thing a lot of people are forgetting. With AI cars, you wont get to decide to do anything the government doesn't like. Protests in some area? Your cars will auto route around it so no one sees it. Or they will claim national security and route all cars away, or won't let you go. You won't have to pay to own a car anymore!!! Every car you "rent" will be filled with ad screens that you can't turn off without paying extra. Think black mirror. How easy would it be to segregate the poor or "undesirable" people by simply charging more for them to leave "their" areas? Need to go to that big meeting/interview/important event, and your rent-a-car is filthy inside? Gotta wait for the next one and be late or risk getting filthy.

Why though? Why is a search engine different? Why is that one business different than every single other business on the face of the planet?? Why does a search engine have to legally be unbiased? They don't have a monopoly, regionally or legally. They have tons of competitors, that they can't block access to even if they wanted. Should the consumers/users try to use the most unbiased search engine? Of course. But who decides what is unbiased vs algorithmic, and makes that decision without bias? Google knows their search algorithm, it wouldn't be hard to perfectly design their ads to provide the best results for their algorithm, even if they didn't favor their own ads outright. Frankly, unless the government wants to fully fund a search engine like Google, they shouldn't be able to say what kind of results Google is allowed to give as long as they aren't false. As a private company, Google should be allowed to straight up block all other competitors within their search results. Because what would the EU or any gov't do if Google simply said, no. That they wouldn't pay. Will Google get blocked? What if Google decided that due to this "over-burdensome regulation" they were just going to fire all EU employees and pull all business assets out of the EU? Who would realistically replace Google if the EU decided to block access? How would the EU even block such an entity? To me it is only a matter of time before one of the mega companies just starts telling countries "no" to absurd fines like this. And threatens to just close shop within that countries borders. It's not like Google needs brick and mortar buildings in those countries for people to access it. As an aside, I don't view companies telling countries to "get stuffed" as a good thing. But stupid fines like this are what will push them to start pushing back. And when they do, they may find they hold more sway than the gov'ts trying to tell them what to do.

I don't understand why this is wrong. Why do platforms have to help or even allow others on their platform? Store A isn't required to carry products from company B. Not carrying those products might be less profitable due to customer demand, but there isn't any requirement to do so. And why should there be? Why should Google be under LEGAL obligation to direct business away from themselves? Why should any business be obligated to help sell a competitor's service/product?

Financial motivation should be more than enough to motivate the miners to update their programs.

I'm honestly impressed that it was able to stay up so long. While torrenting has been the villain for a long time, it was either too "complicated" for most casual users, or "difficult" to find what you wanted in decent quality. When I started seeing coworkers who could barely work email talking about how they had Kodi, and they were watching movies that were barely out or not even in theaters yet, I knew it was only a matter of time. Torrenting is really hard to go after, because it requires a certain amount of know-how on the user, which makes getting around blocks rather easy. But Kodi and people with their Firesticks just made it super easy to pirate everything. I figured the media industries would have been going after it harder and faster than they have so far.

Honestly, a text file with a name that isn't "all my passwords are here" likely wouldn't be that bad. If it isn't something obvious, and you turn off file history, someone likely won't find it if they are specifically targeting you and know you have such a file.

The big reason was the way the cards were designed. For the simplest explanation, AMD used lots of lower powered computational parts, where Nvidia used a smaller amount of high powered computational parts. With most crypto-coin mining, the speed of the individual computational units was largely irrelevant (the slowest ones were still plenty fast). But having more computational units allowed for better distributed computation. So the end result for 3D graphics was the same (within this argument). But for using the card for a purpose it wasn't designed, the AMD cards simply worked a lot better. Super ultra ELI5: Nvidia made a sledge hammer, AMD made a bunch of small hammers. When breaking 1 rock, they worked about the same. When breaking a lot of small rocks, the larger amount of smaller hammers was more useful. Both were initially designed to break one rock. (video output to a display) Crypto mining is like breaking a ton of small rocks.

You have an excessive amount of faith in government security.

I wonder if this will eat into lower end server systems. I know a few people that use server grade OS simply for the higher RAM/Socket limits.

The other issue of Ink vs Laser is usually frequency of use and longevity. Ink dries up way faster than toner goes bad. If you are a home user, and print a few pages every other month, that ink will dry up and be useless before you get half way through your cartridge. But the toner will last way longer with similar infrequent usage. So, in the long run, laser will likely save you money and produce more consistent quality over its lifetime.

I am curious to see when companies/individuals will start to use this ruling as protection against overbearing vendors.

This is hardly a new idea or product; nor is it the first time someone made a decent one. The idea never really took off due to lack of interest, partly due to pricing and partly due to lack of real benefit from liquid cooling your PSU. They don't get too hot, especially not anymore. You don't normally overclock your PSU, and the fans for quality PSUs were never loud enough that you would need to worry about noise. Yah, some people bought the old ones, but not enough to keep the products around. Besides just wanting one, the only real advantage to water cooling your PSU is so you can dump all the heat at an external location to the case. And very few people bother to do that, most rads are either in the case, or on top/next to the case. http://koolance.com/1300-1700w-liquid-cooled-power-supply

Isn't range of wifi much more greatly affected by the client devices, not the base station? Having 1000W of power at your base station doesn't mean much when your devices only have mW of power. I can see this being better for open areas I guess, but I would assume it will still have the same problem other 5GHz signals have with penetration.

Yah, I already try to buy from good companies as much as possible. The problem is the idiot masses that do 0 research before buying the cheapest option available.

That is assuming the exploits actually get fixed. So many companies just ignore it, or fix it for the next version of the hardware. Like android phones, or webcams and such. They don't ever bother to patch anything, just sell the fix in the next model.

Yah, foreign aid is not always what people think it is. A lot of foreign aid is simply credits that the countries can use to buy weapons from the giving nation. Or it is pretty much bribe money for the governments. While there is a lot of good done, there is much more harm caused.

Poor idea? The whole idea of this subscription is to make money. They don't care about security. They care about money. They just feel they need to claim they care about security, better PR.

Honestly, pay or not, it wouldn't encourage or discourage others from trying in the future. Cause it will all be about if the hackers think it is worth their time and effort. And really about what they think the movie would be worth to the studio. Imagine if they got the theatrical copy of Star Wars, and were going to release it a week or two early? Depending how much they were asking for, Disney might actually pay. And besides, every group of criminals (or anyone really) thinks it will be different for them, this time it will work!! That is kind of why crypto/ransomware are so popular right now. As long as the ransomers make good when paid, people are motivated to pay. And think about the value to Disney, if the hackers release the movie, and later get caught, it is unlikely that Disney will be able to recover even a fraction of the potential lost sales for the movie. There have been movies in the past that got released before their theater opening, and it usually kills ticket sales. Cause people hear reviews, or get the movie spoiled for them, or see some clip that makes them feel uninterested or like they have seen enough.

I understand your argument, that essentially the worst areas for education and generic services are breeding the most. There are many reasons this happens, and I am not trying to blame them for their problems. One of those vicious cycles kind of situations, where the worse it is the worse it makes itself. The main problem I see is that up until recently, the poor uneducated countries could always offer cheap labor to the rich countries. But soon enough, they won't be able to offer that. Then they will run in to the problem that the only value in their country is the natural resources. Because their intellect will be undeveloped due to poverty, they won't have anything "meaningful" (at least to the corporations) to offer as a society. And it won't be worth the effort of teaching them about modern stuff. So the rich educated countries will simply leave them behind or ignore/forget about them entirely. Best case, those poor countries get humanitarian aid, or charity efforts to help them. Worst case, the corporations just quietly wipe them out while taking the resources from their country, likely by just buying the resources from a local warlord. This is already pretty common, and the advent of AI/robotic workers will make life harder for the average person in the rich countries. This in turn will make the average citizen care a lot less about what is happening to "insert a country they can't find on a map". A lot of people think the AI revolution is going to bring about some utopia, I think it is going to be more like Elysium/Judge Dredd.