Jump to content

mr moose

Member
  • Posts

    25,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mr moose

  1. It does though. When developers have to incur a 30% fee for selling to you then they increase the cost by 30%, that directly effects the consumer. When developers have limits placed on how and what their app can do, then that totally effects the product consumers use. Consumers are only half the market, people who make and sell products are the other half. You can not put limitations and costs onto one without it effecting the other. This is a fact born out in ever other market place and industry.
  2. When they block developers from half the market unless those developers curtail to excessive demands, then they have too much control. When I can buy a mobile app direct from the developer and install it on an iPhone without apple taking a 30% cut or forcing me to use their app store, then I will start to consider that they have relinquished said control.
  3. mr moose

    Apple is being sued by the US Department of Jus…

    About fucking time.
  4. when it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, the only people who claim it is a bunch of flowers are the companies making money from it and the mentally twisted kids who don't know they have been fooled by the marketing. The rest of us know shit when it's shoved in our faces.
  5. mr moose

    Apple has been fined 1.8 billion euros for "app…

    A good move in a good direction, too bad its peanuts to them.
  6. mr moose

    Microsoft is working on some pretty cool featur…

    I heard some one saying something about MS running their email services in places like Ireland specifically to avoid legal requirements in the US. Don't know how true that is or if it's even logistically plausible. But the conspiracy theorist in me says yes.
  7. History tells us quite emphatically that when humans do the shit jobs for shit pay we suffer way more than when we develop machines to do it for us. e.g Australia has lost a significant amount of automotive manufacturing (from 50+ down to 18, and of that 18 half are EV companies that started business in the last 5 years), our unemployment and average wages have not dropped and our net worth has only gone up. The average unemployed dropout in Australia has a flat screen tv, a smart phone and 3 meals a day. A properly managed economy with good social welfare and medical services will prevent nearly all negative effects of job redundancy.
  8. I don't think he is wrong, I mean look how far it has come in the last 5 years alone then follow the trajectory. Also people can't have it both ways, you can't argue it will take too many jobs and at the same time argue it will never be good enough to replace humans for the one thing it likely will be best at (language interpretation). This won't be the first time people have to eat their hats.
  9. mr moose

    PSA: It seems like Plex is banning accounts tha…

    So plex is basically just trying to prevent what happened to limewire and winmx from happening to them.
  10. I've seen it too, I've built those factories as well. Most of the time it's because the companies expending the capital are not big enough to weather all the issues that inevitably occur on the way and they stumble or they are so big that they can afford to change plans mid exercise and just sit on the project. I seem to recall Intel did that with fab42, they started building and planning then shelved it, then started again. And to be honest I don't even know if they finally moved in any equipment in the end. BHP has done it twice at Olympic damn as well. but don't get me started on that (single largest Uranium deposit in the world and nuclear is not viable/feasible in Australia???? WTF to that)
  11. I never said TSMC can't invest. I said it would be a shame if a new company invested the GDP of a large country only to have that investment obsoleted long before it paid for itself.
  12. TSMC will continue to exist while there is a demand for product that can be made with their lithography infrastructure. But any business can be caught out setting up to produce a product that becomes obsolete long before the cap ex has been recouped.
  13. I wasn't arguing it was going to happen, just that silicon may not be a "forever" investment, especially at the cost of 4T. don't forget that there are only two countries with GDP worth more than 5T.
  14. But what if a new technology obsoletes ALL silicon based chips?
  15. Right up till they develop a process that doesn't use current lithography tech. Then you have a few trillion dollars worth of scrap no one wants. People are still trying to develop biological matter for information storage and who knows where quantum will take us.
  16. We had a little trade war with them not long ago, they tried to stop buying our coal, they went back to it after they realized they had no choice. I feel a little more comfortable about our economy after that.
  17. which is good and sad at the same time, good because people need to be more vigilant, but sad because it fosters a judicial system that doesn't take into account how easy it is to break the law when some laws are confusingly obscure and not well publicised (not referring to this particular one but in a more in general sense).
  18. Actually it does. Because in the sense I have been using the term and to what situational end, flawed or wrong is irrelevant, if enough people believe said notion (for any reason) then someone is way less likely to be found guilty of intentionally causing trouble due to said beliefs. That's just how it works. Ahh, but that's where it hasn't actually been tested on the digital front. There is no reason why the same application of law does not apply to digital services as it does postal or otherwise. Some jurisdictions you don't even get a fair trial. However I feel my original point still stands.
  19. yes, but your point seems irrelevant too. Reasonable expectation doesn't rely on anything being factual, just the reasonable outcome given the information you have.
  20. I only showed that is is reasonable for an average person to expect privacy in a snapchat group message. I did that by pointing to tech enthusiast discussing it. If tech enthusiasts thought is was encrypted (type of encryption is irrelevant) and thus was private then how do you propose to claim that an average person should believe different? So you understand that the average person would reasonably expect their message to be private because that is what snapchat tells them? That's all I am arguing, most reasonable people with an average understanding of their devices and services would believe the message was not able to be read by anyone other than the recipient. The damage caused by his message was (without making assumptions) not intentional and not an expected outcome.
  21. Ahh, the problem here is that reasonable expectation is not defined as a hard objective fact. it is the impression an individual has based on the information they have been given. If you raise a child to think blue is green and green is red, then it is a reasonable expectation that they will call blue things green and green things red. Truth of color names is irrelevant. That is why the judicial system in many countries refers to "reasonable expectation" (sometimes referred to as "good faith") as a subjective expectation rather than an objective one (people cannot determine/question if the information they have been given is wrong without already knowing if it is or not). If the average person thinks a private message is private because it's in the name, because apple told them privacy was number one on iphone, because mozilla said they make you safer because ETC ETC ETC), then that is what the courts accept as reasonable expectation. Whether that impression is based on unreasonable information or not is irrelevant. In most legal situations it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that anyone else in the defendants position would have believed their message was not private and would be read by people empowered by law to enact on it. The Australian law reform commission has a decent article on this topic as it is hotly debated, one of the key issues raised (which is evident in this thread) is the fact that when someone says something really nasty that causes great offense, the people who are trying to decide if that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy become biased, because they personally take offense at what was said. In this situation the basic question is; did this bloke mean for anyone other than his friends to get his message? If he sent it believing it was private and that no one was watching then he did not commit a crime in most jurisdictions. And this is regardless what he said or the consequences because it was not him who made that message public.
  22. Correct, but you cannot claim the existence of people in group A makes the understanding that people from group B have unreasonable. If you have no idea how any of this works but have been told your messages are private, then your conclusion that any message you send will only be read by the recipient is a very reasonable position to have. @leadeater you are confusing me pointing to a discussion regarding encryption with an argument that hinges on encryption.
  23. I'm sorry but your post seems to contradict itself. You start by saying they should know because of the fine print (which no one reads BTW), but then you say these younger users are ignorant of it all.
  24. Irrelevant to my point. Again you missing my point. Which is what seems to be the problem for many people to get their head around. If you read the entirety of my discussion with wanderingfool you will see that that same confusing and misleading in this topic is why you cannot claim that any reasonable person would have considered their private message to be intercepted. There are simply too many different understandings of how tech works to be able to claim any one person should have known it would be read by someone other than the recipient. The basic fact of the matter is there are just as many people out there who think a private message is private (funnily enough) as there are who think every message is being screened. No I don't, you've misinterpreted my point. Your "clarification" does not address what I said or why I said it. No you didn't, but that was the argument I was making when you tried to clarify. The problem is you obviously don't understand the discussion I was having or the point I was making because you keep talking about technicalities that don't actually change anything. Again How the internet actually operates is moot to my argument. What snap chat does is also irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the question: "would a reasonable person assume a private message was actually private and would not be read by anyone else"? I say the answer to that is no, because this thread and the debates in it prove that there are too many different opinions on how the message system actually works to be able then claim that the average person should have known better. So basically you think every facebopok user is unreasonable? That's not how laws work when they rely on "what a reasonable person would believe/do". Given half the population believe a private message is just that it is reasonable to believe that this guy also thought the same. I don't get it, how can you believe this to be the case but also hold that everybody should "know better"? What people believe does not have to be true for it to be a reasonable belief.
  25. It doesn't matter who said what about it in the media or courts etc. I was showing why it is reasonable for someone to assume a message they send through snapchat to a closed group would remain private. I think you are missing my point all together. In reference to encryption I said quite clearly: The position I was defending was not a technical one, it was simply showing how it is unreasonable to assume someone of negligence when any other reasonable person would also have made the same assumptions.
×