If Google, or CF, or whoever are fronting illegal activity with their services, they are absolutely responsible for damages the party they are proxying.
Platforms must be responsible for the content they are hosting, broadcasting, and publishing.
One to one communications between two people exchanging ideas and having a private discussion is different from mass broadcasting.
> Platforms must be responsible for the content they are hosting, broadcasting, and publishing.
> One to one communications between two people exchanging ideas and having a private discussion is different from mass broadcasting.
The highway is used both by those visiting their friends and those doing mass deliveries. Is it the job of the highway maintenance crew to control for what purpose their network is used?
The "owner" of the highway is the government, who regulates commercial traffic differently to personal traffic. The government places strict rules on who is allowed to use the highway, and how it is used.
The highway maintenance crew is akin to the person installing racks for CloudFlare.
Highway are a poor analogy for information broadcast systems in general. Highways are closer to a one to one transmission system rathe than a broadcast system of one to many.
Farmers do not want to pay for anything. My dealings with people in the farming community is that completely devalue everything around as a négociation tactic. They do not want to pay anymore than they have to for anything. In general, I don't work for or with them anymore because of the horrible way I have been treated by them. (bit generalised, but I spend 10 years working in the community)
JD is moving to a Tractor as a Service model. JD does not want to open up their systems because before not long, you just hire a robotic service to come and plow or harvest your fields. JD sees this coming and wants to be in the best possible position to market its services to land owners.
> JD sees this coming and wants to be in the best possible position to market its services to land owners.
You may be right, but, if so, this is just another move by a massive corporation to create a vertical monopoly, and extract all the rent in the space. For at least a couple of decades, companies with massive fleets of tractors sweep through the country, working farm fields for the owners, as the seasons change across the states. Your statement makes it seem as if JD could be muscling in on this already-muscled market. Tractors have already been priced out of a lot of farmer's businesses. They may as well cut out these middlemen.
Yes, I think so. I believe it is Cat and Rio Tinto have some form of arrangement at one of RT's mines in Aus. The dump trucks are driverless and run from RT's HQ elsewhere.
Cutting out intermediataries is what cloud computing is all about. I don't really see this as any different.
Part of the problem here is that in any other sort of <blank>-as-a-service model, you'd be paying MUCH less for the "service" than the <blank>. In this case, you're buying the capital equipment, and then being forced to buy a service contract in order to use it as expected, and keep it running. It'd be like buying an iPhone, needing to rent iCloud storage to make it convenient, not being able to service it (in any meaningful way), and then only being able to run apps from the App Store. Oh, wait. It's the same problem, with the same ethical and moral conundrum. In our society, a lot of us have accepted this deal for a $1,000 phone. However, it's a bit different when you're shelling out upwards of half a million for a modern tractor.
> They do not want to pay anymore than they have to for anything.
Farmers are also being squeezed by their customers - prices for farm produce have been steadily falling for over a century, see e.g. [0].
JD's commercial model requires both capital outlay in purchasing equipment, and committing to a maintenance contract that the farmer can't influence. So the farmer loses control of maintenance costs whilst also under pricing pressure for their produce.
I can't speak to your experience obviously, but farming for many is a (very) low margin business.
Yeah, I get that. But also, there is no end in the claim of how hard the Range Rover driving, fee (private) school paying, huge farm house owning farmers in the UK have it.
The vitriol that was extended by a couple of the associates (middle managers) to one of my programmers who was vegan was absolutely amazing. He just would ask if there was any dairy in something a they would go off on him. Around that time I also stopped having dairy for health reasons, but that was okay. I had previously been sympathetic to farmers and the dairy community, but after that, I was appalled. Farmers are getting what they deserve.
> Farmers do not want to pay for anything. [...] They do not want to pay anymore than they have to for anything.
Who wants to pay more than they have to for anything? Who wants to pay for anything at all? How does a desire to save money make farmers different from the rest of us?
> JD is moving to a Tractor as a Service model. JD does not want to open up their systems because before not long, you just hire a robotic service to come and plow or harvest your fields. JD sees this coming and wants to be in the best possible position to market its services to land owners.
If JD wants to sell their equipment as a service, there's nothing stopping them from doing just that. But it sounds more to me like they want to retain the rights they would have in a service model while continuing to charge the prices they do for a product model. They cannot just sell their tractors as a product and treat them like a service when it's convenient.
>>They do not want to pay anymore than they have to for anything
So let me ask you, when you take your car in for service and the mechanic says "that will be $100", do you say "no no I can afford $150 so that is what I am going to pay"?
it seems odd to me that you believe only farmers do not want to pay "more than they have to for anything", I am pretty sure that applies to all persons, and all businesses
No, but if I take my car to two mechanics and one quotes me $100 and the other $150, then I might very well go for the one quoting me $150 for many different reasons.
Having spent much of my time in Fortan 90 the last couple of months - I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one. You know all these people saying "when will I ever have to write mu own hash table?" Well, when you start working in Fortran.
Do you have some weird constraint where you can't use 3rd party libraries? Yeah, hash tables aren't built into the language, but libraries to provide them are all over the place. See for example http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Hash+tables. Or you could a C function. Or C++ in some compilers.
I can use them in the sense that I'm allowed to, but the compiler that I use can't compile FLIBS nor most of the libraries in your link; and the ones it could compile, I had to adapt, requiring understanding of what a 'hash table' is beyond just 'it's a key to value mapping'. I didn't want to make my post all about my Fortran problems, but I still think knowing the basics of fundamental data structures is foundational knowledge.
Well, sure knowing the basics of fundamental data structures is foundational knowledge. But you were complaining about lack of hash tables, and it seems what you really had was compiler issues. That's not something unique to Fortran.
F90 isn't bad, try F77. F90 and on you had more options with the layout of your program so that it was actually sensible. And you can use recursion without having to check if your compiler supports it. And reentrant functions.
But the built-in types are collection types are anemic, it's similar to C in that regard. It's a relatively low-level language compared to other high-level languages. But if I were doing math/simulation stuffs, I would definitely consider using it again.
Just, please, no more embedded programs written in Fortran. That was a bad idea (unless it's doing complex math like for the radar system).
Me too... the lack of decent non-array containers is frustrating. The string handling is also painful (seemingly TRIM everywhere). I've also hit several compiler bugs trying to use fairly new features.
I've never seen COBOL described as cool before, and I must respectfully disagree. COBOL is horrible and uncool -- I should know, I used in one of my first jobs.
growlaw.net was online until very recently. There was no activity for a very long time. I used to visit that site regularly during the lawsuits, and waiting for SCO to go bankrupt.
Interesting. I wasn't aware of these allegations. For anyone else interested the SCO and Microsoft connection. This is a good read on this from that time:
Ansible was designed to be agnostic in this regard. Most Ansible plugins in the unix world are written in sh or Python, and in the Windows world in PowerShell. But you can use anything you want.
This is also part of Ansible's philosophy: to be agentless and as thin as possible.
Puppet and chef are significantly more complex, and historically required remote agents on the hosts they managed.
On the threads about Progress buying chef and VMware buying Saltstack, it was pretty clear that the sentiment of the community was that things have moved passed chef and puppet to Ansible and Terraform.
An interesting perspective, but GDPR also requires them to delete data according to policy. If, by their policies, the data should still be held, then you have the right to access it. If they deleted it contrary to policy, that would itself be a breach of GDPR, and you would likely have strong grounds to sue and seek relief. If the data was to be held pending court action and they deleted it, that could get even more serious for them, and into the contempt-of-court territory.
I don't think that's correct. The GDPR retention policy sets out maximum retention time.
The guiding principle is that data should only be retained as long as is required to serve the purposes for which it was collected. So if your account is permanently terminated, there is probably an argument that GDPR requires the deletion of all data as soon as possible.
GDPR sets out a maximum retention time as you point out, but it also regards the act of "erasure or destruction" as a processing operation (Art 4(2)).
Recital 83 highlights the importance of preventing "accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration" of data, and Art 5(1) says "Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’)"
I wouldn't want to be in Google's shoes in such a situation, as the principle of fairness and transparency would come to light, and I think it would be quite hard for them to argue against this.
You are also right that GDPR sets out principles of not retaining data for longer than is required (data protection by default), although all of these rights have to be balanced. If you could argue the deletion was not lawful, fair, or transparent, you would have a breach under Art 5(1).
The Art 20 right to portability would also be relevant here, around people's right to port a copy of their own data. Given the existence of these rights, a blanket "we nuked all your stuff" would deprive a person of reasonably exercising their rights, and I could envisage consequences for this.
It would be really interesting to see some of this get put to the test though - GDPR could become a way to force "human intervention" in some of these situations on the basis of not wanting exposure to unwanted legal risk.
Uhm, no. No single factor, but the USA going into an arms race with the USSR combined with the USA in association with Saudia Arabia tanking world oil prices played significant roles in the demise of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc.
Ok, why was the mixed economy of the US able to produce all those weapons and all those consumer goods and feed and clothe their people while the command economy of the USSR couldn't compete on any one of those fronts?
Oil prices is a distraction from the issue because if the USSR had been able to sell petroleum at a premium then they would have been able to purchase raw materials and finished products from market economies elsewhere and perhaps sustained the system for longer but it doesn't explain why they were reliant on an extraction industry and market-produced goods.
I think you're looking at this from a consumerism point of view.
The US started a huge build up of arms. eg missiles and destroyers specifically, but also the US had significant advances with tank and aircraft weaponry.
The US consumerist system had a positive feedback into the US industrial military complex where advances in manufacturing and information technology lead to huge efficiency gains for arms production even though Western arms production supply chains almost completely isolated.
So, the US had a massive technology and manufacturing advantage, then the US tanked world oil prices and other commodities that the USSR required from world markets. Significantly the USSR was buying more grain and food from the world market, so while the USSR was able to keep up with technology, it was not able to keep up with efficiency gains that the US was realising.
Corruption was also a huge problem for the USSR, and it still is to this day in Russia.
The Americans bankrupted the USSR on multiple fronts. Capital allocation is a capitalist system notion, but, more generally, the US was able to allocate deploy its available resources in a way that out-competed the USSR. The USA was able to organise its society and economy in a more efficient and productive way than the USSR, and that is a Macro Economic argument.
Until the 80's the USA had second most equitable distribution of wealth next to the USSR. The USA imposed significant taxes on everybody up to a marginal rate of 80%. If you want to "Make America Great Again", you need to restore taxation to the levels seen between 1945 and 1981; maybe even to the end of the 80's. American government funding through the DARPA project lead to numerous technological advances that most people, worldwide, now depend upon.
> I think you're looking at this from a consumerism point of view.
Not really, more like a “capitalist” p.o.v. but not in the pejorative context or the crony corporatist context that it holds today; my view is that prices are the mechanism by which information is shared by all participants in a market and that profit (from uncoerced transactions) is the wage for correctly allocating capital. This process occurs regardless of state intervention but it is distorted by state intervention, which is why authoritarians seek to mandate that profit be taken from people in order to fund their failing projects. Left unchecked this process strangles the productive machinery of society because the unproductive coercively funded portion captures more and more of the value in society and continues to squander it on their own values that are not viable in a free and open society. If this process is restrained then the market can drive growth and the parasitic aspect grows with it because of the continued increase in surplus value generated by the market and the fact that the parasitic coercive aspect can simply claim more of the surplus value.
You mention advantages that the US had but that doesn’t explain why the USSR collapsed. Lots of places besides the US didn’t have all of those same advantages but they didn’t descend into the same type of failures that command economies did. And its not as though the USSR didn’t innovate technologically. They were just had less surplus value available to their parasitic endeavors because they had a command economy and that system is not able to coordinate the actions of millions of people to the degree that a market is.
> Corruption was also a huge problem for the USSR, and it still is to this day in Russia.
There may or may not be a cultural element to this but surely you agree that corruption is more of a problem when the corrupt entity has more power and control?
> The Americans bankrupted the USSR on multiple fronts. Capital allocation is a capitalist system notion, but, more generally, the US was able to allocate deploy its available resources in a way that out-competed the USSR. The USA was able to organise its society and economy in a more efficient and productive way than the USSR, and that is a Macro Economic argument.
Capitalists may have studied the way that markets allocate capital in more detail but the entire concept of communism is that the workers “should” control the capital assets they use at their profession. If it is true that they haven’t even considered how workers would choose what capital assets to build and maintain, which capital assets to leave idle for the time being, and which capital assets to abandon, disassemble, and reallocate, then that is an argument in my favor.
> Until the 80's the USA had second most equitable distribution of wealth next to the USSR. The USA imposed significant taxes on everybody up to a marginal rate of 80%. If you want to "Make America Great Again", you need to restore taxation to the levels seen between 1945 and 1981; maybe even to the end of the 80's. American government funding through the DARPA project lead to numerous technological advances that most people, worldwide, now depend upon.
This is an ideological issue and beyond the scope of our discussion about prices, command economies, and capital assets.
Platforms must be responsible for the content they are hosting, broadcasting, and publishing.
One to one communications between two people exchanging ideas and having a private discussion is different from mass broadcasting.