* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Oof, are you sure? Facing $9bn damages, Google asks Supreme Court to hear Java spat

Ian Michael Gumby

@AC2 ... Re: @Jamie Jones... Wash, rinse, and repeat.

I know as much about this case as the next man.

And suggest you try to find the licensing agreements for Java (SE and ME)

Yes JavaME is a subset that was meant to run on mobile devices at the time. Of course there's Moore's law where you could run Java SE on a mobile device at the time of the lawsuit and even more so today.

But again you're missing the point.

Where Java ME comes in to play was the fact that Google wanted to circumvent payment of licensing fees to Oracle. (Considering the Billions made on Android...)

There's more and the bottom line is that before you start to discuss it... SCOTUS has to first agree to hear the case. Assuming RBG is no capable of hearing the case... you again could find a 4:4 split. Of course that assumes that SCOTUS will consider this along the same lines of the earlier spreadsheet argument which split the court 4:4

The point is that the bottom line is very much in Oracle's favor if they don't screw up in the event the courts do want to hear it.

NOTE: I think both companies are piles of evil shit. I'm merely commenting on it from a legal perspective.

Under Copyright Law, you have fair use which would allow you to use the APIs for interoperability. But in this case... that wasn't the point. Even in the earlier case where SCOTUS split 4:4 the use of interoperability was to steal customers away. So you could see today's SCOTUS even take a more considervative approach and rule in Oracle's favor. (Which is why they will probably agree to not hear the case because it will set a precedence which could have negative ramifications and by not hearing it... the lower courts would have latitude to make their own decisions.)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC Re: @Jamie Jones... Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Assume all outcomes weigh the same.

Oracle wins because Google has only a 25% chance when you consider .5 chance of hearing the case and .5 chance of winning. That's 1 in 4.

That said...

I agree the Odds are in Oracle's favor; However, IIRC the less than clean Dalvik build was already part of the case early on and have no real bearing on the facts that the SCOTUS is being asked to hear.

The underlying argument Google is trying to make is that Oracle doesn't have the right to copyright APIs and that it will cause harm if this is allowed to stand. That said, they are also raising the issue of an old case which some courts follow and others do not. (IIRC it was about a spreadsheet compatibility mode) SCOTUS heard that case but split 4 to 4 so no decision was rendered. IMHO its a bit more of a stretch.

This is a bit different and even under the copyright laws, you can still have interoperability under fair use. That said, Google is damned by their own internal emails which show intent to circumvent Sun's initial ME licensing by creating their own VM jump starting it by using Sun's JVM and using the APIs to not pay Oracle ME's licensing fees which are set under FRAND rules.

This is Google's last Hail Mary attempt of not getting forced to payout Billions. (8+ Billion)

BTW, w.r.t odds, you never know how the court will respond. I've personally seen Judges do some pretty dumb things.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Doug S ... Re: Better if they refuse cert

Very True.

The other issue.. suppose they hear it and Google wins?

Now you have no protection for IP in the software industry.

I don't think you have to worry about SCO's case against Linux coming back... too much water under that bridge.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Maelstorm ... Re: Far reaching repercussions...

Clearly there is more to this case than what is being written in the article.

But lets clear some misconceptions on your part.

"Interoperability is at the heart of the technology industry. "

Where is there interoperability between Java and Google's virtual machine?

The point is that Google wrote their version of a JVM as a way to skirt Sun's Licensing Terms.

(This is actually a fact that was brought up during the case.)

The key for Google was to create a virtual machine similar to Java so that it would be adopted by developers. One of Oracle's arguments is that this isn't interoperability but Intellectual Property theft.

The other example you raised.... OpenOffice/LibreOffice's ability to read and write Microsoft Office documents.

This isn't an API issue. The document is written to a published specification. As is UEFI. (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) is a specification for a software program that connects a computer's firmware to its operating system (OS). ) [Google it]

Interoperability by following a published Specification is not illegal nor a violation of copyright laws.

And that's key. Google did not start their design from scratch.

To be clear, I don't want to sound like I am taking sides. However... Oracle's arguments do have merit and there is a lot of misconceptions on the part of everyone. The odds are in Oracle's favor. For google to win, they have to first get SCOTUS to hear the case. They may decide not to hear it. Then if they do decide to hear it, Google has to win. Straight odds? Oracle 75%, Google 25%

With 8.8 Billion and growing on the line? I'd spend a million or two on lawyers to get it in front of SCOTUS too.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

Re: Worthless lawsuits

This isn't actually a meritless case on either side.

Google asks... can you copyright an API.

Oracle says that they stole their IP by using the API among other things in creating their copy of the JVM because they didn't want to license Sun's Java ME. ( And there are internal Google emails detailing that there were conversations over this... )

There is a lot more to this case...

IMHO both companies lack ethics and morals. They are both evil. That said, this case? Oracle has the edge in the lawsuit. The irony? You can partially blame Eric Schmidt since he was at Sun during the creation of Java and its business model and licensing strategy for Java.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Jamie Jones... Re: Wash, rinse, and repeat.

You must be a cynic. :-)

First both companies have deep pockets. At least deep enough to push this all the way to the supreme court.

So if this were a David vs. Goliath I would agree with you... but its not.

Google got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

To sum it up... they didn't want to pay Oracle for licensing Java ME. Of course when Sun came up with their licensing plan, they didn't envision a phone or other mobile device would be capable of running the full JVM.

If you followed the court case it was a willful infringement. The question really boils down to if they did enough to skirt the law. I'm not going to play lawyer and to be fair... both sides have merit in their position. If SCOTUS decides not to get in to it... Oracle wins. If they do... its going to be a toss up and nobody can predict how it will end.

The smart money is on Oracle because the odds are in their favor.

FTC gets back to work: Now, where were we? Break up Facebook and fine it $2bn, you say?

Ian Michael Gumby
Pirate

Three companies that need to be broken up...

Facebook,

Google

Amazon

Not in any order.

IBM HR made me lie to US govt, says axed VP in age-discrim legal row: I was ordered to cover up layoffs of older workers

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Mark 85

It would appear that if these allegations are true and proven* then the rotating air movement device is about to get even filthier. I had a job offer from IBM way back in the mid-70's and in hindsight looking over the last 10-15 years, turning it down was a good idea.

That isn't necessarily true.

It depends on what you would have been doing for IBM.

The 70's and even the '80s were another IBM altogether. Even the '90s.

This century, its a whole different story.

Back before I escaped and had the gold plated handcuffs, IBM would riff people based on the cost of their riff. Its not just 'older workers' but seniority and there were bumps. If you had 5-15 years in... you were safe. Less than 5 or more than 15 but less than 20... you were a target.

Personally I wouldn't want to work for IBM because they are pretty clueless. The culture they created was one where if you wanted to fit within your pigeon hole and do what you were told, you would be safe. But if you wanted more... :-(

If you were still at IBM and were in back in the '70's you would have qualified for the old pension plan. Would have been major bucks...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Sued Into Oblivion

For whatever reason Ginny wasn't sacked a decade ago she'll be walking away from this. Probably get a golden handshake with a few tens of millions to boot.

Free clue. She already has that money in the bank along with stock options.

She's won't lose any sleep over this, nor does this impact her.

The bean counters are to blame along w HR.

So this is how that terrifying killer AI will end us... by pushing us down hospital wait lists?

Ian Michael Gumby

@Richard... Re: Worse Case 1% - Isn't That 3000 Fails Per Month?

Radiologists working 16 hour shifts?

Not in the US. Must be the NHS to blame.

Seriously... If this is the future of socialized medicine... count me out.

(And yes, I know many Radiologists. )

Core blimey... When is an AMD CPU core not a CPU core? It's now up to a jury of 12 to decide

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Ahhhh the famous intel 8087

I'll see you 8087 and raise you an 8080A.

Yeah, 8080A, 6502 and 6800 back when men were men and 8 bits was all you had.

But I digress.

While the term 'core' doesn't have a specific meaning unless you're talking about core memory, you have to remember the context. Intel has cores and hyper threading. Now AMD uses the term Core, however their cores are different in design and the way they are described, they aren't exactly the same as how Intel marketed its core.

Had they called a pair of their cores a core... so it was a quad core... they would have smoked Intel in terms of performance. But they didn't do that. Hence the confusion.

Will the lawsuit be successful? Who knows. Its up to a judge to decide, however the money is on AMD settling. There's a good chance that they would lose. And its all because of some silly marketing.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Keep lawyers out of engineering please

Sorry but you need to keep marketing out of software and computers.

Its not the lawyers who caused the issue. But marketing.

Marketing like sales reps tend to exaggerate the truth.

Like since when did simple ML processes become AI?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Another frivolous lawsuit

Not so fast. How Intel marketed their dual-threaded CPUs at the same time, by total number of separate physical cores or number of threads ? It it's former then AMD deliberately chose to mislead customers by going against established practice and expectations.

Bingo! Give that man a Cigar

This is the core reason why the lawsuit is allowed to continue.

The claim is based on the misrepresentation.

Look at today's Ryzen chips. They count cores the same way now.

(At least that's how they appear to stack up.)

Its the misrepresentation of the older chip that is the issue.

If I had to bet, I'd say AMD settles before end of trial.

Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently

Ian Michael Gumby

@Troll ... Re: Google are cunts

And your mom gave me an STD ...

So what's your point?

Ian Michael Gumby

@Loyal Commenter Re: Google are cunts

Yup.

Its a pain.

But then again I don't get a bunch of ads hitting me in the face.

I do get some, but its not that annoying or annoying enough to figure out how they got thru.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@DougS ... Re: Why cue the lawyers?

Ah good question...

What do you call a company that controls the ad networks and now wants to limit ad blockers on a product that they control. What alternatives are there and what percentage of the market uses Chrome?

Google is a product of their own success.

Being 'Open Source' is not relevant. A good lawyer would tear that defense to shreds.

Like I said cue the lawyers.

Imagine if a Jehovah's Witness could not only knock on your door, but had a skeleton key, could walk in to your house and force you to hear their message? And you don't have the option of putting a lock on your door because the Jehovah Witness won't allow it.

Add to this the fact that some of the lock companies that you use also gets money from the Jehovah Witnesses to give them a skeleton key so that they can come in to your house to preach to you.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Ian Re: Google are cunts

I have Chrome only for sites that don't work well w my Firefox, NoScript, AdBloc, uBlock mix.

Or for clients who use it and I need to be compatible....

My default browser is Firefox and of course being a Mac user, I have Safari.

The only place Firefox is lacking is on the iPad Pro. (Yes I have one... but I'm not a fanboi, It really helps out in the day job...)

Google is definitely evil. They have intent and are not clueless. Congress is clueless. I for one would love to talk to them about the dangers of 'big data' and how Google has a monopoly and will have a monopoly on search...

Again, sites are getting a clue about adblockers. They check and then tell us that we're running an ad blocker and then refuse to let us see their content. Fair enough. I don't go to their site? Am I a freetard? No, I just believe that the value of their content is $0.00 USD. When I see value... like the WSJ, I pay for it.

Now why won't El Reg ever write an article about why major sites still have Google Analytics on them when they can easily do their own analytics themselves?

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Quick question...

Why do so many websites use google analytics on their web pages?

Like El Reg?

I mean when you ask them...either they don't know or clam up.

Free clue.

Its evidence as to you you need to cue the antitrust lawyers.

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Re: Google are cunts

No, Google is evil.

Big difference.

Now when Google does implement this... cue the lawyers.

Its a slam dunk anti-trust class action lawsuit waiting to happen.

Actually I could see a couple different class action lawsuits.

The truth.Switch to Firefox.

Of course... most websites are getting wise and are limiting access to content when you use a tool like No Script which will also block ads.

IBM to kill off Watson... Workspace from end of February

Ian Michael Gumby

@Jeffy Re: "...AI tool Watson Workspace..."

It did.

It saw this as a painless suicide and a way out.

FCC's answer to scandal of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile US selling people's location data: Burying its head in the ground

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: You don't understand how it works

The Clintons were 'broke' when they left the White House.

Due to legal expenses over Monica.

They made their first big money from the Presidential Library Foundation which morphed in to the Clinton Foundation that raked is much more cash...

Then his speaking engagements and Hillary as SoS... 500K for 45 min of work? sign me up....

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: they should be held accountable

Yes, the US still holds companies accountable from time to time.

Of course with this shutdown nothing it going to get done.

AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile US pledge, again, to not sell your location to shady geezers. Sorry, we don't believe them

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

BULLL CARP! Re: Yes, they're a pack of liars

As a subscriber I just got a text message (SMS) from AT&T claiming I agreed to them reselling my location data.

Cue the lawyers.

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

@Yank ... Re: The only solution..

Do you have AT&T?

Check your free text messages from them.

(See my post above)

First under existing SCOTUS rulings, the metadata surrounding the phone call is not private and the Telco can assert ownership of the data. They can also claim that they need to use this data to help complete the calls while on their or a partner's network. (roaming) and for billing purposes.

That said, reselling this PII information should be made illegal.

The fact that they decided to make this 'OPT-OUT' (which is not in the text, so also a reason to sue) is stupidity beyond belief. They must be under great pressure to find revenue streams.

Congress could fix this easily.

Anyone else get this sort of text or mailed communication from AT&T or another carrier?

Again, the Flame is for the telco... not a good way to wake up before morning coffee.

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

@ Inventor of Marmite Laser ..... TOO LATE!!!!

I have AT&T.

As I got up early this morning so I can spend most of my day on an airplane and getting to a client, I woke up to an AT&T 'free' text message. (SMS text message).

It basically said that I agreed to AT&T allowing them to share my location data with third parties.

Read this as an OPT-OUT and not an OPT-IN agreement.

Cue the lawyers..

Time to sue them and to get Congress involved.

Oh and of course if you're in the Twitterverse... feel free to share your thoughts : Tweet @ATTCares

There are many problems with this and definitely could require a scotus decision because as of right now, that information is AT&T's to sell as they please. There are already scotus cases regarding metadata and pen data that need to be updated.

What AT&T did is tantamount to slamming their customers with this OPT-OUT strategy.

Anyone know any good lawyers in the US who will do this Pro-Bono? (Or actually as a class action)

As a Big Data Professional... I'd make an excellent witness...

Oh and law enforcement would be a different matter, and isn't part of this.

Also the Flame is for AT&T not for the poster.

IBM insists it's not deliberately axing older staff. Internal secret docs state otherwise...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: So Ginni should watch out.

If one were to assume the employee ages were evenly distributed ranging from 20 to 65, then the percentage of workers 40 & over would be 63.6%. So if you were laying people off indiscriminately over that population, you'd expect to see those 40 & over "... representing about 60 per cent of job cuts since then."

That's the assumption IBM is counting on you to make.

If you look at the actual numbers you'll see that its not a safe or good assumption.

And it gets worse when you take a look at the full demographics.

BTW, you need to actually look at the population by country. Not all countries are equal.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@BigSLittleP

The amount of times i've stopped older members of IT doing something stupid because "we used to do it that way" is a common phrase are too many to count.

It's almost as if it's individuals and not a generic age thing.

I'll wager its half as many times I've had to mentor young pups who got their ideas and training from reading posts after searching Google.

Brain dead is Brain dead regardless of age.

Today's incoming IT bodies are neither trained to think or have been taught enough theory to do the job.

Most of their real learning comes from being 'on the job'.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: So Ginni should watch out.

Nope.

Curiously, the month before, though, he was warned privately by his boss's boss – Andrew Brown, veep of worldwide sales of IBM's hybrid cloud software – that he needed to look for a new job, it is claimed. At the end of March 2017, Langley was formally told he would be laid off at the end of June.

He was given an insider tip to look at another team within IBM before the freeze went in to place.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: So Ginni should watch out.

Those Senior VP and above are exempt.

Amazon exec tells UK peers: No, we don't want to be dominant. Also, we don't fancy being taxed on revenues

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Tax allowance for costs is a grace

Adding another revenue based tax is really just increasing the effective VAT rate by stealth.

No, not exactly.

Amazon like other global countries play games.

The classic is Starbucks...

They buy the coffee from the source, ship it to a company that is a wholly owned subsidiary in a low tax country. Then they have the shops buy the coffee from that company (sole supplier) at an inflated price as to capture as much revenue at a lower tax rate.

Here's an example.

Suppose you pay $10.00 a pound for Starbucks coffee.

Starbucks buys the coffee for $1.00 a pound in Columbia or wherever the coffee is grown.

If they shipped it directly to your country, they would have a profit of $9.00 which is taxable in your country.

Now suppose instead, they ship the coffee to a wholly owned subsidiary in a different country which has a lower tax rate. This company purchases the coffee for $8.00 a pound capturing a profit of $7.00. It pays taxes on the $7.00 profit. It then sells the coffee to the local company store for $9.00 a pound, which still sells the coffee to you for $10.00 a pound.

So the local country collects taxes on $1.00 profits and Starbucks retains the delta on the difference in tax rates * $7.00.

All done in the name of share holder revenue back in Seattle ... ;-)

If you don't like Coffee, try advertising. Google's office is in Ireland. So when an ad is sold in France, viewed only in France, Google claims that the transaction took place in Ireland so that they get taxed at a lower rate with the money flowing to Ireland. The only tax revenue France sees is on the 'representative' who assists in the transaction... his/her salary.

The point is that accountants game the system to reduce taxes and costs to retain as much revenue as possible.

Mainframe brains-slurper sues IBM for 'age discrim', calls Ginny and biz 'morally bankrupt'

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Jtom Re: @Dr. Syntax ...

"Her name and this lawsuit is out of the barn. Other workers discriminated against now know who has the knowledge that would advance their case. Non-disclosures, or any other similar agreements, can not be used to avoid giving testimony in a court, even if the agreement was approved by the court.."

Uhm no. Not exactly.

In a criminal case, you can be subpoenaed to provide testimony.

In a civil case you can refuse to testify and quash a subpoena. The binding terms of an NDA will be upheld, although its possible that a judge could compel testimony under some cases. (Like you show up to offer some testimony and then refuse to answer a question because of an NDA. )

So watch IBM pay her off in a settlement w a gag order.

(The other cases would have to get a judge to remove the gag and even then, the person can refuse to testify. )

Yes, Civil Law sucks sometimes.

SpaceX's Crew Dragon shows up at pad 39A, nearly 8 years after the last Shuttle left

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Simon Harris Excellent stuff!

I think you have it backwards.

Yes I said you Brits drink at lunch, Yanks don't.

Of course this observation was done a couple years back, although it tapered off when even one drink would put you over the legal limit... unless you could walk to the pub ...

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Simon Harris Excellent stuff!

Well played sir.

See... and you didn't even have to try.

Sorry, El Reg, you guys and gals are 'slackers!'.

Try harder!

Ian Michael Gumby
Flame

Simon Harris Re: Excellent stuff!

Sorry, I think someone at El Reg needs to get laid.

Or they are just being lazy and not creative.

I mean how hard is it to make out the rocket as a phallic symbol?

Really, that's lazy. We need some creatives people!!! Its Friday and unlike us Yanks, you Brits drink during lunch.

I'd done the flame retardant jacket, but hey! I'm the guy who's poking the bear.

Staff sacked after security sees 'suspect surfer' script of shame

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC Re: "wouldn't be common freakin' sense to not surf dodgy websites at work?"

First, in the early 1990s only an uber geek would have a switched 56KB leased line which in the states was around $400.00 a month.

Then there was this thing called USENET so you really didn't have to go to dodgy web sites to surf. The stuff came to you if you had the disk space to hold some of the alt.binaries. groups.

So your 'family' would never find your 'surfing habits'.

Of course things advanced quite a bit in the late 90's. I didn't get my domain until '94 because I couldn't afford it before then including the rack for the servers.

Sorry, no pity.

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

@_LC_ Re: What a cunt!

I wouldn't say that...

If anything it was the person who called in the auditors and of course before they fired anyone they needed to have a policy in place forbidding the surfing of questionable sites.

If you think this is bad, my friend worked as part of an exchange's in house counsel and some of the stuff traders used to do would make even a salty sailor blush. And they got to keep their jobs and in some cases seats on the exchange. We'd hear about it at happy hour, of course names omitted to protect the guilty.

Sorry, but if you were dumb enough to surf for porn on company time and equipment, you deserved it.

For the rest of us... there was USENET.

Ho ho ho! Washington DC sends Zuckerberg a sueball-shaped present

Ian Michael Gumby

@ Someone else... Re: @Ian Michael Gumby -- @AC Good. Now close FB down

If they don't correct their actions, more fines and more penalties.

IIRC Apple had a guy placed on site.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: @AC Good. Now close FB down

If they don't then they get fined again and in some cases they have to pay for a watchdog to live on site.

IIRC, this happened to Apple.

I don't know why I got down voted.

Sure I'd love to see the Feds go after FB but lets be realistic... the Govt can only do what the law allows them. But yelling... 'off with their heads!' isn't going to solve the problem.

The other problem is a lack of informed consent. If you were dumb enough to set up a FB account, then its partially your own fault.

I only had an active account for 3 months. All employees and contractors have to have a FB account and I went there against my will. I took one for the team.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC Re: Good. Now close FB down

Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.

Technically Zuck lied to Congress which would lead to jail time.

But that's a different story.

Here you don't send him to jail, you sue them, collect millions in the form of a fine, and then they correct the action.

The worst thing that Congress can do is to remove FB and even Google's qualified immunity because its been found that they are censoring / managing content based on ideas. Not being a neutral platform.

(Hate speech and illegal speech [e.g. Nazis in Germany] are a different issue)

Ticketmaster tells customer it's not at fault for site's Magecart malware pwnage

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@hamish Re: Offsite scripts GAH!

I think you bring up a good point.

Someone builds a web page for a site and then includes a bunch of JS modules that call outside the organization... like calls to FB, Google, etc ... or they see a neat widget and its easier / faster to just implement it with no thought to security.

That said. Many sites, including this one... call google,analytics and google tag services.

Why? Surely El Reg can do their own site analytics...

I have to ask why EL Reg does this along with every other major site.

And people wonder why Google will always have better analytics and indexing than their competition.

Now if only someone in Congress or the EU who deals with anti-trust lawsuits gets a clue ...

I'd post this anon, but FFS, this should be common sense. Yet no reporter ever writes about this. *cough* *cough* (FREE CLUE HERE EL REG!)

Ecuador says 'yes' to Assange 'freedom' deal, but Julian says 'nyet'

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Re: Assange is a political prisoner, in the United Kingdom, end of

The US will silence him?

Hmm maybe the Democrats...

Remember Assange knows who leaked the docs to him.

If he says Seth Rich... all heck breaks loose

Adam Schiff will be instructed by the Clintons to bury this.

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

Re: Yes, but you've omitted the most important bit...

They don't let you take cats to prison, however there are programs where the cons are used to train service dogs.

The truth, Assange will not get the death penalty. (Assuming he was assisting Manning during the actual theft.

The other truth... he'll be asked about the DNC theft and the Clinton's don't want him talking.

He may not make it to trial alive.

Cue the private security black ops going to take him out... and its not going to be Trump's dong.

Intel eggheads put bits in a spin to try to revive Moore's law

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

Re: Amazing stuff

Dude! You had to go political.

I'll skip your dig at Trump. He's a big boy and I'm sure if your rated, he'd tweet about you. :-P

But lets take a look at Brexit.

It was explained to me by a Brit who lives in both the US and London that people got fed up with some non-UK citizen sitting in Brussels (I think???) telling everyone what they can and cannot do.

Hmmm. Over 240 years ago, a group of colonists got fed up paying taxes and being told what they can and cannot do by some guy sitting on the other side of the pond.

On the positive... you got a chance to vote yourself out of a bad deal.

All I can say is " Karma Bee-itches! "

Mine is the jacket with the asbestos liner with enough space for a class 4 (plate) body armor.

SEAL up your data just like Microsoft: Redmond open-sources 'simple' homomorphic encryption blueprints

Ian Michael Gumby

Re: Chinese walls.

I agree but there are better ways to handle this problem that are going to be much more efficient.

And even if the data is encrypted, you can break your Chinese wall.

Marriott's Starwood hotels mega-hack: Half a BILLION guests' deets exposed over 4 years

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Craigie Re: Card numbers

Actually there is a product you can get for online purchases.

The other thing that there is a company that tokenizes the CC details so that companies like Marriot doesn't store the CC # and stuff.

There's more, but the real problem is that we have the Mongol horde of programmers who really don't know what they are doing behind the scenes. (Or you could use Vandals too ... )

Sorry, we haven't ACLU what happened in sealed 'Facebook decryption' case, but let's find out

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@Mike Re: Perhaps?

So... you have a couple of things...

Yes the Feds do have access to the encrypted messages. There's a couple of ways that they can do this... And no, I don't know which way the do it...

Also FB would have to have a copy of the encrypted message. After all, they have to be able to transport and deliver the message.

What FB claims is that they can't decrypt it.

Note: After it became clear that Zuck and Company were considering selling access to user's data, it is not a far stretch to believe that they also have access to the keys. This way they can better target the user for ads.

Sort of like Google saying 'no human reads your gmail emails... (But their machine processing does. )

This is why I suspect FB doesn' t want to admit that it is feasible.

Of course it could be that they don't know the keys and that they are local to your keychain, but who knows and who cares? Why have a FB account?

Euro consumer groups: We think Android tracking is illegal

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

Gee!

And I have friends who say I'm a dolt for buying and sticking with an Apple iPhone.

Yeah, Apple makes their money on the kit, not selling ads or marketing.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

>Comparing Google to Obama is weird

This is Andrew - he seems to have a hard-on against both.

And rightly so.

Both did 'evil' while claiming to 'do no evil'.

LG: Fsck everything, we're doing 16 lenses in smartphones (probably)

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@hmv

Dual card slots doesn't necessarily solve the problem. The medium can be mishandled.

You could always use wi-fi to back up the shots in subjective real time. As to ruining shots... yeah,

it could have been processing, it could have been the film and/or film cartridges itself. (Depending on the camera and film. ) With 35mm if you have an older reusable case, light can get in. On 120mm rolls this too could be a problem. If the film wasn't inserted properly...that too could cause errors. (Think about loading a roll under fire.) Plates are another story and handling of them could pose an issue even before the shot.

My dad had a "pocket" camera that he took with him. Of course that was in Dec '44 just in time to help wrap up the battle of the bulge and then some. (14th Armor) The irony... he captured images of people during a time that he wanted to forget. (remembering them, brought back memories of how some of them died..)

But back to the point.

Back in the '30s there were some incredible shots taken with a pocket 35mm camera. A Leica I think .

In focus with a good depth of field. (A skating waiter??? IIRC)

It was well framed and told a story.

Some of the best boxing photos were taken with 4x5s and a flash.

When I was growing up in the 70's in one of the classes on composition, we had a guest speaker who was a professional sports photographer. One thing he said was that getting a good shot meant being in the right place at the right time. That meant planning. He only shot 6-12 photos during a game. Ansel Adams also took a lot of time setting up and waiting for the right shot.

Which goes to another point. One can argue that today's smart phones are ruining photography. Rather than take your time, frame the subject and create a good shot, people just point and click taking multiple shots hoping something works out.

Its a give and take world.

Ian Michael Gumby

@DougS Re: I think you missed the point

Not exactly...

Yes, I agree with you that most who use their camera phone would do much better if they actually took a photography course on composition.

Of course with higher pixel count, you can do a better job of cropping and post work that lets you salvage an ok print.

And a camera (DSLR or mirrorless) will do a better job than a phone even if the phone has a higher pixel count.