If you're not running Debian/something Debian-based, do you just dump the .so files in the listed directories and hope for the best? Or is there something more you should do to get these to work on, say, Fedora?
The fingerprint reader on my Dell XPS 13 9370 is the only thing Linux never supported because Goodix.
Interesting list. The only European companies I recognize are car companies; Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler, and Mercedes-Benz. The rest are all energy or mining companies, with the exception of Schwarz Gruppe which is apparently a retail chain? It's also surprising how many of the American companies are healthcare-related, and how the relative ordering changes to favor tech and oil companies when you sort by profit instead of revenue.
This list actually surprised me. The European companies on the list fall into 3 categories: commodities (e.g. petroleum or mining), utilities, and automakers.
The graph for Britain is clearly wrong. David Cameron is clearly far-right by any European standard, so the country's swing to the right should be a lot more pronounced.
Hmm, I wouldn't place Cameron as far-right. He's in charge of a right wing party with a large minority of far right members, but he's actually fighting his own party to stay in Europe. So Right, but not Far-Right.
The far-right in the UK is UKIP and a bunch of Conservatives who are basically UKIP, but don't want to risk losing their seat by jumping ship.
By the standards of some European countries, Obama is far-right, but Obama becoming president was certainly not a sign of a shift to the right in American politics.
What matters here is where parties and politicians lie compared to the historical norms of their country, and Cameron is far closer to that then, say, Thatcher.
How the parties are positioned depends indeed on the country. As an example, on our case in France, there is the "Front de Gauche" which would probably be considered communist in the US/UK whereas on our case, we have the actual communists, in the traditional sense. Religion also plays close to no parts in politics and conservative and republican means a very very different thing. Most of the English news I see report quite wrongly on the subject.
cameron far-right? you're joking surely? if you truly believe this it just shows how shockingly far left we have gone that cameron is considered right wing at all.
Mandating the availability of such service information etc. to 3rd parties is entirely normal in the automotive world. Why do we always treat software and technology as some sort of super special case that should be held to different rules and standards?
It's about time the idea of "monopoly" is extended beyond mere market share. With the amount of mobile profits Apple is raking in (70%? 80%?) I'd argue that they have FAR more market power in mobile than all the other players combined.
If they had dominant share, and this behavior and massive profit?
Yeah, that's borked up for sure and people are being over exploited.
But they don't have that dominant share, meaning their path is a clear choice, and it's clearly competing with others who operate differently.
The thing is, Apple sells a managed experience. Apple also adds a lot of value, and they ask for that in their pricing, and the managed experience means they can command high margins for the whole solution.
As much as people don't like that, it's a perfectly viable market offering.
That it's not getting dominant share means the other ways of doing things are competing nicely.
As for who makes money and who does not, that's a business problem.
The general purpose market offerings tend to race to the bottom quickly. Margins are thin, share high.
Apple doesn't want to do that, instead offering a different vision, and it's high margins are worth it.
Nobody is trapped with Apple. They have lots of alternatives to choose from.
That means people like Apple, and will pay for the value Apple adds too.
Capitalizing the company like that means they have funded not only the current products, but the development and means for future ones. And Apple makes good products that target some very specific niches.
Other players can and should add value and start asking for it like Apple has for a very long time now.
Heck, they started that with the Apple ][ computer. Given it's overall capability, it was priced pretty high relative to others, but it was also a very high value package. That machine ran from what? late 70's to mid 90's?
Worth it.
Share matters.
Apple has made a business doing niche, high value, high margin products. They get to do that.
They are not a monopoly, and that's why they get to do that.
> It's about time the idea of "monopoly" is extended beyond mere market share.
I don't get the reasoning here. It seems to go something like this:
- "monopoly" is bad
- Apple is bad
- Therefore, whatever Apple is doing, we should call that a monopoly. They're both bad, and all bad things are the same thing.
We have monopoly-suppressive legislation because we're afraid that monopolies will do certain things. If you want to extend the sense of "monopoly", as used in monopoly-suppressive legislation, you need to show (or, heck, at least claim) that your new "monopolies" pose the same risks as the old monopolies. If it's just that you don't like the new things, and you want to see them suppressed in the same way that monopolies are suppressed, say that instead. We can send people to jail for rape, and we can send people to jail for vandalism, but in order to jail people for vandalism we don't need to say that vandalism is actually a type of rape.
Neuroscience is just an attempt by the psychiatric movement to evade its religious/government roots. Neuroscience will also, eventually, be recognized as a belief system of enforcement, merely a tool for those who wish to social engineer the next generation of society for .. whatever .. means.
I think some supermarkets fridge their eggs, some don't here in The Netherlands. However, I have never seen anyone not fridge their eggs at home. In fact, it seems crazy gross to me to keep eggs outside of the fridge at room temperature. I wouldn't want to eat an egg that wasn't stored "properly" (i.e., our definition of properly). This is probably entirely irrational, but there it is.
Interestingly, the 'official' Dutch storage advice for eggs [1] states they are to be kept in the fridge, because it reduces the risk of salmonella and makes sure they dry out less quickly.
However, I have never seen anyone not fridge their eggs at home
That is just a cultural/educational thing. For a first-timer you could visit me, or my entire family for that matter, in Belgium. That's not too far away. Eggs never go in the fridge here. But I know people that put them in the fridge as well.
Even if we get them in a store where they are cooled, we don't put them in the fridge afterwards. And if we get them fresh from our chicken we just mark the date on them and put them in an egg-box in a normal room. Without washing nor removing the occasional small amounts of dried up faeces on them. We also have a tendency to try to figure out how long an egg stays well. Record is something like 6 weeks :P
At the supermarkets in South Africa they're not refrigerated. So I buy these unrefrigerated eggs and bring them home to put them into the fridge, because that's how I was raised
The problem is my fridge can only hold about a dozen eggs but I buy them in trays of 48. The ones that can't fit have to fend for themselves outside in the cupboard. I eat eggs from the fridge, and bring reinforcements in from the cupboard to replace the eaten ones.
This whole process strikes me as absurd (especially since I recall a chef at a cooking class saying that it's preferable to cook things at room temperature) but I do it anyway. Where do I fit in?
If you put some in the fridge and some not, I'd definitely start eating the ones not in the fridge first, and slowly move the ones in the fridge out of the fridge well before you use them. They're better to cook with if they're at room temperature.
I've never seen a Dutch supermarket keep eggs refridgerated, and putting them in the fridge at home seems like a custom from a distant past. I know that when I was young, fridges did have a little egg tray, but I don't know anyone who keeps their eggs in the fridge nowadays.
And it's better for the egg not to. You can use it right away if you don't keep it refridgerated. A cold egg behaves different in cooking (though I forgot the details), so you have to take it out of the fridge 10 minutes before you use it.
To me, the clincher is that supermarkets don't store their eggs in the fridge. If refridgeration was important, supermarkets would be required to do that. Also, despite refridgerating their eggs, the US seems to have a lot of salmonella cases.
I'm in Czech republic and I generally keep eggs in fridge, but I have seen people who keep eggs in some other "dark and cold place" (eg. bread-room), but nobody I know stores eggs just in the open. On a similar note everyone here seems to have different opinion as to whether should frying oil be kept in fridge or not.
Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
Private money - whether it be from rich people or large corporations - should have no place in politics. The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon. If you believe that money should institutionally equate to influence, then you do not believe in equality.
I have enough private money that I can take time off of work to have a meeting with the politician for my district. I might, for example, advocate that government computers use standard document formats rather than proprietary ones. Or I and co-workers may chip in to send one of us to petition OSHA in person, to increase workplace safety requirements.
The National Woman's Party is an example of a lobbying group which worked for decades first for women's suffrage and then for prohibition on sex discrimination and the Equal Rights Amendment. Where was the corruption in that use of money to influence politicians?
In your example of a poor single mother working two jobs, that mother is very unlikely to have the private money to take the time off. Thus, private money will always have an effect on politics.
There are ways to limit its effect. For one, tax the richest people and most profitable companies much more heavily than they are now, and increase social support for the poorest. But by your criteria that's still going to end up with corruption.
The people should be able to influence a politician more often than just at the ballot box. The question is, at what point is that extra influence inappropriate? I believe your use here "corruption" is too strict and binary, such that no government can meet that standard.
Without money, advocacy is merely the expression of sentiment, and sentiment is a valueless currency in the modern world.
One the issues near to my heart is environmental protection. The advancements made in environmental protection over the last 50 years have all been accomplished through the expenditure of money. It costs very little money to convince people to adhere to the old ways. It costs no money to convince West Virginians that coal and coal mining is good. It costs no money to convince Oregonians that logging is good. Commissioning studies to show that the health damage from coal mining would double the price of coal if accounted for? Making movies to help people visualize the catastrophe of strip mining? That costs money.
What irks me the most about liberals' opposition to Citizens United is their failure to realize that money being speech helps them more than it helps conservatives. It costs very little money to promote conservatism. People are predisposed to wanting to preserve the status quo. Its those that oppose the status quo that benefit the most from high profile advocacy. The opposition of the tech industry to surveillance Is the paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. The tech industry will have to spend a lot more money on advocacy to move forward from cold war era views then defense contractors will spend to defend the status quo.
Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
So if I spend money to buy cardboard & a permanent marker, write a picket sign, and picket outside the office of a politician to influence him I am engaging in corruption?
The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon
To my understanding, their votes carry the same weight; the problem is the people's votes are easy to "buy". Prop 8 in California was passed when a surge of pro-Prop 8 money flooded the state. Did that money buy politicians? No, it bought votes.
As for money from corporations or private donors- how do you propose campaigns are funded? The only other source is out of the contender's own pockets. But I don't think you'll like that answer either, considering the better-funded campaign usually wins. Only the richest rich would be able to get elected!
>>Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.
I have plenty of issues[1] with the whole lobbying process, but with your definition how does anyone get anything done at all? Ever? This is assuming you believe the system can be fixed while still working within the rules of the system. FWIW, I'm personally starting to doubt that but if anyone can pull it off it's companies like Google.
That's ridiculous. Virtually all of government is funded by "private money." Why shouldn't I be able to use my resources to attempt to influence the group of people who can forcefully take an arbitrary percentage of my wealth for my entire life?
> Why shouldn't I be able to use my resources to attempt to influence the group of people who can forcefully take an arbitrary percentage of my wealth for my entire life?
Some people believe that each citizen should have the same ability to influence their government, regardless of how much money each one has to spend.
The fingerprint reader on my Dell XPS 13 9370 is the only thing Linux never supported because Goodix.