Slashdot Mirror

Maybe it's different by State, I dont know

Ah, but this isn't a state, it's the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, land of the Massholes

So smart == anti-social?

Yes.

Are you paid by google? Seriously? Stop your BS.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/...

"We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures."

Gee.. I wonder who google considers a "trusted business". Ofcourse.. Google must hate advertising companies... except .. ALL their partners are advertising companies

"We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners â" like publishers, advertisers or connected sites. "

Oh hey.. yeah.. share the love man.. information wants to be free !

Doesn't take a genius to figure this shit out.

https://www.google.com/search?...

No they can't. See ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES

http://scholar.google.com/scho...

I don't recall a circuit court ever actually invalidating a law.

Google is your friend.

It's painful to see all these incredibly complex things, but not see the addition of basic undo support for native text editing widgets in Android.

Please Google please, make all native gui elements/widgets support undo. Pretty much every other platform/toolkit already does! (See Qt as one example, or perhaps iOS.) Get the basics right first, then go for the complicated stuff.

The issue tracker has this mentioned several times and it's just not getting the priority and attention it should be getting.
  https://code.google.com/p/andr...

Yes, and in another movie from the 1970's, I seem to recall hyperdrives, lightsabers and a death star...

I'm not trying to make a political comment one way or the other, but implementing -- and the extent to which this actually is the case remains to be seen -- an idea from an older movie doesn't mean it's not innovative, from an engineering standpoint.

Not necessarily, but the fact that maglevs are far from being new technology makes it not-so-innovative, from a literary standpoint.

Here's an example of "can't install a free extension without logging in" (at least for me, on Win 7 x86_64, w/ Chrome Version 35.0.1916.153 m):

Advanced REST client

Clicking the "+Free" button to install takes me to accounts.google.com for a mandatory login. No sideloading allowed, unlike Android.

Lucas originally wanted this location for his monument to himself. It's in open space in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, with unobstructed views of the Golden Gate Bridge, the San Francisco Bay, and Alcatraz. That's one of the great urban waterfront public spaces of the world. So that plan was very unpopular in SF. Another location was proposed, some unused piers a few miles down the waterfront in the tourist waterfront area, but that wasn't dramatic enough for Lucas.

Boeing, BMW both in SC. Unemployment is now well below national average. In South Carolina! Never thought it would happen.

data

Our legal counsel is also scared of photographers changing their licenses and suing us after the fact.

There's a few threads on Photo.net about phtographers having their images used without permission and what to do about it.

Basically, the photographer would have to send a C&D letter, cough up a few thousand bucks for a retainer and good luck making it all worth while in the end - from the phoographer's point of view. It usually isn't unless your the guy who does simething like this and even then, the photographer sees his image used all over the place without his permission and he just can't get to them all.

If you're getting it as a CC image, there's going to be plenty of trails to support the fact that it was originally a CC image and I'd save/print the webpage that had the image as a CC licensed. The photoog will havea real

I mean really, does your council have any experience in these matters?

Someone called Paul McArthur does, in fact, have a bunch of patents in this area:

http://www.google.com/patents/...
https://www.google.com/search?...

if it's the same Paul McArthur, then the answer is "yes they do have a patent".

Whether you can actually build what is in the marketing or the patent is another matter entirely.

Someone called Paul McArthur does, in fact, have a bunch of patents in this area:

http://www.google.com/patents/...
https://www.google.com/search?...

if it's the same Paul McArthur, then the answer is "yes they do have a patent".

Whether you can actually build what is in the marketing or the patent is another matter entirely.

If they allow projects to float their rules,and yet still take pledges?

float

flout

If they allow projects to float their rules,and yet still take pledges?

float

flout

Doesn't Google already offer an online website building/hosting tool?

By the way so Richard Presely 69 days http://news.google.com/newspap... . Now that was an unusual place to pick up some information.

No as for why the lame arsed news story, I guess too many people are being killed in the Ukraine, Syria, Palestine, Iraq at the moment and US media looking for any kind of yarn to bury those stories. All largely the US's fault employing quick dirty solutions that fail (resulting in more quick dirty solutions that also fail) when meddling in other countries.

Seriously, what are you guys talking about? The patent was invalidated because the independent claim did NOT state that the method was performed by a processor. It was thus considered to be an attempt to patent an abstract concept -- that is, a method of people interacting. The fact that software was involved did not play into the holding. And patents that comprise method claims "performed by a processor of a computer" are still valid, as they always have been.

One thing that should be considered before posting baloney about software algorithms being unpatentable, math being unpatentable, or methods being unpatentable is that method patents are statutory (see, e.g., comments to section 101 of the U.S. patent law) and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the first U.S. patent law in the 18th Century, it expressly allowed method patents. And, um, what is an algorithm if not a method? Furthermore the CAFC has been so frustrated by uninformed commentary claiming that "math is not patentable" that it included a lengthy footnote in a precedential case 10 years ago that redefined the obviousness standard, explaining in detail the difference between an abstract concept, "math," and methods. This issue is long-settled.

I realize that patent law, like most areas of the law, is complex and nuanced. But the solution to not understanding the topic is NOT to post and repost the same ignorant baloney, guys. In posts like the above, it's obvious that some I-ANAL is just making stuff up. (Or blithely repeating statements that some other I-ANAL made up.)

I realize that many posters here would be horrified by the suggestion that only IP attorneys should be taken seriously when commenting on patent law. But think about it: If we were talking about some other exotic, highly technical topic, wouldn't you apply that same standard? ERISA employment law? Afghan genome-mapping? The prevalence of modal melodic constructions in the Twelfth Century? What makes the average tech geek think he or she is remotely qualified to comment on patent law simply because he or she is capable of creating the type of subject matter claimed by the patent? Come on, seriously? If you can build a deck, does that mean you're qualified to draw up a real-estate contract?

OK, I didn't start out with the intent to rant. But like a few other people here who obviously have some idea of how the law works and what the case law means, I get frustrated by these endless self-important, and often, as here, unintentionally funny, pronouncements about the "broken" patent system. Go do your homework.

OK, I feel better now. Carry on.

1. The claim did state that the methods described were performed "on a processor." Quote: "Petitioner Alice Corporation is the assignee of several patents that disclose a scheme for mitigating “settlement risk,” i.e., the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation. In particular, the patent claims are designed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary." See also: USP 5,970,479.

2. The Appellate Court actually ruled specifically that because the method was claimed to be implemented on a computer, it was deserving of patent protection.

3. The Supreme Court, which overrules the CAFC, disagreed and overturned. The Supreme Court currently employs a transformative test that explicitly states "math is not patentable." In order to be valid, a patent application can claim a mathematical algorithm as a component of a larger whole, but cannot direct its claims to math itself. The substantive logic they apply, which they explicitly state in Alice, is that if they were to allow patents on mathematical formulas they would be allowing claims on "the building blocks of human ingenuity, which are ineligible for patent protection." The precedent being

My initial thought as well. Upon further research, the Danish noun sværm (transliterated to the proper name Swarm for the three-satellite program) may be translated as swarm, flight or cloud. I can see referring to three satellites as a flight. https://translate.google.com/#...

Lower tech and more fun here...

Not only that, but google gives you 1TB free with your internet service.

Then I hope you don't work for Square Enix or Level-5 or Sony Pictures Animation or for that matter The Weather Channel.

On the other hand, you can install an extension for Firefox or Chrome that will protect you from the "cloud".

Please provide a single scientific proof of anything Al Gore ever accomplished?

OTOH:

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype

Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

Al Gore Invests $6M To Make BILLIONS In Cap And Trade

Gore lies to Congress about personal finances

Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor

The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade

Al Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit

Cyber-Thieves Make Millions from Emissions Cap-and-Trade Scam

Obama's draft budget projects cap-and-trade revenue

Cap-and-trade: The biggest scam of all

Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Leading Global Warming Crusader: Cap and Trade May INCREASE CO2 Emissions

Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators

Fraud in Europe's Cap and Trade System a 'Red Flag,' Critics Say

Spending Cap and Trade Auction Revenues Will Undermine California’s Climate Goals

Yet LFTR get's pooh poohed because it's experimental. Amazing.

in which position are white sharks? Next to deaths by stepping on a rusty nail while running at the beach?

Hey, man don't underestimate the dangers of tetanus. Rusty nails are a real killer, especially when they're attached to boards.

And you don't fuck with Chinese lawyers.

Bing Bang theory, personally, I am not very convinced of the latter. There's so much mystery to solve. Furthermore, I'd like to invit you to visit the website https://play.google.com/store/... in which, you can follow scoops about cigarette electronique. Thanks for sharing

Continuing with the Harvard theme, if you google Benjamin Pierce assistant professor, the first page of Google results links to the following former BPs: Lauren Williams, Pavel Etingof, Danny Calegari, Nathan Dunfield, and Xinwen Zhu. These people, obviously, landed on their feet and got hired in other universities, quite prestigious universities in fact. And I am sure if you did a comprehensive survey of all former BPs, you'd find the majority working in R1 universities and on the tenure-track. Similar remarks would apply to the untenured named instructorships at any other elite math department, e.g. Dickson Instructor, C.L.E. Moore Instructor, Veblen Research Instructorship, and so on. They're all slightly underpaid. They're all hugely prestigious. And few people have trouble landing a job afterwards.

If you get denied tenure at a lower-ranked school, then yes, that is a disaster. Those schools are set up to give you every opportunity to pass the tenure review. If you fail to do so, then that's on you, and as you say, you'll be an outcast.

Here's more info regarding the link that NormalVisual provided.

Spidey is an Android app that tracks the cell towers available at a location and can supposedly notify you when new towers show up (or at least identify them by comparing against prior scans).

I've been trying to use it, but I can't get it to pick up more than one tower at a time, in downtown St. Louis (I would expect several towers to be visible).

Here's a presentation about the application:
https://docs.google.com/presen...

Here's the download link for the app:
https://rink.hockeyapp.net/app...

Its user base would rather help than be snarky, but it's hard to help when Mozilla completely rejects you.

More on-topic, I found this: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/oB-GAXt6Ijo/lUgjfUZ8ArEJ. Apparently "working on it" is the new way to spell "ignoring".

The process language was aimed at chemistry originally, with the aim to make patentable novel and useful chemical processes.

That's not true at all. Pre-1952, the term used was "art" and referred to any industrial art. For example, here is Bell's patent on an "Improvement in Telegraphy", which includes the following claim:

3. The method of producing undulations in a continuous voltaic current by the vibration or motion of bodies capable of inductive action, or by the vibration or motion of the conducting wire itself, in the neighborhood of such bodies, as set forth.

The courts have recognized it would be idiocy if read literally and generally declined to do so. But even with it in, it is not a free pass on the rest of the requirements, one of which is that mathematical algorithms are explicitly excluded.

Actually, mathematical algorithms are implicitly excluded. There's no mention of them in the statute, and it's solely due to SCOTUS interpretation. Accordingly, it may be an error to read too much into that interpretation, and suggest that no method performed by a computer could ever be patent eligible. For example, the Alice Bank opinion seems to suggest that a method performed by the computer that improves the working of the computer would be patentable - e.g. data compression methods, encryption schemes, data transmission improvements, etc.: "[Alice Bank's] method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself."

The CEO cut his way to profitability. Its an old cheap trick that usually helps only the CEO's bonuses/compensation and in the meantime, hurts the company's long term prospects.

The deal with Amazon? Pfft. BFD.

RIM/Blackberry will be back in the red by year end.

RIM is mostly dead and even Miracle Max can't help them.

google

Actually this isn't silly. Intel has compromised CPU instruction set due to NSA influence (whether that was via a secret order or just because they bend over when asked is unknown). Just look at what this Google engineer said:

https://plus.google.com/+Theod...

So given the option of getting a back door inserted in the SSL protocol used by a huge chunk of the world - the NSA will try to corrupt it.

If served with a secret order, from a secret court on the desire of the NSA for "national security" reasons with orders to, of course keep it secret, Google would have no choice but to comply. The fact that it'll be open source would allow for the possibility of it getting caught (but only the possibility), and I doubt that would keep the NSA from trying to corrupt all 3 SSL protocols as they are being reworked currently. JMHO...

After the Snowden revelations it is now assumed that Intel compromised their CPU's extra instruction sets that are useful for encryption (making things much faster for encrypting things if used). The NSA then has Co's etc. pushed to use this capability via outside experts and "experts" from college's.

Although many are too old to remember, we had this debate in the 90's over the clipper chip (allowed encryption via a chip with a NSA back door) and it was roundly rejected by the American Public - in the end the NSA has put that capability into our chips in Secret and urged industry to use those compromised capabilities of those chips through "experts" the industry depends on for good advice.

Here's a great quote from a discussion on encryption software - "Remember how an intel employee was pressuring Theodore Tso to only use CPU hardware random, but he couldn't explain why entropy mixing was worse? Funny how that happens.... https://plus.google.com/+Theod..."

This is quite reasonable of Russia (and basically any government that doesn't want the U.S. to have access to their secrets), they should consider all current generation Intel and AMD CPU's to be shot through with U.S. Govt/NSA required exploits and weaknesses. But they should also consider that all the supporting chips used are compromised as well (particularly the ones handling IP communication - if designed by U.S. corps or companies friendly to the U.S.). This is a tall order, but one that needs to happen (saying that as a U.S. citizen who doesn't want to live in a total surveillance world in perpetuity) - not that I'd trust the Russian version, either.

Marvin the Martian

Did anyone read the article before posting

Yes, I read the entire article. Well, read all of it, and skimmed the rest to make sure it said all the things. You're welcome.

In the article, SuperMicro has fix in update.

Yes, it is mentioned in the summary as well. More information is available at the foot of TFA.

However, the key takeaway is that thousands of people decided to not patch their SH1T.

Yes, one of the things that I found interesting about the article (but decided not to add to the submission, favoring conciseness in pursuit of clarity) was the complaint that "flashing a system is not always a possibility" which I found to be a load of hot cockery. As I said while discussing this issue on G+, "if your architecture doesn't permit you to take PCs down for service, you have already failed". If you can't afford downtime, buy a mainframe. If you're using PCs, you have to expect them to fail at some point anyway, so your architecture should permit you to take systems down for updates.

But if I had a headset strapped on, I'd rather be in an immersive world like OpenCroquet/Cobalt/Qwak[1] (which support VNC for accessing "legacy" applications) than a white space surrounded by floating rectangles.

[1] https://code.google.com/p/open... https://virtual.wf/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

The Guardian reported on a hidden Latin message: TrueCrypt probably didn't leave a Latin message alerting users to NSA spying. I'm not so sure about their in-headline conclusion, though.

They quote this comment on Wikipedia by 'Bardon':

There is a hidden message on the new sourceforge TrueCrypt site. The first line of the site is this: WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues

If you take just the first letter of each word, except the word "WARNING":

Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues

you get this:
uti nsa im cu si

It's Latin that roughly means:
Unless I want to use the NSA

So, the full message seems to be this:
WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure as it may contain unfixed security issues, unless I want to use the NSA

Which is English that roughly means:
Don't use TrueCrypt because it is under the control of the NSA

The Guardian article rebuffs this with: "In fact, "uti nsa im cu si" is meaningless in Latin - except to Google translate, (mis)translates it to the message Badon discovered."

But isn't that enough? It's a hidden message; it doesn't need to be correct Latin as long as the point gets across. If you put into Google Translate right now, you get "If I wish to use the NSA". Unusual that it's been changed slightly, but still expresses the same message: The NSA has compromised TrueCrypt.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this entire TrueCrypt saga has been bizarre. Obviously something happened beyond "the task of maintaining a widely used cryptography program just became too much work" or else why not just say that?

That's why he's filling out one of these.

What? Lets run some numbers, instead of pulling them out of our ass:

Surface Area of Land on Earth: 149,000,000 km2 (source)
Earth Population: ~7 billion (source)

Dividing the two, I get about .02 km2 per person. That's not a lot of room, on average. Can we pack more people on the planet? Obviously so, but claiming that the earth is 99% uninhabited seems extreme. Don't forget, we also need land for things like plants and insects and other animals. You know, an ecosystem.

love to look up indie artists on YT before we hit a show

I guess you'll have to use a video search engine instead like... http://video.google.com/

Increasing the overhead, or reducing the income to indie labels hurts the indie artists.

Increasing the overhead of YouTube, or reducing the income to YouTube hurts YouTube...

That's what Google does when they force already well-squeezed labels (most indie labels don't pull down the huge chunks major labels, or even the major vanity labels do) to cut their limited profits more.

They're not forcing anything. It's their service, not yours. I would consider it forcing if it was your service (in the context of hosting videos) and they were dictating the terms of contract.

There are a number of studies that have examined the life cycle energy costs for photovoltaic panels. Start with this and go from there. Some numbers I've seen (like this) indicate the energy payback for monocrystalline PV modules is around two years; less for other technologies. Those numbers are from 2011, so I suspect that with increased manufacturing volume the numbers are even more favorable today.

A different argument that could be made comes down to basic economics. If solar panels took substantially more energy to manufacture than they produce over their lifespan, it would be reflected in their price. As the GP argued, albeit poorly, one can look at the price for a commodity and get from it a rough sense of the energy investment that it embodies. The wholesale price of PV modules is $1-2 per W of capacity, which one could argue represents tens of kWh of energy input. Even if there are externalities not captured in the price, and the total energy cost was hundreds of kWh per panel, that's still one or two orders of magnitude lower than the total lifetime output of the same panel.

You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.

Why do you struggle to believe this?

The 17% figure reported is for tech workers only - their overall and non-tech numbers are much better, with 30% and 48% women respectively. You can see their released numbers here.

From this publication by the ASEE: "...females accounted for 18.4 percent of [engineering] bachelor’s degrees, up slightly from 18.1 percent in 2010. The percentage of master’s degrees awarded to women remained unchanged at 22.6 percent; while that of doctoral degrees decreased about 1 percent from 22.9 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent in 2011. The proportion of engineering degrees awarded to females should remain stable over the next few years, since women represent 18.2 percent of all bachelor enrollees, 22.7 percent of master’s enrollees, and 21.6 percent of doctoral enrollees."

"The percentage of black students also decreased slightly at all levels, bringing the percent of [engineering] degrees awarded from around 4.5 percent to closer to 4 percent."

And regarding computer science, according to this infographic, 18% of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were female (14% at major research universities), and 19% of the highschool AP computer science test-takers were female. Also according to the infographic, percentage of female computer science undergraduates has dropped dramatically (by 79%!!) since 2000.

I definitely agree that the under-representation of women in the tech sector is a serious problem. However, this under-representation seems to be caused by a number of poorly understood socioeconomic and cultural factors, and the data doesn't indicate particular misogyny on Google's part.

First, let me be clear that I'm NOT on Google's side here -- whatever it's doing, it doesn't sound like it's being fair to the labels. However...

Google uses content ID to figure out who owns copyright to music. So, if a video is uploaded that they know is owned by a copyright owner that has not negotiated with them, they can block the video saying that they have no license with the copyright holder and thus, nobody can upload that content.

Wait -- hold up. How does Google know that a video "is owned by a copyright owner"? Oh, that's right: The copyright owner had to tell Google that it owned the video and verify ownership.

And the link I just provided mentions that copyright owners have a variety of choices about what they want to do with videos that are under their ownership: they could block them, or monetize them, or simply track their views. According to Google's terms of use for Content ID, the copyright OWNER gets to decide what happens to content they OWN once they have verified ownership.

What you're telling me is the Google is now going to make a MASSIVE change to its terms of use and decide AGAINST THE WISHES OF CONTENT OWNERS to censor copyrighted material.

This effectively allows Google to block all content from the indie labels, uploaded by anyone and monetized or not.

Only if the labels have established ownership already by verifying it through the Content ID system -- Google isn't just going out there and figuring out who owns copyright by itself.

Google is not being clear about what they will do but the worst case is that they can block every indie music from youtube that has not licensed with them.

While what you're saying is theoretically possible, I imagine it would open up Google to all sorts of lawsuits. Basically, you're saying Google will now actively discriminate against the only people who have established their copyright ownership of material on YouTube. That sounds like an explicit violation of the copyright principle where owners are supposed to get MORE control over their content.

Moreover, it would be a significant alteration to Google's previous terms of use for Content ID. And, if independent artists really wanted to give the stuff away for free, why couldn't content owners simply retract their ownership claims -- which Google has an explicit procedure for?

From what I have read, most musicians consider YouTube as a promotional platform and not a revenue stream from videos. Google's threat is that they will eliminate Youtube as a promotional platform.

From what I've read it doesn't sound like this at all. What it sounds like is that YouTube is not a huge revenue stream, but artists get something from it. Google is offering to give labels money for their new subscription service, but the terms are not great. It sounds like they are also requiring labels to sign onto the subscription service terms to still retain ad money for the free service.

So, assuming I'm understanding this right, the choices for the labels are: (1) set a bad precedent by accepting unfair terms for the new service while retaining perhaps even further reduced revenues from the free service, or (2) refuse the terms and lose the small amount of revenue from free stuff.

Meanwhile, they can let Google do the enforcing by taking down their licensed videos, and play the media war. Worst case scenario is that they lose the small amount of ad revenue, but come back and re-post their videos for free (disclaiming blocking rights, as is their prerogative under content ID terms) and still get the promotional value with their videos on YouTube. Best case scenario is Google caves and gives them better terms.

You can choose to believe

First, let me be clear that I'm NOT on Google's side here -- whatever it's doing, it doesn't sound like it's being fair to the labels. However...

Google uses content ID to figure out who owns copyright to music. So, if a video is uploaded that they know is owned by a copyright owner that has not negotiated with them, they can block the video saying that they have no license with the copyright holder and thus, nobody can upload that content.

Wait -- hold up. How does Google know that a video "is owned by a copyright owner"? Oh, that's right: The copyright owner had to tell Google that it owned the video and verify ownership.

And the link I just provided mentions that copyright owners have a variety of choices about what they want to do with videos that are under their ownership: they could block them, or monetize them, or simply track their views. According to Google's terms of use for Content ID, the copyright OWNER gets to decide what happens to content they OWN once they have verified ownership.

What you're telling me is the Google is now going to make a MASSIVE change to its terms of use and decide AGAINST THE WISHES OF CONTENT OWNERS to censor copyrighted material.

This effectively allows Google to block all content from the indie labels, uploaded by anyone and monetized or not.

Only if the labels have established ownership already by verifying it through the Content ID system -- Google isn't just going out there and figuring out who owns copyright by itself.

Google is not being clear about what they will do but the worst case is that they can block every indie music from youtube that has not licensed with them.

While what you're saying is theoretically possible, I imagine it would open up Google to all sorts of lawsuits. Basically, you're saying Google will now actively discriminate against the only people who have established their copyright ownership of material on YouTube. That sounds like an explicit violation of the copyright principle where owners are supposed to get MORE control over their content.

Moreover, it would be a significant alteration to Google's previous terms of use for Content ID. And, if independent artists really wanted to give the stuff away for free, why couldn't content owners simply retract their ownership claims -- which Google has an explicit procedure for?

From what I have read, most musicians consider YouTube as a promotional platform and not a revenue stream from videos. Google's threat is that they will eliminate Youtube as a promotional platform.

From what I've read it doesn't sound like this at all. What it sounds like is that YouTube is not a huge revenue stream, but artists get something from it. Google is offering to give labels money for their new subscription service, but the terms are not great. It sounds like they are also requiring labels to sign onto the subscription service terms to still retain ad money for the free service.

So, assuming I'm understanding this right, the choices for the labels are: (1) set a bad precedent by accepting unfair terms for the new service while retaining perhaps even further reduced revenues from the free service, or (2) refuse the terms and lose the small amount of revenue from free stuff.

Meanwhile, they can let Google do the enforcing by taking down their licensed videos, and play the media war. Worst case scenario is that they lose the small amount of ad revenue, but come back and re-post their videos for free (disclaiming blocking rights, as is their prerogative under content ID terms) and still get the promotional value with their videos on YouTube. Best case scenario is Google caves and gives them better terms.

You can choose to believe

Have you ever been to Philadelphia? Check out these sweet digs. Corporations do not just put cash in the bank. They invest it in stuff they can sell later, and depreciate and deduct now, so they pay less tax. So sure, they'll cry you a river about how their profit margin is so low, but booking profit and paying the taxes on it is the last thing they want to do.

I'm trying to think of a readily available reference that's ever been as useful as Wikipedia, and I'm not coming up with anything. Maybe someone can offer a suggestion?

Google?

but IF they already have their videos on youtube, wouldnt it be like getting a new source of money that you didnt have before by going into the streaming?

That depends on whether the revenue exceeds how much it costs to register for the streaming service. For example, Chrome Web Store for Chrome apps costs $5 and Google Play Store for Android apps costs $25, plus the cost of the time spent on the process of registering. Apparently, registering for Google Play Music requires first moving to one of these 28 countries and then paying a $25 sign-up fee.

See Jim Schefter's "Rocket's Red Glare" (http://books.google.com/books?id=xA5vzkW8IDsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22rocket's+red+glare%22+%22jim+schefter%22&source=bl&ots=6FVQPrjyrs&sig=D9tFU6qyj_Ybv82EVLwkm4_-R9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YmugU9mHA9SNqAaDxYCYDA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22rocket's%20red%20glare%22%20%22jim%20schefter%22&f=false) on the RD-180.