Wedding photographers went through exactly this shift in business. They used to shoot the weddings for free
Citation needed.
It's true that they've moved to a pay-once scheme, but that's because people don't need prints any more if they can view them digitally. It's not because inkjet printers were putting them out of business. Nobody wants prints except maybe one 8x10...maybe.
Your seem to be claiming that Google is making tons of money off of videos that are genuine copyright violations, but you're not offering anything to back that up.
For most videos that get taken down, they were up for a while first and got at least one view (most of the time). If a pre-roll ad plays on just one of these, they made money.
Seems like a good bussiness model since youtube is the one guilty of making available copyrighted works if it comes to a legal battle.
Seems you missed the whole point of the article and the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. Youtube is safe from litigation as long as they comply with DMCA takedown requests. If the copyright owner can't keep up with the hundreds of hours of video being uploaded per minute to Youtube, that's on them. That's the way the law was written.
Google scans every video uploaded to YouTube against its ContentID system. That's a few hundred hours of video per minute. This is also not the only way to enforce ownership rights on YouTube. Google is under no legal obligation to provide their ContentID service. It is the copyright owner's job to enforce their rights. Google cannot do that for them without an explicit agreement, and they have no obligation to make any such agreement with anyone. It is not part of the "Safe Harbor" exclusions, and it would not remotely make sense if that were so, since the point of those exclusions was to prevent service providers from having to police their networks.
tl;dr - It's the DMCA, not Youtube at fault for this.
The latest tactic I've seen is a window that asks "Do you want to upgrade now or upgrade later?" And if you click either button, you get the upgrade. You have to close the box, otherwise you're agreeing to the upgrade at some point.
System restore will revert the Windows 10 upgrade if it's been less than 30 days. You just have to get to the boot options. If you don't have Win10 install media to boot from, you just have to get it to fail to boot twice and it will come up automatically (pull the cord/battery during the middle of boot twice should do it). But it's easier downloading the Windows 10 media creation tool and running that on another computer to create a USB stick or DVD to boot from.
Windows 10 does not force you to set up a Microsoft account. If you didn't have one before, you may have had a password but set your computer not to require it at login. That's something you can check after you get back to 7.
I had a computer on my bench last night that, after upgrading to Windows 10, merely touching the trackpad caused a bluescreen from the trackpad driver. An ordinary user can't even figure out how to do a driver update from there. And that's on top of the wireless auto-config service being somehow disabled.
I'm not saying it won't last 5 or 6 years, but with package deliveries often getting a doorbell push when I'm not even home, I would expect 100 per year minimum.
It's true that $20 every 5 years isn't a lot, but there's no guarantee of there being a replacement still available by then. And on principle, I wouldn't pay $30 to replace a battery.
I'm not sure how many use cases there are for such a service to be advertising itself via a search engine.
Some dumb user types a complete sentence into Bing - "Somebody please fix my computer."
A legitimate computer shop could advertise on the keywords "fix my computer" and display an add, where their organic search placement might be low for those terms.
But banning ALL ads? Even for legitimate services? Like say if you're already infected by a scammer and you need help. This is a lazy measure with a real impact on legitimate businesses.
That expense is for dedicated bandwidth, which is nothing to do with caps. These caps are an artificial limitation that is far lower than whatever bandwidth you get "up to" if you run 24/7.
If you have a 100Mbps connection, but actually only get 20Mbps most of the time, a cap of 500GB has nothing to do with either number. You can still easily exceed that with spare ISP bandwidth that no one else is using.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Octonary. There are 8 states per cell, meaning 3 bits of storage. Unless it's just a really badly written article.
The laser control on a BD-R Blu-Ray writer uses PWM. Change the W to a C and it's PCM. Then somehow it becomes this new thing.
costs are [currently] as high as RAM thanks to the low density
Once this reaches market, that will change. The "current" cost of this prototype isn't really part of the equation.
Wedding photographers went through exactly this shift in business. They used to shoot the weddings for free
Citation needed.
It's true that they've moved to a pay-once scheme, but that's because people don't need prints any more if they can view them digitally. It's not because inkjet printers were putting them out of business. Nobody wants prints except maybe one 8x10...maybe.
There's no motivation, other than "don't be evil." Otherwise, they're getting paid to wait for the DMCA takedown notice to come in.
Your seem to be claiming that Google is making tons of money off of videos that are genuine copyright violations, but you're not offering anything to back that up.
For most videos that get taken down, they were up for a while first and got at least one view (most of the time). If a pre-roll ad plays on just one of these, they made money.
A huge amount of their content is a copyright violation just waiting for a takedown notice. Need citation? 32% of all content uploaded to Youtube is taken down within 24 hours.
Seems like a good bussiness model since youtube is the one guilty of making available copyrighted works if it comes to a legal battle.
Seems you missed the whole point of the article and the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. Youtube is safe from litigation as long as they comply with DMCA takedown requests. If the copyright owner can't keep up with the hundreds of hours of video being uploaded per minute to Youtube, that's on them. That's the way the law was written.
Google scans every video uploaded to YouTube against its ContentID system. That's a few hundred hours of video per minute. This is also not the only way to enforce ownership rights on YouTube. Google is under no legal obligation to provide their ContentID service. It is the copyright owner's job to enforce their rights. Google cannot do that for them without an explicit agreement, and they have no obligation to make any such agreement with anyone. It is not part of the "Safe Harbor" exclusions, and it would not remotely make sense if that were so, since the point of those exclusions was to prevent service providers from having to police their networks.
tl;dr - It's the DMCA, not Youtube at fault for this.
Chrome on Windows is almost as bad - "To use this Web site's full functionality, you must be running Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later."
Here's the direct download links: x86 x64
So why can't they just call it a Service Pack? Because their support policy would require them to extend mainstream support for 24 months.
I posted that quote on a thread to describe Microsoft not too long ago.
The latest tactic I've seen is a window that asks "Do you want to upgrade now or upgrade later?" And if you click either button, you get the upgrade. You have to close the box, otherwise you're agreeing to the upgrade at some point.
System restore will revert the Windows 10 upgrade if it's been less than 30 days. You just have to get to the boot options. If you don't have Win10 install media to boot from, you just have to get it to fail to boot twice and it will come up automatically (pull the cord/battery during the middle of boot twice should do it). But it's easier downloading the Windows 10 media creation tool and running that on another computer to create a USB stick or DVD to boot from.
Windows 10 does not force you to set up a Microsoft account. If you didn't have one before, you may have had a password but set your computer not to require it at login. That's something you can check after you get back to 7.
What if drivers start crashing?
I had a computer on my bench last night that, after upgrading to Windows 10, merely touching the trackpad caused a bluescreen from the trackpad driver. An ordinary user can't even figure out how to do a driver update from there. And that's on top of the wireless auto-config service being somehow disabled.
Yeah...but IE and Firefox both still have it. I see it more on IE than anything else.
I'm not saying it won't last 5 or 6 years, but with package deliveries often getting a doorbell push when I'm not even home, I would expect 100 per year minimum.
It's true that $20 every 5 years isn't a lot, but there's no guarantee of there being a replacement still available by then. And on principle, I wouldn't pay $30 to replace a battery.
Would make a great wireless doorbell button, if you could get in there and make the battery easily replaced.
To be fair, they said "methane burst" and not simply "methane", which could be defined to include your list.
When I call the gas company up, I say I smell gas. I don't say "I smell leak-detection odorant."
I'm not sure how many use cases there are for such a service to be advertising itself via a search engine.
Some dumb user types a complete sentence into Bing - "Somebody please fix my computer."
A legitimate computer shop could advertise on the keywords "fix my computer" and display an add, where their organic search placement might be low for those terms.
You're quoting the general policy, not the new policy:
Bing Ads disallows the promotion of third party online technical support services to consumers
Scammers don't actually infect you
I've seen persistent adware trying to get you to call their #. Very likely could have come from clicking a sacammer ad.
There's also the tricks for making a persistent browser tab that a typical user doesn't know how to get rid of, even after restarting their computer.
But if you offer a service and wanted to increase your exposure, you still can't buy placement.
But banning ALL ads? Even for legitimate services? Like say if you're already infected by a scammer and you need help. This is a lazy measure with a real impact on legitimate businesses.
And then pay taxes on your trinket, while Internet service is still tax-free.
That expense is for dedicated bandwidth, which is nothing to do with caps. These caps are an artificial limitation that is far lower than whatever bandwidth you get "up to" if you run 24/7.
If you have a 100Mbps connection, but actually only get 20Mbps most of the time, a cap of 500GB has nothing to do with either number. You can still easily exceed that with spare ISP bandwidth that no one else is using.