Google don't make any money directly because they don't have ads on the site...
Any service that brings traffic to Google, will - perhaps in other ways - bring money to Google. Google does not provide "free services", and in this case, the "rights holders" in Spain not only want free, they want Google to pay so that they, the "rights holders" in Spain can not only make money on Google traffic, but make Google pay for the "right" to them.
Of course it is complete bullshit, as the Spaniards had now concluded...
I suspect you were modded "Troll" because you were trolling, you stupid pathetic little shit.
I suspect you are posting as an "Anonymous Coward" because you have no balls.
I accept my mods, you on the otherhand, are clearly a "karma whore" who shoses to post as Anon because you don't want to get your precious Slashdot Karma modded down.
On the therhand, I speak my mind, and am usueally in the "excellent" range, though sometimes the sheep here push me down to "good?
..of course, but the real reason is Apple doesn't do a good job on their ports.
Why should they? Are the obligated to provide support to their competitors? Are they obligated to provided support of one of their products on a different OS at all?
There is no real evidence of this, just a bunch of speculation and innuendo from the Torrent fans.
Could Sony do this? Of course. But there would certainly be corporate liability involved.
So would they? Probably not.
Sony knows these movies will make it to the illegal market sooner or later, so why would they open themselves to this kind of liability? They would not.
Internal emails are probably more of a concern, but anything that could be relieased would already be the subject of internal roumors amoung those concerned.
This story is probably wishful thinking and a crock.
Porn filters... Really? Well, what do you expect from a country that has CCTV on every corner in every town, and an internal security apparatus that shames the NSA? We're not talking about Russia here...
The request for the footage was made by the police officers union or people working as their proxy in an attempt to prevent the cameras from getting implemented elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The request was made by a private citizen that after the fact gave a number of interviews that indecated he was against the cams as a private citizen.
Where are your references that support your bullshit?
it just seems another step to pervasive surveillance.
Unfortunately, there are good reasons for wanting police interaction with the public to be recorded - Rampant police misconduct, and I'm not talking about Furgeson.
Here is Seattle, our police department is under supervision by the D.O.J. mandated by the Federal Courts after numerous verified "use of force" issues.
When there is not video, who do you think juries and courts believe?
Up here in Washington State, several police agencies have embraced the idea of Body Cams. And while there has been no philosophical push-back about public access to Body Cam footage by the coppers, a recent Public Records Request illustrates a more fiscal problem...
A public records request was made for all Body Cam footage for the last year from several local departments that have been experimenting with the technology. Why should this be a probem, after all, just burn it all to a CD and send it to the guy?
The are three issues: Privacy - not every interaction a police officer has is in a public place or does not contain things than fall under privacy rules.
Second is commercial use - You know those Mug Shot Extortion sites? The ones that publish mug shots but for a small fee of several hundred dollars will take yours down? Same thing.
Third is the fiscal issue - The time to parse through a requst for "all your files for the year" for privacy issues and other things that simply should not end up on a commercial "shock" site or YouTube, this will cost a butt-load.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems rather biased to think that only white people can have racial biases.
Time for you to report to the reeducation camp.
Mounting a camera 24/7 at his house lowers the cost barrier - eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone.
The Brits already do this.
You know where "Toll" votes come from?
Slashdotters who only occasionally get "mod points", but really have no clue.
Google don't make any money directly because they don't have ads on the site...
Any service that brings traffic to Google, will - perhaps in other ways - bring money to Google. Google does not provide "free services", and in this case, the "rights holders" in Spain not only want free, they want Google to pay so that they, the "rights holders" in Spain can not only make money on Google traffic, but make Google pay for the "right" to them.
Of course it is complete bullshit, as the Spaniards had now concluded...
Well imagine that, they want it all - free traffic from from Google that google has to pay for... Well, it comes full circle now.
"Rights holders" still do not understand the equation.
Google needs to play this card more often.
lol. you assume i still have an account.
Slashdot does not delete accounts, they just mod you into oblivion.
I suspect you were modded "Troll" because you were trolling, you stupid pathetic little shit.
I suspect you are posting as an "Anonymous Coward" because you have no balls.
I accept my mods, you on the otherhand, are clearly a "karma whore" who shoses to post as Anon because you don't want to get your precious Slashdot Karma modded down.
On the therhand, I speak my mind, and am usueally in the "excellent" range, though sometimes the sheep here push me down to "good?
You are fake, I am real.
Live with it.
Boy, and how Slashdot is now patrolled by the Windows Fan Bois...
Last 3 patches since October have all been nuisance to sysadmins.
Ah yes, Windows "sysadmins"... Cream of the crop. Unless there isn't a GUI for it.
Apple could've posted a large disclaimer on the iTunes' download page: "We don't guarantee 100% Windows support"
They could have, but why would anyone assume different?
Considering Windows...
We are not talking about Windows.
A company is not required to provide technical support to a competitor.
..of course, but the real reason is Apple doesn't do a good job on their ports.
Why should they? Are the obligated to provide support to their competitors? Are they obligated to provided support of one of their products on a different OS at all?
More about Jeff Sterling here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Anyone with half a brain can use map.ipviking.com and watch the shit happen. There's your evidence.
That China attacks this and that all the time is a known fact. The "attack map" connects nothing to Sony.
Yes, "SONY BAD" but yet there is zero evidence that Sony has anything to do with this.
Could be that they do, but nothing but Sony haters pontification on foundations of nothing at the moment...
I have no love for Sony, other than my 70's vintage 4 track reel-to-reel. But this kind of story is really no story at all.
Liability? I'd like to see how that would play out. Torrent sites would sue because Sony interfered with their distribution of misappropriated goods?
Corporate sponsored hacking is frowned upon. Prove me wrong.
There is no real evidence of this, just a bunch of speculation and innuendo from the Torrent fans.
Could Sony do this? Of course. But there would certainly be corporate liability involved.
So would they? Probably not.
Sony knows these movies will make it to the illegal market sooner or later, so why would they open themselves to this kind of liability? They would not.
Internal emails are probably more of a concern, but anything that could be relieased would already be the subject of internal roumors amoung those concerned.
This story is probably wishful thinking and a crock.
...and it's not all that special if he did it "over the internet."
That's good enough for the Patent Office...
What does the professor's "on-line harassment" have to do with the quality and / or value of his lectures?
As they're finding out, the military drones are actually better at landing themselves, instead of letting the pilots land them remotely.
Most commercial flights already do this with Cat 3 ILS.
Porn filters... Really? Well, what do you expect from a country that has CCTV on every corner in every town, and an internal security apparatus that shames the NSA? We're not talking about Russia here...
You know, read the papers and listen to the news and maybe ahe a fucking clue?
FOIA also allows agencies to charge reasonable charges for documents they produce
FOIA only applies to the Federal government, not local and state government.
The request for the footage was made by the police officers union or people working as their proxy in an attempt to prevent the cameras from getting implemented elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The request was made by a private citizen that after the fact gave a number of interviews that indecated he was against the cams as a private citizen.
Where are your references that support your bullshit?
it just seems another step to pervasive surveillance.
Unfortunately, there are good reasons for wanting police interaction with the public to be recorded - Rampant police misconduct, and I'm not talking about Furgeson.
Here is Seattle, our police department is under supervision by the D.O.J. mandated by the Federal Courts after numerous verified "use of force" issues.
When there is not video, who do you think juries and courts believe?
Up here in Washington State, several police agencies have embraced the idea of Body Cams. And while there has been no philosophical push-back about public access to Body Cam footage by the coppers, a recent Public Records Request illustrates a more fiscal problem...
A public records request was made for all Body Cam footage for the last year from several local departments that have been experimenting with the technology. Why should this be a probem, after all, just burn it all to a CD and send it to the guy?
The are three issues: Privacy - not every interaction a police officer has is in a public place or does not contain things than fall under privacy rules.
Second is commercial use - You know those Mug Shot Extortion sites? The ones that publish mug shots but for a small fee of several hundred dollars will take yours down? Same thing.
Third is the fiscal issue - The time to parse through a requst for "all your files for the year" for privacy issues and other things that simply should not end up on a commercial "shock" site or YouTube, this will cost a butt-load.
So it's become an issue. Here is a Seattle Times article on the subject: http://seattletimes.com/html/l...