Even if this is true. I am certain we can find dozens of cases where average citizens have been charged with any or all of the charges above with similar situations. I personally agree with making an example of those officers who provided false information. The bigger question remains though how many officers are involved in providing false information to average citizens and more importantly how high up in the organization does it go? Something else which concerns me is how many criminals can now claim they were not provided details and get a new-trial?

The entertainment industry might not be for them. Either that or they must find alternative methods which suit their individual needs which can still make them money. If they can't make money then it looks like the entertainment industry for that person is best left as a hobby.

Maybe this is just a North American mentality but if someone is offering you a service and as part of the venue and your paying coat check staff a wage to be there I would expect to pay for that service as a customer. I realize that 4 bucks to check my coat is a profit machine but at the end of the day it enables me as a fan to enjoy the music and concerts I want to see without the hassle of my coat being in the way. The point which is being made here is that the entertainment industry in general should be treated the same as any other retail business. If your sales are not higher than your expenses then you have a failing business model. Find alternate ways to make income to support that business (like a coat check fee, or raise the cost of parking by a dollar) to cover those costs. I suppose the point I am trying to make here is the exact same as BlackBlog's. You have a failing business model. FIX IT or go bust.

They left to a company which was their own making chips. Apple also acquires chips. Google bought out their company. Technically their previous company would or could have been deemed a competitor. I hope Apple tries to sue and looses. rather than a lawsuit I smell an innovative product coming to market soon.

http://www.cio.com.au/article/255165/sorting_facts_terry_childs_case?pp=1&fp=&fpid=

Think of the situation. You have fired him. He is no longer allowed on the premise. Now you're approaching him asking for information on your network...I would expect it to be your responsibility prior to termination or immediately after termination to acquire the needed information.

well said.

I totally agree. My main question is why can't Google publish those requests from China if they are no longer operating in that country? If China wishes to do business with Google by making requests to remove content then they must now abide my American Law and Google policy.

or pay the replacement costs based on the original 1789 value. Then auction them off for a huge profit.

I was accused of cheating in college on an assignment when I never did. Apparently some kid in one of the other classes had some code similar to mine. We had never met. Automation for this sort of thing is a great guideline but should never be taken as the final review.

Why not just have a 20 dollar tax per person per year to pay into a pool. That pool will allow an average citizen to have access to unlimited content for official releases made by artists. The RIAA can then use technologies like bittorrent to distribute this content so they aren't paying a high cost for distribution. Taking this idea further, added content for those fans who really like a band could be purchased. Things such as bonus tracks, outtakes & live releases of concerts for 2-3 bucks for 15 tracks. Competition could still exist in this system too as a small fee from the pool would end up with the label which the artist was a member of. In the case of indie bands the band itself would sign up as a label and get the same fees paid to them.

It is nice to see some form of unity when like causes arise. Funny how Microsoft didn't step up to....

and just think when you have a system outage you can make cardboard cut-outs....ZAP! BAM! and ZOMG! Further more Google will already be duking it out with the Penguin come CromeOS

I couldn't find an answer to this in the article posted but does this patch notify the end user as to why the patch was not installed? After reading it it looked like the patches just simply wouldn't install and it was left to the end user to manually go back and verify that the patches wouldn't install. Rather than an informative message prompting on the screen.

If I recall correctly isn't Google using solar power for several of its data centers? If this is the case who cares how much power those data centers are using if they are self sustainable. There were several comments made by a few companies on this issue in the posted article all of which were interesting. I think I would much rather have Google or other companies like Google spend resources on finding a better more energy efficient way of doing things rather than be forced to just use what's mandated.