I think they thought that Spain would be different because surely Google couldn't refuse to show snippets for all Spanish publishers. They assumed the German ruling didn't have the same clout because obviously many publishers would opt out.

Alternatively, I've seen it suggested that the Spanish knew exactly what would happen, and it's what they wanted. Or, more precisely, it's what the big, influential publishers wanted, because their size allows them to attract more visitors directly to their home pages, at the expense of smaller publishers. Another Slashdot poster claimed that it was political horse trading between big news organizations who are pro-government and the government to shut out smaller (and anti-government) news organizations, with an understanding that if the change hurt the big orgs too badly, the government would funnel cash to them to prop them up.

I don't know anything about Spanish politics, but those possibilities seem believable, and perhaps more believable than that Spanish lawmakers didn't believe Google would just shut down Google News in Spain.

FTFY.

Keep in mind that wasn't an accidental difference. In Germany, the publishers that opted out of the scheme (and kept their presence in Google News) benefited from absence of those who didn't opt out, which created a motive for all publishers to opt out in a sort of tragedy of the commons situation. The Spanish lawmakers wanted to prevent that.

Well, if by "everything else" you mean "nothing". Can you show me a seller of digital music that still does DRM, because as far as I can tell they've all abandoned it.

And the other half of this is that students who not only have the pre-requisites but have already learned the course material should be able to test out. Perhaps required to test out, because cocky young know-it-alls can be distracting, and perhaps intimidating, to the rest of the class.

Well, in that case I think the best answer is to pay attention. I mean, the v2 API deprecation was announced at least three years prior to the shutdown. I don't know exactly when, but there are mailing list posts from 2011 telling people that v1 and v2 were deprecated and v3 should be used.

I believe developers who have registered to use a particular API are notified by e-mail of changes to that API.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ale.openwatch

That plus a phone is not quite the dedicated device you're looking for, but it could be pretty close.

It streams low-quality video to a server in real-time, as well as storing high-quality video locally. Another thing it should do (don't know if it does, but it's open source; I may see if I can add this feature) is that when you activate it, it should lock your phone automatically. You could still be forced to unlock and disable it, but they couldn't do it themselves, and their intimidating you to do it would be on the livestreamed record. Or they could smash it or remove the battery (if your phone has a removable battery); there a purpose-built device would have a big advantage. And I'd think it would support BT external mics and cameras just fine.

I think there's a much simpler and less arbitrary method: Prosecute them for the crimes commit. If I knocked you down, beat you up, took your phone, erased your data and refused to let you go, I'd have committed several serious crimes including assault and battery, theft, vandalism and unlawful imprisonment. Now, if these actions were actually necessary in the pursuit of an arrest, those are justified. But the actions that were not necessary in the execution of their proper duties were not justified and should be prosecuted.

It's simple, and doesn't require any changes to law or policy. It just requires that DAs be willing to do their jobs.

I think this is the deeper reasoning behind most such moves all over the world. We've seen a lot of motion in this direction after Snowden's revelations, but I think it's less about worry that the US government may have too much access to countries' citizens' data than it is about the insight that if the data is within their borders then they can get it. Oh, I suspect that lawmakers in many countries who are citing the former rationale really mean what they say... but that they're being advised and encouraged by their own governments' bureacracies and security services for the latter rationale.

True. I suspect it won't happen, though, because the most influential publishers are also the ones who will be least harmed. And, if you believe other commenters with more knowledge of Spanish politics, the ones who will be propped up by government funding should they be hurt too much.

Publishers cannot relent. The law doesn't allow them to require payment for snippets (like the German law did), it requires them to require payment. Which is why Google is shutting Google News down entirely in Spain... since all Spanish publisher are required to get paid, and Google isn't going to pay them, there will be no Spanish content for the Spanish Google News, making it useless.

Particularly for a service which doesn't generate any revenue.

Private and unimplemented is the key, on old compilers.

On new compilers use:

class MyClass {
MyClass(const MyClass&) = delete;
// ...

Doesn't matter what access specifier you use, because any attempt, from any code, to copy a MyClass will be diagnosed as an error by the compiler.

Nonsense. The only way you don't know what that means in C++ is if the code was written by a complete, drooling idiot.

Seriously, this is the first thing C programmers pull out to criticize C++... but in 23 years of professional C++ programming, I have never seen bizarre arithmetic operator overloading used in practice, except for iostreams, and you get used to that pretty quickly, given that it's been part of the standard library since very early on.

I have a few times seen libraries of mathematical operations, say on vectors or tensors, that made heavy use of arithmetic operator overloading, but it was so they could say "i = j * 5" where i and j are n-dimensional matrices. In those cases, operator overloading not only makes sense, it's a dramatic improvement over C.

If you want to criticize C++, there are lots of valid criticisms, mostly around the huge variety of features and the complexity of their interactions, which can get really subtle. And you can criticize many of the insane template metaprogramming constructs (though those can be really useful sometimes, particularly in building up infrastructure that allow the compiler to diagnose all sorts of errors you might make). If you don't like "invisible" stuff, you can criticize the abuses that can be made of constructors and destructors. But operator overloading? Faugh.